Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Classical worldlines from scattering amplitudes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that, after rewriting quantum amplitudes as Schwinger-parametrized worldlines, the classical KMOC impulse integrand and the worldline quantum field theory integrand coincide term by term once super-leading quantum…

desk verdict A substantial, honest attempt at an integrand-level KMOC/WQFT equivalence with detailed two-loop evidence, but the advertised exact coincidence is conditional on unproved vanishing statements and one explicit hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10864 v2 pith:VK6C2IV4 submitted 2024-12-14 hep-th hep-ph

Zeno Capatti , Mao Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords KMOCformalismclassicallimitsuper-leadingdivergencesquantumworldlinefieldtheorypost-MinkowskianexpansionscalarQEDretardedpropagator
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 two very different calculational frameworks for classical two-body scattering—scattering amplitudes through the KMOC formalism, and worldline quantum field theory (WQFT)—produce exactly the same integrand, not merely the same final observable. The vehicle is a rewriting of massive-particle propagators as worldline-like objects, called quantum worldlines, using Schwinger parameters, which lets virtual and real (cut) contributions be combined before the classical limit is taken. In the combined expression, the unphysical terms that diverge as $\hbar \to 0$ cancel point by point in loop-momentum space, and the retarded propagators that encode classical causality emerge rather than being inserted by hand. The authors demonstrate this at integrand level for the two-loop impulse in a scalar model and in scalar QED, with automated checks at three and four loops.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum worldline: an off-shell massive current rewritten in Schwinger-parameter space, where each matter propagator becomes a proper-time integral and each on-shell delta function a Fourier integral over a vertex time. The classical expansion of this object is organized by directed forests on the ordered vertex set, and triangulation identities collapse sums of Heaviside theta functions into single orderings. This machinery places virtual and cut contributions on exactly the same integration measure, makes the cancellation of super-leading terms algebraic, and reveals retarded time ordering as the classical causality flow.

What would settle it

Evaluate one of the diagrams the paper sets to zero by hand, such as the degenerate vertex process shown around eq. (39), with a regulator that keeps the pinched surface finite; a non-vanishing contribution at the classical order $O(\lambda^2)$ to the impulse would break the claimed exact correspondence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the finite classical KMOC integrand exactly coincides with the WQFT integrand after a systematic Schwinger-parameter manipulation, at the level of loop integrands rather than integrated observables. For the two-loop impulse in scalar QED and the scalar model, the paper obtains identities such as $\frac{1}{2}(F_{WL}+F_{WL}|_{q_2\leftrightarrow q_3}) = \frac{q_1^\mu}{2} F_1^{KMOC}$, with the retarded propagator prescriptions of WQFT reproduced rather than assumed. Super-leading divergences—terms in individual diagrams that diverge in the $\hbar\to 0$ limit—are cancelled locally by pairing virtual and real contributions, after a class of degenerate phase-space configurations, the zero-measured cuts, is set to zero by hand.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on setting to zero, by hand, all zero-measured cuts—kinematically degenerate or forbidden phase-space configurations—and if any of them contributed at the classical order, the exact KMOC-WQFT equality would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the exact integrand-level equivalence holds beyond two loops, techniques developed for amplitude integrands, such as generalized unitarity and double-copy constructions, can be imported into worldline computations without rederiving the classical limit.
  • The retarded propagator prescription in classical worldline calculations no longer needs to be added by hand: it follows from the KMOC starting point after the local cancellation of super-leading terms.
  • Because the classical limit is taken before loop integration, the method avoids intermediate super-leading integrals, which should simplify higher-order post-Minkowskian computations.
  • The construction applies to the potential region and to conservative contributions; radiative effects and long-range Coulomb-like tails, which live on the discarded zero-measured cuts, lie outside the current setup.
  • The local cancellation has been verified algorithmically for three- and four-loop ladders in scalar QED, suggesting that the mechanism is not an accident of low loop order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit is that WQFT diagram enumeration could serve as a template for predicting which KMOC diagrams cancel, potentially reducing amplitude-side calculations to tree-like worldline graphs at every order.
  • The same democratic combination of virtual and real contributions in Schwinger space may apply to other observables such as radiated momentum and waveform, since the mechanism is local in loop-momentum space and not specific to the impulse.
  • A natural testable extension is to push the term-by-term comparison to the first order where radiation reaction enters; at that order the imaginary pieces the paper discards, such as $c^{Im}_3$, may become physical rather than vanishing after Fourier transformation.
  • If the correspondence generalizes to gravity, the paper would imply that classical gravitational observables can be computed either by amplitude methods or worldline methods interchangeably, with the same integrand and the same causal propagator structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a systematic diagrammatic method for taking the classical (hbar to 0) limit of observables computed in the Kosower-Maybee-O'Connell (KMOC) formalism, with the goal of making the cancellation of super-leading divergences manifest at the integrand level beyond one loop. The method rewrites matter propagators and delta functions in Schwinger proper-time form, thereby representing off-shell currents as "quantum worldlines"; virtual and real contributions are then combined in a common parameter space. The authors claim that the resulting finite classical integrand takes the same form as, and in explicit examples exactly coincides with, the integrand obtained from worldline quantum field theory (WQFT), with retarded propagator prescriptions emerging from the combination of diagrams. The main worked examples are the two-loop impulse in a scalar model and in scalar electrodynamics, together with one-connected-component examples to all orders and automated checks of three- and four-loop ladders. The appendices provide the WQFT Feynman rules and the detailed integrand-level comparison.

Significance. If the central claim is fully established, this is a strong and useful result: it connects two active approaches to classical gravitational scattering at the integrand level, goes substantially beyond the earlier one-loop comparisons, and provides a systematic handle on superclassical terms that plague amplitude-based calculations. The paper has notable strengths: the two-loop examples are worked out in great detail, the WQFT comparison uses independent Feynman rules as an external benchmark, no parameters are fitted, and the forest/arborescence formulation is elegant and likely to be reusable. The main weakness is that the advertised "exact coincidence" is conditional on several asserted vanishings: zero-measured cuts are set to zero by hand, the all-order identity in eq. (210) is explicitly a hypothesis, and specific terms in the two-loop comparison are discarded with the statement that they integrate to imaginary quantities. These are correctness risks rather than internal inconsistencies, and they are concentrated in identifiable places, so the work is suitable for major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI.A and §III.B] The procedure replaces complex-conjugate Feynman propagators by ordinary ones using G_F(q)^* = G_F(q) + i delta(q^2) and discards the resulting cut terms, citing zero-measured cuts. The illustrative pinched-surface integral in eqs. (195)-(197) demonstrates that such cuts are ill-defined, but it does not prove that they vanish after integration in the two-loop examples of Sections III and VII. Since this replacement is used to obtain the retarded-propagator form and the local cancellation of super-leading terms, the advertised exact integrand-level coincidence, eq. (267), is conditional on an unproved vanishing statement. I ask the authors to either prove that zero-measured cuts cannot contribute at the classical order for the diagrams under comparison, or state this as an explicit assumption and adjust the claims accordingly.
  2. [§V.B, eq. (210)] Equation (210), which gives the all-order worldline form of the classical integrand, is introduced with the words "we hypothesise that". The all-order statements in the abstract and in Section VIII therefore go beyond what is actually proven. The two-loop comparisons are explicit and convincing, but the general equivalence between the KMOC and WQFT formalisms is not established unless eq. (210) is derived or its domain of validity is specified. Please either supply a proof or a precise set of sufficient conditions for eq. (210), or clearly separate the all-order conjecture from the proven examples.
  3. [§VII.B.1 and §VII.B.3, eqs. (232), (267), (269)] The displayed equality in eq. (267) is not a pointwise term-by-term identity: the text states that F^{Im}_3 in eq. (232) "give[s] imaginary contribution upon being Fourier integrated" and that c^{Im}_3 in eq. (269) is excluded because it "should vanish after Fourier transformation". No calculation is shown establishing these vanishings. Because these terms are precisely the ones that fail to match the worldline form, the central claim of exact integrand coincidence is conditional. I request an explicit demonstration, for example using the delta-function constraints and parity under q_i -> -q_i, that these contributions vanish after Fourier integration, or a reformulation of the claim as an equivalence only after loop integration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VII.B.2] The conclusion that all unlisted self-attachment contributions to the two-loop mushroom are homogeneous and vanish is illustrated with two examples and then asserted for the remaining terms; a brief general homogeneity argument would make this step easier to verify.
  2. [§VII.B.3, eq. (230)] The reduction of the integrated impulse to the q3 component via the factor 1/2 is non-obvious; an explanation of which symmetries justify eq. (230) would improve readability.
  3. [§VII.B.3 and §V.B] The symbol sigma is used both for the scalar product u1.u2 in the comparison section and for the sign factors sigma^i_e in eqs. (129) and (204); these two uses should be distinguished.
  4. [Appendix B] The paper says the three- and four-loop ladder checks were generated automatically, but no code or auxiliary material is provided; stating the availability of the generation script, or at least describing the algorithm in more detail, would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KMOC-to-worldline comparison is an external benchmark with independent WQFT Feynman rules, and the vanishing assumptions are explicitly flagged caveats, not inputs relabeled as outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an integrand-level equivalence between the KMOC formalism and worldline quantum field theory (WQFT). The WQFT side is derived in Appendix C from an independent worldline Lagrangian and its own Feynman rules, with no parameters fitted to the KMOC expressions. The KMOC side is obtained from scattering-amplitude Feynman rules and the classical soft expansion, so the two objects are genuinely independently constructed before being compared. The places where the paper makes choices that could look circular are actually stated as assumptions or hypotheses, not as derived equalities. In Section VI.A, zero-measured cuts are set to zero by hand: 'we will simply set these contributions to zero by hand whenever they appear.' This is a physical/regulatory assumption about pinched phase-space surfaces, and the paper explicitly notes that a systematic treatment of the related long-range Coulomb effects is beyond scope. An assumption is not a circular reduction: the KMOC integrand is not defined in terms of the WQFT answer, and the zero-measured-cut prescription is applied before the comparison is made. Similarly, the all-order worldline form in eq. (210) is introduced with 'we hypothesise that...', and the worked two-loop comparisons in Section VII.B are presented with the explicit caveat that the terms cIm3 in eq. (269) and FIm in eq. (232) are excluded because they 'give imaginary contribution upon being Fourier integrated.' This makes the advertised equality conditional on a vanishing statement, but the equality is not manufactured by defining one side in terms of the other. The KMOC and WQFT integrands are computed by separate rules, and the matched terms are nontrivial, as demonstrated by the explicit coefficient lists c0, c1, c2, c3 in Section VII.B.3. The paper's self-citations (for example ref. [89], which shares an author) are used only for context about integrand bases and are not load-bearing for the main equivalence. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no known result is merely renamed, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The derivation is self-contained; the skeptical concerns about zero-measured cuts and purely imaginary Fourier pieces are correctness risks that the paper itself discloses, not evidence of circularity.

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

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced. The 'quantum worldline' is a formal bookkeeping representation of existing Feynman diagrams, not a new ontology.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Schwinger parametrization and exchange of summation and integration order are valid for the integrands at hand.
    Used throughout Section V to rewrite propagators and delta functions and to canonicalize vertex orderings.
  • domain assumption Soft power-counting formulas for super-leading degree D_G^soft (eq. 75) correctly determine which diagrams contribute to the classical impulse.
    These counting rules are standard in KMOC but are not re-derived from first principles here.
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-measured cuts (pinched, degenerate on-shell configurations) can be set to zero by hand.
    Section VI A states this explicitly: 'we will simply set these contributions to zero by hand whenever they appear.' This is load-bearing for the local cancellation and for replacing conjugate propagators.
  • ad hoc to paper The arborescence representation of the classical integrand (eq. 210) is correct up to pieces that integrate to purely imaginary quantities.
    The authors write 'we hypothesise that, up to pieces that integrate to purely imaginary quantities, one has ...' (Section VI B). It is used to claim the worldline form at all orders.
  • standard math Scaleless integrals vanish in dimensional regularization.
    Used in the mushroom diagram analysis (eq. 55 and following) to drop homogeneous integrals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical worldlines from scattering amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VK6C2IV4

@misc{pith2026241210864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical worldlines from scattering amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VK6C2IV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10864}
}
abstract

We present a systematic diagrammatic investigation of the classical limit of observables computed from scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory through the Kosower-Maybee-O'Connell (KMOC) formalism, motivated by the study of gravitational waves from black hole binaries. We achieve the manifest cancellation of divergences in the $\hbar \to 0$ limit at the integrand level beyond one loop by employing the Schwinger parametrisation to rewrite both cut and uncut propagators in a worldline-like representation before they are combined. The resulting finite classical integrand takes the same form as the counterpart in the worldline formalisms such as post-Minkowskian effective field theory (PMEFT) and worldline quantum field theory (WQFT), and in fact exactly coincides with the latter in various examples, showing explicitly the equivalence between scattering amplitude and worldline formalisms. The classical causality flow, as expressed by the retarded propagator prescription, appears as an emergent feature. Examples are presented for impulse observables in electrodynamics and a scalar model at two loops, as well as certain subclasses of diagrams to higher orders and all orders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrammatics of the quantum worldline with three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of forests contributing to Fk(V ) for |V | = 4 where the propagators on the right side of the cut are complex-conjugated, and there is an extra Dirac delta function for the cut matter line. In this case, the proper-time parametrisation reads L (S1, S2, p) = X π∈S(S1,S2) N¯V π ({qi} n i=1) Z   nY−1 j=1 d∆τπ(j)π(j+1)e −i((p+ Pj l=1 qπ(l)) 2−m2 )∆τπ(j)π(j+1)  × " dτπ(n)e −iτπ(n)((p+ Pn j=1 qj ) 2−m2 ) # … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The scalar quantum worldline with three attachmen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cut scalar quantum worldlines corresponding to tw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Processes that are kinematically forbidden or deg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An equivalence class [G] (as usual, equivalence under permutation of vertices on the upper or lower massive line) defines a unique graph Gcomp. A choice of a vertex v further defines a set of spanning arborescences Fv(Gcomp) rooted at v whose constraint is that they co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of sum of cut diagrams that gives a classi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Zero-energy factorisation of WQFT vertices for th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: One of the two WQFT Feynman diagrams, at one loop, fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: One of the two WQFT Feynman diagrams, at one loop, fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: One of the WQFT Feynman diagrams, at two loops, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: One of the WQFT Feynman diagrams, at two loops, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: One of the WQFT Feynman diagrams, at two loops, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: One of the WQFT Feynman diagrams, at two loops, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Generalized Wilson lines and the gravitational scattering of spinning bodies

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new generalized Wilson line representation for spin-1/2 and classical spinning bodies is derived, reproducing known 2PM gravitational scattering observables.

  2. Gravitational lensing in a plasma from worldlines

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The worldline formalism yields a closed-form NLO plasma-induced deflection angle for power-law electron density, matching previous results where they exist.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [57]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Conservative Dynamics of Binary Systems at Fourth Post-Minkowskian Orde r in the Large-Eccentricity Expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 161104 (2022), arXiv:2112.11296 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [58]

    Mougiakakos, M

    S. Mougiakakos, M. M. Riva, and F. Vernizzi, Gravitatio nal Bremsstrahlung in the post-Minkowskian effective field t heory, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024041 (2021), arXiv:2102.08339 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    We repo rt here the result of the manipulations highlighted above, and provide an explicit computation in appendix A

    Two-loop ladder in scalar theory Let us now show a two loop example with two iterations. We repo rt here the result of the manipulations highlighted above, and provide an explicit computation in appendix A. We write the symmetrised integrand as F ⊟= g6 3! ( F V⊟+F R/⊟) (225) The virtual contributions for the ladder diagrams read F V⊟=i(q1 +q2 +q3)µ [∑ π∈S...

  4. [2]

    upper” quantu m worldline and two for the

    Two-loop mushroom in scalar theory At two loops in a scalar theory, we also encounter diagrams of the form . (235) As opposed to the one-loop mushroom diagrams, which after ta king the classical limit individually give homogeneous vanishing contributions, for two-loop mushroom diagrams h omogeneous integrals only appear upon combining different diagrams. T...

  5. [3]

    quantum worldlines

    Term-by-term comparison of Worldline and KMOC integrand s for the two-loop impulse in scalar QED We make a direct comparison between our integrand and the wor ldline integrand for the two-loop impulse in scalar QED and in the potential region. The KMOC amplitude receives con tributions from the following four equivalence classes of diagrams: III = , IV = ...

  6. [4]

    first-self-force

    T wo-loop integrands a. Scalar model We only give the integrands for some sample WQFT Feynman diag rams at two loops for the purpose of illustration. For the scalar model, the probe-limit diagram fig. 11 gives th e integrand −i (λ 2 )6 ei(q1+q2+q3)·b˜δ((q1 +q2 +q3) ·u1)˜δ((q1 +q2 +q3) ·u2) 1 q2 1q2 2q2 3(q1 ·u1 +iε)2(q3 ·u1 −iε)2 × [(q1 ·q2)(q2 ·q3)] ˜δ(q1...

  7. [5]

    Pürrer and C.-J

    M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accu racy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    +E23E′ 23Θ(∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′ 23) +E13E′ 13Θ(∆τ13)Θ(∆τ ′

Show all 130 references
  1. [7]

    Bertotti, On gravitational motion, Nuovo Cim

    B. Bertotti, On gravitational motion, Nuovo Cim. 4, 898 (1956)

    1956

  2. [8]

    +E12E′ 13Θ(∆τ12)Θ(∆τ ′ 13) +E23E′ 13Θ(∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′

  3. [9]

    +E23E′ 12Θ(∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′

  4. [10]

    (A4) The factor of i combines the −i contribution from each of the six vertices as well as the i contribution from each of the three photon propagators

    +E13E′ 12Θ(∆τ13)Θ(∆τ ′ 12) +E13E′ 23Θ(∆τ13)Θ(∆τ ′ 23) ] GF (q1)GF (q2)GF (q3), (A3) with Eij =e−2i(qi·qj )∆τij − 1. (A4) The factor of i combines the −i contribution from each of the six vertices as well as the i contribution from each of the three photon propagators. For what...

  5. [11]

    +E23E′ 23Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(−∆τ ′ 23) ) −GF (q1)GF (q2)GF (q3)⋆( 1 +E12Θ(∆τ12) +E′ 12Θ(∆τ ′

  6. [12]

    +E′ 13Θ(∆τ ′ 13) +E′ 23Θ(∆τ ′

  7. [13]

    +E12E′ 23Θ(∆τ12)Θ(∆τ ′

  8. [14]

    +E12E′ 12Θ(∆τ12)Θ(∆τ ′ 12) ) −GF (q1)GF (q3)GF (q2)⋆( 1 +E23 +E′ 23 +E13Θ(∆τ13) +E′ 13Θ(∆τ ′ 13) +E23E′ 23+E23E13Θ(∆τ13) +E′ 23E′ 13Θ(∆τ ′

  9. [15]

    +E13E′ 13Θ(∆τ13)Θ(∆τ ′ 13) )] . (A5) Using extensively the vanishing of zero-measured cuts, we a lso have F R,1 ⊟ ,3 = ∫ dΠ3dΠ′ 3 ( E12E′ 23Θ(∆τ12)Θ(−∆τ ′ 23)GF (q1)˜δ−(q2)GF (q3) +E′ 12E23Θ(−∆τ ′ 12)Θ(∆τ23)GF (q1)˜δ+(q2)GF (q3) +E13E′ 23Θ(∆τ13)Θ(−∆τ ′ 23)GF (q1)GF (q2)˜δ+(q3)...

  10. [16]

    −E23E′ 23Θ(∆τ23)Θ(−∆τ ′

  11. [17]

    +E12E′ 13Θ(∆τ12)Θ(∆τ ′ 13) −E23E′ 13Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′

  12. [18]

    +E′ 12E′ 13Θ(∆τ ′ 12)Θ(∆τ ′

  13. [19]

    −E′ 23E′ 13Θ(−∆τ ′ 23)Θ(∆τ ′ 13) +E12E′ 23Θ(∆τ ′ 23)Θ(∆τ12) −E23E′ 23Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′

  14. [20]

    +E′ 12E′ 23Θ(∆τ ′ 23)Θ(∆τ ′ 12) ] −iE23E′ 23GF (q1)GF (q2)GF (q3)[Θ(∆τ23)Θ(−∆τ ′

  15. [21]

    + Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′ 23)] (A8) +iE23E23GF (q1)(iGF (q2)˜δ(q2

  16. [22]

    − ˜δ(q2 1)˜δ(q2 2))Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(−∆τ ′

  17. [23]

    +E12E′ 12Θ(∆τ12)Θ(∆τ ′

  18. [24]

    This quantity scales classically

    (A9) where we used the identity GR(±q) = GF (q) −δ±(q) to obtain a compact form for the contributions in the last lin e. This quantity scales classically. Adding the valence-three cut s and using the identity GR(±q) = GF (q) −δ±(q), we write F 1 ⊟=i ∫ dΠ3dΠ′ 3 [ E12E′ 23Θ(∆τ12...

  19. [25]

    −E′ 23E′ 13Θ(−∆τ ′ 23)Θ(∆τ ′

  20. [26]

    +E′ 12E′ 23Θ(∆τ ′ 23)Θ(∆τ ′ 12) ] × ×GF (q1)GF (q2)GF (q3) ] −iE23E′ 23[−(GF (q1)GR(q2)GR(−q3)Θ(∆τ23)Θ(−∆τ ′

  21. [27]

    (A10) Mapping q1 to q3 and integrating back gives the twelve contributions listed in eq

    +GF (q1)GR(−q2)GR(q3)Θ(−∆τ23)Θ(∆τ ′ 23))]. (A10) Mapping q1 to q3 and integrating back gives the twelve contributions listed in eq. (231) plus the two contributions listed in eq. (232) (We are free to turn the remaining Feynman propag ators of the expression above into retarde...

  22. [28]

    Here we summarise the Feynman rules in the models we use

    Feynman rules We refer readers to the original paper [26] for the basics of W QFT. Here we summarise the Feynman rules in the models we use. We consider a scalar particle of mass m coupled to a massless scalar field φ which mediates an attractive interaction between the massive...

  23. [29]

    Impulse observables and factorisation of zero-energy ve rtices Impulse observables in WQFT are one-point functions with an amputated zero-energy external leg for the zµ worldline deflection field multiplied by an extra factor of i [26]. For both the scalar model and electrodynam...

  24. [30]

    Scalar model We present the integrand for the impulse received by particl e 1 of mass m1 and initial normalised velocity u1, with an impact parameter, i.e

    One-loop integrands a. Scalar model We present the integrand for the impulse received by particl e 1 of mass m1 and initial normalised velocity u1, with an impact parameter, i.e. the relative transverse displaceme nt of particle 1 w.r.t. particle 2 in the far past, being b. Th...

  25. [31]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Wav es from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. , The einstein telescope: a third-generation gravitationa l wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  27. [33]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, (2017), arXiv :1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Reitze et al

    D. Reitze et al. , Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational- Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Buonanno, M

    A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, D. O’Connell, R. Roiban, M. P. Sol on, and M. Zeng, Snowmass White Paper: Gravitational Waves and Scattering Amplitudes, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2204.05194 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [36]

    R. P. Kerr, The Lorentz-covariant approximation method in general relativity I, Nuovo Cim. 13, 469 (1959)

    1959

  31. [37]

    Bertotti and J

    B. Bertotti and J. Plebanski, Theory of gravitational pe rturbations in the fast motion approximation, Annals Phys. 11, 169 (1960)

    1960

  32. [38]

    Westpfahl and M

    K. Westpfahl and M. Goller, Gravitational scattering o f two relativistic particles in the postlinear approximati on, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 26, 573 (1979)

    1979

  33. [39]

    Portilla, Scattering of two gravitating particles: classical approach, J

    M. Portilla, Scattering of two gravitating particles: classical approach, J. Phys. A 13, 3677 (1980)

    1980

  34. [40]

    L. Bel, T. Damour, N. Deruelle, J. Ibanez, and J. Martin, Poincaré-invariant gravitational field and equations of mo tion of two pointlike objects: The postlinear approximation of gen eral relativity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 13, 963 (1981)

    1981

  35. [41]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, From Scatter ing Amplitudes to Classical Potentials in the Post-Minkows kian Expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251101 (2018), arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [42]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, Amplitudes, Observables, and Classical Scattering, JHEP 02, 137, arXiv:1811.10950 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  37. [43]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, an d M. Zeng, Scattering Amplitudes and the Conservative Hamil to- nian for Binary Systems at Third Post-Minkowskian Order, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 122, 201603 (2019), arXiv:1901.04424 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, an d M. Zeng, Black Hole Binary Dynamics from the Double Copy and Effective Theory, JHEP 10, 206, arXiv:1908.01493 [hep-th]

    1908 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Cristofoli, N

    A. Cristofoli, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, an d P. Vanhove, Post-Minkowskian Hamiltonians in general rel ativity, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084040 (2019), arXiv:1906.01579 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [46]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, A. Cristofoli, and P. H. Damgaard , Post-Minkowskian Scattering Angle in Einstein Gravity, JHEP 08, 038, arXiv:1910.09366 [hep-th]

    1910 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. Chen, G. Travaglini, and C. Wen, Class ical gravitational scattering from a gauge-invariant doub le copy, JHEP 10, 118, arXiv:2108.04216 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  42. [48]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. S hen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Scattering Amplitudes and Conservative Binary Dynamics at O(G4), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 171601 (2021), arXiv:2101.07254 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. S hen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Scattering Amplitudes, the Tai l Effect, and Conservative Binary Dynamics at O(G4), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 161103 (2022), arXiv:2112.10750 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [50]

    P. H. Damgaard, E. R. Hansen, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, C lassical observables from the exponential representation of the gravitational S-matrix, JHEP 09, 183, arXiv:2307.04746 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [51]

    Kälin and R

    G. Kälin and R. A. Porto, Post-Minkowskian Effective Fie ld Theory for Conservative Binary Dynamics, JHEP 11, 106, arXiv:2006.01184 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Kälin, Z

    G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Conservative Dynamics of Binary Systems to Third Post-Minkowskian Order from the Effective Field Theory Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 261103 (2020), arXiv:2007.04977 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Kälin, Z

    G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Conservative Tidal Effe cts in Compact Binary Systems to Next-to-Leading Post- Minkowskian Order, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124025 (2020), arXiv:2008.06047 [hep-th]. 63

    2020 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Classical black h ole scattering from a worldline quantum field theory, JHEP 02, 048, arXiv:2010.02865 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [55]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Cl assical Gravitational Bremsstrahlung from a Worldline Qua ntum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 201103 (2021), arXiv:2101.12688 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Dynamics of bi nary systems to fourth Post-Minkowskian order from the effec tive field theory approach, Phys. Lett. B 831, 137203 (2022), arXiv:2106.08276 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and B. Sauer, All th ings retarded: radiation-reaction in worldline quantum fie ld theory, JHEP 10, 128, arXiv:2207.00569 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    M. M. Riva and F. Vernizzi, Radiated momentum in the post -Minkowskian worldline approach via reverse unitarity, JHEP 11, 228, arXiv:2110.10140 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kälin, J

    G. Kälin, J. Neef, and R. A. Porto, Radiation-reaction i n the Effective Field Theory approach to Post-Minkowskian dy namics, JHEP 01, 140, arXiv:2207.00580 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. Kälin, Z. Liu, J. Neef, and R. A. Porto, Radia tion Reaction and Gravitational Waves at Fourth Post-Minkowskian Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101401 (2023), arXiv:2210.05541 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. Kälin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Bootstrappin g the relativistic two-body problem, JHEP 08, 109, arXiv:2304.01275 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Driesse, G

    M. Driesse, G. U. Jakobsen, A. Klemm, G. Mogull, C. Nega, J. Plefka, B. Sauer, and J. Usovitsch, High-precision black hole scattering with Calabi-Yau manifolds, (2024), arXiv:2411 .11846 [hep-th]

    2024

  57. [65]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, One l oop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinea r limits, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 217 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403226

    1994 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, Fusi ng gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 435, 59 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409265

    1995 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Bern and A

    Z. Bern and A. G. Morgan, Massive loop amplitudes from un itarity, Nucl. Phys. B 467, 479 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511336

    1996 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower, One loop amplitud es for e+ e- to four partons, Nucl. Phys. B 513, 3 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9708239

    1998 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, Generalized unitari ty and one-loop amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills, Nucl. Phys. B 725, 275 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412103

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, New Relatio ns for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 78, 085011 (2008), arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Perturbati ve Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 061602 (2010), arXiv:1004.0476 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Parra-Martinez, M

    J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, Extremal blac k hole scattering at O(G3): graviton dominance, eikonal exponen- tiation, and differential equations, JHEP 11, 023, arXiv:2005.04236 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, Asymptotic expansion of Fey nman integrals near threshold, Nucl. Phys. B 522, 321 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711391

    1998 arXiv

  66. [74]

    L. V. Keldysh, Diagram technique for nonequilibrium pr ocesses, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964)

    1964

  67. [75]

    J. S. Schwinger, Brownian motion of a quantum oscillato r, J. Math. Phys. 2, 407 (1961)

    1961

  68. [76]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, An Effective field th eory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    2006 arXiv

  69. [77]

    P. H. Damgaard, L. Plante, and P. Vanhove, On an exponent ial representation of the gravitational S-matrix, JHEP 11, 213, arXiv:2107.12891 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Barack and O

    L. Barack and O. Long, Self-force correction to the defle ction angle in black-hole scattering: A scalar charge toy mo del, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104031 (2022), arXiv:2209.03740 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Barack et al

    L. Barack et al. , Comparison of post-Minkowskian and self-force expansion s: Scattering in a scalar charge toy model, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024025 (2023), arXiv:2304.09200 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. V. S. Saketh, J. Vines, J. Steinhoff, and A. Buonanno, C onservative and radiative dynamics in classical relativistic scattering and bound systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013127 (2022), arXiv:2109.05994 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Z. Bern, J. P. Gatica, E. Herrmann, A. Luna, and M. Zeng, S calar QED as a toy model for higher-order effects in classical 64 gravitational scattering, JHEP 08, 131, arXiv:2112.12243 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Zeng, Conservative Binary Dynamics at Order α5 in Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251601 (2024), arXiv:2305.08981 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    G. U. Jakobsen, Spin and Susceptibility Effects of Elect romagnetic Self-Force in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 151601 (2024), arXiv:2311.04151 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Akpinar, F

    D. Akpinar, F. Febres Cordero, M. Kraus, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, Spinning Black Hole Scattering at O(G3S2): Casimir Terms, Radial Action and Hidden Symmetry, (2024), arXiv:24 07.19005 [hep-th]

    2024

  77. [85]

    P. H. Damgaard, E. R. Hansen, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, T he relation between KMOC and worldline formalisms for class ical gravity, JHEP 09, 059, arXiv:2306.11454 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Comberiati and L

    F. Comberiati and L. de la Cruz, Classical off-shell curr ents, JHEP 03, 068, arXiv:2212.09259 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Y. Du, S. Ajith, R. Rajagopal, and D. Vaman, Worldline Pr oof of Eikonal Exponentiation, (2024), arXiv:2409.12895 [ hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ajith, Y

    S. Ajith, Y. Du, R. Rajagopal, and D. Vaman, Worldline Fo rmalism, Eikonal Expansion and the Classical Limit of Scatt ering Amplitudes, (2024), arXiv:2409.17866 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Kim, J.-W

    J.-H. Kim, J.-W. Kim, S. Kim, and S. Lee, Classical eikon al from Magnus expansion, (2024), arXiv:2410.22988 [hep-t h]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Jesús Aguilera-Verdugo, R

    J. Jesús Aguilera-Verdugo, R. J. Hernández-Pinto, G. R odrigo, G. F. R. Sborlini, and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, Mathematical properties of nested residues and their appli cation to multi-loop scattering amplitudes, JHEP 02, 112, arXiv:2010.12971 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Catani, T

    S. Catani, T. Gleisberg, F. Krauss, G. Rodrigo, and J.-C . Winter, From loops to trees by-passing Feynman’s theorem, JHEP 09, 065, arXiv:0804.3170 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Bierenbaum, S

    I. Bierenbaum, S. Catani, P. Draggiotis, and G. Rodrigo , A tree-loop duality relation at two loops and beyond, JHEP 10, 073, arXiv:1007.0194 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  85. [93]

    Runkel, Z

    R. Runkel, Z. Szőr, J. P. Vesga, and S. Weinzierl, Causal ity and loop-tree duality at higher loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 111603 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 123, 059902 (201 9)], arXiv:1902.02135 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [94]

    G. F. R. Sborlini, Geometrical approach to causality in multiloop amplitudes, Physical Review D 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.036014 (2021)

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    Capatti, V

    Z. Capatti, V. Hirschi, D. Kermanschah, and B. Ruijl, Lo op-Tree Duality for Multiloop Numerical Integration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151602 (2019), arXiv:1906.06138 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Capatti, Exposing the threshold structure of loop in tegrals, Phys

    Z. Capatti, Exposing the threshold structure of loop in tegrals, Phys. Rev. D 107, L051902 (2023), arXiv:2211.09653 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Capatti, Derivation of the Cross-Free Family repres entation for the box diagram, PoS RADCOR2023, 027 (2024), arXiv:2311.14374 [hep-ph]

    Z. Capatti, Derivation of the Cross-Free Family repres entation for the box diagram, PoS RADCOR2023, 027 (2024), arXiv:2311.14374 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    G. F. Sterman, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Cambridge University Press, 1993)

    1993

  91. [99]

    G. F. Sterman, Partons, factorization and resummation , TASI 95, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 95): QCD and Beyond (1995) pp. 327–408, arXiv:hep-ph/9606312

    1995 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Sterman and A

    G. Sterman and A. Venkata, Local infrared safety in time -ordered perturbation theory, JHEP 02, 101, arXiv:2309.13023 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    Borinsky, Z

    M. Borinsky, Z. Capatti, E. Laenen, and A. Salas-Bernár dez, Flow-oriented perturbation theory, JHEP 01, 172, arXiv:2210.05532 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Capatti, V

    Z. Capatti, V. Hirschi, A. Pelloni, and B. Ruijl, Local U nitarity: a representation of differential cross-sections that is locally free of infrared singularities at any order, JHEP 04, 104, arXiv:2010.01068 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Capatti, Local Unitarity, SciPost Phys

    Z. Capatti, Local Unitarity, SciPost Phys. Proc. 7, 024 (2022), arXiv:2110.15662 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Capatti, V

    Z. Capatti, V. Hirschi, and B. Ruijl, Local unitarity: c utting raised propagators and localising renormalisation , JHEP 10, 120, arXiv:2203.11038 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  97. [105]

    Capatti, Singularities of Feynman diagrams and their local cancella tion in collider cross-sections , Ph.D

    Z. Capatti, Singularities of Feynman diagrams and their local cancella tion in collider cross-sections , Ph.D. thesis, Zurich, ETH (2023)

    2023

  98. [106]

    C. R. Galley, A. K. Leibovich, R. A. Porto, and A. Ross, Ta il effect in gravitational radiation reaction: Time nonloca lity and renormalization group evolution, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124010 (2016), arXiv:1511.07379 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  99. [107]

    de la Cruz, B

    L. de la Cruz, B. Maybee, D. O’Connell, and A. Ross, Class ical Yang-Mills observables from amplitudes, JHEP 12, 076, arXiv:2009.03842 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  100. [108]

    de la Cruz, A

    L. de la Cruz, A. Luna, and T. Scheopner, Yang-Mills obse rvables: from KMOC to eikonal through EFT, JHEP 01, 045, arXiv:2108.02178 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  101. [109]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  102. [110]

    Akhoury, R

    R. Akhoury, R. Saotome, and G. Sterman, High Energy Scat tering in Perturbative Quantum Gravity at Next to Leading 65 Power, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064036 (2021), arXiv:1308.5204 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Driesse, G

    M. Driesse, G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, B. Saue r, and J. Usovitsch, Conservative Black Hole Scattering at F ifth Post-Minkowskian and First Self-Force Order, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 132, 241402 (2024), arXiv:2403.07781 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir, and S. Miz era, What can be measured asymptotically?, JHEP 01, 139, arXiv:2308.02125 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    Elkhidir, D

    A. Elkhidir, D. O’Connell, and R. Roiban, Supertransla tions from Scattering Amplitudes, (2024), arXiv:2408.159 61 [hep-th]

    2024

  106. [114]

    L. D. Landau, On analytic properties of vertex parts in q uantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. 13, 181 (1959)

    1959

  107. [115]

    S. R. Coleman and R. E. Norton, Singularities in the phys ical region, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 38, 438 (1965)

    1965

  108. [116]

    J. L. Bourjaily, H. Hannesdottir, A. J. McLeod, M. D. Sch wartz, and C. Vergu, Sequential Discontinuities of Feynman Integrals and the Monodromy Group, JHEP 01, 205, arXiv:2007.13747 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, Gl obal Bases for Nonplanar Loop Integrands, Generalized Unitarity, and the Double Copy to All Loop Orders, (2024), ar Xiv:2408.06686 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Biswas and J

    S. Biswas and J. Parra-Martinez, Classical Observable s from Causal Response Functions, (2024), arXiv:2411.0901 6 [hep-th]

    2024

  111. [119]

    Kawai, D

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, A Relation Betw een Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings, Nucl. Phys. B 269, 1 (1986)

    1986

  112. [120]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, an d R. Roiban, The duality between color and kinematics and its applications, J. Phys. A 57, 333002 (2024), arXiv:1909.01358 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Engel, The LBK theorem to all orders, JHEP 07, 177, arXiv:2304.11689 [hep-ph]

    T. Engel, The LBK theorem to all orders, JHEP 07, 177, arXiv:2304.11689 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  114. [122]

    Z. L. Liu and P. F. Monni, The two-loop fully differential soft function for Q ¯QV production at lepton colliders, (2024), arXiv:2411.13466 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Laenen, G

    E. Laenen, G. Stavenga, and C. D. White, Path integral ap proach to eikonal and next-to-eikonal exponentiation, JHEP 03, 054, arXiv:0811.2067 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  116. [124]

    C. D. White, Factorization Properties of Soft Graviton Amplitudes, JHEP 05, 060, arXiv:1103.2981 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  117. [125]

    Bonocore, Asymptotic dynamics on the worldline for s pinning particles, JHEP 02, 007, arXiv:2009.07863 [hep-th]

    D. Bonocore, Asymptotic dynamics on the worldline for s pinning particles, JHEP 02, 007, arXiv:2009.07863 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Bonocore, A

    D. Bonocore, A. Kulesza, and J. Pirsch, Classical and qu antum gravitational scattering with Generalized Wilson Li nes, JHEP 03, 147, arXiv:2112.02009 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  119. [127]

    Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the st ring inspired formalism, Phys

    C. Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the st ring inspired formalism, Phys. Rept. 355, 73 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0101036

    2001 arXiv

  120. [128]

    J. P. Edwards and C. Schubert, Quantum mechanical path integrals in the first quantised approach to quantum field the ory (2019) arXiv:1912.10004 [hep-th]

    2019

  121. [129]

    X. Feal, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, QED as a many-b ody theory of worldlines: General formalism and infrared st ructure, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056009 (2022), arXiv:2206.04188 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  122. [130]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, S USY in the sky with gravitons, JHEP 01, 027, arXiv:2109.04465 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.