Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 108 references

Form factors from string amplitudes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a stringy disk amplitude whose α′→0 limit reproduces tree-level scalar and gluon form factors and exposes factorization, soft limits, a 2-split, and a new amplitude relation.

desk verdict Promising new stringy construction for form factors with a real 7-point check, but the off-shell kinematic extension and the monodromy expansion that underpins the field-theory limit are assumed rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15702 v3 pith:IW5PH6JG submitted 2025-04-22 hep-th

Qu Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T3081T13
keywords formfactorsstringamplitudesdiskfield-theorylimitfactorizationsoft2-splitTr(F^2)operator
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 letter proposes a stringy model for tree-level form factors: an $n$-point form factor of a local operator is written as a bosonic open-and-closed string disk integral, with the off-shell leg carried by a closed-string vertex in the interior and the $n$ on-shell particles on the boundary. The central claim is that when the string slope $\alpha'$ tends to zero, the integral reproduces the ordinary field-theory form factor for the $\mathrm{Tr}(\phi^3)$ scalar theory and for the $\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)$ operator in Yang-Mills theory. A sympathetic reader would care because a single unified integral makes structural properties visible that are hidden in Feynman diagrams: factorization at massless poles, the soft limit $q\to0$ in which the form factor degenerates to a scattering amplitude, and a new '2-split' factorization that cuts the form factor into an amplitude times a smaller form factor. The stringy description also produces a new relation expressing the $n$-point form factor in terms of $(n+2)$-point Yang-Mills-scalar amplitudes, numerically checked through seven points.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integral (2) over the disk or upper half-plane, with measure $d\mu_{n;0}=\int_\Gamma \prod_i dz_i/\mathrm{vol}(SL(2,\mathbb{R}))\int_{H^+} dz_0 d\bar z_0/(z_0-\bar z_0)^2$ and the off-shell Koba-Nielsen factor. The machinery works because the modified contractions $V_i$ encode the off-shell momentum through the $p_i\cdot q$ terms, while puncture pinching produces the massless poles, $q\to0$ decouples the closed-string insertion to yield string amplitudes, and the kinematic constraints $s_{a,b}=s_{a,q}=0$ split the integrand into two disjoint worldsheet parts, giving the 2-split. The same integrand, after contour deforming $z_0,\bar z_0$ to the boundary, becomes a sum of $(n+2)$-point open-string integrands, which is what produces the amplitude-expansion relation.

What would settle it

Take the $n=4$ scalar stringy form factor at fixed nonzero $q^2$, evaluate the integral (2) numerically, and extract the residue at $s_{1,2}=0$; factorization (11) requires the residue to equal $A_3^{\phi^3}(1,2,I)\,F_3^{\phi^3}(-I,3,4;q)$, so a mismatch, or any divergence of the $z_0$ integration that is not cured by a regulator, would show the model does not reproduce field-theory form factors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is the construction of the stringy form factor as the disk integral $\mathcal{F}^O_n(1,\ldots,n;q)=\int d\mu_{n;0}\,I^O_n\,\mathrm{KN}(1,\ldots,n;q)$, where $n$ open-string states sit on the boundary, one closed-string vertex sits in the bulk, and the Koba-Nielsen factor is extended by $p_i\cdot q$ and $q^2$ couplings so that the closed string carries the off-shell momentum. The integrands for the two Lagrangian operators are the Parke-Taylor factor and the $V/W$ contraction product, respectively, with the closed-string current $J^a(z_0)J^a(\bar z_0)$ providing the $1/(z_0-\bar z_0)^2$ factor that carries the off-shell datum. The paper shows that in the $\alpha'\to0$ limit this integral reduces to the known field-theory form factors, derives the massless-pole factorization, derives the soft behavior $q\to0$, and identifies the new 2-split factorization under the kinematic constraints. In addition, by deforming the closed-string insertions to the real line and applying monodromy relations, it derives an expansion of the stringy form factor into $(n+2)$-point open-string amplitudes, whose field-theory limit is a new linear relation between form factors and Yang-Mills-scalar amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the off-shell kinematics can simply be grafted onto the disk amplitude: the map $2q_1\cdot q_2\to q^2$ and $2p_i\cdot q_1=2p_i\cdot q_2\to -p_i\cdot q$ is not realized by any choice of the metric matrix in the known open-closed disk amplitude, so the integral (2) is assumed to remain $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$-invariant and convergent for $q^2\neq0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, every tree-level form factor for these Lagrangian operators has a representation as one disk integral, so factorization identities and pole structures follow from worldsheet pinching rather than from diagram-by-diagram analysis.
  • The field-theory relation (22) gives a concrete computational shortcut: an $n$-point form factor can be obtained from $2^{n-2}$ color-ordered $(n+2)$-point Yang-Mills-scalar amplitudes, a check the paper runs through seven points.
  • The soft limit $q\to0$ is a diagnostic for which local operators are the theory's Lagrangian: the stringy form factor reduces to the string amplitude exactly when the operator is the Lagrangian, explaining why $\mathcal{L}_{\phi^3}$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)$ appear.
  • The 2-split property is a new structural identity for form factors, parallel to the string and particle amplitude 2-split, and should imply zeros and factorization-near-zeros of form factors that were not previously visible.
  • The construction is the tree-level seed for extensions: multiple closed-string insertions would describe multi-operator form factors, and higher-genus surfaces would give loop-level stringy form factors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit and testable extension is to run the amplitude-expansion formula for operators other than the two Lagrangians; if the expansion survives only for operators whose integrand splits cleanly, it would classify which observables admit stringy UV completions.
  • The footnote-57 caveat suggests the model's domain of validity is not fixed by the known disk amplitude; a direct check of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ invariance of (2) for arbitrary $q^2\ne0$ would either confirm the kinematics as a new stringy datum or identify a constraint on $q^2$.
  • If 2-split extends to supersymmetric settings, the zero and factorization structure of supersymmetric form factors could inherit a geometric explanation parallel to the geometry of scattering amplitudes; this is my inference rather than a claim in the paper.
  • The $\alpha'$-correction dictionary sketched in the outlook could be tested at next order: the subleading term of $\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)}$ should reproduce the known matrix element of $\mathrm{Tr}(F^3)$, providing a sharp check of the whole construction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stringy completion of tree-level form factors, defining F^O_n(1,...,n;q) in Eq. (2) as a disk integral with n open-string vertex operators and one closed-string insertion carrying off-shell momentum q. It claims that in the field-theory limit alpha' -> 0 this integral reduces to the known field-theory form factor (Eq. (9)), and it uses the stringy representation to discuss factorization (Eq. (11)), soft behavior q -> 0 (Eq. (15)), a new 2-split property (Eqs. (17), (19)), and an expansion of the form factor into open-string amplitudes (Eqs. (21), (22)). The paper validates the construction with low-point examples in Eq. (10) and reports a numerical check of Eq. (22) up to 7 points using independent public codes.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this paper opens a genuinely new connection between string amplitudes and form factors, offering a UV-complete integrand that manifests factorization, soft behavior, and a 2-split structure, and it provides a practical amplitude-expansion formula for computing form factors. The paper is commendable for making no parameter fits and for testing the main expansion against public independent codes up to 7 points. The main weakness is that the off-shell continuation underlying Eq. (2) is not rigorously derived; the kinematic map in footnote 57 is admitted to lie outside the framework of [56], so the SL(2,R)-invariance, convergence, and monodromy expansion of the integral remain assumptions. Filling this gap is necessary before the field-theory-limit claim and its derived properties can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Footnote 57 and Eq. (21)] The kinematic map 2 q1·q2 -> q^2 and 2 p_i·q1 = 2 p_i·q2 -> -p_i·q is explicitly stated not to be realizable by any D matrix in [56]. The derivation of the monodromy expansion (21) in [56] relies on the D matrix to fix SL(2,R) weights and to control the contour deformation that produces the phase factors M(rho). Since Eq. (21) is the route to the field-theory limit (9) and to the 7-point check of Eq. (22), the validity of this expansion for q^2 != 0 is a load-bearing assumption. The manuscript should either prove SL(2,R)-invariance and convergence of Eq. (2) for general q^2, or provide an independent derivation of Eq. (21) that does not rely on the D-matrix framework of [56].
  2. [Soft limit: q -> 0] The argument for Eq. (15) states that the dz0 d bar z0 integral 'will be divergent when q -> 0' and that 'one can introduce a regulator to make the integral finite', but no regulator is specified and no independence of the regulator is shown. This matters because Eq. (15) is used to explain why the chosen operators are Lagrangian operators. Please provide an explicit regularization prescription and demonstrate that the q -> 0 limit of the stringy form factor reproduces the string amplitude, or alternatively state Eq. (15) as a conjecture with a precise limiting procedure.
  3. [2-split, Eqs. (17)-(19)] The 2-split for the Tr(F^2) stringy form factor is asserted rather than derived. The V_i objects in Eq. (6) contain explicit q-dependent terms, -epsilon_i·q/z_i,0 and -epsilon_i·q/z_i,bar0, which are absent in the bosonic string amplitude case treated in [68,69]. Although the conditions in Eq. (18) are expected to suppress these terms, the paper does not show that all mixed contributions vanish in the split limit, nor does it provide an explicit low-point check of Eq. (19). Please supply a proof sketch or a concrete example, such as n=4 or n=5, demonstrating the claimed split.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The measure contains '(z0,bar0)^2', which presumably means (z0 - bar z0)^2; please correct the notation.
  2. [Eq. (21) and surrounding text] The number of open string amplitudes contributing to the expansion is written as '2n-2' in the text; this should be 2^{n-2}, and the set of permutations rho in the sum should be defined explicitly rather than left to reference [25,56].
  3. [Eq. (22)] The proportionality constant in Eq. (22) is not specified. Since the relation is used to calculate form factors from amplitudes, please state how the normalization is fixed for general n, or provide the constant explicitly if it has a simple form.
  4. [Eq. (10)] The low-point limits in Eq. (10) are stated without derivation; a brief indication of how the integrals are evaluated, or a reference to a companion calculation, would improve verifiability.
  5. [Seven-point check] The numerical check 'up to 7-point' is reported without presenting the actual comparison. Please include explicit numerical results or a link to reproducible data so the claim can be verified.
  6. [Notation in Eqs. (6) and (8)] The notation for V_i, W_{i,j}, and C_{i,j} would be clearer if the dependence on alpha', epsilon_i, and the ordering of indices were stated explicitly in one place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: footnote 57 is a flagged gap, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the disk integral (2), with the chosen off-shell kinematics, reduces to the known field-theory form factor in the alpha' -> 0 limit. This is tested through explicit low-multiplicity evaluations, factorization checks, soft-limit arguments, and a 7-point numerical comparison against independent public codes for scattering amplitudes [82] and form factors [63]. No parameter is fitted from the target form factors, and the relation (22) is not defined in terms of the field-theory result it is meant to produce. The only self-citations are [68,69], used to justify the 2-split factorization of the Parke-Taylor and Koba-Nielsen factors; these are prior proofs by the same group, but they are not definitions of the present stringy form factor and the central field-theory limit is verified independently. The manuscript itself flags the most serious weakness in footnote 57: the kinematic map 2 q1·q2 -> q^2 and 2 p_i·q1 = 2 p_i·q2 -> -p_i·q cannot be realized by any D matrix in [56], so the SL(2,R) invariance, convergence for q^2 != 0, and the expansion (21) are assumed rather than derived from that reference. This is a genuine gap or correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: the claimed result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step meets the quote-and-reduction standard, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The stringy form factor model introduces no new fitted parameters. It rests on the ad hoc off-shell kinematic continuation of the disk amplitude, on the applicability of Monodromy relations to that continuation, on the explicit integrand construction for the two operators, and on the 2-split results borrowed from the author's prior papers. These are the key assumptions that a reader would need to accept before the central claim is fully supported.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The off-shell continuation of the disk amplitude defined by the map in footnote 57 (2 q1·q2 -> q^2, 2 p_i·q1 = 2 p_i·q2 -> -p_i·q) yields a well-defined, SL(2,R)-invariant string integral for q^2 != 0.
    The authors explicitly state this map cannot be realized by any choice of the metric matrix D in [56], so the integral in (2) is a new object whose convergence and conformal invariance are assumed.
  • domain assumption The contour deformation and Monodromy relations used to expand the stringy form factor into open-string amplitudes remain valid under the generalized kinematics of footnote 57.
    The expansion (21) is stated by analogy to [25,56] after mapping kinematics; no proof is given that the generalized phase factors and branch cuts behave identically.
  • domain assumption The integrands I_n^{Lphi3} = PT(1,...,n) and I_n^{Tr(F^2)} built from V_i and W_{i,j} with the modified V_i correctly encode the operators Lphi3 and Tr(F^2) with off-shell momentum.
    The modified V_i in (6) including the -epsilon_i·q/(z_i,0) - epsilon_i·q/(z_i,\bar 0) terms is asserted to be the Wick contraction result; the construction is not derived in detail.
  • domain assumption The 2-split factorization of the PT factor and KN factor for the stringy form factor follows from the proofs in [68,69].
    The paper summarizes 'as we proved in [68,69]' and applies those results; these are self-citations and not independently reproduced here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Form factors from string amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IW5PH6JG

@misc{pith2026250415702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Form factors from string amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IW5PH6JG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15702}
}
abstract

In this letter, we propose a stringy model for $n$-point tree-level form factor with the off-shell operator in the scalar and gluon theories, from the bosonic string disk amplitude: $n$ open string states and $1$ closed string state scatter on the disk. In the field-theory limit ($\alpha'\to0$), the stringy form factor reduces to the form factor, helps us to investigate the hidden properties of the field-theory form factors, manifest the factorization and soft behaviors, and uncover more non-trivial relations between form factors and scattering amplitudes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Open(blue) and closed(red) string vertex positions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The example for 2-split [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Stieberger and T

    S. Stieberger and T. R. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 903, 104 (2016), arXiv:1510.01774 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Kawai, D

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, Nucl. Phys. B 269, 1 (1986)

    1986

  3. [2]

    Bern and D

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1669 (1991)

    1991

  4. [3]

    Bern and D

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 362, 389 (1991)

    1991

  5. [4]

    Bern and D

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 379, 451 (1992)

    1992

  6. [5]

    Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 445, 168 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9810409

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein, and J. S. Rozowsky, Nucl. Phys. B 546, 423 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811140

    arXiv 1999

  8. [7]

    Witten, Commun

    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 252, 189 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312171

    arXiv 2004

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065001 (2014), arXiv:1306.6575 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, JHEP 07, 033 (2014), arXiv:1309.0885 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171601 (2014), arXiv:1307.2199 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Mason and D

    L. Mason and D. Skinner, JHEP 07, 048 (2014), arXiv:1311.2564 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    S. He, F. Teng, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211603 (2019), arXiv:1812.03369 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    S. He, F. Teng, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 09, 085 (2019), arXiv:1907.06041 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bern, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI 92): From Black Holes and Strings to Particles (1992) pp

    Z. Bern, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI 92): From Black Holes and Strings to Particles (1992) pp. 0471–536, arXiv:hep-ph/9304249

    1992 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang, (2013), arXiv:1308.1697 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [16]

    J. M. Henn and J. C. Plefka, Scattering Amplitudes in Gauge Theories , Vol. 883 (Springer, Berlin, 2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Travaglini et al

    G. Travaglini et al. , J. Phys. A 55, 443001 (2022), arXiv:2203.13011 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    C. R. Mafra and O. Schlotterer, Phys. Rept. 1020, 1 (2023), arXiv:2210.14241 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Berkovits, E

    N. Berkovits, E. D’Hoker, M. B. Green, H. Johans- son, and O. Schlotterer, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.09099 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPER- STRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION , Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (1988)

    1988

  14. [21]

    Stieberger, J

    S. Stieberger, J. Phys. A 47, 155401 (2014), arXiv:1310.3259 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Stieberger and T

    S. Stieberger and T. R. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 881, 269 (2014), arXiv:1401.1218 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, and T. Lam, JHEP 02, 069 (2021), arXiv:1912.08707 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 161602 (2009), arXiv:0907.1425 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Stieberger, (2009), arXiv:0907.2211 [hep-th]

    S. Stieberger, (2009), arXiv:0907.2211 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kleiss and H

    R. Kleiss and H. Kuijf, Nucl. Phys. B 312, 616 (1989)

    1989

  20. [27]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. D 78, 085011 (2008), arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [28]

    W. L. van Neerven, Z. Phys. C 30, 595 (1986)

    1986

  22. [29]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 11, 104 (2010), arXiv:1009.1139 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Brandhuber, B

    A. Brandhuber, B. Spence, G. Travaglini, and G. Yang, JHEP 01, 134 (2011), arXiv:1011.1899 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    L. V. Bork, D. I. Kazakov, and G. S. Vartanov, JHEP 02, 063 (2011), arXiv:1011.2440 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Brandhuber, O

    A. Brandhuber, O. Gurdogan, R. Mooney, G. Travaglini, and G. Yang, JHEP 10, 046 (2011), arXiv:1107.5067 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. Travaglini, and G. Yang, JHEP 05, 082 (2012), arXiv:1201.4170 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Brandhuber, B

    A. Brandhuber, B. Penante, G. Travaglini, and C. Wen, JHEP 08, 100 (2014), arXiv:1406.1443 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    R. H. Boels, B. A. Kniehl, O. V. Tarasov, and G. Yang, JHEP 02, 063 (2013), arXiv:1211.7028 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [36]

    L. V. Bork, JHEP 12, 111 (2014), arXiv:1407.5568 [hep- th]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Frassek, D

    R. Frassek, D. Meidinger, D. Nandan, and M. Wilhelm, JHEP 01, 182 (2016), arXiv:1506.08192 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [38]

    L. V. Bork and A. I. Onishchenko, JHEP12, 076 (2016), arXiv:1607.00503 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    L. V. Bork and A. I. Onishchenko, JHEP04, 019 (2017), arXiv:1607.02320 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Yang, Phys

    G. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 271602 (2016), arXiv:1610.02394 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [41]

    L. V. Bork and A. I. Onishchenko, Phys. Rev. D 97, 126013 (2018), arXiv:1704.04758 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bianchi, A

    L. Bianchi, A. Brandhuber, R. Panerai, and G. Travaglini, JHEP 02, 182 (2019), arXiv:1812.09001 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Hidden structure in the form factors of N = 4 SYM,

    D. Nandan and G. Yang, “Hidden structure in the form factors of N = 4 SYM,” (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Yang, Sci

    G. Yang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 270001 (2020), arXiv:1912.11454 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Lin and G

    G. Lin and G. Yang, JHEP 02, 012 (2024), arXiv:2211.01386 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Lin and G

    G. Lin and G. Yang, JHEP 02, 013 (2024), arXiv:2306.04672 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    To be precise, while we believe that a stringy model of form factors may exist on higher-genus Riemann sur- faces, we restrict our focus here to the simplest case: the disk topology, which corresponds to the tree-level

  41. [48]

    Some literature studies the one massive string ampli- tudes [105–108]

  42. [49]

    I. R. Klebanov and L. Thorlacius, Phys. Lett. B 371, 51 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9510200

    1996 arXiv

  43. [50]

    S. S. Gubser, A. Hashimoto, I. R. Klebanov, and J. M. Maldacena, Nucl. Phys. B 472, 231 (1996), arXiv:hep- th/9601057

    1996

  44. [51]

    M. R. Garousi and R. C. Myers, Nucl. Phys. B 475, 193 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9603194

    1996 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Hashimoto and I

    A. Hashimoto and I. R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 55, 118 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9611214

    1997 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Hashimoto and I

    A. Hashimoto and I. R. Klebanov, Phys. Lett. B 381, 437 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9604065

    1996 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Sen, Phys

    A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 68, 106003 (2003), arXiv:hep- th/0305011

    2003

  48. [55]

    Sen, Phys

    A. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 181601 (2003), arXiv:hep- th/0306137

    2003

  49. [57]

    If we actually choose the metric matrix Dµν (the same notation as in [56]) to be a specific value, we cannot realize the kinematic condition for the form factor (q2̸= 0). Here we actually generalize the kinematics part of disk string amplitude to the stringy form factor in (2)...

  50. [58]

    Koba and H

    Z. Koba and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B 10, 633 (1969)

    1969

  51. [59]

    S. J. Parke and T. R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2459 (1986)

    1986

  52. [60]

    Broedel, O

    J. Broedel, O. Schlotterer, and S. Stieberger, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 812 (2013), arXiv:1304.7267 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, C. R. Mafra, and O. Schlotterer, JHEP 06, 093 (2017), arXiv:1608.02569 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, C. R. Mafra, and O. Schlotterer, JHEP 08, 135 (2017), arXiv:1612.06446 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. Dong, S. He, and G. Lin, JHEP 02, 076 (2023), arXiv:2208.00592 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. Dong, S. He, and L. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 105007 (2022), arXiv:2111.10525 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Q. Cao, J. Dong, S. He, and F. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065015 (2025), arXiv:2412.19629 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cachazo, L

    F. Cachazo, L. Mason, and D. Skinner, SIGMA 10, 051 (2014), arXiv:1207.4712 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Baadsgaard, N

    C. Baadsgaard, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. L. Bour- jaily, and P. H. Damgaard, JHEP 09, 129 (2015), arXiv:1506.06137 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Q. Cao, J. Dong, S. He, and C. Shi, (2024), arXiv:2403.08855 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Q. Cao, J. Dong, S. He, C. Shi, and F. Zhu, JHEP 09, 049 (2024), arXiv:2406.03838 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, (2023), arXiv:2312.16282 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Rodina, Phys

    L. Rodina, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 031601 (2025), arXiv:2406.04234 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Zhou, JHEP 03, 154 (2025), arXiv:2411.07944 [hep- th]

    K. Zhou, JHEP 03, 154 (2025), arXiv:2411.07944 [hep- th]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early, and B. Gim´ enez Umbert, JHEP 08, 252 (2022), arXiv:2112.14191 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Arkani-Hamed and C

    N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, (2024), arXiv:2405.09608 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2406.08969 [hep-th]

    Y. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2406.08969 [hep-th]

    2024

  68. [76]

    Zhang, JHEP 02, 074 (2025), arXiv:2412.15198 [hep- th]

    Y. Zhang, JHEP 02, 074 (2025), arXiv:2412.15198 [hep- th]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Gim´ enez Umbert and B

    B. Gim´ enez Umbert and B. Sturmfels, (2025), arXiv:2501.10805 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    One of the subset A or B can be empty

  71. [79]

    See the ref [25, 56] for the detailed derivation and dis- cussion

  72. [80]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, JHEP 07, 149 (2015), arXiv:1412.3479 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cheung, C.-H

    C. Cheung, C.-H. Shen, and C. Wen, JHEP 02, 095 (2018), arXiv:1705.03025 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    S. He, L. Hou, J. Tian, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 08, 118 (2021), [Erratum: JHEP 06, 037 (2022)], arXiv:2103.15810 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ramond, Phys

    P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2415 (1971)

    1971

  76. [84]

    Neveu and J

    A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 31, 86 (1971)

    1971

  77. [85]

    Berkovits, JHEP 04, 018 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/0001035

    N. Berkovits, JHEP 04, 018 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/0001035

    2000

  78. [86]

    Berkovits, JHEP 09, 047 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0406055

    N. Berkovits, JHEP 09, 047 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0406055

    2004

  79. [87]

    Berkovits, JHEP 10, 089 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0509120

    N. Berkovits, JHEP 10, 089 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0509120

    2005

  80. [88]

    O. T. Engelund and R. Roiban, JHEP 03, 172 (2013), arXiv:1209.0227 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ahmed and P

    T. Ahmed and P. K. Dhani, JHEP 05, 066 (2019), arXiv:1901.08086 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Ahmed, P

    T. Ahmed, P. Banerjee, A. Chakraborty, P. K. Dhani, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. D 102, 061701 (2020), arXiv:1911.11886 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Stieberger, (2021), arXiv:2105.06888 [hep-th]

    S. Stieberger, (2021), arXiv:2105.06888 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Frost, G. Salvatori, P.-G. Pla- mondon, and H. Thomas, (2023), arXiv:2309.15913 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Frost, G. Salvatori, P.-G. Pla- mondon, and H. Thomas, (2023), arXiv:2311.09284 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, (2023), arXiv:2401.00041 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, (2024), arXiv:2401.05483 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, H. Frost, and G. Sal- vatori, (2024), arXiv:2402.06719 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, (2024), arXiv:2408.11891 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, and G. N. Remmen, (2024), arXiv:2412.20639 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Frost, and G. Salvatori, (2024), arXiv:2412.21027 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    S. De, A. Pokraka, M. Skowronek, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, JHEP 09, 160 (2024), arXiv:2406.04411 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Cao and F

    Q. Cao and F. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2503.15860 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, T. Lam, and H. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 107, 066015 (2023), arXiv:1912.11764 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, G. Salvatori, and H. Thomas, JHEP 11, 049 (2022), arXiv:1912.12948 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Lin and G

    G. Lin and G. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 251601 (2022), arXiv:2111.12719 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Guillen, H

    M. Guillen, H. Johansson, R. L. Jusinskas, and O. Schlotterer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 051601 (2021), arXiv:2104.03314 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    S. P. Kashyap, C. R. Mafra, M. Verma, and L. A. Ypanaque, (2023), arXiv:2311.12100 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    S. P. Kashyap, C. R. Mafra, M. Verma, and L. Ypanaqu´ e, JHEP02, 215 (2025), arXiv:2407.02436 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  100. [108]

    C. R. Mafra, JHEP 11, 045 (2024), arXiv:2407.11849 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.