Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Exploring amplitude criteria for weak gravity in electroweak theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper argues that gravitational positivity, $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)\ge 0$, applied to forward photon and Higgs scattering in an electroweak-like theory, unifies magnetic-WGC bounds on the $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)_L$ gauge couplings and the…

desk verdict A transparent one-loop exploration of B^2>=0 as a WGC criterion, but the advertised Yukawa bound relies on a coefficient the paper itself admits is unfixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01497 v1 pith:WOPNWTYF submitted 2025-05-02 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Tran Quang Loc This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords weakgravityconjecturepositivityboundsforwardscatteringamplitudeselectroweaktheoryYukawacouplingspeciesboundswamplandgravitationalEFT
open problems Quantum Gravity
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 one inequality, the non-negativity of a twice-subtracted forward-scattering quantity $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)$, can act as a unified amplitude criterion for weak gravity. It matters because the weak gravity conjecture currently comes in many versions, and a single condition that packages them would give a general way to test whether a low-energy EFT is compatible with quantum gravity. Working in an electroweak-like theory with gravity, the paper derives magnetic-WGC-type bounds on $g_1$, $g_2$, and the electron Yukawa coupling $y_e$, all schematically of order $\Lambda/M_{\rm Pl}$, and with $N_e$ fermion species a species bound $\Lambda\lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{N_e}$. The derivation is done at one loop in the light-Higgs limit, and the paper is explicit that the underlying positivity premise is not yet proven in gravitational EFTs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twice-subtracted dispersion sum rule $B^{(2)}(\Lambda,t)$ defined in Eq. (2.1): the amplitude integrated over arcs of radius $\Lambda^2$ in the complex $s$-plane around the crossing-symmetric point, with the graviton $t$-pole subtracted so the forward limit $t\to 0$ is regular. In the forward limit the quantity splits as $B^{(2)}=B^{(2)}_{\rm EW}+B^{(2)}_{\rm GR}$. The electroweak part is positive because unitarity fixes it in terms of total cross-sections, while the gravitational part is negative because it is driven by the $t$-derivative of one-loop-corrected matter-matter-graviton vertices in $t$-channel exchange. The inequality $B^{(2)}\ge 0$ is the engine of the paper: it pits a positive matter-loop contribution of order $1/(\Lambda^2 v^2)$ against a negative graviton contribution of order $1/(M_{\rm Pl}^2 v^2)$ times inverse gauge/Yukawa couplings, and the competition turns into lower bounds on $g_1,g_2,y_e$.

What would settle it

Compute the sign of $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)$ in a concrete UV-complete quantum gravity realization of an electroweak-like theory; a single consistent example in which $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)<0$ while $g_1,g_2,y_e$ satisfy the paper's bounds would falsify the claim that positivity unifies weak gravity. Alternatively, a consistent construction with the near-decay-threshold spectrum $m_H\simeq 2m_i$, where the paper's own formulas make $B^{(2)}_{\rm GR}$ diverge negatively, would directly contradict the criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a single inequality, $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)\ge 0$ applied to forward $\gamma\gamma\to\gamma\gamma$, $H\gamma\to H\gamma$, and $HH\to HH$ elastic amplitudes, reproduces magnetic-WGC-type lower bounds on the hypercharge and weak gauge couplings and on the electron Yukawa coupling in an electroweak-like theory coupled to gravity. The explicit bounds are $g_1^2+3g_2^2\gtrsim \Lambda^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ from $HH\to HH$ and inverse-coupling inequalities from the photon processes that forbid any one coupling from becoming too small, so schematically $g_1,g_2,y_e \gtrsim O(1)\,\Lambda/M_{\rm Pl}$. Generalizing to $N_e$ electron species sharpens the bounds by $\sqrt{N_e}$ and yields a species-type cutoff $\Lambda\lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{N_e}$. The paper presents this as evidence that multiple incarnations of the WGC are encapsulated within the single bound $B^{(2)}\ge 0$, and proposes positivity as a potential amplitude criterion for weak gravity that may extend to other Swampland conjectures such as the species bound.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)\ge 0$ actually holds in a gravitational EFT; the paper itself states that no proof of this inequality exists and that violations of order $M_{\rm Pl}^{-2}m_e^{-2}$ are consistent with the current consensus, so if that premise fails all the derived coupling and species bounds lose their status as quantum-gravity constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $B^{(2)}(\Lambda)\ge 0$ is a genuine quantum-gravity constraint, any weakly coupled electroweak-like EFT must satisfy $g_1,g_2,y_e \gtrsim O(1)\,\Lambda/M_{\rm Pl}$, so smaller couplings force the effective theory to break down below the naive cutoff.
  • The three scattering processes play complementary roles: $HH\to HH$ bounds the combination $g_1^2+3g_2^2$, while $\gamma\gamma\to\gamma\gamma$ and $H\gamma\to H\gamma$ forbid any single one of $g_1,g_2,y_e$ from vanishing, a structure reminiscent of convex-hull versions of the WGC.
  • Adding $N_e$ fermion species converts the bounds into $g_1,g_2,y_e\gtrsim O(1)\sqrt{N_e}\,\Lambda/M_{\rm Pl}$; requiring the couplings to stay $O(1)$ gives the species bound $\Lambda\lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{N_e}$, and perturbativity of 't Hooft couplings suggests the even stronger $\Lambda\lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/N_e$.
  • Since the criterion is process-independent in form, the same positivity computation can be reused process by process to carve out the allowed coupling region of any weakly coupled sector coupled to gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sharpest unasked question is what the criterion says about the actual Standard-Model values of $g_1,g_2,y_e$ at $\Lambda\sim M_{\rm Pl}$; applying the same machinery to the full Standard-Model coupling set would test whether the measured parameter point lies inside the positivity region.
  • The near-decay-threshold divergence in the appendix, where $n_i^H$ blows up as $m_H\to 2m_i$ and $B^{(2)}_{\rm GR}\to-\infty$, is a natural falsification test: a consistent quantum-gravity construction realizing such a mass spectrum would directly contradict the criterion, while a proof that this spectrum is impossible would support it.
  • The analysis is one-loop and light-Higgs; a two-loop computation or a finite-Higgs-mass evaluation would reveal whether the $O(1)$ numerical coefficients in the bounds are stable, and the paper already indicates they remain of order unity away from thresholds.
  • One could extend the same $B^{(2)}\ge 0$ test to other sectors, such as the strong coupling, the top Yukawa, or the Higgs self-coupling, to see whether positivity points toward or away from the observed hierarchy; this goes beyond what the paper does.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the inequality B^(2)(Λ) ≥ 0, defined via the twice-subtracted sum rule for two-to-two scattering in the forward limit, as a potential amplitude criterion for weak gravity in an electroweak-like theory coupled to gravity. The author computes one-loop forward amplitudes for γγ→γγ, Hγ→Hγ, and HH→HH, decomposing them into non-gravitational and gravitational parts, and derives magnetic-WGC-type bounds on the U(1)_Y and SU(2)_L gauge couplings g1, g2 and on the electron Yukawa coupling y_e, together with a species-type bound Λ ≲ M_Pl/√N_e when N_e electron copies are added. The derivations are explicit and transparent, but the entire argument is conditional on the unproven inequality B^(2)(Λ) ≥ 0 and on a specific estimate of the gravitational form-factor derivative ∂_t R_{XXh}(0).

Significance. If the positivity criterion and the form-factor estimates were established, the paper would offer a unified amplitude-based perspective on magnetic WGC bounds, extending them to non-abelian gauge couplings and Yukawa couplings, and connecting to the species bound. The one-loop computations are carried out explicitly, the limitations are acknowledged candidly in Section 2 and Appendix B, and the paper provides a useful map of how different scattering processes constrain different coupling directions. However, the central new result, the quantitative bound on the Yukawa coupling, relies on a gravitational contribution whose magnitude is exactly at the order where the forward-limit subtraction is scheme-dependent and where, by the paper's own admission, positivity violations are allowed by current consensus. The quantitative bounds should therefore be interpreted as conditional observations rather than established swampland constraints.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.2)] The inequality B^(2)(Λ) ≥ 0 is the central premise, but the paper concedes its status: it states that there is currently no proof of such an inequality and that violations of order M_Pl^{-2} m_e^{-2} are consistent with the twice-subtracted dispersion relation. Since every bound in Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3) and Eqs. (4.9)-(4.11) is derived from this premise, the abstract and conclusion should state explicitly that the results are conditional on a conjectured gravitational positivity bound, not established swampland constraints. The opening sentence of Section 5 ('we have established a potential link') overstates the status of the derivation.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.7); Eq. (3.12); Eq. (4.2)] The Yukawa bound in Eq. (4.2) is controlled by the electron-loop contribution to B^(2)_GR, which enters as -11 e^2/(180 π^2 M_Pl^2 v^2 y_e^2) and is proportional to ∂_t R_{γγh}(0) ~ e^2/m_e^2. This is exactly the order at which, as noted in Section 2, the subtraction of the graviton t-pole is scheme-dependent and violations of positivity are allowed by current consensus. An O(1) shift or a sign change in this coefficient would remove or invert the y_e bound, so the advertised new result is not robust. The authors should either determine R'_{XXh}(0) by an independent principle or explicitly present the y_e bound as a model-dependent conjecture rather than a consequence of B^(2) ≥ 0.
  3. [Appendix B, after Eq. (B.6)] The functions n_H^i(r_i) diverge at the decay thresholds r_i = 2, making B^(2)_non-grav + B^(2)_GR negative near m_H = 2 m_i. The text offers two alternatives: such a mass spectrum is prohibited by quantum gravity, or gravitational positivity fails in this region. This is a direct limitation on the universality of the criterion and should be incorporated into the main text rather than left as a concluding remark. If the divergence is an artifact of the one-loop approximation, that should be demonstrated; otherwise the paper should state explicitly that the criterion does not apply for near-threshold Higgs masses.
  4. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.9)-(4.15)] The species-type bounds in Eqs. (4.9)-(4.11) inherit the same conditional status as the single-species bounds, but they additionally depend on the large-N_e 't Hooft-coupling regime. Equation (4.15), Λ ≲ M_Pl/N_e, follows from imposing perturbativity λ_i ≲ 1 rather than from B^(2) ≥ 0 alone; the distinction between a consequence of the criterion and an additional assumption should be made explicit in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1] After Eq. (3.8), the text says the positive numerical factors n_H^i can be read from Table 1, but the table lists B^(2)_GR values; the relation to n_H^i is only given in Appendix B. Please add an explicit pointer.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3] The notation B^(2)(Λ) is used both for the t-dependent quantity B^(2)(Λ,t) in Eq. (2.1) and for the forward limit B^(2)(Λ) := B^(2)(Λ,0) below Eq. (2.2); the latter should be defined explicitly at first use.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption of Figure 4 appears garbled, with overlapping LaTeX and duplicated axis labels; the projections would be easier to read if the axes were labeled consistently with Eq. (4.4).
  4. [Appendix B, text after Eq. (B.2)] The text says n_H^W ranges in [7/10,∞) while Figure 6 plots n_H^W or 2 n_H^Z; please clarify which quantity is shown for the Z boson.
  5. [Equation (1.1)] The ellipsis in Eq. (1.1) hides unspecified O(1) numerical coefficients; for a reader comparing with later results, it would help to state that these coefficients are not needed for the qualitative argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's input B^(2) ≥ 0 is explicitly labeled an unproven criterion, and the one-loop EW amplitudes are computed independently rather than fitted to the output bounds.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central input B^(2)(Λ) ≥ 0 from the bounds it outputs; it explicitly presents this inequality as a conjectured amplitude criterion. In Section 2 it states: "there is currently no proof of an inequality B(2)(Λ)≥ 0 in contrast to the case for non-gravitational theories," and it cites external results for the allowed violation size. The one-loop amplitudes in Table 1 and Eqs. (3.8)-(3.16) are independent calculations, not fits or renamed outputs. The inequalities in Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3) follow by algebraically imposing B_EW + B_GR ≥ 0 on those computed expressions; no equation is identical to its input by construction. The self-citation [26] appears only as a pointer to earlier work on the Standard Model and is not load-bearing for the present derivation. The most serious limitation is a robustness caveat, not a circularity: the electron-loop contribution to B_GR in Eq. (3.12) is of order e^2/(M_Pl^2 m_e^2), precisely the order at which Section 2 concedes violations of B^(2) ≥ 0 are consistent with known dispersion relations. Consequently the quantitative Yukawa bound in Eq. (4.2) is contingent on the sign and size of an unconstrained coefficient. The paper is transparent about this: B^(2) ≥ 0 is an assumed amplitude criterion, not a proven theorem, so the derivation is conditional rather than circular. The honest finding is that no significant circularity exists in the claimed derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced; the only new ingredient is the proposed B^(2) ≥ 0 criterion, which is treated as an axiom rather than a physical entity. No parameters are fitted to data; the calculation uses the standard electroweak parameters and the cutoff scale Λ.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption B^(2)(Λ) ≥ 0 is a valid amplitude criterion for gravitational EFTs.
    Central premise; no proof exists, as stated in Section 2. All bounds in Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3) and (4.9)-(4.11) rely on it.
  • standard math Scattering amplitudes satisfy analyticity, unitarity, crossing, and s^2-boundedness, giving the twice-subtracted sum rule (2.2).
    Standard dispersion-relation assumptions used throughout the positivity literature.
  • domain assumption One-loop approximation captures the dominant contributions to both B^(2)_EW and B^(2)_GR.
    Stated in Section 3.1; higher-loop and graviton self-interaction contributions are omitted.
  • domain assumption Light Higgs limit m_H << m_e, m_W, m_Z (λ → 0) is representative.
    Used to simplify Table 1; the paper says conclusions do not change qualitatively for sufficiently light Higgs.
  • domain assumption Large-Λ approximation; terms labeled subleading in Table 1 are dropped.
    The main inequalities assume Λ >> v and neglect O(Λ^-4) contributions.
  • ad hoc to paper IR divergence in HH → HH graviton exchange is regulated by a mass and cured by a soft graviton cloud.
    Introduced in a footnote in Section 3.1, borrowing from Ref. [23]; no independent evidence is provided.
  • domain assumption For the species extension, N_e fermions share common couplings and the 't Hooft couplings are perturbative.
    Assumed in Section 4.2 to argue that the fermion contribution to B^(2)_EW remains negligible in the large-N_e limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring amplitude criteria for weak gravity in electroweak theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOPNWTYF

@misc{pith2026250501497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring amplitude criteria for weak gravity in electroweak theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOPNWTYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01497}
}
read the original abstract

Connections between weak gravity conjecture (WGC) bounds and scattering positivity have been extensively studied over the past decade. This work further explores these connections by proposing positivity as a potential amplitude criterion for weak gravity, with the aim of unifying various weak gravity bounds within a single framework. We illustrate this criterion by analyzing two-body elastic scatterings of photons and Higgs bosons in the forward limit of an electroweak (EW)-like theory. This leads to an amplitude-based criterion that extends magnetic WGC-type bounds to include not only the Abelian gauge coupling but also the non-Abelian gauge and the Yukawa coupling. Furthermore, a version of the species bound naturally emerges within this setup, suggesting that this amplitude criterion may extend to broader Swampland conjectures beyond the WGC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa, The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force , JHEP 06 (2007) 060, [ hep-th/0601001]

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Harlow, B

    D. Harlow, B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, Weak gravity conjecture, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2023) 035003, [ 2201.08380]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Infrared consistency and the weak gravity conjecture , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (Dec., 2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Heidenreich, M

    B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, Sharpening the weak gravity conjecture with dimensional reduction, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (Feb., 2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Andriolo, D

    S. Andriolo, D. Junghans, T. Noumi and G. Shiu, A tower weak gravity conjecture from infrared consistency, Fortschritte der Physik 66 (May, 2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Naturalness and the weak gravity conjecture , Physical Review Letters 113 (July, 2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Hamada, T

    Y. Hamada, T. Noumi and G. Shiu, Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 051601, [ 1810.03637]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bellazzini, M

    B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski and J. Serra, Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 251103, [ 1902.03250]. – 17 –

    arXiv 2019

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu and G. N. Remmen, Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022 (Mar., 2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y. Abe, T. Noumi and K. Yoshimura, Black hole extremality in nonlinear electrodynamics: a lesson for weak gravity and festina lente bounds , Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (Sept.,

    2023

  3. [11]

    Chen, Y.-T

    W.-M. Chen, Y.-T. Huang, T. Noumi and C. Wen, Unitarity bounds on charged/neutral state mass ratios, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 025016, [ 1901.11480]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Caron-Huot and J

    S. Caron-Huot and J. Tokuda, String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies , 2406.07606

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kuramochi, G. J. Loges and S. Nakajima, On (scalar QED) gravitational positivity bounds, JHEP 05 (2023) 076, [ 2301.01999]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, Constraints on Regge behavior from IR physics , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 046011, [ 2212.04975]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, Reverse Bootstrapping: IR Lessons for UV Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 051602, [ 2111.09226]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Noumi, S

    T. Noumi, S. Sato and J. Tokuda, Phenomenological motivation for gravitational positivity bounds: A case study of dark sector physics , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 056013, [ 2205.12835]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    K. Aoki, T. Noumi, R. Saito, S. Sato, S. Shirai, J. Tokuda et al., Gravitational Positivity for Phenomenologists: Dark Gauge Boson in the Swampland , 2305.10058

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kim and P

    S. Kim and P. Ko, Constraining Millicharged dark matter with Gravitational positivity bounds , 2405.04454

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 125023, [ 2007.12667]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3027

    1985

  13. [21]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion , JHEP 10 (2006) 014, [ hep-th/0602178]

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli and D. Simmons-Duffin, Sharp boundaries for the swampland, JHEP 07 (2021) 110, [ 2102.08951]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Noumi and J

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, Gravitational positivity bounds on scalar potentials , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 066022, [ 2105.01436]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Veneziano, Large N bounds on, and compositeness limit of, gauge and gravitational interactions, JHEP 06 (2002) 051, [ hep-th/0110129]

    G. Veneziano, Large N bounds on, and compositeness limit of, gauge and gravitational interactions, JHEP 06 (2002) 051, [ hep-th/0110129]

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dvali, Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem , Fortsch

    G. Dvali, Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem , Fortsch. Phys. 58 (2010) 528–536, [ 0706.2050]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. Aoki, T. Q. Loc, T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, Is the Standard Model in the Swampland? Consistency Requirements from Gravitational Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 091602, [2104.09682]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Palti, The Weak Gravity Conjecture and Scalar Fields , JHEP 08 (2017) 034, [ 1705.04328]

    E. Palti, The Weak Gravity Conjecture and Scalar Fields , JHEP 08 (2017) 034, [ 1705.04328]. – 18 –

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Naturalness and the Weak Gravity Conjecture , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 051601, [ 1402.2287]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, QED positivity bounds, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 125020, [ 2012.05798]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aoki, Unitarity and unstable-particle scattering amplitudes , Phys

    K. Aoki, Unitarity and unstable-particle scattering amplitudes , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 065017, [2212.05670]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Aoki and Y.-t

    K. Aoki and Y.-t. Huang, Anomalous thresholds for the S-matrix of unstable particles , JHEP 09 (2024) 045, [ 2312.13520]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Herrero-Valea, A

    M. Herrero-Valea, A. S. Koshelev and A. Tokareva, UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 105002, [ 2205.13332]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Herrero-Valea, R

    M. Herrero-Valea, R. Santos-Garcia and A. Tokareva, Massless positivity in graviton exchange , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 085022, [ 2011.11652]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hebecker, J

    A. Hebecker, J. Jaeckel and R. Kuespert, Small kinetic mixing in string theory , JHEP 04 (2024) 116, [ 2311.10817]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin, Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity, JHEP 05 (2023) 122, [ 2201.06602]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Noumi and J

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, Finite energy sum rules for gravitational Regge amplitudes , JHEP 06 (2023) 032, [ 2212.08001]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Palti, Fermions and the Swampland , Phys

    E. Palti, Fermions and the Swampland , Phys. Lett. B 808 (2020) 135617, [ 2005.08538]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, Qed positivity bounds, Physical Review D 103 (June, 2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch

    A. Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch. Phys. 41 (1993) 307–420, [ 0709.1075]

    1993 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, M. Lewandowski and F. Sgarlata, Gravitational causality and the self-stress of photons , JHEP 05 (2022) 154, [ 2108.05896]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Tokuda, K

    J. Tokuda, K. Aoki and S. Hirano, Gravitational positivity bounds, JHEP 11 (2020) 054, [2007.15009]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Infrared Consistency and the Weak Gravity Conjecture , JHEP 12 (2014) 087, [ 1407.7865]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen and T. M. P. Tait, X-Ray Constraints on Dark Photon Tridents , 2406.19445

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    V. Q. Tran, T. T. Q. Nguyen and T.-C. Yuan, Self-interacting vectorial dark matter in a SM-like dark sector , JCAP 05 (2024) 015, [ 2312.10785]. – 19 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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