Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations

Celina Pasiecznik

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fully crossing symmetric dispersion relations isolate finite Wilson-coefficient subsets and yield new graviton spin-4 coupling bounds without the forward limit.

desk verdict Solid method paper with a genuinely new spin-4 bound that currently rests on an unverified spectral-gap assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09884 v2 pith:36ZESCRI submitted 2025-06-11 hep-th

Celina Pasiecznik This is my paper

classification hep-th

keywords crossingsymmetricdispersionrelationsS-matrixbootstrapgravitationaleffectivefieldtheoryWilsoncoefficientspositivityboundsMHVamplitudesspin-4couplingsupergravity

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 seeks to establish that fully crossing symmetric dispersion relations, written in a complex variable $z$ and an auxiliary momentum $p$, are a direct tool for the S-matrix bootstrap of gravitational effective field theories. The benefit is that each sum rule isolates a finite set of low-energy Wilson coefficients and supplies its null constraints automatically, without taking the forward limit, which the graviton pole makes problematic. The paper validates the method by reproducing known bounds for scalar scattering with gravity and for graviton scattering, then uses it to derive new tree-level upper bounds on the coupling of gravitons to an integrated-in massive spin-4 state as a function of the mass ratio. If correct, the approach gives a more systematic route to consistency constraints on gravitational UV completions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fully crossing symmetric dispersion relation in the $(z,p)$ variables, where the Mandelstam invariants are parametrized by $s_n = -p^2 + p^2 (z-z_n)^3/(z^3-1)$ with $z_n$ the cube roots of unity. Because all three channel Regge limits sit at the points $z_n$ on the unit circle, the contour integral with kernel $K_k(z,p^2)$ has unambiguous low-energy poles at $z=0$ and $\infty$, so each $k$ picks out a finite set of Wilson coefficients on the left side and a manifestly positive partial-wave average on the right side. For spinning external states, the paper supplements this with crossing symmetric combinations of the MHV amplitude, built from $u^4 f(s,t)$, $s^4 f(t,u)$, and $t^4 f(s,u)$, and with helicity-stripped Wigner-$d$ partial waves, so that unitarity positivity is imposed by semidefinite programming.

What would settle it

Recompute the upper bound in fig 11 with the spectral gap removed, including states with $J>J^*$ and $M<m<\sqrt{3}M$ in the heavy averages, and check whether the sharp drop near $M^2/m^2_{J=4}\simeq 2.2$ survives; if it moves or disappears, the new spin-4 bound is an artifact of the assumed gap rather than a consequence of crossing and unitarity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the fully crossing symmetric dispersion relations $B_k(p^2)=\oint \frac{dz}{4\pi i} K_k(z,p^2) M(z,p^2)=0$, with the kernel $K_k(z,p^2)=\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z^3)}\left(\frac{(1-z^3)^2}{-27 p^4 z^3}\right)^{k/2}$, convert gravitational bootstrap constraints into a finite-dimensional problem for each subtraction order $k$. Each contour integral around $z=0$ equates a low-energy combination of a few Wilson coefficients to a positive average over high-energy partial waves, and the higher-$k$ sum rules act as null constraints automatically. The paper shows that smearing the functionals to $p_{\max}=M$ reproduces exactly the improved-sum-rule bounds of the scalar-with-gravity and graviton cases, while $p_{\max}=M/\sqrt{3}$ gives the weaker crossing-symmetric bounds found in earlier work. For graviton scattering it constructs fully crossing symmetric combinations of the MHV amplitude and, after integrating in a massive spin-4 state below the cutoff, obtains upper bounds on the coupling squared as a function of $M^2/m^2_{J=4}$, with a sharp drop near $M^2/m^2_{J=4}\simeq 2.2$. The paper concludes that crossing symmetric sum rules are a working replacement for improved sum rules and extend naturally to spinning external states and explicit massive higher-spin spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical bounds, including the new spin-4 coupling bound of fig 11, assume that no high-spin states exist with mass between $M$ and $\sqrt{3}M$ (the $J>J^*$ gap of eq 3.3), and the paper only checks convergence of this spectral assumption for the scalar $g_2$ bound, not for the spin-4 bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same sum rules can be applied to amplitudes where the forward limit is singular, including loop-level EFTs with light states, because the contour is evaluated away from forward kinematics.
Choosing $p_{\max}=M$ is necessary to recover the optimal improved-sum-rule bounds; $p_{\max}=M/\sqrt{3}$ yields weaker bounds, so the smearing range is part of the bootstrap input.
Any UV completion with a massive spin-4 state coupled to gravitons must satisfy the derived upper bound on the three-point coupling, which drops sharply near $M^2/m^2_{J=4}\simeq 2.2$.
The bound weakens when light spin-0 states are included below the cutoff, while adding light spin-2 states has a smaller effect; this quantifies how the allowed coupling depends on the low-spin spectrum.
The agreement with the maximal supergravity coupling bounds shows that the method can incorporate explicit spectral input and constrains where string-like spectra can sit.

Reading between the lines

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

If the spin-4 bound survives removal of the high-spin spectral gap, it would give a sharp low-energy test of string-inspired spectra: one could compare the string-theory coupling predicted by the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude with the fig 11 bound and check whether string theory lies inside the allowed region.
The $p_{\max}=M$ versus $p_{\max}=M/\sqrt{3}$ difference suggests a one-parameter family of smearing ranges interpolating between crossing-symmetric and improved-sum-rule bounds; optimizing over smearing could reveal the true extremal region more efficiently.
Because the paper's spectral assumptions do not impose correlations among masses and spins of the light states, a natural next test is to impose Regge-trajectory correlations and see whether the sharp drop at $M^2/m^2_{J=4}\simeq 2.2$ moves, which would indicate whether the feature is a spectral artifact.
The MHV construction likely extends to mixed-helicity systems such as graviton-photon scattering, which the paper lists as a future direction and which would test the generality of the crossing symmetric bootstrap.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. This paper is worth taking seriously: it validates the crossing-symmetric dispersion relation framework against known gravitational bounds and produces one genuinely new numerical result. The new construction of crossing-symmetric MHV sum rules (sec 5.1.1) is elegant, and the reproduction of the [36], [37], and [38] bounds with p_max = M is a strong check that the method is implemented correctly. The integrated-in spin-4 state analysis is a natural extension, and the bound in fig 11 is a new constraint on gravitational UV completions if it survives scrutiny.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags. The spin-4 bound is computed under the spectral assumption of eq (3.3), which removes high-spin states (J > J*) in the mass window M ≤ m < √3M. That makes the feasible set smaller, so the reported upper bound on (g)^2 is potentially too strong. The paper shows J*-convergence only for the scalar g2 bound in D=6 (fig 2), not for the Wigner-d MHV sum rules or the spin-4 observable. Given that the sharp drop at M²/m² ≈ 2.2 is a headline feature, the authors need to demonstrate stability in J* for fig 11 before the bound can be quoted as a constraint on actual UV completions. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic one.

Two minor issues. First, the claim to be the 'first implementation for spinning external particles' sits awkwardly next to ref [40], which is titled 'Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap.' The paper should clarify the distinction. Second, no code or data are shipped; the appendix describes the grids but not enough for exact reproduction, which matters for a numerical bootstrap paper.

On balance, the central method is sound and the reproductions are encouraging. The new spin-4 bound is conditional pending a J*-stability test. I would send this to a serious referee; the main request should be to run that convergence check and to address the [40] overlap. The paper is for S-matrix bootstrap practitioners, and it will be citable for the MHV construction regardless of how the spin-4 bound settles.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops fully crossing symmetric dispersion relations for tree-level gravitational EFTs and uses them, together with semidefinite programming, to bound Wilson coefficients. It first validates the method by reproducing known bounds for scalar scattering with gravity in D=6, for D=10 maximal supergravity, and for D=4 graviton scattering with and without light matter. It then constructs crossing symmetric combinations of the MHV graviton amplitude and uses the integrated-in-state setup to report upper bounds on the tree-level coupling of external gravitons to a massive spin-4 state as a function of M^2/m^2_{J=4}, the central new result shown in Fig. 11.

Significance. If the central new bound is correct, the paper is significant: it provides a more direct route to gravitational EFT bounds that avoids the forward limit, yields null constraints automatically, and extends the crossing-symmetric machinery to spinning external states. The manuscript has clear strengths: it reproduces several known bounds from Refs. [36,37,38], gives substantial numerical details in Appendix A, and uses standard, publicly available SDP methods. The main added value, however, is the spin-4 coupling bound of Fig. 11, and that result is currently not established to the same standard as the reproduced bounds, because its dependence on the spectral assumptions and numerical parameters is not demonstrated.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2 / Eq. (3.3) and Fig. 11] The central new spin-4 bound is computed under the spectral assumption that no states with M <= m < sqrt(3)M exist for J > J*, but the only J*-stability test shown is Fig. 2, for the lower bound on the scalar coupling g2 in D=6. The spinning sum rules in Eqs. (5.20)-(5.21) and the integrated-in spin-4 setup involve different partial waves, a different objective, and a different low-energy side, so the scalar test does not automatically carry over. The dependence of Fig. 11 on J* and on the mass/spin grids must be quantified; without such a scan, the sharp drop near M^2/m^2_{J=4} ~ 2.2 and the whole curve are bounds for a modified optimization problem, and one cannot tell whether they survive in the full spectral problem.
[Sec. 5.3 / Fig. 11] The numerical setup for the spin-4 bound is not stated. The text does not specify the value of J*, the smearing range p_max, the set of k sum rules, the functional basis sizes n_min and n_max, or the discretization of the heavy-state grid used for Fig. 11. Section 4.2 specifies p_max = m_phi for the supergravity case, but the analogous choice for the graviton spin-4 case is absent. This omission makes the central new result unreproducible and must be fixed.
[Sec. 5.3 / Fig. 11] The new spin-4 bound is not checked for convergence in the functional basis. Fig. 2 demonstrates that scalar bounds depend on n_max and on the set of k sum rules, and similar data are needed for the spin-4 upper bound. In particular, the authors should report the coupling bound for at least two different functional basis sizes and two different k-sets, and show that the sharp feature at M^2/m^2_{J=4} ~ 2.2 is stable. Without this, the claim that the bound is a genuine constraint on UV completions with a spin-4 state is not supported.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (5.29)] The coupling notation (g^{+−}_{GG4})^2 is used before its normalization is defined; the three-point coupling should be defined explicitly, preferably with the partial-wave normalization used in Eq. (5.13).
[Sec. 5.2] The sentence listing 'CS sum rules: k in {2,3,4,5,6}' is ambiguous because the three families B^(1)_k, B^(2)_k, and B^(3)_k have different allowed parity of k; please list the per-family k ranges.
[Sec. 2.2 / Eq. (2.23)] The notation P_J in the heavy averages is reused for both the Gegenbauer partial waves and the generic polynomial in the sum rule; a separate symbol or an explicit definition would avoid confusion, especially when Wigner-d functions are introduced in Sec. 5.
[Fig. 11] The caption of Fig. 11 should state which curve corresponds to which light-state setup and should mention the values of J*, p_max, and the functional basis parameters used; currently these are only given implicitly, if at all.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the crossing-symmetric sum-rule bounds are derived from stated spectral assumptions and matched against independent improved-sum-rule benchmarks; the spin-4 bound is a new conditional result, not a fit or self-citation loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The crossing-symmetric dispersion relations, eqs. (2.15)-(2.22), are a standard dispersive identity relating low-energy residues to positive spectral integrals, and the 'natural isolation' of finite Wilson-coefficient subsets is a property of the kernel K_k, not an input equivalent to the bounds. Validation against refs. [36,37,38] uses independent external benchmarks: in sec. 3.3 the smearing range p_max=M is chosen because the large-s kinematics u -> -p^2 makes the smeared crossing-symmetric sum rules coincide with improved sum rules, and the resulting bounds match previously computed values; this is calibration or consistency checking, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The new spin-4 bound in fig. 11 is a genuine optimization over spectral densities subject to the stated assumptions. It is conditional on the high-spin gap of sec. 3.2, eq. (3.3), which excludes states with J>J* and M<=m<sqrt(3)M, and the paper does not show a dedicated J*-convergence test for the spinning case; however, a restrictive spectral assumption shrinks the feasible set and is a robustness or correctness concern, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears: the cited prior work supplies external results and numerical techniques. Accordingly there are no circular steps to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard bootstrap axioms (unitary partial waves, Regge boundedness) plus ad hoc numerical assumptions: a high-spin spectral gap, truncated functional bases, and finite grids. The paper ships no code/data and provides only illustrative convergence for one scalar bound, so the new spin-4 bound inherits these uncontrolled numerical choices.

free parameters (4)

p_max (momentum smearing cutoff) = M for main results; M/sqrt(3) for comparison
The smearing range over momentum p is chosen by hand; the paper states p_max=M is necessary to reproduce improved-sum-rule bounds from [36], while p_max=M/sqrt(3) reproduces [55,56]. This choice directly controls the strength of the bounds.
J* (high-spin spectral gap cutoff) = 60
States with M <= m <= sqrt(3)M and J>J* are excluded from the spectrum to make SDPB converge (sec 3.2). The paper argues the effect is negligible for scalar g2 but does not quantify it for the new spin-4 bounds.
Functional basis sizes (n_min, n_max) = e.g. (2,18) and (2,20)
The smearing functionals are truncated at finite n_max; results depend on this truncation and on the set of k sum rules retained. No convergence proof is provided.
Numerical grids (J_max, b_max, mass sampling) = J up to 60/300, b_max=200
Positivity is imposed only on a finite grid of masses and spins, not on the full spectral density, making the bounds approximate rather than rigorous.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The smeared amplitude satisfies |Mf(s)| <= |s| * constant and the same bound in the complex plane, so dispersion relations converge without a Froissart-Martin bound.
Section 2.1, around (2.12)-(2.13). For gravity this is an assumption about Regge behavior, not a theorem.
ad hoc to paper For J>J*, there are no heavy states with M^2 <= m^2 <= 3M^2.
Section 3.2, diagram (3.3). This spectral gap is introduced for numerical convergence and modifies the physical high-energy spectrum.
domain assumption The crossing symmetric MHV combinations M^(1), M^(2), M^(3) have Regge exponents 1, 0, -1 respectively, allowing the contour deformations in (5.9).
Section 5.1.1, eqs (5.4)-(5.8). This high-energy behavior is inherited from f(s,u) and the u^4 dressing.
domain assumption The heavy spectrum is unitary and partial waves satisfy the positivity conditions (2.8) for scalars and (5.17)-(5.19) for gravitons, including the large-b Bessel asymptotics.
Sections 2.1 and 5.1.2. Standard bootstrap input, with the large-b positivity imposed on a finite grid.
ad hoc to paper For the integrated-in state setup, there is a mass gap: no new states with m_X < m < M'.
Section 4.1, text after (4.2). This gap is assumed to justify bounding the coupling as a function of m_X^2/M'^2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36ZESCRI

@misc{pith2026250609884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36ZESCRI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09884}
}

read the original abstract

We derive bounds on Wilson coefficients in gravitational effective field theories using fully crossing symmetric dispersion relations. These sum rules naturally isolate finite subsets of low-energy couplings without relying on the forward limit or specific high-energy completions. We validate our method by matching bounds computed previously for scalar scattering with gravity as well as for graviton scattering. For graviton scattering we construct crossing symmetric combinations of the maximal helicity violating amplitude. We also derive new bounds on the coupling of gravitons to a massive spin-4 state at tree level. These results demonstrate the power of crossing symmetric sum rules as a tool in the S-matrix bootstrap.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Gravitational Effective Theories with Maximal Supersymmetry and a Peculiar Parity
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Peculiar parity plus N=8 SUSY, tree-level factorization, and finitely many states at the mass gap uniquely select the Virasoro–Shapiro amplitude among weakly-coupled UV completions of N=8 supergravity.
Bootstrapping black holes at low impact parameter
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

After subtracting the eikonal carrier, the residual SDR spectrum in six dimensions organizes into a cap-saturated low-impact band, an empty gap, and Regge-like ridges whose weak-coupling edge is the G_N=0 baseline.
Splitting Regions and Shrinking Islands from Higher Point Constraints
hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Imposing 5-point split conditions and unitarity bounds selects the string beta function as the unique 4-point amplitude, up to equal-mass infinite spin towers.
Where is tree-level heterotic string theory?
hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Bootstrap constraints on 10D half-maximal supergravity and SYM show gravitational boundaries dominated by single linear Regge trajectory amplitudes, with representation positivity tensions obstructing direct gauge-gra...
The Rise of Linear Trajectories
hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Numerical S-matrix bootstrap shows that maximized couplings of the second and third higher-spin resonances select spectra lying on a linear Regge trajectory, anchored by the graviton in gravitational theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[36]

Caron-Huot, D

S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli and D. Simmons-Duffin,Sharp boundaries for the swampland,JHEP07(2021) 110 [2102.08951]

arXiv 2021
[37]

Albert, W

J. Albert, W. Knop and L. Rastelli,Where is tree-level string theory?,2406.12959

arXiv
[38]

Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin,Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,JHEP05(2023) 122 [2201.06602]

arXiv 2023
[40]

S. D. Chowdhury, K. Ghosh, P. Haldar, P. Raman and A. Sinha,Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap: EFT bounds,SciPost Phys.13(2022) 051 [2112.11755]. – 27 –

arXiv 2022
[1]

Adams, N

A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178]

arXiv 2006
[2]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity bounds for scalar field theories, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 081702 [1702.06134]

arXiv 2017
[3]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 and Spin-2 Fields,JHEP03(2019) 182 [1804.10624]

arXiv 2019
[4]

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]

arXiv 2019

Show all 77 references

[5]

Herrero-Valea, A

M. Herrero-Valea, A. S. Koshelev and A. Tokareva,UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 105002 [2205.13332]

2022 arXiv
[6]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer,On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions, JHEP12(2011) 099 [1107.3987]

2011 arXiv
[7]

M. A. Luty, J. Polchinski and R. Rattazzi,Thea-theorem and the Asymptotics of 4D Quantum Field Theory,JHEP01(2013) 152 [1204.5221]

2013 arXiv
[8]

Tokuda, K

J. Tokuda, K. Aoki and S. Hirano,Gravitational positivity bounds,JHEP11(2020) 054 [2007.15009]

2020 arXiv
[9]

Alberte, C

L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley,Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 125023 [2007.12667]

2020 arXiv
[10]

Pajer, D

E. Pajer, D. Stefanyszyn and J. Supe l,The Boostless Bootstrap: Amplitudes without Lorentz boosts,JHEP12(2020) 198 [2007.00027]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Grall and S

T. Grall and S. Melville,Positivity bounds without boosts: New constraints on low energy effective field theories from the UV,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) L121301 [2102.05683]

2022 arXiv
[12]

A. V. Manohar and V. Mateu,Dispersion Relation Bounds for pi pi Scattering,Phys. Rev. D 77(2008) 094019 [0801.3222]

2008 arXiv
[13]

I. Low, R. Rattazzi and A. Vichi,Theoretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings, JHEP04(2010) 126 [0907.5413]

2010 arXiv
[14]

Bellazzini,Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,JHEP02(2017) 034 [1605.06111]

B. Bellazzini,Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,JHEP02(2017) 034 [1605.06111]

2017 arXiv
[15]

Cheung and G

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Positive Signs in Massive Gravity,JHEP04(2016) 002 [1601.04068]

2016 arXiv
[16]

Bellazzini, F

B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra and F. Sgarlata,Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 161101 [1710.02539]

2018 arXiv
[17]

Chiang, Y.-t

L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, L. Rodina and H.-C. Weng,De-projecting the EFThedron,JHEP05 (2024) 102 [2204.07140]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Alberte, C

L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley,QED positivity bounds,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 125020 [2012.05798]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,The EFT-Hedron,JHEP05(2021) 259 [2012.15849]. – 26 –

2021 arXiv
[20]

Bellazzini, F

B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra and F. Sgarlata,Massive Higher Spins: Effective Theory and Consistency,JHEP10(2019) 189 [1903.08664]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Berman,Analytic Bounds on the Spectrum of Crossing Symmetric S-Matrices,2410.01914

J. Berman,Analytic Bounds on the Spectrum of Crossing Symmetric S-Matrices,2410.01914

arXiv
[22]

Berman, H

J. Berman, H. Elvang, N. Geiser and L. L. Lin,Bootstrapping Extremal Scalar Amplitudes With and Without Supersymmetry,2412.13368

arXiv
[23]

Berman and N

J. Berman and N. Geiser,Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories,2412.17902

arXiv
[24]

M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees and P. Vieira,The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,JHEP12(2019) 040 [1708.06765]

2019 arXiv
[25]

A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones and P. Vieira,S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions,JHEP06(2021) 088 [2011.02802]

2021 arXiv
[26]

Elias Miro, A

J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri and M. A. Gumus,Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,JHEP05(2023) 001 [2210.01502]

2023 arXiv
[27]

M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees and P. Vieira,The S-matrix bootstrap II: two dimensional amplitudes,JHEP11(2017) 143 [1607.06110]

2017 arXiv
[28]

A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones and P. Vieira,Bootstrapping QCD Using Pion Scattering Amplitudes,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 241604 [1810.12849]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Hebbar, D

A. Hebbar, D. Karateev and J. Penedones,Spinning S-matrix bootstrap in 4d,JHEP01(2022) 060 [2011.11708]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Karateev, J

D. Karateev, J. Marucha, J. a. Penedones and B. Sahoo,Bootstrapping the a-anomaly in 4d QFTs,JHEP12(2022) 136 [2204.01786]

2022 arXiv
[31]

H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick and D. Karateev,Nonperturbative bounds on scattering of massive scalar particles in d≥2,JHEP12(2022) 092 [2207.12448]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Cordova, M

L. Cordova, M. Correia, A. Georgoudis and A. Vuignier,The O(N) monolith reloaded: sum rules and Form Factor Bootstrap,JHEP01(2024) 093 [2311.03031]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Cordova and R

L. Cordova and R. Rodrigues,On the space of U(N) scattering amplitudes,2504.20239

arXiv
[34]

Correia, A

M. Correia, A. Georgoudis and A. L. Guerrieri,Cross-Section Bootstrap: Unveiling the Froissart Amplitude,2506.04313

arXiv
[35]

Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, D. Kosmopoulos and R. Roiban,Effective Field Theory islands from perturbative and nonperturbative four-graviton amplitudes,JHEP01(2023) 113 [2205.01655]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin,Graviton partial waves and causality in higher dimensions,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 026007 [2205.01495]

2023 arXiv
[41]

H¨ aring and A

K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov,Gravitational Regge bounds,SciPost Phys.16(2024) 034 [2202.08280]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Bellazzini, J

B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau and F. Riva,Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 036006 [2011.00037]

2021 arXiv
[43]

A. J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang and S.-Y. Zhou,New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry, JHEP05(2021) 255 [2011.02400]

2021 arXiv
[44]

Caron-Huot and V

S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong,Extremal Effective Field Theories,JHEP05(2021) 280 [2011.02957]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Henriksson, B

J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo and A. Vichi,Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering, JHEP06(2022) 158 [2107.13009]

2022 arXiv
[46]

H¨ aring, A

K. H¨ aring, A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, M. Meineri and J. a. Penedones,Bounds on photon scattering,JHEP10(2024) 103 [2211.05795]

2024 arXiv
[47]

Henriksson, B

J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo and A. Vichi,Bounding violations of the weak gravity conjecture,JHEP08(2022) 184 [2203.08164]

2022 arXiv
[48]

Chiang, Y.-t

L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina and H.-C. Weng,Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency,JHEP03(2022) 063 [2105.02862]

2022 arXiv
[49]

Fernandez, A

C. Fernandez, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and F. Sciotti,Cornering large-N c QCD with positivity bounds,JHEP06(2023) 094 [2211.12488]

2023 arXiv
[50]

Berman, H

J. Berman, H. Elvang and A. Herderschee,Flattening of the EFT-hedron: supersymmetric positivity bounds and the search for string theory,JHEP03(2024) 021 [2310.10729]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Albert and L

J. Albert and L. Rastelli,Bootstrapping pions at large N. Part II. Background gauge fields and the chiral anomaly,JHEP09(2024) 039 [2307.01246]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Chiang, Y.-t

L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang and H.-C. Weng,Bootstrapping string theory EFT,JHEP05(2024) 289 [2310.10710]

2024 arXiv
[53]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley,Constraints on Regge behavior from IR physics,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 046011 [2212.04975]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Li,Effective field theory bootstrap, large-NχPT and holographic QCD,JHEP01(2024) 072 [2310.09698]

Y.-Z. Li,Effective field theory bootstrap, large-NχPT and holographic QCD,JHEP01(2024) 072 [2310.09698]

2024 arXiv
[55]

Beadle, G

C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva and F. Serra,The EFT Bootstrap at FiniteM P L,2501.18465

arXiv
[56]

Chang and J

C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez,Graviton loops and negativity,2501.17949

arXiv
[57]

F. Bhat, A. P. Saha and A. Sinha,A stringy dispersion relation for field theory,2506.03862
[58]

Sinha and A

A. Sinha and A. Zahed,Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 181601 [2012.04877]

2021 arXiv
[59]

Albert and L

J. Albert and L. Rastelli,Bootstrapping pions at large N,JHEP08(2022) 151 [2203.11950]

2022 arXiv
[60]

Berman and H

J. Berman and H. Elvang,Corners and islands in the S-matrix bootstrap of the open superstring,JHEP09(2024) 076 [2406.03543]

2024 arXiv
[61]

Cheung and G

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Stringy dynamics from an amplitudes bootstrap,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 026011 [2302.12263]. – 28 –

2023 arXiv
[62]

H¨ aring and A

K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov,The stringy S-matrix bootstrap: maximal spin and superpolynomial softness,JHEP10(2024) 075 [2311.13631]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Correia, A

M. Correia, A. Sever and A. Zhiboedov,An analytical toolkit for the S-matrix bootstrap,JHEP 03(2021) 013 [2006.08221]

2021 arXiv
[64]

Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the mandelstam representation,Phys

M. Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the mandelstam representation,Phys. Rev.123(1961) 1053

1961
[65]

Martin,Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,Phys

A. Martin,Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev.129(1963) 1432

1963
[66]

Auberson and N

G. Auberson and N. N. Khuri,Rigorous parametric dispersion representation with three-channel symmetry,Phys. Rev. D6(1972) 2953

1972
[67]

Mahoux, S

G. Mahoux, S. Roy and G. Wanders,Physical pion-pion partial-wave equations based on three channel crossing symmetry,Nuclear Physics B70(1974) 297

1974
[68]

Simmons-Duffin,A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap,JHEP06 (2015) 174 [1502.02033]

D. Simmons-Duffin,A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap,JHEP06 (2015) 174 [1502.02033]

2015 arXiv
[69]

Landry and D

W. Landry and D. Simmons-Duffin,Scaling the semidefinite program solver SDPB,1909.09745

1909 arXiv
[70]

Albert, J

J. Albert, J. Henriksson, L. Rastelli and A. Vichi,Bootstrapping mesons at large N: Regge trajectory from spin-two maximization,JHEP09(2024) 172 [2312.15013]

2024 arXiv
[71]

Elvang and Y.-t

H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes,1308.1697

arXiv
[72]

Zahed,Positivity and geometric function theory constraints on pion scattering,JHEP12 (2021) 036 [2108.10355]

A. Zahed,Positivity and geometric function theory constraints on pion scattering,JHEP12 (2021) 036 [2108.10355]

2021 arXiv
[73]

Mahoux, S

G. Mahoux, S. M. Roy and G. Wanders,Physical pion pion partial-wave equations based on three channel crossing symmetry,Nucl. Phys. B70(1974) 297

1974
[74]

Roskies,Crossing restrictions on pi pi partial waves,Nuovo Cim

R. Roskies,Crossing restrictions on pi pi partial waves,Nuovo Cim. A65(1970) 467

1970
[75]

Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos and A. Zhiboedov,Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude,J. Phys. A54(2021) 344002 [2103.12728]

2021 arXiv
[76]

Kawai, D

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

1986
[77]

Beadle, G

C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva and F. Serra,Non-Forward UV/IR Relations,2407.02346. – 29 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [36]

Caron-Huot, D

S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli and D. Simmons-Duffin,Sharp boundaries for the swampland,JHEP07(2021) 110 [2102.08951]

arXiv 2021

[2] [37]

Albert, W

J. Albert, W. Knop and L. Rastelli,Where is tree-level string theory?,2406.12959

arXiv

[3] [38]

Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin,Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,JHEP05(2023) 122 [2201.06602]

arXiv 2023

[4] [40]

S. D. Chowdhury, K. Ghosh, P. Haldar, P. Raman and A. Sinha,Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap: EFT bounds,SciPost Phys.13(2022) 051 [2112.11755]. – 27 –

arXiv 2022

[5] [1]

Adams, N

A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178]

arXiv 2006

[6] [2]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity bounds for scalar field theories, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 081702 [1702.06134]

arXiv 2017

[7] [3]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 and Spin-2 Fields,JHEP03(2019) 182 [1804.10624]

arXiv 2019

[8] [4]

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]

arXiv 2019