Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Inconsistency of point-particle dynamics on higher-spin backgrounds: massive particles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive particles cannot propagate on chiral higher-spin backgrounds: solving the second-order light-cone consistency conditions yields only non-local Hamiltonians, with self-dual gravity as the sole exception.

desk verdict The massive-particle no-go is new and probably right, but it rests on an asserted particular solution that needs a direct check before the conclusion can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13976 v2 pith:E7GVBISU submitted 2025-06-16 hep-th

Vyacheslav Ivanovskiy , Dmitry Ponomarev This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords light-coneformalismhigher-spintheorychiralpointparticleconsistencyconditionsself-dualgravitynon-localityscatteringobservables
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

The paper proves a no-go result: massive scalar point particles cannot interact locally with the background fields of chiral higher-spin theory or of its Poisson variant. The authors solve the second-order light-cone consistency conditions in complete generality, without the special simplifications that made the massless case tractable, and show that every solution is non-local. The unique consistent exception is the self-dual gravity subsector, where the point-particle coupling is forced to equal $-3l$, matching the known covariant result. The analysis also demonstrates that the consistency conditions map onto worldline scattering observables: the singular part of the general solution cancels exchange diagrams, so any non-trivial interaction would have to repair the exchange residues, which the chiral higher-spin couplings cannot do.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-order light-cone consistency condition for the two-field vertex $A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}$, namely the pair of differential equations (3.3) and (3.6) together with the homogeneity (kinematical) constraints (3.9). The argument works on the hypersurface $k=0$ with $k=\frac{m^2}{2}(s_x+s_y)+s_x\sigma_x\bar\sigma_x+s_y\sigma_y\bar\sigma_y$, which amounts to putting the worldline vertex on shell and discarding redefinable (fake) interactions. The general solution is $A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}=A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_h+A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{pf}+A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{nf}+A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{pp}$, where the homogeneous term is $A^h=(l_{++})^{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)/2}(l_{+-})^{(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)/2}f(k_1,k_3)$ and the three particular terms correspond to positive-helicity field exchange, negative-helicity field exchange, and point-particle exchange. Locality is then the requirement that the poles at $\bar\sigma_x=\bar\sigma_y$ and at $\sigma_x\bar\sigma_x=-m^2/2$ cancel; the paper shows the residues force the coupling-constant conditions (5.19), (5.27), (5.30) that kill the chiral higher-spin and Poisson cases, while (5.15) fixes the self-dual gravity coupling.

What would settle it

One concrete test: repeat the second-order analysis of Section 3 without discarding the back-reaction terms for a minimal background such as a self-dual plane wave, and check whether a local solution for $A^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}$ exists with the chiral higher-spin couplings (2.24); a local solution would overturn the paper's conclusion. Alternatively, any explicit local, Lorentz-invariant Hamiltonian solving (3.3) and (3.6) with those couplings would directly falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that local and Lorentz-invariant interactions of massive scalar point particles with chiral higher-spin fields do not exist at second order in the coupling. The general solution of the consistency conditions is written as the sum of a homogeneous part, controlled by the variables $k_1$, $k_3$ and the helicity-raising factors $l_{\pm\pm}$, and a particular solution built from three exchange-type contributions; imposing locality forces the exchange residues to satisfy a matching condition, and for the chiral higher-spin couplings (2.24) and the Poisson couplings (2.25) this condition fails, forcing all couplings to vanish. For self-dual gravity the condition instead fixes $C_2 = -3l$ and reproduces the known consistent coupling. In amplitude language, the would-be contact vertices cancel the exchange contributions, leaving a vanishing worldline scattering amplitude, and the homogeneous solutions correspond to non-trivial Lorentz-invariant observables; the paper's locality analysis is an on-shell-type bootstrap in which poles must match those of exchanges.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the back-reaction terms in the master consistency condition (2.6) — the divergent interactions of the point particle with the fields it sources — can be dropped at the second order in the coupling; the paper attributes this to its earlier work [29], and if those terms are not negligible, the solved constraints and the no-go conclusion could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massive scalar point particles cannot be coupled to chiral higher-spin or Poisson chiral higher-spin backgrounds at second order in the coupling; the massless no-go result of [25] is thereby completed.
  • The only consistent local subsector is self-dual gravity, with the point-particle coupling fixed to $C_2=-3l$; this reproduces the known covariant coupling and validates the approach.
  • Because chiral higher-spin theories form inevitable closed subsectors of interacting massless higher-spin theories in flat space, the result rules out higher-spin extensions of Riemannian geometry with non-trivial higher-spin backgrounds.
  • The light-cone consistency conditions for worldline theories are equivalent to on-shell scattering conditions: the particular solutions cancel exchange diagrams to give a vanishing amplitude, while homogeneous solutions generate the non-trivial Lorentz-invariant observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If back-reaction terms are included, the second-order constraints change; since the paper's no-go relies on dropping them, a natural extension is to check whether including them restores a local (but possibly acausal) vertex for chiral higher-spin backgrounds.
  • The residue-matching structure suggests a bootstrap strategy for worldline theories: demand that all poles of the amplitude come from exchanges and that residues factorize into on-shell lower-point data; the no-go statement is then that no such local completion exists for the chiral higher-spin couplings.
  • The method is formulated for a scalar probe but should apply to massive particles with spin; the homogeneity and residue conditions would differ, leaving open the possibility that spinning probes evade the obstruction.
  • The mapping to worldline scattering observables could be used to organize higher-order checks: at third order the same exchange-cancellation logic may yield stronger constraints that either reinforce or supersede the second-order result.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the second-order light-cone consistency conditions for a massive scalar point particle coupled to chiral higher-spin background fields. The authors solve the on-shell consistency conditions (3.3), (3.6), (3.9) in the form of a homogeneous solution (4.5) plus a particular solution (4.11)–(4.14), and then require locality by cancelling the singularities of the particular solution with the homogeneous part. They conclude that all couplings of the point particle to chiral higher-spin and Poisson chiral higher-spin backgrounds must vanish, so no local, Lorentz-invariant interactions exist, while the self-dual gravity subsector is the exception with C2 = −3l. Section 6 reinterprets the particular solution as contact terms that cancel worldline exchange amplitudes in the classical limit.

Significance. The result, if correct, is a significant extension of the authors' massless-particle analysis and one of the few second-order light-cone no-go statements for point particles on higher-spin backgrounds. The paper has two strong points: it reproduces the known self-dual gravity coupling C2 = −3l, providing a nontrivial control; and it develops a worldline analogue of the light-cone/amplitude correspondence, with the exchange-contact cancellation in Section 6 being both suggestive and useful. However, the generality of the main claim is currently not fully supported by the presented derivation, because the keystone particular solution is asserted rather than verified and the treatment of negative-helicity sectors is incomplete. These issues are local and repairable, so the paper is a worthwhile candidate after revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.11)-(4.14)] The particular solution A_nh is the keystone of the no-go argument. Eq. (4.11) is introduced with "we found the following particular solution", and the surrounding text states that (4.11) solves (3.3), (3.6) and (3.9) only up to terms that vanish on k=0. No derivation or direct substitution is shown. Section 5 reads off from A_nh the required pole structure of the homogeneous function f via (5.2)-(5.6), and the final constraints (5.19), (5.27), (5.30) follow from that structure. The self-dual gravity check in Section 5.1 does not test (4.11) in the chiral sectors, and the amplitude interpretation in Section 6, while physically transparent, does not by itself verify the differential equations. Please supply an explicit derivation of (4.11)-(4.14), or a direct substitution check, including the residual k=0 terms and the precise domain on which each component is a solution.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5, domain of Eq. (4.14)] The claimed general solution of Section 4 is incomplete in the sector λ1<0 and λ2<0. The sentence following (4.14) says that A_pp gives the necessary particular solution only for λ1≥0 or λ2≥0, and no alternative particular solution is presented for the both-negative sector. For a no-go theorem, a local solution in that sector would be a counterexample to the conclusion, so the proof must either solve the equations there or show by an explicit symmetry (for example complex conjugation of the two constraints) that the sector is covered. As written, the residue-matching conditions (5.6) and the resulting constraints (5.19), (5.27), (5.30) are not established for all helicities.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.6)] The master consistency condition in Eq. (2.6) drops back-reaction terms with the remark that they correspond to divergent interactions of a point particle with the fields it sources, referring to [29] for details. All second-order equations (3.3)-(3.9) and therefore the entire no-go conclusion rest on this truncation. The manuscript should either reproduce the essential argument from [29] in an appendix or explicitly state that the theorem is conditional on that prior result; otherwise the most load-bearing premise is not verifiable from the present paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.5) and (3.8)] The sums over λ in S_3 and S_4 are unbounded; since later arguments use parity and positivity properties of the couplings, specify the actual summation range or state that the range is fixed by the support of the couplings.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.36) and throughout] The notation \bar C_{-λ} is easy to misread as "\bar C minus λ"; typeset it consistently as \bar C_{-\lambda}.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.11)] The labels pf, nf, pp in (4.11) are explained only later in the same section; define them at first occurrence to improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 5.2, around Eq. (5.18)] The statement that the sum in (5.18) has non-vanishing contributions for λ = λ1−2−2n relies on the parity condition that vertices with total number of derivatives λ1−λ odd are vanishing; this condition is used as a nontrivial input and should be justified or referenced at the point of use.
  5. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (6.10)] The classical limits k_{1,1}→k1, k_{1,2}→−k1, k_{2,1}→k2 and k_{2,2}→−k2 are stated without derivation; a short explanation or a more precise reference to the classical-limit literature would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the no-go conclusion is derived by solving the consistency conditions, with self-citations entering only as prior technical premises.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. It begins from the light-cone consistency conditions (3.3), (3.6), and (3.9), treats the second-order vertex A_lambda1lambda2 as the unknown, and solves the resulting system of linear PDEs. The homogeneous solution (4.5) is obtained by direct integration, and the particular solution (4.11)-(4.14), although stated as 'found' without a displayed derivation, is presented as a solution of (4.4) that can be checked by substitution. The subsequent singularity-cancellation analysis in Section 5 then produces constraints on the coupling constants C and \bar C. The self-dual gravity sector provides an external benchmark: the same formalism fixes C2 = -3l, reproducing the known result from prior work, which demonstrates that the method is not engineered to forbid every coupling. The scattering-observable discussion in Section 6 is an interpretation of the particular solutions, not the input from which the no-go is derived. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is invoked to exclude alternatives. The only self-citations that carry weight are [25] for the derivation of the constraints and [29] for the neglect of back-reaction terms in (2.6). These are technical premises from earlier work rather than reductions of the present conclusion to its own inputs. The robustness of the result therefore depends on the correctness and completeness of the particular solution (4.11)-(4.14) and on the validity of the back-reaction assumption, which are correctness risks rather than instances of circular reasoning.

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

The central claim rests on standard light-cone formalism plus three modelling assumptions: dropping back-reaction terms (justified by self-cited [29]), restricting field theories to cubic vertices, and equating locality with pole-freedom in light-cone variables. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Back-reaction terms in the consistency conditions (2.6) can be dropped.
    The paper states 'we dropped the back-reaction terms' and refers to the authors' prior paper [29]; if these terms contribute, the solved constraints could change.
  • domain assumption The field theory side is fully captured by cubic vertices, with charges Q = Q2 + Q3.
    The three theories considered (self-dual gravity, chiral higher-spin, Poisson chiral higher-spin) have only cubic vertices, as stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Locality of the Hamiltonian is equivalent to the absence of poles in the light-cone variables σx, σy, σ̄x, σ̄y.
    Stated in Section 5: 'Locality requires that the total charge defined by (5.1) is free of singularities.' This is standard in the light-cone formalism.
  • domain assumption On-shell trivial terms proportional to k can be discarded, so the consistency conditions can be solved on k = 0.
    Section 4.1 shows via (4.21) that k-proportional terms are removable by total-derivative or field-redefinition equivalence; this is the on-shell condition used throughout the solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inconsistency of point-particle dynamics on higher-spin backgrounds: massive particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7GVBISU

@misc{pith2026250613976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inconsistency of point-particle dynamics on higher-spin backgrounds: massive particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7GVBISU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13976}
}
read the original abstract

Previously, we showed that massless scalar point particles cannot propagate on classical backgrounds of chiral higher-spin theory. This conclusion was derived from the analysis of the light-cone consistency conditions occurring at the second order in interactions. In the present paper, we extend this result to the case of massive particles, showing that these cannot propagate on chiral higher-spin backgrounds either. In order to do that, we use a different and more direct approach, which does not rely on special simplifications occurring for massless particles. Namely, we solve the light-cone consistency conditions at the given order in complete generality and then show that all the Hamiltonians found are inevitably non-local. We emphasise connections between the resulting procedure and the on-shell methods applied to worldline scattering observables.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Three-dimensional non-relativistic chiral massive higher-spin gravity

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A non-relativistic massive higher-spin gravity in deformed AdS₃ is constructed by Lifshitz-deforming and null-reducing chiral massless higher-spin gravity; under an assumed mass-spin relation its cubic couplings vanis...

  2. Higher-spins on Taub-NUT and higher-spin Taub-NUT

    hep-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Higher-spin fields are solved exactly on the Taub-NUT instanton in the self-dual Yang-Mills truncation, and an order-by-order convergent higher-spin Taub-NUT solution is constructed in self-dual gravity, organized by ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    Light-cone formalism for a point particle in a higher-spin background

    V. Ivanovskiy and D. Ponomarev,Light-cone formalism for a point particle in a higher-spin background, JHEP 09 (2023) 014 [2306.13441]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Dirac,Forms of Relativistic Dynamics, Rev

    P.A.M. Dirac,Forms of Relativistic Dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.21 (1949) 392

    work page 1949

  3. [2]

    Bengtsson, I

    A.K.H. Bengtsson, I. Bengtsson and L. Brink,Cubic Interaction Terms for Arbitrarily Extended Supermultiplets, Nucl. Phys. B 227 (1983) 41

    work page 1983

  4. [3]

    Bengtsson, I

    A.K.H. Bengtsson, I. Bengtsson and N. Linden,Interacting Higher Spin Gauge Fields on the Light Front, Class. Quant. Grav.4 (1987) 1333

    work page 1987

  5. [4]

    Metsaev,Generating function for cubic interaction vertices of higher spin fields in any dimension, Mod

    R.R. Metsaev,Generating function for cubic interaction vertices of higher spin fields in any dimension, Mod. Phys. Lett. A8 (1993) 2413

    work page 1993

  6. [5]

    Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices of massive and massless higher spin fields, Nucl

    R.R. Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices of massive and massless higher spin fields, Nucl. Phys. B 759 (2006) 147 [hep-th/0512342]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices for fermionic and bosonic arbitrary spin fields, Nucl

    R.R. Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices for fermionic and bosonic arbitrary spin fields, Nucl. Phys. B 859 (2012) 13 [0712.3526]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices for continuous-spin fields and arbitrary spin massive fields, JHEP 11 (2017) 197 [1709.08596]

    R.R. Metsaev,Cubic interaction vertices for continuous-spin fields and arbitrary spin massive fields, JHEP 11 (2017) 197 [1709.08596]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Metsaev,Light-cone gauge cubic interaction vertices for massless fields in AdS(4), Nucl

    R.R. Metsaev,Light-cone gauge cubic interaction vertices for massless fields in AdS(4), Nucl. Phys. B 936 (2018) 320 [1807.07542]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Metsaev,Interacting massive/massless continuous-spin fields and integer-spin fields, 2505.02817

    R.R. Metsaev,Interacting massive/massless continuous-spin fields and integer-spin fields, 2505.02817

  3. [10]

    Metsaev,Poincare invariant dynamics of massless higher spins: Fourth order analysis on mass shell, Mod

    R.R. Metsaev,Poincare invariant dynamics of massless higher spins: Fourth order analysis on mass shell, Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 359

    1991

  4. [11]

    Metsaev,S matrix approach to massless higher spins theory

    R.R. Metsaev,S matrix approach to massless higher spins theory. 2: The Case of internal symmetry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 2411

    1991

  5. [12]

    Ponomarev and E.D

    D. Ponomarev and E.D. Skvortsov,Light-Front Higher-Spin Theories in Flat Space, J. Phys. A 50 (2017) 095401 [1609.04655]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ponomarev,Chiral higher-spin double copy, JHEP 01 (2025) 143 [2409.19449]

    D. Ponomarev,Chiral higher-spin double copy, JHEP 01 (2025) 143 [2409.19449]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Serrani,On classification of (self-dual) higher-spin gravities in flat space, 2505.12839

    M. Serrani,On classification of (self-dual) higher-spin gravities in flat space, 2505.12839

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Ponomarev,Off-Shell Spinor-Helicity Amplitudes from Light-Cone Deformation Procedure, JHEP 12 (2016) 117 [1611.00361]

    D. Ponomarev,Off-Shell Spinor-Helicity Amplitudes from Light-Cone Deformation Procedure, JHEP 12 (2016) 117 [1611.00361]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Ananth,Spinor helicity structures in higher spin theories, JHEP 11 (2012) 089 [1209.4960]

    S. Ananth,Spinor helicity structures in higher spin theories, JHEP 11 (2012) 089 [1209.4960]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Akshay and S

    Y.S. Akshay and S. Ananth,Factorization of cubic vertices involving three different higher spin fields, Nucl. Phys. B 887 (2014) 168 [1404.2448]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bengtsson,Notes on Cubic and Quartic Light-Front Kinematics, 1604.01974

    A.K.H. Bengtsson,Notes on Cubic and Quartic Light-Front Kinematics, 1604.01974

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bengtsson,Quartic amplitudes for Minkowski higher spin, inInternational Workshop on Higher Spin Gauge Theories, pp

    A.K.H. Bengtsson,Quartic amplitudes for Minkowski higher spin, inInternational Workshop on Higher Spin Gauge Theories, pp. 353–370, 2017, DOI [1605.02608]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng,New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons, Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 499 [hep-th/0412308]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E. Witten,Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 181602 [hep-th/0501052]. – 27 –

    2005 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Benincasa and F

    P. Benincasa and F. Cachazo,Consistency Conditions on the S-Matrix of Massless Particles, 0705.4305

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Benincasa and E

    P. Benincasa and E. Conde,Exploring the S-Matrix of Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 025007 [1108.3078]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP 11 (2021) 070 [1709.04891]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ivanovskiy and D

    V. Ivanovskiy and D. Ponomarev,Inconsistency of point-particle dynamics on higher-spin backgrounds, 2503.11546

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Segal,Conformal higher spin theory, Nucl

    A.Y. Segal,Conformal higher spin theory, Nucl. Phys. B 664 (2003) 59 [hep-th/0207212]

    2003 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ponomarev,Higher Spin Fields and Symplectic Geometry, 1304.4896

    D. Ponomarev,Higher Spin Fields and Symplectic Geometry, 1304.4896

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    Tomasiello,Higher spins and Finsler geometry, JHEP 10 (2024) 047 [2405.00776]

    A. Tomasiello,Higher spins and Finsler geometry, JHEP 10 (2024) 047 [2405.00776]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Goldberger and I.Z

    W.D. Goldberger and I.Z. Rothstein,An Effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 104029 [hep-th/0409156]

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Porto,The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics, Phys

    R.A. Porto,The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics, Phys. Rept. 633 (2016) 1 [1601.04914]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka and J. Steinhoff,Classical black hole scattering from a worldline quantum field theory, JHEP 02 (2021) 048 [2010.02865]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kosower, B

    D.A. Kosower, B. Maybee and D. O’Connell,Amplitudes, Observables, and Classical Scattering, JHEP 02 (2019) 137 [1811.10950]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Maybee, D

    B. Maybee, D. O’Connell and J. Vines,Observables and amplitudes for spinning particles and black holes, JHEP 12 (2019) 156 [1906.09260]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aoude and A

    R. Aoude and A. Ochirov,Classical observables from coherent-spin amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2021) 008 [2108.01649]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ivanovskiy and D

    V. Ivanovskiy and D. Ponomarev,Manifest color-kinematics duality for point particles interacting with self-dual fields, JHEP 06 (2024) 087 [2403.14527]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shen,Gravitational Radiation from Color-Kinematics Duality, JHEP 11 (2018) 162 [1806.07388]

    C.-H. Shen,Gravitational Radiation from Color-Kinematics Duality, JHEP 11 (2018) 162 [1806.07388]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Shi and J

    C. Shi and J. Plefka,Classical double copy of worldline quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 026007 [2109.10345]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bardeen,Selfdual Yang-Mills theory, integrability and multiparton amplitudes, Prog

    W.A. Bardeen,Selfdual Yang-Mills theory, integrability and multiparton amplitudes, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.123 (1996) 1

    1996

  32. [40]

    Cangemi,Selfdual Yang-Mills theory and one loop like - helicity QCD multi - gluon amplitudes, Nucl

    D. Cangemi,Selfdual Yang-Mills theory and one loop like - helicity QCD multi - gluon amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 521 [hep-th/9605208]

    1997 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cachazo, P

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

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cheung and D

    C. Cheung and D. O’Connell,Amplitudes and Spinor-Helicity in Six Dimensions, JHEP 07 (2009) 075 [0902.0981]. – 28 –

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Maldacena and G.L

    J.M. Maldacena and G.L. Pimentel,On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation, JHEP 09 (2011) 045 [1104.2846]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Conde and A

    E. Conde and A. Marzolla,Lorentz Constraints on Massive Three-Point Amplitudes, JHEP 09 (2016) 041 [1601.08113]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bandos,Spinor frame formalism for amplitudes and constrained superamplitudes of 10D SYM and 11D supergravity, JHEP 11 (2018) 017 [1711.00914]

    I. Bandos,Spinor frame formalism for amplitudes and constrained superamplitudes of 10D SYM and 11D supergravity, JHEP 11 (2018) 017 [1711.00914]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Nagaraj and D

    B. Nagaraj and D. Ponomarev,Spinor-Helicity Formalism for Massless Fields in AdS4, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 101602 [1811.08438]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Basile, E

    T. Basile, E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan and M. Mojaza,Spinor-helicity representations of particles of any mass in dS4 and AdS4 spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 125003 [2401.02007]. – 29 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.