Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that every parity-even four-graviton tree amplitude, in any dimension and at any mass dimension, is spanned by a finite set of gauge-theory building blocks; in D>6 the R^3 Lovelock term is the one structure requiring a tri

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:29 UTC pith:SNCL2G2J

load-bearing objection Solid classification paper with a real triple-copy construction for the Lovelock R^3 term, but the 'boundary of double-copy' no-go is only proven for local numerators — the paper's own caveats give away that gap. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09815 v2 pith:SNCL2G2J submitted 2026-01-14 hep-th gr-qc

Entire Four-Graviton EFT from the Duality Between Color and Kinematics

John Joseph M. Carrasco , Sai Sasank Chava , Alex Edison , Eliseu Kloster , Suna Zekio\u{g}lu This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords color-kinematics dualitydouble copytriple copyfour-graviton amplitudesLovelock R^3 termhigher-derivative operatorsgeneralized color structureseffective field theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks how much of gravitational effective field theory can be reconstructed from gauge-theory data, in the sense of the BCJ double-copy construction. The authors claim that all parity-even four-graviton tree amplitudes — at every mass dimension and in every spacetime dimension — are spanned by a finite set of gauge-theory building blocks, once color-kinematics duality is extended from the usual antisymmetric f^{abc} color factors to the complete set of four-point color structures, including the symmetric d^{abc}. They classify the gauge-theory numerators and the gravitational operators independently, and show that an ordinary double copy of four-gluon amplitudes covers the whole space for D≤6 and all but one fundamental for generic D>6. The exception is the R^3 Lovelock contact term, which vanishes for D≤6 and is expressed as a triple copy of gauge theories coupled to scalars. If correct, the entire four-point gravitational S-matrix is a derived object, with the Lovelock term marking the boundary of what two copies can reach.

Core claim

Central claim: the infinite-looking tower of parity-even four-graviton EFT operators is generated by a finite set of building blocks. On the gauge side, numerators are classified modulo multiplication by permutation-invariant Mandelstam polynomials, yielding finite bases: 8 in the antisymmetric (ff) sector, 3 in the mixed (df), 21 in the symmetric (dd), and 7 for the redundant d^{a1a2a3a4} sector. On the gravity side, amplitudes are written M = N/(stu), and the local, diffeomorphism-invariant numerators N are classified into fundamental polynomials G; none appear beyond mass dimension 14. The paper shows that double copies of the (ff) and (dd) four-gluon sectors span every fundamental except

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the universal N-copy, a generalization of the BCJ double copy. For each four-point color structure — antisymmetric f^{abc}f^{abc}, mixed d^{abc}f^{abc}, symmetric d^{abc}d^{abc}, and permutation-invariant d^{a1a2a3a4} — one demands that kinematic numerators dressing cubic graphs obey the same algebraic relations (symmetry, antisymmetry, Jacobi-like identities) as the color factors; each sector has its own KLT-style kernel inverting the numerator-to-amplitude map. To make the infinite tower finite, the paper classifies numerators up to multiplication by permutation-invariant polynomials P(s,t,u), producing the bases of Table I, and organizes gravity by the universal numer

Load-bearing premise

That the 'comprehensive search' behind the numerator classification actually found every local parity-even color-dual numerator — the search algorithm is not specified and the bases live only in ancillary files — and that non-local color-dual numerators could not cancel their spurious poles in a double copy to produce the local R^3 Lovelock amplitude.

What would settle it

Independently enumerate all local, parity-even polynomial kinematic numerators satisfying the (ff), (df), or (dd) duality relations through mass dimension 14 and compare against Table I; a missing building block whose double copy produces G^(6) would overturn the triple-copy necessity. Equivalently, exhibit a non-local color-dual numerator whose double copy has spurious poles that cancel on-shell and yields the Lovelock contact term.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In D≤6, the (ff) and (dd) double copies of four-gluon amplitudes span all parity-even four-graviton amplitudes at every mass dimension, so no triple copy is needed there.
  • In generic D>6, the complete gravitational basis is the union of that double copy with one new structure: the R^3 Lovelock contact term, realized by a triple copy whose factors are gauge theories coupled to scalars.
  • The gravitational fundamental basis is finite — 29 distinct structures appearing by mass dimension 14 — so arbitrarily high-derivative four-graviton interactions are not independent; each is a fundamental times a permutation-invariant Mandelstam polynomial.
  • The R^3 Lovelock term cannot be produced by any double copy in generic dimension, which places a structural boundary on ordinary double-copy construction and on string-theoretic double-copy constructions of gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extrapolation the paper only states as an expectation: at n+1 points, the order-n Lovelock term would require an n-fold copy; testing the five-point amplitudes against this hierarchy is a concrete next step.
  • Because the (dd) and (df) numerators are gauge invariant graph by graph, an off-shell reading suggests these sectors could support a local Lagrangian double-copy — splicing individual vertices rather than summing graphs — which would simplify the construction of the corresponding gravity operators.
  • The special-D phenomenon, where in D=7 the G^(6) fundamental can be rewritten as a square of parity-odd wedge products and thereby as a double copy, implies that dimensional reductions can mask the generic algebraic structure; checks of triple-copy necessity should be performed in generic D rather than in any fixed low dimension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes color-kinematics duality at four points by introducing kinematic numerators dual to the full set of four-point color structures: antisymmetric adjoint (f f), mixed-symmetry (d f), symmetric (dd), and permutation-invariant (d^4). It classifies a finite basis of local parity-even vector numerators for each sector (Table I) and, independently, a first-principles basis of parity-even four-graviton amplitudes in general dimension (Table II), with counts matching Ref. [69]. The central claim is that the f f and dd double copies generate all gravitational fundamentals in D ≤ 6, while the unique G^(6) fundamental — the Lovelock R^3 term relevant for D > 6 — is not produced by any local double copy and instead requires a triple copy of gluon/scalar theories. The explicit triple-copy representation is given in Eqs. (58)–(60).

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a finite, constructive classification of four-point gravitational EFT operators in arbitrary dimension and would identify a concrete boundary of the standard double-copy construction. The independent gravitational-side classification is a substantial virtue, as is the external consistency with the partition-function counts of Ref. [69]. The explicit machine-readable ancillary files, and the explicit triple-copy formula for G^(6), are also strong points. However, the paper's headline no-go statement about Lovelock R^3 is only established for local color-dual numerators; the manuscript itself restricts to local dressings and acknowledges non-local color-dual numerators. The mathematical completeness of the numerator classification is also asserted rather than demonstrated. These two gaps affect the strongest conclusion and require attention.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.F, footnote 2; §VI; Conclusion] The paper explicitly restricts to local dressings ('For local dressings, as we consider here') and footnote 2 concedes that non-local color-dual numerators exist and introduce spurious poles. Yet §VI and the Conclusion state that the Lovelock R^3 term 'cannot arise from any double-copy construction in a generic dimension.' The argument in §II.E.2 around Eq. (44) assumes factorization into local spin-1 blocks; it does not exclude rational, non-local color-dual numerators whose spurious poles cancel in the summed double copy. This is precisely the kind of representation the paper allows. Please either prove that any double copy of G^(6) can be localized while preserving CK duality, or restrict all such statements to local color-dual double copies and revise the abstract/conclusion accordingly. As written, the no-go is a statement about a convention, not a theorem.
  2. [§III.A–B, Table I] Completeness of the finite numerator bases is load-bearing for the no-local-double-copy claim, but it is asserted via an unspecified 'comprehensive search.' The manuscript does not state the ansatz (basis of monomials in polarization vectors and momenta, use of momentum conservation, little-group and gauge-fixing conditions), the equivalence algorithm behind Eq. (47), or the computational proof of exhaustiveness. The ancillary basis files verify existence of the listed blocks, not that no others exist. Please specify the search algorithm and provide code or a reproducible audit trail so the Table I counts can be independently verified.
  3. [§III.C and §V.A] The statement in §II.F that the space of M^{d f} amplitudes is already spanned by M^{dd}, and the analogous exclusion in §V.A, are asserted without derivation or explicit linear-relation data. This reduction is used to restrict the double-copy scan to f f and dd. It should be demonstrated explicitly (or provided in the ancillary guide), since a failure of this span could alter the claimed coverage of the double-copy sector.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI] Typo: 'Kawaii-Lewellen-Tye' should be 'Kawai-Lewellen-Tye'.
  2. [§V.B, Eq. (54)] The notation (gggg), (ggss), etc., is used without definition. A small table explaining which external states appear in each LEGO copy would help readability.
  3. [§II.E.2, Eq. (44)] The label 'Not Double Copy' is informal. The argument would benefit from a precise definition of a 'copy' in terms of little-group weight, building on the §II.E.1 nomenclature, before asserting that a term of the form Eq. (44) cannot be split into two factors.
  4. [§III.A, Eq. (47)] The equivalence relation under multiplication by permutation-invariant Mandelstam polynomials is clear, but the text should specify how gauge-equivalence and integration-by-parts freedom are handled in the search, since the counts depend on this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: gravitational and gauge-theory spaces are classified independently and then compared; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Section IV classifies the gravitational side from linearized diffeomorphism invariance, Bose symmetry, and locality, defining N = M·stu and the fundamental set G by projecting out lower-dimension fundamentals times scalar invariants; its counting is checked against the external partition-function classification [69]. Section III classifies the gauge-theory numerator bases solely from color-kinematics relations (Jacobi/antisymmetry/symmetry per sector), using the equivalence n1 ∼ n2 iff A1 = P(s,t,u) A2, with no gravitational output as input; Table I is a search over these relations. Section V then compares the two independently generated spaces: the double-copy outputs are computed from the gauge bases and matched against G, with G(6) identified as the unique leftover and given an explicit three-factor decomposition in Eqs. (58)-(60). No parameter is fitted to gravitational amplitudes, and no uniqueness theorem from prior work by the same authors is invoked to force the result; the self-citations [46-50] are developmental background. The only caveats are the computational completeness of the 'comprehensive search' underwriting Table I and the local-dressing restriction noted in Sec. II.F and footnote 2; these are verification/scope issues (the non-local numerators are acknowledged to exist), but they do not make any equation reduce to its own input, because the no-double-copy argument for G(6) in Sec. II.E.2 is a polarization-power decomposition argument, not a scan over local numerators. Hence no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on two completeness assertions (numerator classification and gravitational amplitude classification) plus the restriction to local, parity-even amplitudes. The gravitational side is cross-checked against Ref. [69], providing external support, but the numerator side is supported only by the authors' computer search and ancillary files. No fitted parameters or new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Any physical four-graviton amplitude can be represented as N/(stu) with N a local polynomial satisfying permutation invariance, linearity in each graviton polarization, and linearized diffeomorphism invariance.
    Section IV.A, eq (53). This defines the space of gravity amplitudes to be classified; it assumes simple poles only and no higher-spin exchanges.
  • domain assumption Only massless exchanges with spin ≤2 are allowed at four points.
    Invoked in Section IV.A footnote 4, citing Weinberg's spin-2 argument [68]; caps the exchange spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper The classification of color-dual vector numerators (ff, df, dd, d4) is complete; the finite bases in Table I exhaust all local parity-even numerators satisfying the relevant algebraic relations.
    Section III.B: 'A comprehensive search identifies a finite basis...' No proof or algorithm given; evidence is in ancillary files.
  • domain assumption Only local (polynomial, no denominator) color-dual numerators are considered in the spanning proof.
    Section II.F: 'For local dressings, as we consider here...' and Section II.D; non-local numerators are mentioned but their double copies are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The gravitational universal numerator counts |N(d)| are correct and match the partition-function classification of polynomial S-matrices in Ref. [69].
    Section IV.A after Table II; this cross-check supports completeness of the gravitational side.
  • standard math The d f Jacobi-like relation (eq 11) and SU(N) trace identities for d^{abc} hold as algebraic facts.
    Eq (11) from Ref [66], and Eq (21) trace definition; used to build color-dual sectors.
  • domain assumption The little-group functional isomorphisms (e.g., n_t = n_s|_{2↔4}) can be imposed for identical external vectors.
    Sections II.A-D; used to reduce the numerator basis to three channels. Fails when legs have different little-group weights, which the paper acknowledges.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18652 in / 17636 out tokens · 180079 ms · 2026-08-03T10:29:37.367784+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Bern-Carrasco-Johansson (BCJ) double-copy construction reveals a fundamental structural connection between gauge and gravity theories. At its core, the BCJ double copy is directly due to a duality between the algebraic relations of a color root and those of a kinematic root. We generalize this principle beyond the conventional Lie algebra structure of tree-level Yang-Mills theory. By demanding color-kinematics duality for the complete basis of four-point color structures -- including those involving the symmetric $d^{abc}$ constants -- we define the universal double copy. We systematically classify the bases of all such parity-even generalized gauge-theory numerators and, independently, the space of all parity-even four-graviton higher-derivative operators. We demonstrate that our universal double-copy construction precisely spans the entire tower of parity-even four-graviton amplitudes in any dimension, except for the Lovelock $R^3$ contribution in $D >6$ which we can express in terms of a particularly simple universal triple-copy involving gauge theories coupled to scalars. Explicit machine-readable expressions for the complete basis of gauge-theory numerators and fundamental gravitational building blocks are provided in the ancillary files. This establishes that all possible four-point gravitational interactions can be factorized into products of gauge-theory building blocks governed by this universal notion of color-kinematics duality.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dyeing form factors as amplitudes

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A dyeing procedure maps form factors to colored amplitudes, recovering the originals by bleaching and explaining double-copy features through standard BCJ relations.

  2. Double copy of form factors with multiple operator insertions

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A dyeing procedure generalizes the double copy to form factors with multiple operator insertions by mapping spurious poles to physical propagators and revealing a new scalar-ordering structure in gravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 65 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A note about nomenclature: 13

  2. [2]

    denominators

    What necessitates theN-copy for max Spin-2 14 F. Redundancies and the Minimal Basis 14 III. Classifying color-dual numerators at four points 15 A. Method of Classification 15 B. Basis of Color-Dual Vector Numerators 16 C. Properties of Generalized Numerators 17 IV. Higher DerivativeD-dimensional Gravity Amplitudes 18 A. Constraints from Physical Principle...

  3. [3]

    A note about nomenclature: In the LEGO framework of Ref. [50], it is natural to distinguish between building blocks that modify little-group weight, called spinor-blocks, and building blocks that only modify mass dimension, called scalar-blocks. When we refer toN-copy in the LEGO sense we are discussing the number of distinct gauge-invariant blocks of non...

  4. [4]

    gauged away

    What necessitates theN-copy for max Spin-2 TheN-copy is only used where each copy has non-trivial little group weight (spin) for at least one particle. While we compose to build blocks of higher spin, such composed blocks are not considered primary. As we will show at four-points it is possible to have a gravitational four-point amplitude that requires th...

  5. [5]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. D78, 085011 (2008), arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 061602 (2010), arXiv:1004.0476 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Kawai, D

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, Nucl. Phys. B269, 1 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    F. A. Berends, W. T. Giele, and H. Kuijf, Phys. Lett. B211, 91 (1988)

    1988

  9. [9]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein, and J. S. Rozowsky, Nucl. Phys. B546, 423 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    Bern and A

    Z. Bern and A. K. Grant, Phys. Lett. B457, 23 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    J. J. M. Carrasco and S. Zekioglu, (2025), arXiv:2511.01799 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, D. A. Kosower, and R. Roiban, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 161303 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0702112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 081301 (2009), arXiv:0905.2326 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, T. Dennen, and Y.-t. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 201301 (2012), arXiv:1202.3423 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, Phys. Rev. D85, 105014 (2012), arXiv:1201.5366 [hep-th]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, T. Dennen, A. V. Smirnov, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 231302 (2013), arXiv:1309.2498 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, and T. Dennen, Phys. Rev. D90, 105011 (2014), arXiv:1409.3089 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, A. Edison, H. Johansson, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D98, 086021 (2018), arXiv:1804.09311 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251101 (2018), arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, JHEP02, 137 (2019), arXiv:1811.10950 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201603 (2019), arXiv:1901.04424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, JHEP10, 206 (2019), arXiv:1908.01493 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D104, 065014 (2021), arXiv:2005.03071 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171601 (2021), arXiv:2101.07254 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, A. Luna, R. Roiban, and F. Teng, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201402 (2023), arXiv:2203.06202 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, JHEP02, 048 (2021), arXiv:2010.02865 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 201103 (2021), arXiv:2101.12688 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 011101 (2022), arXiv:2106.10256 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Edison and M

    A. Edison and M. Levi, Phys. Lett. B837, 137634 (2023), arXiv:2202.04674 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Edison and M

    A. Edison and M. Levi, JHEP08, 161 (2024), arXiv:2310.20066 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Edison, JHEP02, 016 (2025), arXiv:2409.17222 [hep-th]

    A. Edison, JHEP02, 016 (2025), arXiv:2409.17222 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Shi and J

    C. Shi and J. Plefka, Phys. Rev. D105, 026007 (2022), arXiv:2109.10345 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    G. L. Almeida, S. Foffa, and R. Sturani, JHEP11, 165 (2020), arXiv:2008.06195 [gr-qc]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    C. R. Mafra, O. Schlotterer, and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B873, 419 (2013), arXiv:1106.2645 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    C. R. Mafra, O. Schlotterer, and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B873, 461 (2013), arXiv:1106.2646 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Broedel, O

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, C. R. Mafra, and O. Schlotterer, JHEP06, 093 (2017), arXiv:1608.02569 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, C. R. Mafra, and O. Schlotterer, JHEP08, 135 (2017), arXiv:1612.06446 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    C. R. Mafra and O. Schlotterer, JHEP01, 031 (2017), arXiv:1609.07078 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Heterotic and bosonic string amplitudes via field theory,

    T. Azevedo, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and O. Schlotterer, “Heterotic and bosonic string amplitudes via field theory,” (2018), arXiv:1803.05452 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Edison, M

    A. Edison, M. Guillen, H. Johansson, O. Schlotterer, and F. Teng, JHEP12, 007 (2021), arXiv:2107.08009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Edison and M

    A. Edison and M. Tegevi, JHEP10, 022 (2023), arXiv:2210.14865 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    J. J. M. Carrasco and Y. Chen, (2025), arXiv:2511.01832 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Chiodaroli, M

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Gunaydin, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, JHEP07, 002 (2017), arXiv:1703.00421 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, J. Phys. A57, 333002 (2024), arXiv:1909.01358 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Broedel and L

    J. Broedel and L. J. Dixon, JHEP10, 091 (2012), arXiv:1208.0876 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    R. H. Boels and R. Medina, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 061602 (2017), arXiv:1607.08246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Elvang, M

    H. Elvang, M. Hadjiantonis, C. R. T. Jones, and S. Paranjape, JHEP04, 173 (2021), arXiv:2006.08928 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    J. J. M. Carrasco and N. H. Pavao, Phys. Rev. D107, 065005 (2023), arXiv:2211.04431 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    J. J. M. Carrasco and N. H. Pavao, JHEP01, 019 (2024), arXiv:2307.16812 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, L. Rodina, Z. Yin, and S. Zekioglu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 251602 (2020), arXiv:1910.12850 [hep-th]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, L. Rodina, and S. Zekioglu, JHEP06, 169 (2021), arXiv:2104.08370 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, S. S. Chava, A. Edison, and A. Seifi, (2025), arXiv:2511.05441 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    H.-H. Chi, H. Elvang, A. Herderschee, C. R. T. Jones, and S. Paranjape, JHEP03, 077 (2022), arXiv:2106.12600 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    A. S.-K. Chen, H. Elvang, and A. Herderschee, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 031602 (2023), arXiv:2302.04895 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. Lewandowski, and N. H. Pavao, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051601 (2023), arXiv:2203.03592 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. Lewandowski, and N. H. Pavao, JHEP02, 015 (2023), arXiv:2211.04441 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    T. V. Brown, K. Kampf, U. Oktem, S. Paranjape, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. D108, 105008 (2023), arXiv:2305.05688 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Y. Li, D. Roest, and T. ter Veldhuis, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 211602 (2024), arXiv:2307.13418 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    J. J. M. Carrasco and N. H. Pavao, Phys. Rev. D109, 065006 (2024), arXiv:2310.06316 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, T. Sondergaard, and P. Vanhove, JHEP01, 001 (2011), arXiv:1010.3933 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    Mizera, JHEP06, 084 (2017), arXiv:1610.04230 [hep-th]

    S. Mizera, JHEP06, 084 (2017), arXiv:1610.04230 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Bargheer, S

    T. Bargheer, S. He, and T. McLoughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 231601 (2012), arXiv:1203.0562 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  67. [67]

    Huang and H

    Y.-t. Huang and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 171601 (2013), arXiv:1210.2255 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    Huang, H

    Y.-t. Huang, H. Johansson, and S. Lee, JHEP11, 050 (2013), arXiv:1307.2222 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [69]

    Bagger and N

    J. Bagger and N. Lambert, Phys. Rev. D77, 065008 (2008), arXiv:0711.0955 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  70. [70]

    Bilal, Nucl

    A. Bilal, Nucl. Phys. B618, 21 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0106062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    Z. Bern, A. Edison, D. Kosower, and J. Parra-Martinez, Phys. Rev. D96, 066004 (2017), arXiv:1706.01486 [hep-th]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  73. [73]

    S. D. Chowdhury, A. Gadde, T. Gopalka, I. Halder, L. Janagal, and S. Minwalla, JHEP02, 114 (2020), arXiv:1910.14392 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

    1971

  75. [75]

    Farhoudi, Gen

    M. Farhoudi, Gen. Rel. Grav.41, 117 (2009), arXiv:gr-qc/9510060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  76. [76]

    Zwiebach, Phys

    B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B156, 315 (1985)

    1985

  77. [77]

    Zumino, Phys

    B. Zumino, Phys. Rept.137, 109 (1986). 33

    1986