pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04152 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ✦ hep-th · hep-ph

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Consistent Scattering Amplitudes, Yang-Mills, the Higgs Mechanism and the EFTs Beyond

Timothy Trott
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th hep-ph
keywords scattering amplitudesYang-Mills theoryHiggs mechanismS-matrix consistencyunitarityeffective field theoryon-shell methodshelicity amplitudes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Consistency of unitary scattering amplitudes requires Yang-Mills Lie algebra structure for gluons and the Higgs mechanism to fully unitarise massive vector boson scattering.

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

The paper derives constraints that a unitary, local, perturbative S-matrix in four dimensions places on fundamental interactions. For massless particles it uses complex factorisation of 2-to-2 amplitudes to fix the complete form of the three-gluon vertex, including the geometric properties of the Lie algebra and requirements on parity and time-reversal. For massive particles of spin at most one it computes all tree-level 2-to-2 amplitudes with explicit high-energy scaling and shows that energy growth is suppressed, but not eliminated, unless the parity-conserving couplings are Lie-algebra structure constants and the parity-violating pieces are generalised Chern-Simons terms. Full cancellation of the growth then demands both the standard Yang-Mills algebra and the Higgs mechanism when the spectrum is gapped. A reader cares because these features, often taken as inputs of the Standard Model, are shown to be necessary consequences of S-matrix consistency rather than free choices.

Core claim

Using on-shell methods the paper calculates every 2-to-2 tree amplitude for massive particles with spin s less than or equal to 1 and dissects their helicity channels to isolate the precise conditions under which high-energy growth is limited. When the parity-conserving self-couplings of massive vectors are taken to be Lie-algebra structure constants (possibly non-semisimple or non-compact) and the parity-violating parts are generalised Chern-Simons terms, the growth is suppressed yet still violates unitarity at high enough energies. Full unitarisation is recovered only when the couplings obey the standard Yang-Mills Lie-algebra relations and, for a gapped spectrum, the Higgs mechanism is at

What carries the argument

Dissection of helicity sectors in the tree-level 2-to-2 amplitudes of massive vectors, together with the imposition of a maximum allowed rate of unitarity-violating growth, to derive coupling constraints that suppress high-energy scaling.

If this is right

  • The three-gluon amplitude is completely fixed, including geometric restrictions on the Lie algebra and requirements of parity and time-reversal symmetry.
  • Massive vector scattering remains only partially unitarised unless its parity-conserving couplings are structure constants and its parity-violating couplings are generalised Chern-Simons terms.
  • Full unitarisation of the gapped spectrum then requires both the standard Yang-Mills algebra and the Higgs mechanism.
  • When particles are BPS in extended supersymmetry the amplitudes assemble into superamplitudes.
  • Different combinations of the derived constraints produce a landscape of possible effective field theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the growth-rate bound holds, any observed deviation from Yang-Mills structure constants in vector scattering would require new degrees of freedom below the scale where unitarity is violated.
  • The same amplitude techniques could be applied to higher-spin massive particles to map additional consistency constraints.
  • The results suggest that the Higgs mechanism may be the minimal way to restore unitarity without introducing new light states.

Load-bearing premise

That a definite maximum rate of unitarity-violating growth can be imposed on the high-energy scattering of massive particles and that a gapped spectrum is required before the Higgs mechanism can be invoked.

What would settle it

High-energy measurement of massive vector-boson scattering that exhibits energy growth exceeding the suppressed rate allowed by non-standard Lie-algebra couplings without the presence of a Higgs-like scalar.

read the original abstract

I study constraints on fundamental physics emerging from consistency of a unitary, local and perturbative $S$-matrix in $4d$. For massless particles, some new constraints arising from consistent complex factorisation of $2\rightarrow 2$ amplitudes are derived, leading, in particular, to the complete structure of the gluon three-particle amplitudes, including the geometric restrictions on the Lie algebra, parity and time-reversal symmetry, among other details. For massive particles, a hierarchy of constraints may be derived instead by imposing a maximum rate of unitarity-violating growth in the high energy limit. All $2\rightarrow 2$ tree-level amplitudes of massive particles with spin $s\leq 1$ are calculated in generality using on-shell methods and presented with manifest high energy dependence. The anatomy of these amplitudes' helicity sectors is dissected in order to identify conditions under which their energy growth is limited or eliminated. Using these results, it is shown that the scattering of massive vector bosons has suppressed, but not fully unitarised, high energy dependence if the parity-conserving parts of their self-couplings are Lie algebra structure constants, possibly non-semisimple or non-compact, and the parity-violating parts are ``generalised Chern-Simons terms''. Full unitarisation then requires the standard Yang-Mills Lie algebra properties and, for a gapped spectrum, the Higgs mechanism. These amplitudes are assembled, embedded and unified into elegant superamplitudes in theories with extended supersymmetry when the particles are BPS. More generally, a broader landscape of EFTs is charted through various combinations of constraints and coupling hierarchies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that consistency requirements on a unitary, local, perturbative S-matrix in 4d yield new constraints on scattering amplitudes. For massless particles, complex factorization of 2→2 amplitudes determines the full structure of gluon three-particle amplitudes, including Lie-algebra geometry, parity, and time-reversal properties. For massive particles with spin s≤1, all tree-level 2→2 amplitudes are computed via on-shell methods and displayed with explicit high-energy dependence; helicity-sector analysis then shows that massive vector-boson scattering exhibits only suppressed (not fully unitarized) growth when parity-conserving couplings are Lie-algebra structure constants (possibly non-semisimple or non-compact) and parity-violating couplings are generalized Chern-Simons terms. Full unitarization is stated to require the standard Yang-Mills Lie algebra together with the Higgs mechanism for a gapped spectrum. The results are assembled into superamplitudes for BPS states in extended supersymmetry and used to chart a broader EFT landscape via combinations of constraints and coupling hierarchies.

Significance. If the central claims survive scrutiny, the work supplies an on-shell derivation of the Yang-Mills Lie-algebra structure and the necessity of the Higgs mechanism directly from S-matrix consistency, without Lagrangian input. The explicit construction of all relevant 2→2 amplitudes with manifest high-energy scaling constitutes a concrete technical contribution that could serve as a reference for future EFT studies. The embedding into superamplitudes for supersymmetric cases is a further strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Massive-particles analysis (high-energy growth section)] The central consistency condition—an unspecified 'maximum rate of unitarity-violating growth' imposed on the high-energy limit of massive-particle amplitudes—is introduced without derivation from partial-wave unitarity (|a_J|≤1/2), the optical theorem, or the Froissart bound in the fixed-mass regime. Consequently it is unclear whether the residual growth left by non-semisimple/non-compact algebras plus generalized Chern-Simons terms is strictly inconsistent or merely indicates the presence of a cutoff scale.
  2. [Vector-boson scattering and Higgs-mechanism discussion] The claim that only the standard Yang-Mills Lie algebra plus the Higgs mechanism fully eliminates the growth for a gapped spectrum is load-bearing for the main result, yet the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit partial-wave projections or the precise cancellation of the leading energy-growing terms once the Higgs scalar is included. Without these steps it remains open whether other contact operators or additional massive states could achieve the same suppression.
  3. [Massless-particles factorization section] For the massless sector, the factorization constraints are asserted to recover the complete gluon three-point amplitude structure, but no explicit cross-check against the known on-shell Yang-Mills three-gluon vertex (including color factors and parity properties) is provided to confirm that no extraneous solutions survive the new conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Coupling classification] Notation for the generalized Chern-Simons terms and the precise definition of 'parity-conserving' versus 'parity-violating' parts of the vector self-couplings should be stated once in a dedicated paragraph or table to avoid ambiguity when the amplitudes are later assembled into superamplitudes.
  2. [Amplitude tables] The abstract states that 'all 2→2 tree-level amplitudes … are calculated in generality … and presented with manifest high energy dependence,' yet the main text would benefit from a compact summary table listing the leading energy powers for each helicity configuration before and after the various constraints are applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised help clarify the presentation of our results on S-matrix consistency constraints. We address each major comment below and will implement revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central consistency condition—an unspecified 'maximum rate of unitarity-violating growth' imposed on the high-energy limit of massive-particle amplitudes—is introduced without derivation from partial-wave unitarity (|a_J|≤1/2), the optical theorem, or the Froissart bound in the fixed-mass regime. Consequently it is unclear whether the residual growth left by non-semisimple/non-compact algebras plus generalized Chern-Simons terms is strictly inconsistent or merely indicates the presence of a cutoff scale.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for a clearer foundation. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph deriving the maximum allowed growth rate directly from partial-wave unitarity. Specifically, we will show that |a_J| ≤ 1/2 for the s-wave, combined with the optical theorem, implies that amplitudes with growth faster than E^0 in the high-energy fixed-mass limit violate unitarity above a cutoff scale determined by the coupling strength, consistent with Froissart considerations. The residual growth for non-standard algebras is therefore strictly inconsistent with a fully unitary perturbative S-matrix without new physics, rather than merely signaling a cutoff. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The claim that only the standard Yang-Mills Lie algebra plus the Higgs mechanism fully eliminates the growth for a gapped spectrum is load-bearing for the main result, yet the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit partial-wave projections or the precise cancellation of the leading energy-growing terms once the Higgs scalar is included. Without these steps it remains open whether other contact operators or additional massive states could achieve the same suppression.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification is important for this central claim. The revised version will include the full tree-level 2→2 amplitudes for massive vector bosons with the Higgs scalar, along with their partial-wave projections. We will demonstrate the precise cancellation of the leading E^4 and E^2 growth terms in the standard Yang-Mills plus Higgs case. We will further argue that alternative contact operators or additional massive states either reintroduce growth or violate the Lie-algebra and factorization constraints derived earlier in the paper, thereby supporting the necessity of the standard setup for full unitarization of a gapped spectrum. revision: yes

  3. Referee: For the massless sector, the factorization constraints are asserted to recover the complete gluon three-point amplitude structure, but no explicit cross-check against the known on-shell Yang-Mills three-gluon vertex (including color factors and parity properties) is provided to confirm that no extraneous solutions survive the new conditions.

    Authors: We will add an explicit cross-check in the revised manuscript. We will verify that the standard on-shell three-gluon amplitude—with color factors given by Lie-algebra structure constants f^{abc} and the appropriate parity and time-reversal properties—satisfies all derived factorization constraints. We will also solve the constraints explicitly to confirm that no extraneous solutions (such as non-associative algebras or disallowed parity structures) remain, thereby matching the known Yang-Mills vertex and validating the completeness of the structure obtained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: constraints derived from explicit on-shell amplitude calculations plus stated high-energy growth bound

full rationale

The paper computes all tree-level 2→2 amplitudes for s≤1 massive particles using on-shell methods, then applies an explicit (if non-standard) high-energy growth criterion to identify allowed couplings. This is a direct selection procedure rather than any reduction of the output to the input by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The growth bound is introduced as an additional consistency assumption, not smuggled in via prior work or renamed as a theorem; the resulting statements about Yang-Mills structure and the Higgs mechanism are therefore logically downstream of the stated inputs and remain falsifiable against them.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum-field-theory consistency requirements without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities beyond those already in the literature.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Existence of a unitary, local, perturbative S-matrix in 4d
    Explicitly stated as the foundation for all derived constraints.
  • domain assumption Maximum allowable rate of unitarity-violating growth at high energy
    Imposed to generate the hierarchy of constraints on massive-particle amplitudes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1417 out tokens · 37213 ms · 2026-05-08T17:49:18.922076+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Coleman,Notes from Sidney Coleman’s Physics 253a: Quantum Field Theory, arXiv:1110.5013

    S. Coleman,Notes from Sidney Coleman’s Physics 253a: Quantum Field Theory, arXiv:1110.5013

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields: Volume 1, foundations

    S. Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields: Volume 1, foundations. Cambridge university press, 2005. – 120 –

    2005

  3. [3]

    Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566–1570

    1979

  4. [4]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1–98, [arXiv:1706.08945]

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli,The landscape of QCD axion models, Phys. Rept.870(2020) 1–117, [arXiv:2003.01100]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    The Effective Field Theory of Inflation

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,JHEP03(2008) 014, [arXiv:0709.0293]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    C. P. Burgess,Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,Living Rev. Rel.7(2004) 5–56, [gr-qc/0311082]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Weinberg,Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Physical Review135(1964), no

    S. Weinberg,Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Physical Review135(1964), no. 4B B1049

    1964

  9. [9]

    Grisaru and H

    M. Grisaru and H. Pendleton,Soft spin 32 fermions require gravity and supersymmetry, Physics Letters B67(1977), no. 3 323–326

    1977

  10. [10]

    Weinberg and E

    S. Weinberg and E. Witten,Limits on Massless Particles,Phys. Lett. B96(1980) 59–62

    1980

  11. [11]

    Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space

    E. Witten,Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,Commun. Math. Phys.252(2004) 189–258, [hep-th/0312171]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

    H. Elvang and Y. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes in Gauge Theory and Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2015, arXiv:1308.1697

    work page arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    L. J. Dixon,A brief introduction to modern amplitude methods, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Particle Physics: The Higgs Boson and Beyond, pp. 31–67, 2014.arXiv:1310.5353

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Consistency Conditions on theS-Matrix of Massless Particles,

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

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Gell-Mann, M

    M. Gell-Mann, M. L. Goldberger, and W. E. Thirring,Use of causality conditions in quantum theory,Phys. Rev.95(1954) 1612–1627

    1954

  16. [16]

    Mizera,Crossing symmetry in the planar limit,Phys

    S. Mizera,Crossing symmetry in the planar limit,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 4 045003, [arXiv:2104.12776]

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir, and S. Mizera,Crossing beyond scattering amplitudes,JHEP04(2024) 060, [arXiv:2310.12199]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    P. C. Schuster and N. Toro,Constructing the Tree-Level Yang-Mills S-Matrix Using Complex Factorization,JHEP06(2009) 079, [arXiv:0811.3207]

    work page arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    D. A. McGady and L. Rodina,Higher-spin masslessS-matrices in four-dimensions,Phys. Rev.D90(2014), no. 8 084048, [arXiv:1311.2938]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Elvang, C

    H. Elvang, C. R. T. Jones, and S. G. Naculich,Soft Photon and Graviton Theorems in Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017), no. 23 231601, [arXiv:1611.07534]

    work page arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,JHEP11(2021) 070, [arXiv:1709.04891]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    The simplest massive S-matrix: from minimal coupling to Black Holes,

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee,The simplest massive S-matrix: from minimal coupling to Black Holes,JHEP04(2019) 156, [arXiv:1812.08752]

    work page arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    De Angelis,Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,JHEP08(2022) 299, [arXiv:2202.02681]

    S. De Angelis,Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,JHEP08(2022) 299, [arXiv:2202.02681]. – 121 –

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, J. Shu, and Y.-H. Zheng,Constructing generic effective field theory for all masses and spins,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 11 116010, [arXiv:2202.08350]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Pich,Effective Field Theory with Nambu-Goldstone Modes,arXiv:1804.05664

    A. Pich,Effective Field Theory with Nambu-Goldstone Modes,arXiv:1804.05664

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Alonso,A primer on Higgs Effective Field Theory with Geometry,arXiv:2307.14301

    R. Alonso,A primer on Higgs Effective Field Theory with Geometry,arXiv:2307.14301

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    H. Liu, T. Ma, Y. Shadmi, and M. Waterbury,An EFT hunter’s guide to two-to-two scattering: HEFT and SMEFT on-shell amplitudes,JHEP05(2023) 241, [arXiv:2301.11349]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss,The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,JHEP01(2020) 119, [arXiv:1909.10551]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, and I. Mahbub,On-shell recursion relations for higher-spin Compton amplitudes,arXiv:2506.02106

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    Chiodaroli, H

    M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and P. Pichini,Compton black-hole scattering for s≤5/2, JHEP02(2022) 156, [arXiv:2107.14779]

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Causality, Analyticity and an IR Obstruction to UV Completion

    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]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  32. [32]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Caron-Huot and V

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Miró, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau, and F. Riva,Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 3 036006, [arXiv:2011.00037]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Kruczenski, J

    M. Kruczenski, J. Penedones, and B. C. van Rees,Snowmass White Paper: S-matrix Bootstrap,arXiv:2203.02421

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    TASI Lectures on the Conformal Bootstrap

    D. Simmons-Duffin,The Conformal Bootstrap, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp. 1–74, 2017. arXiv:1602.07982

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi,The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) 015002, [arXiv:1805.04405]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Bellazzini, M

    B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva,IR side of positivity bounds,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 10 105008, [arXiv:2112.12561]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Bellazzini, A

    B. Bellazzini, A. Pomarol, M. Romano, and F. Sciotti,(Super)Gravity from Positivity, arXiv:2507.12535

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    Bertucci, J

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and A. Vichi,Positivity bounds on massive vectors,JHEP12(2024) 051, [arXiv:2402.13327]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    H¨ aring, A

    K. Häring, A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, M. Meineri, and J. Penedones,Bounds on photon scattering,JHEP10(2024) 103, [arXiv:2211.05795]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    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, [arXiv:2201.06602]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Caron-Huot and Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot and Y.-Z. Li,Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory,JHEP02(2025) 115, [arXiv:2408.06440]. – 122 –

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Calisto, C

    F. Calisto, C. Cheung, G. N. Remmen, F. Sciotti, and M. Tarquini,Completeness from Gravitational Scattering,arXiv:2512.11955

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  45. [45]

    Hillman, Y.-t

    A. Hillman, Y.-t. Huang, L. Rodina, and J. Rumbutis,Spectral Constraints on Theories of Colored Particles and Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025), no. 6 061604, [arXiv:2411.04857]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Wu and S.-H

    C. Wu and S.-H. Zhu,Massive on-shell recursion relations for n-point amplitudes,JHEP06 (2022) 117, [arXiv:2112.12312]

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell recursion relation for electroweak theory,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 10 105002, [arXiv:2407.14587]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell constructible massive amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 10 105003, [arXiv:2403.15538]

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos,Derivation of Gauge Invariance from High-Energy Unitarity Bounds on the s Matrix,Phys. Rev.D10(1974) 1145. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D11,972(1975)]

    1974

  50. [50]

    Christensen, H

    N. Christensen, H. Diaz-Quiroz, B. Field, J. Hayward, and J. Miles,Challenges with internal photons in constructive QED,Nucl. Phys. B993(2023) 116278, [arXiv:2209.15018]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Christensen,A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model, Eur

    N. Christensen,A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 6 620, [arXiv:2403.07978]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Christensen,Perturbative unitarity and the four-point vertices in the constructive standard model,Phys

    N. Christensen,Perturbative unitarity and the four-point vertices in the constructive standard model,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 11 116014, [arXiv:2403.07977]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Bachu and A

    B. Bachu and A. Yelleshpur,On-Shell Electroweak Sector and the Higgs Mechanism,JHEP 08(2020) 039, [arXiv:1912.04334]

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Liu and Z

    D. Liu and Z. Yin,Gauge invariance from on-shell massive amplitudes and tree-level unitarity,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 7 076003, [arXiv:2204.13119]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Y.-H. Ni, C. Wu, and J.-H. Yu,Massless-Massive Amplitude Correspondence I: Helicity-chirality Matching and On-shell Higgsing,arXiv:2601.10620

    work page arXiv

  56. [56]

    Y.-H. Ni, C. Wu, and J.-H. Yu,Massless-Massive Amplitude Correspondence II: Constructive Massive Amplitudes in Standard Model,arXiv:2601.10622

    work page arXiv

  57. [57]

    Trott,Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Consistent Massive Superamplitudes,

    T. Trott,Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Consistent Massive Superamplitudes, . to appear

  58. [58]

    L. Ren, M. Spradlin, A. Yelleshpur Srikant, and A. Volovich,On effective field theories with celestial duals,JHEP08(2022) 251, [arXiv:2206.08322]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    A. Ball, Y. Hu, and S. Pasterski,Multicollinear singularities in celestial CFT,JHEP02 (2024) 219, [arXiv:2309.16602]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Srednicki,Quantum field theory

    M. Srednicki,Quantum field theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  61. [61]

    Balkin, G

    R. Balkin, G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss,On-shell Higgsing for EFTs, JHEP03(2022) 129, [arXiv:2112.09688]

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Hebbar, D

    A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, and J. Penedones,Spinning S-matrix bootstrap in 4d,JHEP01 (2022) 060, [arXiv:2011.11708]. – 123 –

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Herderschee, S

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren, and T. Trott,Massive On-Shell Supersymmetric Scattering Amplitudes,JHEP10(2019) 092, [arXiv:1902.07204]

    work page arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Gravity On-shell Diagrams,

    E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,Gravity On-shell Diagrams,JHEP11(2016) 136, [arXiv:1604.03479]

    work page arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Caron-Huot and Z

    S. Caron-Huot and Z. Zahraee,Integrability of Black Hole Orbits in Maximal Supergravity, JHEP07(2019) 179, [arXiv:1810.04694]

    work page arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    L. J. Dixon and Y. Shadmi,Testing gluon selfinteractions in three jet events at hadron colliders,Nucl. Phys. B423(1994) 3–32, [hep-ph/9312363]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 452, 724–724 (1995)]

    work page arXiv 1994

  67. [67]

    MHV Vertices And Tree Amplitudes In Gauge Theory

    F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek, and E. Witten,MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory, JHEP09(2004) 006, [hep-th/0403047]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  68. [68]

    Risager,A Direct proof of the CSW rules,JHEP12(2005) 003, [hep-th/0508206]

    K. Risager,A Direct proof of the CSW rules,JHEP12(2005) 003, [hep-th/0508206]

    work page arXiv 2005

  69. [69]

    Bachu,Spontaneous symmetry breaking from an on-shell perspective,JHEP02(2024) 098 [2305.02502]

    B. Bachu,Spontaneous symmetry breaking from an on-shell perspective,JHEP02(2024) 098, [arXiv:2305.02502]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov, and J. Trnka,Grassmannian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes. Cambridge University Press, 4, 2016

    2016

  71. [71]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Lupsasca, D. Skinner, A. Strominger, and K. Weil,Single-minus gluon tree amplitudes are nonzero,arXiv:2602.12176

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    Osborn,Topological Charges for N=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and Monopoles of Spin 1,Phys

    H. Osborn,Topological Charges for N=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and Monopoles of Spin 1,Phys. Lett.83B(1979) 321–326

    1979

  73. [73]

    Dennen, Y.-t

    T. Dennen, Y.-t. Huang, and W. Siegel,Supertwistor space for 6D maximal super Yang-Mills,JHEP04(2010) 127, [arXiv:0910.2688]

    work page arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    Cheung,On-Shell Recursion Relations for Generic Theories,JHEP03(2010) 098, [arXiv:0808.0504]

    C. Cheung,On-Shell Recursion Relations for Generic Theories,JHEP03(2010) 098, [arXiv:0808.0504]

    work page arXiv 2010

  75. [75]

    R. H. Boels and D. O’Connell,Simple superamplitudes in higher dimensions,JHEP06 (2012) 163, [arXiv:1201.2653]

    work page arXiv 2012

  76. [76]

    Ferrara, C

    S. Ferrara, C. A. Savoy, and B. Zumino,General Massive Multiplets in Extended Supersymmetry,Phys. Lett.100B(1981) 393–398

    1981

  77. [77]

    Herderschee, S

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren, and T. Trott,ConstructingN= 4 Coulomb branch superamplitudes,JHEP08(2019) 107, [arXiv:1902.07205]

    work page arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Chen,Non-BPS supersymmetric 3pt amplitude for one massless, two equally massive particles,Nucl

    B.-T. Chen,Non-BPS supersymmetric 3pt amplitude for one massless, two equally massive particles,Nucl. Phys. B973(2021) 115613, [arXiv:2107.04864]

    work page arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Chen, M.-Z

    B.-T. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, and M. K. Tam,Minimal spin deflection of Kerr-Newman and supersymmetric black hole,JHEP10(2021) 011, [arXiv:2106.12518]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    M. K. N. Balasubramanian, K. Chakraborty, A. Rudra, and A. P. Saha,On-shell supersymmetry and higher-spin amplitudes,JHEP06(2023) 037, [arXiv:2209.06446]

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.