Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 113 references

Supersymmetry, Supergravity and the Consistency of On-Shell Massive Superamplitudes

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

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

Pith's one-line read Consistent S-matrix factorization forces any massless helicity-3/2 particle to be a gravitino in supergravity, and reconstructs the super-Higgs mechanism.

desk verdict Strong amplitudes bootstrap with real new results, but the gravitino no-go rests on an unproven uniqueness claim and the sign caveats are not fully resolved; worth refereeing carefully. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04080 v1 pith:CXOKKLPG submitted 2026-08-04 hep-th hep-ph

Timothy Trott This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords S-matrixbootstrapsupersymmetrysupergravitygravitinoBPSstatessuperamplitudesfactorisationsuper-Higgsmechanism
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 tries to establish that a few analytic properties of scattering amplitudes — only simple poles whose residues factorise into on-shell subamplitudes, with every allowed channel factorising — are enough to derive supersymmetry and supergravity rather than assume them. It completes the argument that a massless helicity-3/2 particle is necessarily a gravitino in a supergravity theory, and then extends the same consistency logic to massive BPS particles, deriving their supermultiplet structure and coupling constraints. For BPS vector bosons, the constraints force couplings to be Lie algebra structure constants or generalised Chern-Simons terms, and the gravitational coupling draws the graviphotons into the same Lie algebra. In the final part, consistent factorisation of BPS gravitino scattering in unbroken $\mathcal{N}\geq 4$ supergravity is used to reconstruct the super-Higgs mechanism, ruling out $\mathcal{N}=5$ supergravity as a spontaneous breaking and completely fixing the perturbative structure of all $\mathcal{N}=4$ Minkowski vacua of gauged maximal supergravity.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the on-shell three-particle (super)amplitude written in little-group covariant spinor-helicity variables, including the special massive kinematics in which three particles have a conserved complex mass — the BPS configuration. The key identity is the complex-factorisation residue formula, used both directly and through soft limits, which turns consistency into the requirement that spurious reference-spinor poles cancel. On the superamplitude side, BPS three-particle superspace delta functions (the $\Delta_u$ and $\Delta_v$ invariants) merge across a factorisation channel and produce cross-channel Mandelstam poles, so the four-particle test becomes algebraic constraints on coupling constants: the Jacobi identity for parity-even couplings and the non-Abelian generalised Chern-Simons constraint for parity-odd ones. In the gravitino sector, the same machinery reconstructs the super-Higgs mechanism, with the vector super-Higgs multiplets appearing as the unique resolution of otherwise inconsistent BPS gravitino scattering.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be a computer-algebra search over Lorentz-invariant rational functions of helicity spinors with the correct little-group weights and only simple factorising poles in $s$, $t$ and $u$, looking for a four-particle amplitude with a massless helicity-3/2 exchange that satisfies every channel but whose couplings do not obey the quadratic equations (2.26); finding one would falsify the claimed uniqueness of supergravity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the consistency of the on-shell S-matrix acts as a generative principle, not just a check. The paper shows that the two previously unexcluded massless three-particle amplitudes involving a Rarita-Schwinger particle are inconsistent because no Lorentz-invariant four-particle amplitude exists that factorises on the all-channel pole, closing the argument that any massless helicity-3/2 particle must couple as a gravitino. It then derives the massive supermultiplet structure by demanding cancellation of spurious poles in soft gravitino limits, obtaining quadratic equations whose solutions give the supermultiplets and the BPS bound. For BPS vector multiplets, consistent superfactorisation of four-particle superamplitudes requires the trivalent couplings to satisfy the Jacobi identity or the generalised Chern-Simons constraint, and in supergravity the graviphoton couplings extend the Lie algebra. The final result is that BPS gravitino scattering in unbroken $\mathcal{N}=4$ supergravity fails the four-particle test unless massless vector super-Higgs multiplets are present; this necessity, together with the allowed second gravitino pair, determines the entire perturbative $\mathcal{N}=8\to 4$ super-Higgs sector, rules out $\mathcal{N}=5$ supergravity, and excludes gravitino theories without a super-Higgs mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the S-matrix has only simple poles in Mandelstam invariants whose residues factorise into on-shell subamplitudes, and that every channel consistent with the spectrum must factor; if loop-level effects or additional singularities contribute at the same order as these tree-level poles, the derived consistency conditions could be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every consistent tree-level theory containing a massless helicity-3/2 state must have that state as the gravitino of a supergravity theory, with universal Planck-mass coupling and super-Ward identities obeyed at all multiplicities.
  • Massive BPS vector bosons cannot have arbitrary self-couplings: in $\mathcal{N}=2$ and $\mathcal{N}=4$, consistent factorisation forces parity-even couplings to be structure constants of a Lie algebra, with parity-odd couplings restricted to generalised Chern-Simons terms.
  • In supergravity, the graviphotons themselves enter that Lie algebra, so a consistent theory of BPS vectors is a gauged supergravity whose gauge group includes central-charge generators, typically non-compact or non-semisimple.
  • $\mathcal{N}=5$ supergravity cannot arise by spontaneous supersymmetry breaking from $\mathcal{N}=8$ without new massive higher-spin states, because its BPS gravitino gravitational superresidues fail the four-particle test.
  • In unbroken $\mathcal{N}=4$ supergravity, BPS gravitinos are consistent only if the super-Higgs mechanism operates through massless vector super-Higgs multiplets; this fixes the perturbative sector of all $\mathcal{N}=4$ Minkowski vacua of gauged maximal supergravity.
  • arXiv version cited as 2608.04080 confirms the all-channel pole argument closes the previously open cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the simple-pole factorisation postulate is the only input, the paper effectively derives a no-go theorem for non-supersymmetric theories with helicity-3/2 and a uniqueness theorem for $\mathcal{N}=4$ vacua, which could be phrased as an amplitude-bootstrap classification principle for effective field theories.
  • The same consistency equations could be used to test other speculative spectra, such as 1/4-BPS gravitino multiplets or multiple gravitino pairs in $\mathcal{N}<4$ theories, where the paper only sketches partial results; a complete scan would either reproduce its $\mathcal{N}=4$ uniqueness or reveal new allowed theories.
  • Because the special BPS kinematics is a dimensional reduction of massless scattering in six dimensions, the factorisation constraints may have counterparts in six-dimensional superamplitudes, suggesting the on-shell bootstrap could classify six-dimensional supergravity vacua in the same way.
  • The role of the anomalous gravitational dipole in ruling out non-minimal matter couplings suggests a general on-shell rule: dipole-type couplings that disturb factorisation are excluded at tree level, which may extend to higher-spin effective field theory bounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops an on-shell S-matrix bootstrap for theories with massless helicity-3/2 particles and with massive BPS particles, claiming to complete the argument that a massless Rarita-Schwinger particle must be a gravitino in supergravity, to derive massive supermultiplet structure and the BPS bound from soft gravitino limits, to show that BPS vector-boson couplings must be Lie-algebra structure constants or generalised Chern-Simons terms, and to reconstruct the N=8 to N=4 super-Higgs mechanism from consistent factorisation. It also contains a large catalogue of 3- and 4-particle (super)amplitudes, including gravitational amplitudes obtained by double-copy techniques.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes a strong form of S-matrix rigidity: massless helicity-3/2 particles are only consistent inside supergravity, and the perturbative sector of N=4 Minkowski vacua of gauged maximal supergravity is uniquely determined from factorisation. The paper is valuable for its explicit on-shell superamplitude constructions, its derivation of the BPS bound from the positivity of (2.55), its careful treatment of the special three-particle massive kinematics, and its double-copy presentations of gravitational residues. These strengths are substantial, but the headline claims are conditional on several load-bearing points that the manuscript itself flags as unresolved, notably the sign accuracy of the superamplitude residue calculations and the demonstration that the reference-spinor pole in Eq. (2.5) cannot be cancelled by any Lorentz-invariant expression.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1.1, Eq. (2.5)] The exclusion of the spurious RS amplitudes rests on the claim after Eq. (2.5) that no Lorentz invariant expression exists because of the explicit |q>-dependence. This is asserted, not proved. The text does not show that (2.5) is the unique expression satisfying the stated factorisation requirements, nor does it scan over other Lorentz structures, contact terms, or combinations of residues that vanish on individual Mandelstam poles but contribute on the all-channel pole. Because this step is what completes the argument of [33] and underwrites the abstract's first headline claim, it needs either a proof or an explicit no-go scan. The fact that the all-channel pole criterion itself is imported from the self-cited companion [35] makes the gap more serious.
  2. [Sections 1, 2.2.3, 6.3] The paper contains explicit disclaimers: Section 1 says 'I do not promise perfect accuracy with negative signs', Section 2.2.3 says 'I admit that I do not fully understand the crossing signs for these amplitudes', and Section 6.3 says 'I do not have a complete derivation of all of the sign flips'. These signs enter the quadratic systems (2.26), (2.50), (2.52) and the superfactorisation constraints (6.19)-(6.21), which determine the supermultiplet structure and the Lie-algebra/GCS conclusions. If any relative sign is wrong, the pattern of cancellations can change and the derived consistency conditions may not be the actual conditions. For a proof of uniqueness this is a load-bearing gap rather than a presentation issue.
  3. [8.4] The reconstruction of the N=4 super-Higgs mechanism is claimed to be complete up to a free phase and to determine all N=4 Minkowski vacua of gauged maximal supergravity. This conclusion assumes the simple-pole factorisation of Eq. (1.1) for every channel and, as stated in the Introduction, the absence of higher-spin massive particles. The special massive BPS kinematics of Section 3 introduce additional analytic structure, and Section 4.3 explicitly shows that cross-channel poles can appear in superresidues; the paper does not prove that no further singularities of this type arise at the same order in the super-Higgs analysis. The reconstruction should either include such a proof or be stated explicitly as conditional on this assumption.
  4. [4.3 and 6.3] The derivation of the Jacobi identity from superfactorisation in Section 4.3, and its generalisation in Section 6.3, is a load-bearing link between consistent factorisation and Lie-algebra structure. The text reports that 'significant algebraic manipulation' is needed to reduce (6.25) and its conjugate to the Jacobi and GCS conditions, but the intermediate steps are not shown. Since the central claim is that these conditions are obligatory consequences of causality, the computation should be made reproducible, for example by listing the independent Lorentz-structure coefficients before the final reduction.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The phrase 'they obey the triangle indequality' contains a typo: 'indequality' should be 'inequality'. The manuscript would also benefit from a short index of notation for the many repeated objects such as x, u_i, v_i, F_3, and the SU(2) little-group indices.
  2. [Section 2.1.1] The term 'all-channel pole' is used as a key test but is not defined in this section; a one-sentence definition, or a cross-reference to the precise definition in [35], would improve readability and self-containedness.
  3. [Introduction] The statement 'I do not promise perfect accuracy with negative signs' is unusual in a paper whose central arguments are consistency proofs; if the final version keeps this disclaimer, it should be accompanied by a list of the equations whose signs are claimed to be fully checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central chain starts from an explicit analytic-structure postulate (Section 1, Eq. (1.1)) and builds massless and massive 3-particle amplitudes from Lorentz invariance, little-group covariance and SUSY, with higher-point consistency imposed through factorisation and soft limits. The gravitino theorem in Section 2.1.1 uses the 'all-channel pole' criterion imported from the author's prequel [35], but that criterion is a parameter-free technical tool about pole structure, not a statement that already contains the RS-to-gravitino conclusion; applying it to the amplitudes (2.1)-(2.2) is new work. The reference-spinor argument in Eq. (2.5) is the paper's own assertion, and the skeptic's concern that no exhaustive scan of alternative Lorentz structures is shown is a legitimate correctness gap, not a circularity: no equation in the paper equates the conclusion to its premise. The massive multiplet and BPS results are derived from the algebraic consistency equations (2.26), (2.50) and the soft-limit master formula (2.8), rather than being fitted or assumed. Sections 4-8 legitimately take SUSY as an input for theories with pre-established supersymmetry and derive constraints such as the Jacobi identity and GCS couplings; this is conditional derivation, not circularity. Self-citations to [35], [53] and [65] provide conventions, prior S-matrix technology and an all-channel pole test; they are independent support with stated assumptions that do not include the paper's target results. No step exhibits the pattern of a parameter fitted to data then renamed a prediction, nor a result forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The only remaining degree of freedom is a phase in the N=8->4 super-Higgs couplings. The stated axioms are the S-matrix analytic structure, the soft-limit master formula, and the BPS superspace representation. No ad hoc entities are introduced; the super-Higgs multiplets are derived as consistency requirements.

free parameters (1)
  • Free phase in N=8->4 super-Higgs coupling structure
    Section 8 introduction states the coupling structure is 'fully constrained up to a free phase'. This phase is not determined by the consistency constraints.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The S-matrix has only simple poles in Mandelstam invariants with residues factorizing into on-shell subamplitudes, and any factorisation channel consistent with the spectrum necessarily occurs.
    Stated in Section 1, Eq. (1.1) and the two bullets below it. This is the foundational postulate of the bootstrap.
  • domain assumption The complex soft limit formula (2.8) correctly encodes all constraints from consistent factorisation when a leg is taken soft.
    Adopted from [65] and [71] (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.1). Used to derive the massive SWIs and the supermultiplet structure in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Massive BPS particles with central charges admit the on-shell superspace representation of Section 4.1, including the special 3-particle kinematics of Section 3.
    The BPS superamplitudes in Sections 4-8 are built in this representation. If the coherent-state representation breaks down for some central charge configurations, the derived constraints (e.g., Lie algebra structure) would not follow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supersymmetry, Supergravity and the Consistency of On-Shell Massive Superamplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXOKKLPG

@misc{pith2026260804080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supersymmetry, Supergravity and the Consistency of On-Shell Massive Superamplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXOKKLPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04080}
}
abstract

I study constraints from consistent complex factorisation of $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering amplitudes in $4d$ and their relationship with supersymmetry. I complete the argument demonstrating that a massless helicity-$3/2$ particle must be a gravitino in a theory of supergravity and derive the structure and couplings of massive supermultiplets from first principles. For massive BPS particles in theories with extended supersymmetry, further constraints on the couplings are derived from consistent factorisation of massive superamplitudes. Among these is the requirement that BPS vector bosons must have couplings conforming to Lie algebra structure constants or generalised Chern-Simons terms. The gravitational coupling is shown to participate and draws the graviphotons into the Lie algebra. All $2\rightarrow 2$ tree-level amplitudes of massive particles with spin $s\leq 1$ are calculated in (super)gravity using on-shell methods and the double copy. These are assembled and decomposed into (super)amplitudes with varying amounts of supersymmetry. Finally, I study scattering of BPS gravitinos with unbroken $\mathcal{N}\geq 4$ supergravity and show that consistent factorisation leads to the full reconstruction of the super-Higgs mechanism. This argument completely determines the perturbative structure of all $\mathcal{N}=4$ Minkowski vacua of gauged maximal supergravity. Gravitinos in theories not admitting a super-Higgs mechanism are ruled-out.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

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

    arXiv 2014

  2. [35]

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

    T. Trott,Consistent Scattering Amplitudes, Yang-Mills, the Higgs Mechanism and the EFTs Beyond,arXiv:2605.04152

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [1]

    Elvang and Y

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

    arXiv 2015

  4. [2]

    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

    arXiv 2014

  5. [3]

    Mizera,Physics of the analytic S-matrix,Phys

    S. Mizera,Physics of the analytic S-matrix,Phys. Rept.1047(2024) 1–92, [arXiv:2306.05395]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir, S. Mizera, and C. Pasiecznik,Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Asymptotic Observables, 2, 2025.arXiv:2502.13021

    arXiv 2025

  7. [5]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,The SAGEX review on scattering amplitudes Chapter 2: An invitation to color-kinematics duality and the double copy,J. Phys. A55(2022), no. 44 443003, [arXiv:2203.13013]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [6]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,Supergravity Amplitudes, the Double Copy, and Ultraviolet Behavior. 2023.arXiv:2304.07392

    arXiv 2023

Show all 113 references
  1. [7]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson,New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085011, [arXiv:0805.3993]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer,Nonrenormalization and Operator Mixing via On-Shell Methods,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020), no. 5 051601, [arXiv:1910.05831]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Jiang, J

    M. Jiang, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and Y.-H. Zheng,Partial Wave Amplitude Basis and Selection Rules in Effective Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021), no. 1 011601, [arXiv:2001.04481]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    C. R. T. Jones and B. McPeak,The Black Hole Weak Gravity Conjecture with Multiple Charges,JHEP06(2020) 140, [arXiv:1908.10452]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [11]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    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]. – 143 –

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin,Soft Bootstrap and Effective Field Theories,JHEP11(2019) 078, [arXiv:1904.12859]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka,Effective Field Theories from Soft Limits of Scattering Amplitudes,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015), no. 22 221602, [arXiv:1412.4095]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, C.-H. Shen, and J. Trnka,A Periodic Table of Effective Field Theories,JHEP02(2017) 020, [arXiv:1611.03137]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Balkin, G

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

    2022 arXiv

  11. [17]

    J. M. Drummond, J. M. Henn, and J. Plefka,Yangian symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory,JHEP05(2009) 046, [arXiv:0902.2987]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,The Amplituhedron,JHEP10(2014) 030, [arXiv:1312.2007]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    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

  14. [20]

    Caron-Huot and Z

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

    2019 arXiv

  15. [21]

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

    arXiv

  16. [22]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines,Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,JHEP09(2019) 056, [arXiv:1812.06895]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Chung, Y.-T

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell,Kerr black holes as elementary particles, JHEP01(2020) 046, [arXiv:1906.10100]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, and M. Zeng,Spinning black hole binary dynamics, scattering amplitudes, and effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 6 065014, [arXiv:2005.03071]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Chiodaroli, H

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

    2022 arXiv

  21. [27]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and P. Vanhove,On-shell Techniques and Universal Results in Quantum Gravity,JHEP02(2014) 111, [arXiv:1309.0804]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Correia, H

    M. Correia, H. S. Hannesdottir, G. Isabella, A. M. Wolz, Z. Zhou, M. Giroux, S. Mizera, and C. Pasiecznik,Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Gravitational Physics from Scattering Amplitudes, 12, 2024.arXiv:2412.11649

    2024 arXiv

  23. [29]

    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

  24. [30]

    Weinberg and E

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

    1980

  25. [31]

    Weinberg,Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein’s equations,Physical Review138(1965), no

    S. Weinberg,Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein’s equations,Physical Review138(1965), no. 4B B988. – 144 –

    1965

  26. [32]

    Benincasa and F

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

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

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

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Adams, N

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

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [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]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, S. Ricossa, and F. Riva,Massive gravity is not positive,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 2 024051, [arXiv:2304.02550]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bellazzini, A

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

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Caron-Huot and V

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

    2021 arXiv

  34. [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]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [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]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    2021 arXiv

  37. [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]

    2025

  38. [46]

    Häring, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Calisto, C

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

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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]. – 145 –

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gherghetta and W

    T. Gherghetta and W. Ke,Effective interactions and on-shell recursion relation for massive spin 3/2,JHEP04(2025) 014, [arXiv:2408.16065]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Herderschee, S

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

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Herderschee, S

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

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abhishek, S

    M. Abhishek, S. Hegde, D. P. Jatkar, and A. P. Saha,Scattering Amplitudes and BCFW in N= 2 ∗ Theory,SciPost Phys.13(2022), no. 1 008, [arXiv:2202.12204]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chiodaroli, M

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Gunaydin, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,Spontaneously Broken Yang-Mills-Einstein Supergravities as Double Copies,JHEP06(2017) 064, [arXiv:1511.01740]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chiodaroli, M

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Günaydin, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,Non-Abelian gauged supergravities as double copies,JHEP06(2019) 099, [arXiv:1812.10434]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Johansson, G

    H. Johansson, G. Kälin, G. Mogull, and B. Verbeek,Two-loopN= 1SYM Amplitudes via SUSY Decomposition and Massive Spinor-Helicity,arXiv:2312.17219

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo, and J. Kaplan,What is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?,JHEP09(2010) 016, [arXiv:0808.1446]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. M. Drummond and J. M. Henn,All tree-level amplitudes in N=4 SYM,JHEP04(2009) 018, [arXiv:0808.2475]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Beisert et al.,Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview,Lett

    N. Beisert et al.,Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview,Lett. Math. Phys.99 (2012) 3–32, [arXiv:1012.3982]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    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]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Deser and B

    S. Deser and B. Zumino,Broken supersymmetry and supergravity,Physical Review Letters 38(1977), no. 25 1433

    1977

  59. [67]

    Catino, G

    F. Catino, G. Dall’Agata, G. Inverso, and F. Zwirner,On the moduli space of spontaneously brokenN= 8supergravity,JHEP09(2013) 040, [arXiv:1307.4389]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Csaki, S

    C. Csaki, S. Hong, Y. Shirman, O. Telem, J. Terning, and M. Waterbury,Scattering amplitudes for monopoles: pairwise little group and pairwise helicity,JHEP08(2021) 029, [arXiv:2009.14213]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Srednicki,Quantum field theory

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

    2007

  62. [70]

    R. M. Fonseca, C. Hernandez-Garcia, J. M. Lizana, and M. Perez-Victoria,Gauge theories from scattering amplitudes with minimal assumptions,arXiv:2511.21664. – 146 –

  63. [71]

    Falkowski and C

    A. Falkowski and C. S. Machado,Soft Matters, or the Recursions with Massive Spinors, JHEP05(2021) 238, [arXiv:2005.08981]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov,Possible universal neutrino interaction,JETP Lett.16 (1972) 438–440

    1972

  65. [73]

    Elvang, M

    H. Elvang, M. Hadjiantonis, C. R. T. Jones, and S. Paranjape,Soft Bootstrap and Supersymmetry,JHEP01(2019) 195, [arXiv:1806.06079]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cheung, Y

    C. Cheung, Y. Nomura, and J. Thaler,Goldstini,JHEP03(2010) 073, [arXiv:1002.1967]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Cheung and D

    C. Cheung and D. O’Connell,Amplitudes and Spinor-Helicity in Six Dimensions,JHEP07 (2009) 075, [arXiv:0902.0981]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ni, Y.-N

    Y.-H. Ni, Y.-N. Wang, C. Wu, and J.-H. Yu,Extended Poincare Symmetry Dictates Massive Scattering Amplitudes,arXiv:2412.03762

    arXiv

  69. [77]

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

    2012 arXiv

  70. [78]

    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

  71. [79]

    Huang,Non-Chiral S-Matrix of N=4 Super Yang-Mills,arXiv:1104.2021

    Y.-t. Huang,Non-Chiral S-Matrix of N=4 Super Yang-Mills,arXiv:1104.2021

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    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]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Dennen and Y.-t

    T. Dennen and Y.-t. Huang,Dual Conformal Properties of Six-Dimensional Maximal Super Yang-Mills Amplitudes,JHEP01(2011) 140, [arXiv:1010.5874]

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, T. Dennen, Y.-t. Huang, and H. Ita,Generalized Unitarity and Six-Dimensional Helicity,Phys. Rev.D83(2011) 085022, [arXiv:1010.0494]

    2011 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Fayet,Spontaneous Generation of Massive Multiplets and Central Charges in Extended Supersymmetric Theories,Nucl

    P. Fayet,Spontaneous Generation of Massive Multiplets and Central Charges in Extended Supersymmetric Theories,Nucl. Phys.B149(1979) 137

    1979

  76. [84]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, C. S. Machado, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss,Constructing massive on-shell contact terms,JHEP12(2020) 175, [arXiv:2008.09652]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Chiodaroli, M

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Gunaydin, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,Non-compact gauge groups, tensor fields and Yang-Mills-Einstein amplitudes,JHEP08(2024) 007, [arXiv:2312.17212]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    de Wit, P

    B. de Wit, P. G. Lauwers, and A. Van Proeyen,Lagrangians of N=2 Supergravity - Matter Systems,Nucl. Phys. B255(1985) 569–608

    1985

  80. [88]

    Andrianopoli, S

    L. Andrianopoli, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo,Axion gauge symmetries and generalized Chern-Simons terms in N = 1 supersymmetric theories,JHEP04(2004) 005, [hep-th/0402142]

    2004 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Anastasopoulos, M

    P. Anastasopoulos, M. Bianchi, E. Dudas, and E. Kiritsis,Anomalies, anomalous U(1)’s and generalized Chern-Simons terms,JHEP11(2006) 057, [hep-th/0605225]

    2006 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Van Proeyen,Structure of supergravity theories, in11th Fall Workshop on Geometry and Physics, 1, 2003.hep-th/0301005

    A. Van Proeyen,Structure of supergravity theories, in11th Fall Workshop on Geometry and Physics, 1, 2003.hep-th/0301005. – 147 –

    2003 arXiv

  83. [91]

    D’Auria and P

    R. D’Auria and P. Fre,BPS black holes in supergravity: Duality groups, p-branes, central charges and the entropy, in8th Graduate School in Contempory Relativity and Gravitational Physics: The Physics of Black Holes (SIGRAV 98), pp. 137–272, 12, 1998. hep-th/9812160

    1998 arXiv

  84. [92]

    S. B. Giddings,The gravitational S-matrix: Erice lectures,Subnucl. Ser.48(2013) 93–147, [arXiv:1105.2036]

    2013 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Biggs and C

    R. Biggs and C. C. Remsing,Some remarks on the oscillator group,Differential Geometry and its Applications35(2014) 199–209. International Conference on Differential Geometry and its Applications

    2014

  86. [94]

    Hang and H.-J

    Y.-F. Hang and H.-J. He,Gravitational Equivalence Theorem and Double-Copy for Kaluza-Klein Graviton Scattering Amplitudes,Research2022(2022) 9860945, [arXiv:2207.11214]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Hang, W.-W

    Y. Hang, W.-W. Zhao, H.-J. He, and Y.-L. Qiu,Structure of massive gauge/gravity scattering amplitudes, equivalence theorems, and extended double-copy with compactified warped space,JHEP02(2025) 001, [arXiv:2406.12713]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bonifacio and K

    J. Bonifacio and K. Hinterbichler,Unitarization from Geometry,JHEP12(2019) 165, [arXiv:1910.04767]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    R. S. Chivukula, J. A. Gill, K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta, E. H. Simmons, and X. Wang, Symmetries, spin-2 scattering amplitudes, and equivalence theorems in warped five-dimensional gravitational theories,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 7 075016, [arXiv:2312.08576]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz,Spontaneous Breaking of Supersymmetry Through Dimensional Reduction,Phys. Lett.82B(1979) 60–64

    1979

  91. [99]

    Cremmer, J

    E. Cremmer, J. Scherk, and J. H. Schwarz,Spontaneously Broken N=8 Supergravity,Phys. Lett. B84(1979) 83–86

    1979

  92. [100]

    Andrianopoli, R

    L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo,Super Higgs effect in extended supergravity,Nucl. Phys.B640(2002) 46–62, [hep-th/0202116]

    2002 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz,How to Get Masses from Extra Dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B 153(1979) 61–88

    1979

  94. [102]

    Bergman,Three pronged strings and 1/4 BPS states in N=4 superYang-Mills theory, Nucl

    O. Bergman,Three pronged strings and 1/4 BPS states in N=4 superYang-Mills theory, Nucl. Phys. B525(1998) 104–116, [hep-th/9712211]

    1998 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Andrianopoli, R

    L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo,Gauging of flat groups in four-dimensional supergravity,JHEP07(2002) 010, [hep-th/0203206]

    2002 arXiv

  96. [104]

    C. M. Hull,New gauged N=8, D = 4 supergravities,Class. Quant. Grav.20(2003) 5407–5424, [hep-th/0204156]

    2003 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Gherghetta and W

    T. Gherghetta and W. Ke,Supergravity from the Bottom Up,arXiv:2507.12538

    arXiv

  98. [106]

    Desai, D

    J. Desai, D. Ghosh, and S. Pant,Positivity in Massive Spin-3/2 EFTs and the Planck-Suppressed Neighbourhood of Supergravity,arXiv:2605.11072

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    Pokraka, S

    A. Pokraka, S. Rajan, L. Ren, A. Volovich, and W. W. Zhao,Five-dimensional spinor helicity for all masses and spins,JHEP07(2025) 056, [arXiv:2405.09533]

    2025 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, A. Joyce, E. Pajer, G. L. Pimentel, C. Sleight, and M. Taronna, – 148 – Snowmass White Paper: The Cosmological Bootstrap,SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.2024 (2024) 1, [arXiv:2203.08121]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Chen, Y.-t

    W.-M. Chen, Y.-t. Huang, Z.-X. Huang, and Y. Liu,Fermionic boundary correlators in (EA)dS space,JHEP06(2026) 041, [arXiv:2512.22097]

    2026

  102. [110]

    Ferrara, C

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

    1981

  103. [111]

    P. C. Argyres,An Introduction to Global Supersymmetry,

  104. [112]

    Zwanziger,Angular distributions and a selection rule in charge-pole reactions,Phys

    D. Zwanziger,Angular distributions and a selection rule in charge-pole reactions,Phys. Rev. D6(1972) 458–470

    1972

  105. [113]

    Henriksson, B

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi,Bounding violations of the weak gravity conjecture,JHEP08(2022) 184, [arXiv:2203.08164]. – 149 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.