Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Non-factorizable Superamplitudes for Massive N = 1 Superstates

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One formula determines all massive N=1 superamplitudes

desk verdict A plausible and useful master formula for massive non-factorizable N=1 superamplitudes, but the 'most general' claim rests on an unproven uniqueness assertion. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08741 v1 pith:7DMLNYO4 submitted 2025-05-13 hep-th hep-ph

Antonio Delgado , Adam Martin , Runqing Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords N=1supersymmetrysuperamplitudesmassivespinor-helicitysupersymmetricWardidentitieslittlegroupscalingnon-factorizableamplitudesformfactorson-shelleffectivefieldtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that the non-factorizable part of any N-point superamplitude built from massive N=1 chiral or anti-chiral superstates is fixed by supersymmetry, little-group scaling, and the requirement that it reduce to the known massless superamplitude when every mass is sent to zero. The claimed master formula for the undressed case is $A(\Psi_1\cdots\Psi_N)=\delta^{(2)}(Q^\dagger)\,Q^2\prod_{i=1}^N(1-\tfrac12\eta_{iI}\eta^I_i)$, where the factor $1-\tfrac12\eta_i^2$ is the dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet component of a massive superstate in the coherent-state basis. The same construction works when the amplitude is dressed by form factors built from $Q\Psi_i\to\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$ and $Q^\dagger\Psi_i\to\tilde\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$, and it does not care whether the fermionic components are Majorana or Dirac. If the paper is right, this gives an on-shell way to enumerate higher-dimensional operators in supersymmetric effective theories without off-shell redundancies. The authors check the three-point case against the known Wess-Zumino result and show that the form-factor-dressed and Dirac-state versions follow from the same master formula.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the massive coherent-state factor $G_i=1-\tfrac12\eta_{iI}\eta^I_i$, the unique dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet built from the two Grassmann variables of a massive N=1 superstate; it plays the role that $\eta_i$ (for a chiral leg) or $1$ (for an anti-chiral leg) plays in the massless replacement rules. With it, the undressed amplitude is assembled as $\delta^{(2)}(Q^\dagger)Q^2\prod_i G_i$, where $\delta^{(2)}(Q^\dagger)$ enforces the super-Ward identity and $Q^2$ carries the mass dimension. Form-factor dressing is generated by replacing legs according to $Q\Psi_i\to\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$ and $Q^\dagger\Psi_i\to\tilde\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$, each insertion adding dimension $1/2$ without changing the little-group scaling; pairs of such insertions build the dressed amplitudes shown in Section 3.3. The proof structure relies on an appendix argument that any non-factorizable massless amplitude must contain a factor $Q^2(\eta_{i_1}\cdots\eta_{i_{N_\eta}})$, which is then lifted to the massive case by the massless-limit requirement.

What would settle it

Compute the four- or five-point non-factorizable amplitude from an explicit supersymmetric higher-dimensional operator, such as $\int d^4\theta\,\Psi^2\bar\Psi^2$, with the massive propagators evaluated on shell, and compare term by term with $\delta^{(2)}(Q^\dagger)Q^2\prod(1-\tfrac12\eta_i^2)$. If any dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet term appears that satisfies the Ward identity and vanishes in the massless limit but is absent from the master formula, the claimed uniqueness fails. A simpler targeted check is to enumerate all independent SU(2)-singlet polynomials in the $\eta_{iI}$ of degree four or higher for N=4 and test them directly against the Ward identity and massless-limit conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every non-factorizable massive N=1 superamplitude has the form $\delta^{(2)}(Q^\dagger)Q^2G$, with $G=\prod_{i=1}^N(1-\tfrac12\eta_{iI}\eta^I_i)$ for the undressed case, and that $G$ is the unique dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet compatible with the massless limit. The factor $1-\tfrac12\eta_i^2$ is forced because a massive superstate splits into a chiral and an anti-chiral massless superstate, and both daughter amplitudes must come out with the same relative coefficient. Adding a form factor means acting on individual legs with $Q$ and $Q^\dagger$, which preserves little-group scaling and reproduces the massless replacement rules $Q\Psi_i\to\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$ and $Q^\dagger\Psi_i\to\tilde\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$. The construction does not depend on whether the states are self-conjugate; for Dirac states one simply tracks $\Psi$ versus $\bar\Psi$ when taking massless limits. The paper concludes that the non-factorizable piece of the N-point massive superamplitude is therefore determined up to an overall coefficient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the asserted uniqueness in Section 3.2 of the factor $G=\prod_i(1-\tfrac12\eta_i^2)$: the paper assumes no other dimension-zero, SU(2)-singlet polynomial in the Grassmann variables can be added to the amplitude without breaking the Ward identity or the massless limit, and this uniqueness is stated without proof, so the 'most general' conclusion for N>3 rests on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every undressed non-factorizable massive N-point superamplitude is determined up to one overall coefficient; there is no additional SU(2)-singlet contact term with the same mass dimension and little-group weight.
  • The massless limit of the master formula automatically yields the expected daughter amplitudes, reproducing the known three-point results including the terms $[1I2J]\eta_{1I}\eta_{2J}$ and the mass-dependent $\eta^2$ pieces.
  • Form-factor dressed amplitudes are built by inserting $Q\Psi_i\to\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$ and $Q^\dagger\Psi_i\to\tilde\lambda_{iI}\eta^I_i$ in pairs; each dressing is the on-shell image of partitioning derivatives in an operator.
  • For Majorana states with R-charge 1, imposing R-symmetry forces the amplitude to scale as $\eta^{N_\Psi}$; because the general form only has even powers of $\eta$, odd-particle interactions of this type are forbidden at the amplitude level.
  • The construction is unchanged for Dirac states; the only modification is bookkeeping $\Psi$ versus $\bar\Psi$ when projecting onto massless chiral and anti-chiral daughters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the uniqueness of $G$ is accepted, the same master formula should also organize the complete on-shell basis of non-renormalizable operators for massive superfields: each operator class would correspond to the base amplitude plus a form-factor tower, replacing the off-shell equation-of-motion redundancy with on-shell contact terms.
  • A direct test of the uniqueness premise would be to enumerate all dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet polynomials in the $\eta_{iI}$ for N=4 or N=5 and check explicitly that none of them, when inserted in place of $\prod(1-\tfrac12\eta^2)$, satisfies the Ward identity and massless-limit conditions; the paper states uniqueness without giving this enumeration for N>3.
  • The same logic suggests a route to massive vector supermultiplets, provided the three-point amplitudes are arranged so that momentum factors sit only in numerators; the authors flag denominator-type kinematic factors as the obstacle for vectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-factorizable N=1 superamplitudes for massive chiral and anti-chiral superstates. Starting from massless amplitudes determined by dimensional analysis, little group scaling, and the supersymmetric Ward identities, it proposes a massive master formula A(Ψ_1...Ψ_N) = δ^(2)(Q†) Q^2(∏_i (1 - ½η_i^2)) and argues that this is the most general non-factorizable amplitude. The construction is extended to Dirac (non-self-conjugate) states and to form-factor dressings generated by acting on legs with Q and Q†. The paper checks the N=3 result against Ref. [23] and verifies several massless limits in Appendix D.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper gives a compact and elegant classification: every non-factorizable massive N=1 superamplitude is fixed up to an overall coefficient by supersymmetry, little group scaling, and the massless limit. The treatment of Majorana vs. Dirac states and of form-factor dressings is systematic, and the explicit match with the known 3-point amplitude and the massless reductions provide nontrivial consistency checks. However, the load-bearing uniqueness assertion for the massive factor G is not proven, and the submitted manuscript therefore does not yet establish the 'most general' form claimed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.5)] The load-bearing premise of the paper is the assertion that G = ∏_i(1 - ½η_i^2) is the unique factor satisfying the three criteria stated in Section 3.2: mass dimension zero, SU(2)-singlet little group behavior for each leg, and reduction to the massless little group scaling. This uniqueness is not proven, and the criteria as stated do not imply it. For N≥4, G_c = G0(1 + c η_1^2 η_2^2) has mass dimension zero, is an SU(2) singlet for each leg, and is nonvanishing in the massless limit: with Ψ|m=0 = η̂Φ + Φ†, η_i^2 reduces to a multiple of η̂_i η_i, so the deformation changes the relative weight of the daughter amplitude in which legs 1 and 2 are chiral while leaving the anti-chiral daughters unchanged. The paper provides no argument that the massless Ward identities fix those relative weights; Appendix A proves Q^2-factorization only in the massless setting and assumes a fixed η-degree, so it does not constrain massive SU(2)-singlet completion terms. The N=3 comparison makes the gap concrete: Eq. (3.8) from Ref. [23] contains two independent parameters λ and b, while Eq. (3.7) is the one-parameter slice λ = -b m3; footnote 12 explicitly concedes that little group scaling and the Ward identity do not relate λ and b, and the massless-limit argument invoked to relate them presupposes the uniqueness in question. I request either a proof that c=0 follows from the stated criteria (for instance by solving the massive Ward identities directly for N=4), or a revised claim that presents Eq. (3.5) as a canonical amplitude with the required massless limit rather than as the most general non-factorizable amplitude.
  2. [Section 3.3] The form-factor master formulae inherit the same ambiguity. The statement that the only forms consistent with the three criteria for QΨ_i and Q†Ψ_i are λ_{iI}η^I_i and λ̃_{iI}η^I_i concerns the single-leg action and may be correct, but it does not fix the base factor G. Inserting G_c = G0(1 + c η_1^2 η_2^2) into the examples listed after Eq. (3.11) preserves the kinematic prefactors and the leg-by-leg supercharge actions while altering the relative weights of the massless daughter amplitudes obtained in the massless limit. Thus the master formulae of Section 3.3 are only as unique as Eq. (3.5). The paper should either extend the uniqueness proof to the dressed amplitudes or label the form-factor results as canonical examples rather than the most general ones.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.4)] The massless limit of Ψ_{i,lowest} = 1 - ½η_i^2 is written as η̂_i η_i + 1, but with a conventional contraction η_i^2 = η_i^+η_i^- + η_i^-η_i^+ and the replacement η^+→η̂, η^-→η one obtains 1 - η̂_i η_i. Please state the contraction/sign convention explicitly, since the sign propagates into the relative coefficients in Section 3.2 and Appendix D.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.6)] The statement that the term proportional to η_2^2 η_3^2 'vanishes when hit by δ^(2)(Q†)' is not self-evident, because δ^(2)(Q†) contains the piece ½ m_1 η_1^2 whose product with η_2^2 η_3^2 is the top-degree monomial η_1^2 η_2^2 η_3^2 and need not vanish for three massive legs. Please show the explicit cancellation or clarify the convention.
  3. [General] There are several typographical errors: 'idenitites' in Section 2, 'polynormial' in Section 2.3, 'to to' in Conclusions, and 'perpermultiplets' in Conclusions. Please proofread.
  4. [Section 2.2] The counting argument that 'there are enough conditions to completely determine the amplitude up to an overall coefficient' for general N_c is only sketched; providing the explicit linear system or a reference to the earlier derivation in Ref. [24] would make the massless foundation easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the massive construction is an extrapolation constrained by re-derived massless Ward identities and benchmarked against external Ref. [23]; the asserted uniqueness of G is an omitted proof, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Score 0: I find no circular reduction in the derivation chain. The massless non-factorizable amplitudes (Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A) are fixed by dimensional analysis, little-group scaling, and the supersymmetric Ward identity QA=0, giving F∝Q^2(η_1...η_Nc); this is derived in the paper, not merely imported from Refs. [24,25]. The massive construction (Sec. 3.2) proceeds by an extrapolation whose only free piece, the SU(2)-singlet factor G=∏(1−1/2η_i^2), is then checked against the external three-point superamplitudes of Ref. [23]: Eq. (3.7) reduces to the one-parameter slice of Eq. (3.8) with λ=−b m3/m, and Appendix D verifies the massless chiral/anti-chiral daughter amplitudes. No fitted data are renamed as predictions, and the self-citations to Refs. [24,25] are not load-bearing because the massless forms they refer to are re-derived here. The legitimate weakness is a missing proof rather than circularity: Sec. 3.2 asserts without proof that G is unique (text before Eq. (3.5): 'The unique form that satisfies these requirements is...'), and the three listed criteria do not by themselves exclude additional dimension-zero SU(2)-singlet deformations (e.g., products of η_i^2 factors) that could alter relative daughter weights while vanishing or surviving in the massless limit. This leaves the 'most general' claim for N>3 underdetermined, but it is an omitted uniqueness argument, not a case of the output being equivalent to the input by construction.

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

The central claim depends on the massless framework from the authors' prior work, on the on-shell supersymmetry axioms, and critically on an unproven uniqueness assumption for the massive function G. No numerical parameters are fitted.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A non-factorizable amplitude has no momentum denominators; all momentum dependence enters through numerator factors.
    This definition/restriction is used throughout, starting in Section 2.2, and is acknowledged in the Conclusion as failing for vector superfields. It is essential to the dimensional analysis and to excluding 1/⟨ij⟩ factors.
  • domain assumption Massive superamplitudes must reduce to the massless superamplitudes when all masses are sent to zero.
    Section 3.2 uses this to fix the form of G. It is a consistency requirement imposed on the construction, not a consequence of the Ward identities alone.
  • standard math The supercharges Q and Q† are represented in spinor-helicity variables as Q=Σ λ_i ∂/∂η_i and Q†=Σ \tilde λ_i η_i, and physical superamplitudes are annihilated by both.
    Standard on-shell supersymmetry formalism used in Eqs. (2.1) and Section 3.1.
  • standard math The massive Grassmann delta function δ^(2)(Q†) takes the stated form including mass terms and satisfies the usual identities.
    Used to solve the Ward identity and to eliminate η_3 in Appendix C.
  • ad hoc to paper G, the function inside Q^2, is uniquely the product over particles of (1 - 1/2 η_i^2).
    Stated in Section 3.2 without proof. This uniqueness is load-bearing for the 'most general form' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-factorizable Superamplitudes for Massive N = 1 Superstates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DMLNYO4

@misc{pith2026250508741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-factorizable Superamplitudes for Massive N = 1 Superstates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DMLNYO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08741}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we study non-factorizable N = 1 superamplitudes for massive chiral superstates. We demonstrate how little group scaling and the supersymmetric Ward identities determine the form of non-factorizable massless superamplitudes, then extrapolate to massive superamplitudes by requiring they reduce to the massless form when we send all masses to zero. This technique does not depend on whether or not the superstates are self-conjugate (so that the fermionic components are either Dirac or Majorana) or whether the superamplitude is dressed with a form-factor.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Massive On-Shell Supersymmetric Scattering Amplitudes,

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren, and T. Trott, “Massive On-Shell Supersymmetric Scattering Amplitudes,” JHEP 10 (2019) 092, arXiv:1902.07204 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons,

    Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss, “Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons,” JHEP 02 (2019) 165, arXiv:1809.09644 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    Standard model effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes*,

    T. Ma, J. Shu, and M.-L. Xiao, “Standard model effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes*,” Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) no. 2, 023105, arXiv:1902.06752 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    The Rise of SMEFT On-shell Amplitudes,

    R. Aoude and C. S. Machado, “The Rise of SMEFT On-shell Amplitudes,” JHEP 12 (2019) 058, arXiv:1905.11433 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Constructing massive on-shell contact terms,

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, C. S. Machado, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss, “Constructing massive on-shell contact terms,” JHEP 12 (2020) 175, arXiv:2008.09652 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,

    S. De Angelis, “Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,” JHEP 08 (2022) 299, arXiv:2202.02681 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods,

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis, “Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods,” JHEP 11 (2021) 221, arXiv:2108.03669 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    An EFT hunter’s guide to two-to-two scattering: HEFT and SMEFT on-shell amplitudes,

    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,” JHEP 05 (2023) 241, arXiv:2301.11349 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang, “Scattering Amplitudes,” arXiv:1308.1697 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Dual superconformal symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory,

    J. M. Drummond, J. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and E. Sokatchev, “Dual superconformal symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 317–374, arXiv:0807.1095 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Solution to the Ward Identities for Superamplitudes,

    H. Elvang, D. Z. Freedman, and M. Kiermaier, “Solution to the Ward Identities for Superamplitudes,” JHEP 10 (2010) 103, arXiv:0911.3169 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    SUSY Ward identities, Superamplitudes, and Counterterms,

    H. Elvang, D. Z. Freedman, and M. Kiermaier, “SUSY Ward identities, Superamplitudes, and Counterterms,” J. Phys. A 44 (2011) 454009, arXiv:1012.3401 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and supergravity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992

    1992

  6. [13]

    One loop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinear limits,

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, “One loop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinear limits,” Nucl. Phys. B 425 (1994) 217–260, arXiv:hep-ph/9403226

    1994 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, “Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes,” Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 59–101, arXiv:hep-ph/9409265

    1995 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Neutralino annihilation into two photons,

    Z. Bern, P. Gondolo, and M. Perelstein, “Neutralino annihilation into two photons,” Phys. Lett. B 411 (1997) 86–96, arXiv:hep-ph/9706538

    1997 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Two loop helicity amplitudes for gluon-gluon scattering in QCD and supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, and L. J. Dixon, “Two loop helicity amplitudes for gluon-gluon scattering in QCD and supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP 03 (2002) 018, arXiv:hep-ph/0201161

    2002 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Two-loop helicity amplitudes for quark-quark scattering in QCD and gluino-gluino scattering in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    A. De Freitas and Z. Bern, “Two-loop helicity amplitudes for quark-quark scattering in QCD and gluino-gluino scattering in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP 09 (2004) 039, arXiv:hep-ph/0409007. – 21 –

    2004 arXiv

  11. [18]

    One-loop gluon scattering amplitudes in theories with N < 4 supersymmetries,

    S. J. Bidder, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar, and W. B. Perkins, “One-loop gluon scattering amplitudes in theories with N < 4 supersymmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 612 (2005) 75–88, arXiv:hep-th/0502028

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    The Cut-constructible part of QCD amplitudes,

    R. Britto, B. Feng, and P. Mastrolia, “The Cut-constructible part of QCD amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 105004, arXiv:hep-ph/0602178

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    On the Structure of Supersymmetric Sums in Multi-Loop Unitarity Cuts,

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, H. Ita, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, “On the Structure of Supersymmetric Sums in Multi-Loop Unitarity Cuts,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 065029, arXiv:0903.5348 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [21]

    On-shell superamplitudes in N <4 SYM,

    H. Elvang, Y.-t. Huang, and C. Peng, “On-shell superamplitudes in N <4 SYM,” JHEP 09 (2011) 031, arXiv:1102.4843 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Constructing N = 4 Coulomb branch superamplitudes,

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren, and T. Trott, “Constructing N = 4 Coulomb branch superamplitudes,” JHEP 08 (2019) 107, arXiv:1902.07205 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Basis for non-factorizable superamplitudes in N = 1 supersymmetry,

    A. Delgado, A. Martin, and R. Wang, “Basis for non-factorizable superamplitudes in N = 1 supersymmetry,” JHEP 09 (2024) 051, arXiv:2406.01861 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hidden U(N) symmetry behind N = 1 superamplitudes,

    A. Delgado, A. Martin, and R. Wang, “Hidden U(N) symmetry behind N = 1 superamplitudes,” JHEP 11 (2023) 215, arXiv:2309.15802 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Conformal-helicity duality \& the Hilbert space of free CFTs,

    B. Henning and T. Melia, “Conformal-helicity duality \& the Hilbert space of free CFTs,” arXiv:1902.06747 [hep-th]

    1902 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Constructing effective field theories via their harmonics,

    B. Henning and T. Melia, “Constructing effective field theories via their harmonics,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no. 1, 016015, arXiv:1902.06754 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Enumerating higher-dimensional operators with on-shell amplitudes,

    G. Durieux and C. S. Machado, “Enumerating higher-dimensional operators with on-shell amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no. 9, 095021, arXiv:1912.08827 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,

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

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss, “The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,” JHEP 01 (2020) 119, arXiv:1909.10551 [hep-ph] . – 22 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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