Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 53 references

One quartic two-derivative vertex reproduces all planar nonlinear-sigma-model amplitudes, the paper argues.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:00 UTC pith:EHXZKVUN

load-bearing objection Genuinely new two-field quartic representation of planar NLSM amplitudes; tree-level proof has an unproven combinatorial core and the all-loop claim leans on the standard cut-constructibility assumption, but the construction is elegant and worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27345 v1 pith:EHXZKVUN submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th

NLSM amplitudes from a quartic two-derivative theory

Qu Cao , Zhenqi Han , Fan Zhu This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords nonlinear sigma modelquartic two-derivative scalar theoryplanar partial amplitudesAdler zerodouble-soft factorgeneralized unitarityCatalan numbersmixed NLSM+phi^3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that all planar tree amplitudes and all-loop loop integrands of the SU(N) nonlinear sigma model (NLSM)—an effective theory normally built from an infinite tower of two-derivative interactions—can be reproduced exactly by a much simpler auxiliary scalar theory containing only two fields, ψ+ and ψ−, and a single quartic two-derivative vertex. The identity is exact at tree level and holds at loop level up to scaleless integrands that vanish after integration. If correct, this reveals that the familiar complexity of NLSM Feynman rules is an artifact of the original variables, and it makes the Adler zero and the leading double-soft factor manifest at all loop orders on generalized cuts, while drastically reducing the number of diagrams needed for high-multiplicity computations. The same construction partially extends to mixed NLSM+φ3 amplitudes, though there a finite set of local vertices does not yet close, and the paper leaves open whether a finite tower suffices.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Eq. (5): for even numbers of external legs, the planar NLSM tree amplitude Aπ_n is exactly equal to the QTDS tree amplitude Aψ_n computed with alternating polarities, and the all-loop NLSM integrand Iπ,(L)_n is equal to the QTDS integrand Iψ,(L)_n up to scaleless integrands. The auxiliary 'quartic two-derivative scalar' (QTDS) theory is defined by the Lagrangian L_QTDS = Tr(∂ψ+ ∂ψ−) + 2 Tr(∂ψ+ ψ− ∂ψ+ ψ−), whose only interaction is the quartic vertex V^(4)(ψ+1 ψ−2 ψ+3 ψ−4) = −2 k1·k3. The proof at tree level relies on matching the contact-term projection to the Catalan-counted minimal NLSM vertices via a 'fishpond' enumeration; at loop level it uses generalized un

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quartic two-derivative vertex with numerator −2 k1·k3, together with the rule that adjacent external legs carry opposite 'polarity' labels ψ+ and ψ− and every propagator connects fields of opposite polarities. This single local rule packages the entire infinite tower of NLSM contact interactions. At tree level, the combinatorial bookkeeping of which planar variables survive in each diagram sums, via Catalan numbers, to exactly the minimal NLSM contact vertices; at loop level, generalized unitarity lifts the equality to integrands because every generalized cut decomposes into already-matching tree amplitudes. The same vertex makes soft limits local: soft legs mu

Load-bearing premise

At loop level, the proof assumes that two integrands agreeing on every generalized cut can differ only by scaleless terms that integrate to zero; the paper gives no guarantee that no cut-free but non-vanishing (e.g., evanescent or rational) terms exist.

What would settle it

Take the two-loop four-point planar integrand computed from the QTDS vertex and from the standard NLSM Lagrangian; if their difference—after all generalized cuts are checked—yields a nonzero integral in dimensional regularization rather than a scaleless term, the all-loop claim is false. A cheaper probe is to verify the Catalan contact-term identity at 10 points by comparing the fishpond coefficient of the QTDS tree with the known NLSM contact vertex V^(10)_π.

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

If this is right

  • Planar NLSM amplitudes at any even multiplicity can be computed from a single quartic vertex, with far fewer diagrams than the cubic or even-valent expansions.
  • The Adler zero and the leading double-soft factor are manifest on generalized cuts at all loop orders, although at two loops and beyond a given polarity assignment makes only half of the Adler zeros manifest; the flipped assignment makes the complementary half, with the two integrands differing only by scaleless terms.
  • The tree-level leading single-soft coefficient reorganizes into a compact sum over mixed amplitudes, reproducing the known result.
  • Mixed NLSM+φ3 amplitudes can be matched by a few local quartic ψ–φ vertices plus a penta-vertex for certain polarity patterns, but the construction is not yet a finite closed tower for all multiplicities, and the paper explicitly leaves that question open.
  • The standard Feynman-diagram complexity of the NLSM is, if this claim holds, a choice of variables rather than an intrinsic feature of the physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The QTDS rewriting suggests that any effective field theory with enhanced soft behavior, such as the special Galileon (the double copy of two NLSMs), might admit an analogous minimal-valency auxiliary formulation; this is a conjecture we draw from the paper's closing outlook.
  • The polarity doublet functions as a kind of bookkeeping for two different integrand representatives that are cut-equivalent; a direct two-loop explicit check of the cut-free difference would be the sharpest test of the loop-level claim, which the paper does not perform.
  • The Catalan/fishpond enumeration is reminiscent of planar-algebra counting problems; if it fully captures the contact-term structure, it could yield a compact generating function for NLSM local vertices—an extension not pursued in the paper.
  • A testable extension: apply the QTDS rules to subleading double-soft limits, where the same local vertex patterns should fix the first corrections; the paper does not address subleading soft behavior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QTDS, a local scalar theory of two auxiliary fields ψ+ and ψ− with a kinetic mixing term and a single quartic two-derivative interaction (Eqs. (3)–(4)). It claims that planar NLSM tree amplitudes for even n are exactly reproduced by QTDS Feynman rules, and that the loop integrands agree up to scaleless integrands (Eq. (5)). The proof in Appendix A proceeds in planar variables via a factorization induction and a Catalan count of “fishpond” contact configurations, then extends to all loops by generalized unitarity. Sections III and IV discuss a tentative extension to mixed NLSM+φ3 amplitudes and derive soft behaviors from the quartic rules.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper is significant: it replaces the infinite tower of NLSM contact interactions with a single quartic two-derivative vertex, makes Adler zeros and double-soft factors manifest on generalized cuts, and offers a more efficient high-multiplicity diagrammatic expansion. The manuscript contains a concrete six-point check, a claimed 20-point computation, and a one-loop four-point example. However, the proof is currently incomplete: the fishpond counting is asserted rather than proved, and the generalized-unitarity step does not fully control cut-free ambiguities. These are technical gaps, not evidence against the result, but they must be closed before the paper can be accepted as a proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Figs. 8–10 and Eqs. (A2)–(A3)] The fishpond counting is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that the counting follows the Catalan recursion, but the constraints that all fishes are oriented toward the cross and that no two adjacent fishes point in the same direction are not incorporated into the recursion shown in Fig. 10. A bijection between admissible fishpond configurations and standard Catalan objects is needed. This is load-bearing because Eq. (A3) must equal Eq. (A2) for the contact-term matching that completes the tree-level induction.
  2. [Appendix A, ‘Contact projection’] The reduction to “exactly n−2 selected vertices each contain one blue line” relies on two unproved claims: different vertices never share the same propagator variable, and no selected vertex contains more than one cancelling line. If a propagator variable can appear in the numerator of two adjacent vertices, the cancellation channels are non-unique and the fish/cross classification may miss contact contributions. These points must be proved for Eq. (A3) to follow.
  3. [Appendix A, ‘Loop-level’] The generalized-unitarity argument establishes equality on all generalized cuts, but the conclusion that the difference integrates to zero requires that every cut-free integrand is scaleless. The text only says that terms with no generalized cuts, “including scaleless integrands,” integrate to zero; it does not exclude cut-free non-scaleless terms such as evanescent or rational pieces. No explicit two-loop check is provided. Hence the all-loop part of Eq. (5) is not proven as it stands.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and ancillary files] The claimed 20-point tree computation is mentioned but the ancillary Mathematica code and a checksum are not included in the manuscript. Please make the code available so that the high-multiplicity check is independently verifiable.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The notation A^ψ_n|_{k_a→k_a+τ p} shifts an external hard leg by a soft momentum, taking it off shell. Please clarify that this is a formal Taylor evaluation of the analytic amplitude, not a physical on-shell continuation.
  3. [Sec. III and Appendix B] The mixed-sector discussion shows that the naive quartic rules fail for some polarity patterns at n≥8 and require a penta-vertex (Eq. (8)). This does not contradict the pure-sector claim, but it underscores that the icon/adjacency constraints in Appendix A deserve a rigorous proof rather than inspection-based counting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: QTDS is fixed at four points and predicts higher multiplicities; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The central claim (5) is a matching-then-prediction construction, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The purely quartic vertex (4) is determined by the four-point NLSM amplitude; the six-point amplitude (6) is then computed from the local Feynman rules and checked against NLSM, and the Appendix A induction extends this by comparing physical residues and matching the contact projection (A3) to the independent Catalan contact representation (A2) taken from [53]. This is not circular: (A2) is an external input, and (A3) is derived from the quartic diagrammatics. The all-loop argument is standard generalized unitarity: each cut factorizes into tree amplitudes whose equality has been established, and the cut-free remainder is assumed scaleless. That assumption, like the unproved fishpond/Catalan counting and the adjacent-icon constraint, is a proof gap rather than a circular step. Self-citations [29,30,38] appear only as contextual references (hidden zeros, shifted kinematics, planar variables) and do not carry the derivation; the Adler-zero uniqueness is cited to independent work [10-12,43,44]. The mixed-sector penta-vertex (8) is introduced explicitly after a failed prediction and is therefore not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central construction is an auxiliary Lagrangian, not a derivation from first principles. The quartic vertex is fixed by matching the four-point NLSM amplitude; the loop proof borrows the standard generalized-unitarity converse; the tree proof borrows the Catalan contact representation of the NLSM contact terms from Ref. [53] and the Adler-zero uniqueness from Refs. [10-12,43,44]. The paper's own contribution is the specific two-field 'polarity' bookkeeping and the combinatorial counting, which is asserted rather than fully proved.

free parameters (3)
  • quartic coupling g = 2
    Coefficient of Tr(∂ψ+ ψ− ∂ψ+ ψ−) in Eq. (3), equivalent to vertex −2 k1·k3 in Eq. (4); fixed by matching the four-point NLSM amplitude.
  • mixed ψ–φ quartic vertex coefficients (five vertices) = −2 k1·k3
    Eq. (7): each of the five quartic ψ–φ vertices carries numerator −2 k1·k3, matched to four-point mixed amplitudes; part of the proposed NLSM+φ³ extension.
  • penta-vertex coefficient = −1
    Eq. (8): V(5)(ψ−φψ−φφ)=−1, introduced ad hoc to recover mixed amplitudes failing at n≥8 for certain polarity patterns; whether a finite tower suffices is left open.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Planar NLSM tree amplitudes are uniquely fixed by the Adler zero, locality, and consistent factorization.
    Invoked in Sec. IV.A ('At tree level, the Adler zero, together with locality and consistent factorization, fixes the NLSM amplitudes uniquely'), relying on Refs. [10-12,43,44]. Underpins the induction: if the QTDS representation shares factorization and contact data, it equals the NLSM.
  • domain assumption The n-point NLSM contact vertex has the Catalan form V(2n)_π = (−1)^n/2 Σ_k C_{k−1} C_{n−k−1} Σ_i X_{i,i+2k} (Eq. A2).
    Taken from Ref. [53] (Arkani-Hamed–Figueiredo), used as the external benchmark that the QTDS contact projection must match.
  • domain assumption Equality of all generalized cuts implies equality of integrands up to cut-free, scaleless terms that integrate to zero in dimensional regularization.
    Stated in Appendix A ('Loop-level'); the standard generalized-unitarity converse used to extend tree equivalence to all loops. Not proven in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The contact projection of QTDS quartic trees is exhausted by the 'fishpond' configurations, and the number of valid fish distributions obeys the Catalan recursion.
    Asserted in Appendix A, Figs. 8-10, including the constraint that adjacent quartic vertices cannot share the same icon type. This combinatorial claim is the load-bearing step of the tree-level proof.
  • ad hoc to paper In a QTDS tree, different quartic vertices never carry the same propagator variable, so cancellation of n−2 propagators by numerator lines requires exactly n−2 selected vertices each containing one cancelling line.
    Structural claim in Appendix A ('Contact projection'), used to restrict the class of diagrams contributing to the contact term.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary scalar fields ψ+ and ψ− (and their 'polarity' labels) no independent evidence
    purpose: Bookkeeping degrees of freedom in the QTDS Lagrangian (Eq. 3) that encode the planar ordering and reduce the infinite NLSM interaction tower to a single quartic vertex.
    The paper states the ± labels are 'bookkeeping polarities assigned around a fixed planar ordering, rather than physical charges' (Sec. II). They have no external observable consequences beyond reproducing NLSM amplitudes; agreement with known NLSM results is the internal check, not independent evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 13428 in / 19989 out tokens · 189876 ms · 2026-08-01T09:00:06.074845+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the well-known nonlinear sigma model (NLSM), an effective field theory describing the scattering of $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ Goldstone bosons and characterized by an infinite tower of two-derivative interactions. We introduce a local scalar Lagrangian involving two scalar fields $\psi^\pm$ carrying opposite "polarities", whose interacting part consists of a single polynomial quartic two-derivative operator, and prove that it reproduces planar NLSM amplitudes at all loop orders. This quartic two-derivative formulation reveals a previously hidden simplicity of the NLSM: its Feynman rules involve only a single quartic interaction vertex, making the Adler zero and the leading double-soft factor manifest at all loop orders on generalized cuts and significantly improving the efficiency of high-multiplicity computations. We also suggest a possible analogous description of the NLSM +$ \phi^3 $ theory in terms of a finite tower of local interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27345 by Fan Zhu, Qu Cao, Zhenqi Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The three quartic diagrams contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The mixed amplitude for ordering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Diagrammatic organization of the leading single-soft coefficient in the QTDS formulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The two local configurations that contribute at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The local configurations that contribute at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The quartic rule in dual coordinates. The red points denote the dual coordinates surrounding the quartic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Example of the numerator for an eight-point quartic diagram. The “bowknot” and “sandglass” icons denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: A 16-point quartic diagram contributing to the contact term. The central “cross” supplies the contact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: A fishpond represents the collection of possible distributions of fishes on one side of a fixed cross. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Recursive distributions of a fishpond. The counting is given by the recursion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The one-loop four-point example. Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The two pairs of chord contributions become identical and cancel. Thus this algebraic form makes the soft [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The mixed examples at five- and six- points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The six diagrams contributing to the seven-point mixed amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev.177, 2239 (1969). 6

    1969

  2. [2]

    Callan, Curtis G., S

    J. Callan, Curtis G., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zu- mino, Phys. Rev.177, 2247 (1969)

    1969

  3. [3]

    Kampf, J

    K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka, JHEP05, 032 (2013), arXiv:1304.3048 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.137, B1022 (1965)

    1965

  5. [5]

    Susskind and G

    L. Susskind and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D1, 1682 (1970)

    1970

  6. [6]

    Du and H

    Y.-J. Du and H. Luo, JHEP08, 058 (2015), arXiv:1505.04411 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Chen and Y.-J

    G. Chen and Y.-J. Du, JHEP01, 061 (2014), arXiv:1311.1133 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 061601 (2018), arXiv:1709.08639 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Mizera and B

    S. Mizera and B. Skrzypek, JHEP10, 018 (2018), arXiv:1809.02096 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 221602 (2015), arXiv:1412.4095 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, C.-H. Shen, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 041601 (2016), arXiv:1509.03309 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Rodina, JHEP09, 084 (2019), arXiv:1612.06342 [hep- th]

    L. Rodina, JHEP09, 084 (2019), arXiv:1612.06342 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, JHEP11, 078 (2019), arXiv:1904.12859 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Cheung and C.-H

    C. Cheung and C.-H. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 121601 (2017), arXiv:1612.00868 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Du and C.-H

    Y.-J. Du and C.-H. Fu, JHEP09, 174 (2016), arXiv:1606.05846 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Edison, J

    A. Edison, J. Mangan, and N. H. Pavao, JHEP03, 163 (2024), arXiv:2309.16558 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Cheung, G

    C. Cheung, G. N. Remmen, C.-H. Shen, and C. Wen, JHEP04, 129 (2018), arXiv:1709.04932 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Cheung, C.-H

    C. Cheung, C.-H. Shen, and C. Wen, JHEP02, 095 (2018), arXiv:1705.03025 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Helset, and J. Parra-Martinez, JHEP04, 011 (2022), arXiv:2111.03045 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Helset, and J. Parra-Martinez, Phys. Rev. D106, 045016 (2022), arXiv:2202.06972 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Brauner, Y

    T. Brauner, Y. Li, D. Roest, and T. Wang, JHEP12, 013 (2025), arXiv:2505.15199 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Helset, Phys

    A. Helset, Phys. Rev. D110, L101701 (2024), arXiv:2406.10955 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171601 (2014), arXiv:1307.2199 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, JHEP07, 033 (2014), arXiv:1309.0885 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, JHEP07, 149 (2015), arXiv:1412.3479 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, JHEP10, 231 (2024), arXiv:2312.16282 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Phys. Rev. D110, 065018 (2024), arXiv:2401.05483 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D92, 065030 (2015), arXiv:1503.04816 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Low, Phys

    I. Low, Phys. Rev. D93, 045032 (2016), arXiv:1512.01232 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B425, 217 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  34. [34]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B725, 275 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Bern and Y.-t

    Z. Bern and Y.-t. Huang, J. Phys. A44, 454003 (2011), arXiv:1103.1869 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    F.Cachazo, P.Cha, andS.Mizera,JHEP06,170(2016), arXiv:1604.03893 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Bai, S. He, and G. Yan, JHEP05, 096 (2018), arXiv:1711.09102 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 171601 (2025), arXiv:2408.11891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, JHEP10, 078 (2018), arXiv:1804.08629 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    J. Dong, S. He, and L. Hou, Phys. Rev. D105, 105007 (2022), arXiv:2111.10525 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Rodina and Z

    L. Rodina and Z. Yin, JHEP08, 096 (2021), arXiv:2102.08396 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Rodina, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231602 (2018), arXiv:1612.02797 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Rodina, Phys

    L. Rodina, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071601 (2019), arXiv:1807.09738 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    J. Dong, X. Li, and F. Zhu, JHEP07, 149 (2024), arXiv:2404.11648 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Bartsch, K

    C. Bartsch, K. Kampf, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. D106, 076008 (2022), arXiv:2206.04694 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Bartsch, K

    C. Bartsch, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. D110, 045009 (2024), arXiv:2401.04731 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Bartsch, T

    C. Bartsch, T. V. Brown, K. Kampf, U. Oktem, S. Paran- jape, and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. D111, 045019 (2025), arXiv:2403.10594 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Y. Li, T. Wang, T. Brauner, and D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181601 (2025), arXiv:2412.14858 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Du and H

    Y.-J. Du and H. Luo, JHEP03, 062 (2017), arXiv:1611.07479 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Arkani-Hamed and C

    N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, JHEP10, 077 (2025), arXiv:2405.09608 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Berean-Dutcher, M

    J. Berean-Dutcher, M. Derda, and J. Parra-Martinez, JHEP03, 193 (2026), arXiv:2505.03566 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    sandglass

    N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, JHEP09, 189 (2025), arXiv:2403.04826 [hep-th]. 7 Appendix A: Proof for equivalence between NLSM and QTDS amplitudes In this appendix we give the diagrammatic proof that the quartic QTDS rule reproduces the planar NLSM ampli- tudes. The tree-level proof is most transparent in planar variables. The key point is that factor...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025