Published for SISSA by Springer

Received: November 8, 2022

Revised: January 17, 2023
Accepted: February 3, 2023
Published: February 20, 2023

Amplitude’s positivity vs. subluminality: causality and

unitarity constraints on dimension 6 & 8 gluonic

JHEP02(2023)199
operators in the SMEFT

Diptimoy Ghosh, Rajat Sharma and Farman Ullah

Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research,
Pune, India
E-mail: diptimoy.ghosh@iiserpune.ac.in,
rajat.sharma@students.iiserpune.ac.in,
farman.ullah@students.iiserpune.ac.in

Abstract: We derive the causality and unitarity constraints on dimension 6 and dimension
8 Gluon field strength operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). In
the first part of the paper, we use the ‘amplitude analysis’ i.e. dispersion relation for 2 → 2
scattering in the forward limit, to put bounds on the Wilson coefficients. We show that the
dimension 6 operators can exist only in the presence of certain dimension 8 operators. It is
interesting that the square of the dimension 6 Wilson coefficients can be constrained in this
case even at the tree level. In the second part of this work, we successfully rederive all these
bounds using the classical causality argument that demands that the speed of fluctuations
about any non-trivial background should not exceed the speed of light. We also point
out some subtleties in the superluminality analysis regarding whether the low-frequency
phase velocity can always be used as the relevant quantity for Causality violation: as an
example, we show that, due to these subtleties, if a small pion mass is added in the chiral
Lagrangian, it is unclear if any strict positivity bound can be derived on the dimension 8
Wilson coefficient. Finally, we mention an interesting non-relativistic example where the
subluminality requirement produces a stronger bound than the ‘amplitude analysis’.

Keywords: Effective Field Theories, Effective Field Theories of QCD, SMEFT, Scattering
Amplitudes

ArXiv ePrint: 2211.01322

Open Access, c The Authors.

https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2023)199
Article funded by SCOAP3 .
Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Notation and conventions 3

3 Positivity constraints from unitarity and analyticity 4

3.1 Overview 4
3.2 Relative bounds on dim 6 and dim 8 operators 6

JHEP02(2023)199
4 Superluminality 10
4.1 Massive goldstone boson 12
4.2 Gluon field strength operators 13
4.3 A non-relativistic example: stronger bound from superluminality 18

5 Summary 19

A Details of the subluminality analysis for gluons 20

B An example with scalar and fermion 24

1 Introduction

It is well known that dynamics at very high energy scales or short distances are irrelevant to
describe low energy or long distance phsyics, i.e. very different energy scales are ‘decoupled’
from each other. For example, we don’t need to know the fine details of nuclei to understand
the properties of electronic energy levels in atoms. It’s mainly on this idea that the
framework of Effective Field Theory (EFT) is built (see [1, 2] for a review), in which one
constructs the Lagrangian for the low energy (IR) theory in terms of some physical cut-off
energy scale (Λ). The Lagrangian for the EFT, a priori, must contain all the possible
operators consistent with the symmetries of the theory e.g., Lorentz invariance and gauge
invariance, and the coefficients of these operators can have arbitrary values. However,
it has been shown in recent years that sacred principles like relativistic Causality and
Unitarity do impose non-trivial constraints on these coefficients and carve out the allowed
parameter space [3–6]. This is interesting also phenomenologically since it leads to enhanced
statistical power for experiments sensitive to these operators because one can incorporate
IR consistency bounds into the prior probability distribution.
One of the first attempts in this direction due to [3, 7–9] (which we refer to as the
‘amplitude analysis’) exploits well-established fundamental principles like micro-causality
(leading to analyticity [10, 11]) and unitarity of the S-matrix to constrain the EFT parameter
space. This involves using dispersion relations for 2 → 2 scattering amplitudes in the forward

–1–
limit. The ‘amplitude analysis’ has successfully given linear positivity bounds on dimension
8 operators in a variety of theories but hasn’t had much success with dimension 6 operators 1
containing 4 fields; although, one can derive certain sum rules [13–19]. The reason for
this lack of success is the fact that for such an operator, the scattering amplitude grows
as the Mandelstam variable s at the tree level. However, in this article, we show that
it’s possible to constrain the square of the coefficient of dimension 6 operators containing
3 gluon fields w.r.t. those of dim 8 operators. Such an operator appears in the SMEFT.
Similar positivity bounds for the electroweak gauge bosons were obtained in [20]. A lot
of effort has been focused on constraining the parameter space of SMEFT using various
methods (see, for example, [20–25] and the references therein), since it is and will be the

JHEP02(2023)199
main aim of present and future particle physics experiments to measure these coefficients.
Also, verifying whether the experimentally measured coefficients satisfy our theoretical
constraints allows us to test fundamental properties of the UV theory such as locality and
Lorentz invariance up to very high energies through experimental signatures at accessible
scales [25].
The other method often employed to put constraints on the Wilson coefficients is based
on the classical causality argument [3]. One demands that the propagation of perturbations
over any non-trivial background should respect causality i.e. the speed of signal propagation
should not be superluminal [3, 5, 6, 26]. It is well known that if the wavefront velocity i.e.
infinite frequency limit of the phase velocity is (sub)luminal then causality is preserved.
Naively, one might conclude that it is not possible to put constraints on the EFT coefficients
since the EFT is valid, by definition, in the low-frequency regime i.e. ω/Λ  1. However,
one can instead consider signal velocity (for a precise definition, see [27]) which, for non-
dispersive mediums (the case of our interest), is equal to the group/phase velocity. Thus,
the low frequency group/phase velocity can be directly associated with causality obviating
the need to take the high-frequency limit. One can also use analyticity in the form of the
Kramers-Kronig relation [28], which, for dissipative backgrounds, demands that the phase
velocity cannot decrease with increasing frequency [6, 28]. Therefore, the superluminal
phase velocity in the EFT can be associated with causality violation. However, in general,
it is not very clear how one can determine the dispersive properties of the background
medium, which is essential in the usefulness of the Kramers-Kronig relation. We will discuss
this in some more detail in section 4.
It is not always necessary that small superluminal low energy speed violates causality
as the observations detecting causality violation may turn out to be unmeasurable within
the valid regime of EFT [26, 29]. Therefore for generic EFTs, particularly gravitational
ones, scattering phase shift or time delay is perhaps a better probe to detect causality
violations [30, 31]. However, for homogeneous backgrounds (as considered in this paper)
signals can be allowed to propagate over large distances, and in that case, even the small
superluminality can be detected within the EFT regime. Therefore, using this method one
can try to rederive or even hope to improve the bounds on EFT coefficients obtained by
the ‘amplitude analysis’.

1
See recent developments made to constrain dim 6 operators using S-matrix Bootstrap methods [12].

–2–
 We would like to stress that, a priori, it is unclear if the two methods always provide the
same constraints (or equivalently, whether using any one of them is enough to maximally
constrain the space of EFTs), as naively, they don’t seem to be related at all. One is purely
based on the classical causality of wave propagation and another on scattering amplitudes
which relies on Unitarity, and Froissart bound in addition to micro-causality (the two
methods could be somewhat related since the classical causality analysis secretly might
also depend on analyticity in the form of Kramers-Kronig relation [6] and unitarity (for
dissipative mediums) however, the connection is unclear, as we discuss in section 4).
For the classical causality/superluminality analysis, we also point out some subtleties
that arise when mass-like terms exist in the dispersion relation. We show, in the particular

JHEP02(2023)199
case of the chiral Lagrangian, that this may lead to deviation from strict positivity. However,
in the case of gluonic operators, we demonstrate the mass-like terms can be removed by
choosing particular configurations of non-trivial background and polarization of perturbation.
This helps us derive constraints on the Wilson coefficients of gluonic operators by demanding
subluminal phase velocity as our measure for causality. We show that the superluminality
analysis for dim 6 and 8 gluonic operators, in a nontrivial way, reproduces all bounds that
we obtain from the ‘amplitude analysis’. This is the novel and main result of our work.
Finally, we mention a non-relativistic example following [32], where superluminality gives
stronger bounds than the amplitude analysis. From the examples given in our work, one can
gather that one should use both analyses whenever possible in order to get the maximum
amount of information on an IR effective theory.2
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we define all the notations
and conventions we have used throughout the paper to avoid any confusion. In section 3,
we derive positivity constraints on dim 6 and dim 8 gluonic operators in SMEFT using the
‘amplitude analysis’ with an overview of the method first. In section 4, we first discuss a few
subtleties in the superluminality analysis, followed by a demonstration that all the bounds
can also be reproduced by the superluminality analysis. The summary of our results is
presented in section 5.

2 Notation and conventions

• We use ηµν = (+, −, −, −) metric and work in Lorentz gauge.

• Greek indices µ, ν, etc. run over four space-time coordinate labels 0,1,2,3 with x0 being
the time coordinate.

• Repeated indices are summed over unless otherwise specified.

• The complex conjugate and hermitian adjoint of a vector or a matrix A are denoted by
A∗ and A† .

• The gluon field strength tensor is defined as Gaµν = ∂µ Aaν − ∂ν Aaµ + gs f abc Abµ Acν and its
dual tensor as Ge a = 1 εµνρσ Ga ρσ (ε0123 = +1) where Aµ = ta Aa expresses the gluon
µν 2 µ
2
For fermions, it is unclear how one can implement the superluminality analysis. However, the ‘amplitude
analysis’ can still be carried out [33].

–3–
 field; ta are the generators of SU(3); a, b, c = 1, 2, . . . , 8 are color indices; gs is the
coupling constant of the strong force; f abc and dabc are the total anti-symmetric and
symmetric structure constants of SU(3) respectively, defined as
h i n o 1
ta , tb = if abc tc ; ta , tb = δ ab + dabc tc
3

• For convenience we define a = ∂ Aa − ∂ Aa .

Fµν µ ν ν µ

• In scattering amplitudes, we consider p1 and p2 as incoming momenta and p3 and p4 as

outgoing, and define Mandelstam invariants:

JHEP02(2023)199
s = (p1 + p2 )2 , t = (p1 − p3 )2 , u = (p1 − p4 )2

satisfying s + t + u = m21 + m22 + m23 + m24 where mi are masses of the particles.

3 Positivity constraints from unitarity and analyticity

In this section, we derive constraints on dimension 6 and dimension 8 Gluonic operators of

the SMEFT using dispersion relations for 2 → 2 scattering amplitude. Let us first review how
the ‘amplitude analysis’ works to put constraints on the Wilson coefficients of a general EFT.

3.1 Overview

In this section, we give a brief overview, following the discussion in the seminal paper [3],
of how the dispersion relations along with well-established principles like micro-causality
(leading to analyticity of S-matrix), unitarity, and locality, can help in constraining the
low-energy EFT parameters which from the IR side can have arbitrary values, to begin with.
We slightly modify the discussion in accordance with our work but the main underlying
concepts are the same.
Let us consider 2 → 2 scattering amplitude, M(s, t) for a process in which exchanged
particles or particles inside a loop are of the same mass m (or massless as would be the
case in our work), in the forward limit i.e. initial and final states are exactly same. We
define A(s) = M(s, t)|t→0 (forward limit) and take integral around contour as shown in
figure 1 [3]
ds A(s)
I
I= (3.1)
C 2πi (s − M )
2 3

where m2  M 2  Λ2 , m is the mass of the exchanged particles (or regularized mass for
massless exchanged particles), M is the energy scale where we want to probe the analytic
behavior of amplitude and Λ is the energy cut-off scale of EFT in consideration. It is
possible that the theory considered allows for the loops leading to branch cuts starting from
−∞ to 0 and 4m2 to +∞. That is why we probe the s → M limit instead of s → 0 (which
would be okay in case the branch cut doesn’t go through or extend up to 0). Also since
A(s) is non-analytic near the real axis, we consider M 2 away from the real axis.

–4–
 JHEP02(2023)199
Figure 1. Analytic structure of A(s) in complex s plane. The contour is symmetric about s = 2m2
and go over branch cuts from −∞ to 0 and 4m2 to ∞.

Now we evaluate the integral (3.1); since |A(s)| < |s|3 at infinity due to the Froissart
bound (more precisely, A(s) < s ln2 s) [34, 35], the integral over the arc at infinity vanishes
and we are left just with the integral of discontinuity of A(s) across the branch cuts,

1 DiscA(s)
Z
I= ds
2πi cuts (s − M 2 )3

But the integral can also be evaluated in terms of the residues at the poles: at s = M 2 and
s = m2 , 3m2 (due to s-channel and u-channel in exchange diagrams). Thus, we get

1 00 resA(s = s∗ ) 1 DiscA(s)
Z
A (s = M 2 ) + = (3.2)
X
ds
2 (s − M )
∗ 2 3 2πi cuts (s − M 2 )3
s∗ =m2 ,3m2

Now, DiscA(s) = 2iImA(s) and from optical theorem (for which initial and final states
are required to be identical), we have ImA(s) = sσ(s) where σ(s) is the total cross-section
of the scattering,

1 00 res(A(s = s∗ )) 1 sσ(s)
Z
A (s = M 2 ) + = (3.3)
X
ds
2 (s − M )
∗ 2 3 π cuts (s − M 2 )3
s∗ =m2 ,3m2

For further analysis, we’ll take A(s) to be of a particular form, which we’ll be encountering
in further sections.
We concern ourselves with operators only up to dimension 8 in the low-energy EFT and
also assume that it contains only 6 and 8 dimension operators in addition to 4-dimensional
terms. If the theory allows taking t → 0 i.e. forward limit without causing any divergence
problem (which will be the case here) then we can write the forward scattering amplitude

–5–
at tree level as
s m2 1
A(s) = λ + a + b + 4 (c1 s2 + c2 sm2 + c3 m4 ) (3.4)
Λ 2 Λ 2 Λ
1
!
s3 s2 m2 sm4 m6
+ 4 c4 + c5 + c6 + c7
Λ s − m2 s − m2 s − m2 s − m2
1
!
s3 0 s m
2 2 sm4 m6
+ 4 c04 + c + c 0
+ c 0
Λ s − 3m2 5
s − 3m2 6
s − 3m2 7
s − 3m2
Note: if we take the exchange particles to be massless, then it might not be possible to
take the forward limit, even with the regularized mass because we also need to put m → 0

JHEP02(2023)199
at some stage, which is one of the main problems in performing this analysis for EFTs of
gravity. Then for the massless case, either the t-channel shouldn’t exist or the numerator
in the t-channel exchange contribution should converge to 0 faster than t in t → 0 limit
avoiding the t-channel pole problem which would be the case for our EFT in consideration.
Putting (3.4) in (3.3) we get,

1 1
!!
m2 sσ(s)
Z
c1 + c4 + c04 +O = ds (3.5)
Λ4 M2 π cuts (s − M 2 )3

Also, at energies below Λ, σ(s) grows at most as fast as s3 /Λ4 in s, therefore for M 2  Λ2
when the right-hand side of the above equation is expanded in the powers of M [3], we have
!n
1 1
!!
m2 sσ(s) m2 , M 2
Z
c1 + c4 + c04 +O = ds 3 + corrections of O (3.6)
Λ4 M2 π cuts s Λ2
The integrand in the r.h.s. of the above equation is positive as the cross-section
σ(s) > 0, which then makes the r.h.s. manifestly positive up to power-suppressed corrections.
Therefore, the above equation shows that the coefficient of the term which goes as s2 upon
taking m → 0 limit of A(s) (l.h.s. of the above equation) is positive. Thus, for the massless
theories we don’t have to worry about the regularized mass; we can take the exchanged
particles to be massless to begin with, take the forward limit (if possible), and just look at
the coefficient of s2 which must be positive.

3.2 Relative bounds on dim 6 and dim 8 operators

It is clear from the previous section that we cannot put any constraint on the contribution
that grows slower than s2 . This is because for the integral to vanish over the arc at infinity,
H A(s)
we need minimum n = 3 in c (s−M )n but then there is no contribution to the residue from
terms growing less than s , preventing us from constraining them. If we take n = 2 and
2

even ignore the contribution from arcs at infinity, then we get the contribution from dim
6 operators towards the residue in eq. (3.6). However, for n = 2 the integrand on r.h.s.
of (3.6) takes form σ(s)/s which makes the integral have a non-definitive sign. Thus, the
l.h.s. also have a non-definitive sign preventing us from constraining the Wilson coefficients
using positivity arguments.
This is usually the case for dimension 6 operators containing four fields as their
contribution to the tree level amplitude grows as s. However, if the dim 6 operator also

–6–
 X3 X4
  
(1) (1)
QG 3 f abc Gaν bρ cµ
µ Gν G ρ QG 4 Gaµν Gaµν Gbρσ Gbρσ
  
(2) (2)
QG 3 f abc G
e aν Gbρ Gcµ
µ ν ρ QG 4 Gaµν G
e aµν Gbρσ G
e bρσ
  
(3)
QG 4 Gaµν Gbµν Gaρσ Gbρσ
  
(4)
QG 4 Gaµν G
e bµν Gaρσ G
e bρσ
  
(5)
QG 4 Gaµν Gaµν Gbρσ G
e bρσ

JHEP02(2023)199
  
(6)
QG 4 Gaµν Gbµν Gaρσ G
e bρσ
  
(7)
QG 4 dabc ddec Gaµν Gbµν Gdρσ Geρσ
  
(8)
QG 4 dabc ddec Gaµν G
e bµν Gdρσ G
e eρσ
  
(9)
QG 4 dabc ddec Gaµν Gbµν Gdρσ G
e eρσ

Table 1. Dimension 6 and 8 gluonic operators in the SMEFT.

gives rise to terms containing only three fields then one indeed gets an s2 piece through
exchange diagrams. The constraint in this case, however, is on the square of the Wilson
coefficient (and not on the sign). Also, dimension 8 operators containing four fields give
contributions at the same order (s2 /Λ4 ) via contact diagrams. Thus, we produce relative
bounds on dim 6 and dim 8 operators. Similar bounds for the electroweak gauge bosons
were obtained in [20].
Let us now apply the above analysis for dimensions 6 and 8 Gluonic operators in the
SMEFT. The independent Gluonic operators for SU(3) as mentioned in [36] and [37, 38]
are given in table 1. The Lagrangian at dimensions 6 and 8 takes the following form:
(i)
c6 (1) c0 (2) c (i)
L (6)
= 2 QG3 + 62 QG3 ; L (8)
= 84 QG4
Λ Λ Λ
(i)
where c6 , c06 and c8 are dimensionless Wilson coefficients and Λ is the UV cut-off for the
EFT. The above-mentioned dimension 6 operators have parts that contain three fields
(1)
and three derivatives, e.g., f abc Fµaν Fνbρ Fρcµ in QG3 . Also, dimension 8 operators have parts
  
(3)
containing four fields with four derivatives, e.g., Fµν
a F bµν a F bρσ in Q . Both kinds
Fρσ G4
of terms give s2 /Λ4 growth in the amplitude, the former via an exchange diagram and the
latter via a contact diagram. Therefore as discussed above, using the ‘amplitude analysis’
(i)
we can constrain squares of c6 and c06 relative to c8 .
We calculate scattering amplitude for gg → gg, written explicitly as

|p1 , 1 , a; p2 , 2 , bi → |p3 , 3 , d; p4 , 4 , ei

(where p’s are the momenta, ’s are polarizations and Latin indices denote color of particles),
at tree level getting contribution from Feynman diagrams in figure 2. To relate the imaginary

–7–
Figure 2. Exchange diagrams (first three) get contribution just from dim 6 operators; contact

JHEP02(2023)199
diagram gets contribution from both dim 6 and dim 8 but the dim 6 contribution is of order s/Λ2 as
explained in the text.

part of amplitude to the cross-section (optical theorem), one needs to take identical initial
and final states; therefore, we consider a = d and b = e for our calculations.
Below, we just present those terms that give s2 contribution to A(s),3 for reasons
mentioned above.

A(s) = M(s, t)|t→0 (3.7)

n      
(1) (2) (3) (4)
= 9f abc f abc c02
6 −c6 +8δ
2 ab
c8 −c8 +4(1+δ ab ) c8 −c8
 o n o
(7) (8)
+8dabc dabc c8 −c8 × |s1 ·∗2 −2 1 ·p2 ∗2 ·p1 |2 +|s1 ·2 −2 1 ·p2 2 ·p1 |2
n o n o
(2) (4) (8)
−2 9f abc f abc c02
6 −8δ c8 −4(1+δ ) c8 −8 d
ab ab abc ab
d c c8 × s2 |1 |2 |2 |2
n o
(5) (6) (9)
+4 9f abc f abc c6 c06 −4δ ab c8 −2(1+δ ab )c8 −4dabc dabc c8
n
×εµνρσ Re (∗1µ 2ν p1ρ p2σ )(s1 ·∗2 −2 1 ·p2 ∗2 ·p1 )
o
+(∗1µ ∗2ν p1ρ p2σ )(s1 ·2 −2 1 ·p2 2 ·p1 )

It should be noted that a and b in the above expression are not contracted, they are
colors of incoming and outgoing particles whereas c (color index) and Lorentz indices are
contracted. For the t-channel, we get f adc f bec factor in the numerator which is zero for our
particular choice of colors, a = d and b = e. Therefore, there is no contribution from the
t-channel and we are allowed to take the forward limit without any divergence issues due to
the t-channel pole. This isn’t possible for massless theories like gravity where one gets s2 /t
contribution from the t-channel.
For further analysis we work in the COM frame and we consider general complex
polarizations transverse to the momentum,

p1 = {E, 0, 0, E} , p2 = {E, 0, 0, −E} (COM frame)

1 = 3 = {0, α, β, 0} , 2 = 4 = {0, γ, δ, 0}
3
We took help of the FeynCalc [39–41] package to verify our calculation.

–8–
Substituting momenta and polarizations in (3.7) we get,

s2 h ab (1) (3) (7)

A(s) = 4 (2δ c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )(|αγ +βδ|2 +|αγ ∗ +βδ ∗ |2 ) (3.8)
Λ4
(2) (4) (8)
+(2δ ab c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )(|α∗ δ−β ∗ γ|2 +|α∗ δ ∗ −β ∗ γ ∗ |2 )
(5) (6) (9)
−(2δ ab c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )
i
×Re{(α∗ δ−β ∗ γ)(αγ ∗ +βδ ∗ )+(α∗ δ ∗ −β ∗ γ ∗ )(αγ +βδ)}
s2 abc ab h 0 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ ∗
i
−9 f f |c 6 (αγ +βδ)−c (α δ −β γ )| +|c 6 (αγ +βδ )−c (α δ−β γ)| 2
Λ4 c 6 6

JHEP02(2023)199
where Re(z) denotes the real part of z. From the above expression we can see that
contribution from L(6) is always negative which means that if we don’t consider dimension
8 gluonic operators in our EFT then from dispersion relation, we’ll get

s2 abc ab h i
−9 f f c |c6 (αγ + βδ) − c06 (α∗ δ ∗ − β ∗ γ ∗ )|2 + |c6 (αγ ∗ + βδ ∗ ) − c06 (α∗ δ − β ∗ γ)|2 ≥ 0
Λ 4

which could be satisfied for arbitrary polarizations only when c6 = 0 = c06 . It means that
dim 6 gluonic operators cannot exist without the presence of higher dimensional operators
in the SMEFT. In appendix B, we present another example of a dim 6 operator, involving
scalar and fermion, with a similar conclusion.
We get different expressions for A(s) (having s2 dependence) for different polarizations
and colors leading to multiple constraints on linear combinations of coefficients e.g., for
a = d = 1, b = e = 2 and polarizations specified below we get the following expressions:
√ √
21 22 A(s)/(s2 /Λ4 )
(4) (3)
{0, 1, i, 0} {0, 1, −i, 0} (4c8 − 9c02
6 ) + (4c8 − 9c6 )
2

(4)
{0, 1, 1, 0} {0, 1, −1, 0} 2(4c8 − 9c02
6)
(3)
{0, 1, 1, 0} {0, 1, 1, 0} 2(4c8 − 9c26 )
√ (4) (3) (6)
{0, 2, 0, 0} {0, 1, 1, 0} 4(c8 + c8 − c8 ) − 9(c6 − c06 )2

In table 2, we list all the different constraints we get on Wilson coefficients of dim 6
and dim 8 operators from considering different colors and polarizations. Our constraints
when considered together are stronger than those presented in [25]. They are also consistent
with the expressions obtained for Wilson coefficients in [42] from different UV theories.
The inclusion of the dimension 6 operators and the resulting new constraints are the novel
results of this section.
For future convenience, we will refer to a particular constraint in table 2 using notation
C(i, j) where i refers to the row, and j to the column no. of the table; for example, C(2, 1)
(3)
refers to the constraint c8 > 94 c26 .
The bounds in table 2 together significantly reduce the allowed parameter space of
the Wilson coefficients. Interestingly, from constraint C(2,1) and C(2,2) we can directly
see that for the existence of dim 6 operators we need some specific dim 8 operators to be

–9–
 √ √ √ √
21 = {0, 1, 1, 0} 21 = {0, 1, 1, 0} 21 = {0, 1, −1, 0} 21 = {0, 1, 1, 0}
Colors
n √ 2(A+B) = 2(A+B)2 =
p p
√ √
22 = {0, 1, 1, 0} 22 = {0, 1, −1, 0} √ √ 2 √ o n √ √ √ √ o
0, A+ B, A− B, 0 0, A+ B, B − A, 0

(3) 2 (7) (4) 2 (8) (3) 2 (7) (4) 2 (8) (6) 2 (9)
    2
a = 1, b = 8 c8 + c8 > 0 c8 + c8 > 0 4 c8 + c8 c8 + c8 > c8 + c8
3 3 3 3 3
9 9 (3) 9 (4) 9 (6) 9
    2
(3) (4)
a = 1, b = 2 c8 > c26 c8 > c02 4 c8 − c26 c8 − c02 > c8 − c6 c06
4 4 6 4 4 6 2
(3) 1 (7) 9 (4) 1 (8) 9 (3) 1 (7) 9 (4) 1 (8) 9 (6) 1 (9) 9
    2
a = 1, b = 4 c8 + c8 > c26 c8 + c8 > c02 4 c8 + c8 − c26 c8 + c8 − c02 > c8 + c8 − c6 c06
2 16 2 16 6 2 16 2 16 6 2 8
(3) 3 (7) 27 (4) 3 (8) 27 (3) 3 (7) 27 (4) 3 (8) 27 (6) 3 (9) 27
    2
a = 4, b = 8 c8 + c8 > c26 c8 + c8 > c02 4 c8 + c8 − c26 c8 + c8 − c02 > c8 + c8 − c6 c06
2 16 2 16 6 2 16 2 16 6 2 8
(3) 1 (7) (4) 1 (8) (3) 1 (7) (4) 1 (8) (6) 1 (9)
    2
(1) (2) (1) (2) (5)
a=b=1 c8 +c8 + c8 > 0 c8 +c8 + c8 > 0 4 c8 +c8 + c8 c8 +c8 + c8 > c8 +c8 + c8
3 3 3 3 3

JHEP02(2023)199
(9) 2
    
(1) (3) (7) (2) (4) (8) (1) (3) (7) (2) (4) (8) (5) (6)
a=b=4 c8 +c8 +c8 > 0 c8 +c8 +c8 > 0 4 c8 +c8 +c8 c8 +c8 +c8 > c8 +c8 +c8

Table 2. The table contains the constraints on dim 6 and dim 8 operators’ Wilson coefficients
obtained using the amplitude analysis. 1 and 2 denote the polarizations of particles 1 and 2
(1)
respectively. The color of particle 1 is denoted by ‘a’ and that of particle 2 by ‘b’. A = 4(2δ ab c8 +
(3) (7) (2) (4) (8)
(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )−9f abc f abc c26 ; B = 4(2δ ab c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )−9f abc f abc c02
6 .

(1) (3) (2) (4)

present. For example, for QG3 we need QG4 to exist and for QG3 we need QG4 . This aspect
was appreciated in the case of the electroweak bosons in [20]. More bounds involving dim 8
operators can be obtained by relaxing the elastic forward scattering limit as shown in [43].

4 Superluminality

We saw in the previous section that assuming an EFT to have a UV-completion that is
Lorentz invariant and unitary one gets positivity constraints on the Wilson coefficients using
2 → 2 forward scattering amplitudes. It is well known that one can also reproduce some of
these constraints by referring only to IR physics. It turns out that arbitrary values or signs of
these coefficients can lead to superluminal propagation of field fluctuations over non-trivial
backgrounds [3]. Therefore, instead of working with an S-matrix, we can work with classical
wave propagation to derive interesting bounds on the Wilson coefficients by demanding
the EFT to be compatible with causality. A priori, it is not absolutely clear whether this
analysis would give weaker or stronger bounds compared to the ‘amplitude analysis’.
In this section, we first look at the classical causality/subluminality analysis more
closely; we investigate how this analysis is modified for massive fields. We then proceed to
apply this analysis to the Gluonic operators considered in section 3.2. Let us first briefly
outline how superluminality analysis can be used to put bounds on the Wilson coefficients
by demanding that signal velocity cannot be superluminal.
Consider the following Goldstone Lagrangian,
1 c3
L = (∂π)2 + 4 (∂π)4 (4.1)
2 Λ
Naively, it may seem that the 8-dimensional operator will not contribute to the free
propagation of perturbations as it is not a quadratic term. However, this is only true for
trivial backgrounds; for non-trivial backgrounds with non-vanishing derivatives one can get

– 10 –
terms quadratic in perturbations,
c3
L ⊃ (∂π0 )2 (∂π)2 (4.2)
Λ4

where π0 is the background field. One has to be slightly careful in choosing a background
as it might happen that the background itself disallows wave-like (propagating) solutions in
which case it would not be possible to run this analysis. Therefore, we usually choose a
background whose scale of variation is much larger than that of field fluctuations, allowing
for wave-like solutions.
It is also important to point out that given a general dispersion relation, one cannot

JHEP02(2023)199
always directly demand phase or group velocity to be subluminal as it is well known in the
literature that they both can be superluminal while remaining in perfect agreement with
causality [44–46]. Instead, one usually demands the wavefront velocity be luminal. However,
as already mentioned in section 1, one has the so-called Kramers-Kronig relation [28, 47]

2
Z ∞
dω
n(∞) = n(0) − Im n(ω) (4.3)
π 0 ω

where n(ω) denotes the refractive index of the medium. For dissipative mediums, one has
Imn(ω) > 0 which implies that the high frequency phase velocity is larger than the low
frequency one. And since the wavefront velocity — infinite frequency limit of phase velocity
— dictates the speed of information transfer, superluminal phase or group velocity can be
related to violation of causality. However, if the medium allows for exhibiting gain (e.g., in
the case of a Laser) then one can get Imn(ω) < 0 and in that case, the low-frequency phase
velocity cannot be a statement about causality.
The situation gets even more involved if we have a mass-like term in the equation of
motion. For example, take the massive Klein-Gordon equation

∂ 2 φ + m2 φ = 0 (4.4)

From the above eq. we get the following dispersion relation and phase velocity,

m2
ω 2 = |~k|2 + m2 ; vp2 = 1 + (4.5)
|~k|2

In this case phase velocity is not a good object to consider since vp (∞)=1 (preserving
causality) while being superluminal in the low energy limit (EFT regime). The group
velocity on the other hand is (sub)luminal

|~k|
vg = q (4.6)
|~k|2 + m2

It was shown in [44] that it is the group velocity which is equal to the signal velocity for
Klein-Gordon modes with real mass.

– 11 –
4.1 Massive goldstone boson
Consider the following Lagrangian
1 c3 1
L = (∂π)2 + 4 (∂π)4 − m2 π 2 − Jπ (4.7)
2 Λ 2
where J is what sources the background, with the following EOM

4c3 (∂π)2 8c3

!
∂2π 1 + + (∂ν π)(∂ µ ∂ ν π)(∂µ π) + m2 π + J = 0 (4.8)
Λ4 Λ4

The linearised EOM for the fluctuations ξ = π − π0 with ∂µ π0 = Cµ (constant) reads

JHEP02(2023)199
8c3 µ ν 4c3 C 2 2
∂2ξ + C C ∂ µ ∂ ν ξ − m ξ + m2 ξ = 0 (4.9)
Λ4 Λ4
where we have assumed that the background terms on the l.h.s. are canceled by the source
J. Taking Fourier transform we get,
8c3 2 4c3 C 2 2
kµ k µ = − (C.k) − m + m2 (4.10)
Λ4 Λ4
If the mass term is absent then subluminality demands c3 > 0 as obtained by [3]. As
mentioned in the above discussion, for a Klein-Gordon like dispersion relation it is the
group velocity that should be (sub)luminal since the group velocity is the signal velocity.
It might seem unclear whether this holds true here (since the dispersion relation is more
general here, and not exactly
 Klein-Gordon
 like). However, with the choice of a purely
space-like background, Cµ = 0, 0, 0, C(3) , the dispersion relation takes the following form,

ω 2 = ak 2 + m02 (4.11)
2 2
 
8c3 C(3) 4c3 C(3)
where, a = 1 − Λ4
and m02 = m2 1 + Λ4
. This form is very close to Klein-Gordon
since the parameter a is very close to unity; therefore, one can perform the analysis assuming
that the group velocity is signal velocity.
We now consider the propagation of perturbations along the z-axis, then the expression
for group velocity from eq. (4.10) reads,
8c C
dω k+ 3Λ4(3) (C(0) ω−C(3) k)
vg = =q 8c C
(4.12)
dk 2 2
k 2 +m2 − 4c3 C m − 8c3 (C ω−C k)2 + 3 (0) (C
Λ4 Λ4 (0) (3) Λ4 (0) ω−C(3) k)
 
We choose the background to be varying only in the z-direction i.e. Cµ = 0, 0, 0, C(3) ,
then demanding the group velocity to be subluminal gives
4c3 C(3)
2 8c3 C(3)
2
!
m2
1+ + >0 (4.13)
k2 Λ4 Λ4

Taking the limit k  m, we can drop the second term in the parenthesis and get
m2
+ 8c3 ε > 0 (4.14)
k2

– 12 –
 2
C(3)
where, 0 < ε = Λ4
 1. Finally, we get

m2 /k 2
c3 > − (4.15)
8ε
This is a ratio of two small positive quantities. Therefore, one does not get a strict positivity
bound in this case from the superlumianlity analysis, unlike for the massless pions. However,
the amplitude analysis still gives a strict positivity bound on c3 as it is unaffected by the
mass term.

4.2 Gluon field strength operators

JHEP02(2023)199
We now attempt to derive constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the Gluonic operators
considered in section 3.2, using the superluminality analysis. As we will see below, here
we will not need to take recourse to the Kramers-Kronig relation because we will be
able to choose backgrounds where the dispersion relation takes the simplest form i.e it is
non-dispersive:

ω = v|~k| (4.16)

where v is a constant. In this case, phase and group velocities are the same and are equal
to the signal velocity. Due to the non-abelian nature of Lagrangian, here the calculations
are tedious and are given in appendix A. Here, we just state the main results highlighting
the key assumptions that went into the analysis. We’ll work with one higher-dimensional
operator at a time keeping the calculations and analysis
  easy to follow.

(1)
First, we’ll take dim 8 operator QG4 = Gµν G
a aµν Gbρσ Gbρσ in addition to the four
dimensional term in the Lagrangian
(1)
1 c   
L = − Gaµν Gaµν + 8 4 Gaµν Gaµν Gbρσ Gbρσ
4 Λ
giving equation of motion,
(1)
8c8  a 
− ∂α Gf,αβ + 2G (∂ α G a,µν
)G f,αβ
+ G a
G a,µν
∂ α G f,αβ
(4.17)
Λ4 µν µν
(1)
8c
= −gs Ga,βν Ahν f af h + 84 gs f bf j Gaµν Ga,µν Gb,βσ Ajσ
Λ
We expand Aa,µ = Aa,µ 0 +h
a,µ where we choose background Aa,µ to be of a particular
0
color ‘a’ with ∂ ν Aa,µ = constant, and look at the linearised equation of motion for the
perturbation ha,µ of the same color ‘a’. We get
(1)
32c8
−∂α ∂ α ha,β + F a F aαβ ∂α ∂ µ ha,ν = 0 (4.18)
Λ4 0µν 0
where color index ‘a’ is not contracted, and we’ll drop the color index for F0µν terms which
should be assumed to have color ‘a’. Above eq. when expanded in terms of plane waves gives,
(1)
32c8
kµ k µ = − (F0µν ν k µ )2 (4.19)
Λ4

– 13 –
 When a similar procedure is done considering all 6 and 8 dimensional operators, we get
the following equation (color index ‘c’ is contracted but not ‘a’),

32
(
  2
(1) (3) (7)
kµ k = − 4
µ
c8 + c8 + daac daac c8 F0µν ν k µ (4.20)
Λ
  2
(2) (4) (8)
+ c8 + c8 + daac daac c8 Fe0µν ν k µ
)
  
(5) (6) (9)
+ c8 + c8 + daac daac c8 F0µν Fe0αβ ν β k µ k α

JHEP02(2023)199
If we look at the perturbations of the same color as that of the background, then we are
effectively considering only the abelian part of our theory. Since there is no analog of dim 6
(1) (2)
operators QG3 and QG3 in the abelian gauge theory, there is no contribution from dim 6
operators towards the wave propagation. However, we still see signs of the existence of
different gluon colors in the form of daac daac factors which give different values for different
colors in consideration.
By choosing particular background and polarization for the perturbation, we can get
(i)
different bounds on Wilson coefficients c8 using dispersion relation (4.20). Consider the
z-axis along the direction of propagation of perturbation, perturbation of the same color as
√
that of background let say 1) with polarization,  = {0, 1, 1, 0}/ 2. Choose the background
such that only non-zero components of F µν are F 01 = −F 10 and F 02 = −F 20 (we have
dropped 0 from F0µν to avoid confusion with time component), then we get

16 1 (7)
(
  2
(1) (3)
kµ k = − 4
µ
c8 + c8 + c8 ω 2 F01 + F02 (4.21)
Λ 3
1 (8)  3 2  2
 
(2) (4)
+ c8 + c8 + c8 k F02 − F01
3
1 (9)
  )
(5) (6)
+ c8 + c8 + c8 ωk 3 (F02 + F01 ) (F02 − F01 )
3

Now, if we take F01 = F02 then for perturbations to be causal we need

(1) (3) 1 (7)

c8 + c8 + c8 ≥ 0 (4.22)
3
which is same as the constraint C(5, 1) obtained in section 3.2. Similarly by choosing
different polarization and background, explicitly given in the table 3, we can reproduce
C(5, 2) and C(5, 3). Also, if instead of color 1 we choose color 4 for both background and
perturbations then we get C(6,1), C(6,2) and C(6,3).
Now to probe dim 6 operators using superluminality analysis, we need to consider the
background and perturbations of different colors. This makes the analysis rather involved.
(1)
We’ll first consider operator QG3 = f abc Gaν
µ Gν Gρ for which we have,
bρ cµ

1 c6
L = − Gaµν Gaµν + 2 f abc Gaν bρ cµ
µ G ν Gρ
4 Λ

– 14 –
giving equation of motion,
6c6 f bc  c,ρα b,βρ  6c6  
−∂α Gf,αβ + f ∂ α G G = −gs G a,βν h af h
A f + gs f abc
f af h b,νρ c,β h
G G A
Λ2 ν
Λ2 ρ ν

(4.23)

We again expand Aa,µ = Aa,µ 0 +h

a,µ where we choose background Aa,µ to be of partic-
0
ular color ‘a’ with ∂ ν Aa,µ = constant, and look at the linearised equation of motion for
perturbation ha,µ of different color ‘f ’,
 
− ∂α H f,αβ + gs f f aj Aa,α
0 h
j,β
+ gs f f ia hi,α Aa,β
0 (4.24)

JHEP02(2023)199
6c6 f ba 
+ f ∂α F0a,ρα (H b,βρ + gs f baj Aa,β
0 hρ + gs f
j
h A0ρ )
bia i,β a
Λ 2

− F0a,βρ (H b,α
ρ + gs f A0ρ h + gs f bia hiρ Aa,α
baj a j,α
0 )
 
= −gs H d,βν + gs f daj Aa,β
0 h
j,ν
+ gs f dia hi,β Aa,ν
0 Aa0ν f df a − gs F0a,βν hhν f af h
6c6 
df h a,νρ a,β h

+ gs f daa
f F F h
Λ2 0 0ρ ν
6c6  
+ 2 gs f dba f df a (H b,νρ + gs f baj Aa,ν h j,ρ
+ g s f bia i,ν a,ρ
h A )F a,β a
A
Λ 0 0 0ρ 0ν
6c6  
+ 2 gs f dac f df a F0a,νρ (H c,β
ρ + gs f A0ρ h + gs f cia hiρ Aa,β
caj a j,β
0 )A0ν
a
Λ
In the above equation and the following equations, ‘f ’ and ‘a’ are not contracted but are
free color indices and we’ll again drop ‘a’ from F0µν terms which should always be assumed
to have color ‘a’.
For further analysis, we take WKB approximation in which the scale of variation
of background(r) is much larger than that of perturbations (ω −1 ). We also choose the
background field to be arbitrarily small, then at leading order in rω and A0 we get,

− ∂α ∂ α hf,β + 2gs f f ba Aa,α

0 ∂α h
b,β
− gs f f ba A0ρ ∂ β hb,ρ (4.25)
6c6  
+ 2 f f ba F0ρα ∂ α ∂ β hb,ρ + F0βρ ∂α ∂ α hbρ = 0
Λ
To get the dispersion relation for perturbation of color ‘f’, we try to write the differential
equation just in terms of color ‘f’. So we assume a particular solution for perturbation of
some different color ‘b’ which satisfies the EOM,
6c6 bga σα ρ g
−∂ α hb,ρ + 2gs f bga Aa,α
0 h
g,ρ
− gs f bga A0ν δ αρ hg,ν + f (F0 ∂ hσ + F0ρσ ∂ α hgσ ) = 0
Λ2
(4.26)

The above particular solution for other colors ‘b’ modifies the eq. (4.25) to,
3
 
α
−∂ ∂α h f,β
= 2gs2 f f ba f gba 2Aα0 A0α hg,β − A0ν Aβ0 hg,ν (4.27)
2
6c6 f ba gba  βρ α ρβ ρ g,ν

+g f f 5F A ∂ α h g,ρ
− A0ν F ∂ h + 5F 0ρα A α β g,ρ
∂ h
Λ2 0 0 0 0

c 2  
+ 36 64 f f ba f gba F0βρ F0σα ∂α ∂ρ hgσ + F0ρ
β ρσ α
F0 ∂ ∂α hgσ + 2F0ρα F0σα ∂ β ∂ρ hgσ
Λ

– 15 –
Since we have assumed a particular type of solution for other colors, we want to see how
that affects the perturbation of color ‘f ’, so we try to write the differential equation just in
terms of perturbation of color ‘f ’ as mentioned before. But it is not possible to replace the
mass-like term (the term inside parenthesis in the first line) in the above equation unless we
have an explicit solution for perturbations of all color hg,β . So, for now, we’ll assume that
we can choose a particular background A0 such that the mass-like term vanishes. We’ll give
below an explicit example of background and polarization of the perturbation where this
assumption is satisfied.
In the second and third lines of the eq. (4.27), when g 6= f we again substitute hg in
terms of other colors using the solution assumed eq. (4.26). But this gives terms of higher

JHEP02(2023)199
 
order in A0 or O Λ4 which we can ignore w.r.t. the terms where g = f . Therefore only
1
 
terms with g = f survives at O 1
Λ4
and leading order in A0 ,

6c6 f ba f ba  βρ α ρβ ρ f,ν

−∂ α ∂α hf,β = g f f 5F A ∂ α h f,ρ
− A0ν F ∂ h + 5F 0ρα A α β f,ρ
∂ h (4.28)
Λ2 0 0 0 0

c2  
+ 36 64 f f ba f f ba F0βρ F0σα ∂α ∂ρ hfσ + F0ρβ ρσ α
F0 ∂ ∂α hfσ + 2F0ρα F0σα ∂ β ∂ρ hfσ
Λ
We expand the above equation in terms of waves with transverse polarization and
consider the spatial wave vector, ~κ to be complex in general. We then get the following
dispersion relation,

c 2  2
ω 2 = |~k|2 + 36 64 (f f ba )2 F0βρ kρ β (4.29)
Λ

where ~k denotes the real part of the spatial wave vector. After considering all dim 6 and
dim 8 operators we get the following dispersion relation,

kµ k µ 9 h i2
= 4 f af c f afc c6 (F0µν kµ ν ) − c06 (Fe0αβ kα β ) (4.30)
4 Λ
4 h (1) (3) (7) 2
− 4 (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) (F0µν kµ ν )
Λ
 2
(2) (4) (8)
+ (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) Fe0αβ kα β
 i
(5) (6) (9)
− (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) (F0µν kµ ν ) Fe0αβ kα β

where ‘f ’ denotes the color of perturbation and ‘a’ of the background. Note that the above
dispersion relation is only valid, assuming that mass-like term in the eq. (4.27) vanish. We
had a similar situation in the previous section where we had a mass-like term dependent on
the background field, which refrained us from getting a constraint on the Wilson coefficients
of the theory. But in this case, since it depends on contracted four-vectors, it is possible to
make the mass-like term zero along with non-zero derivatives of background by choosing an
appropriate Aµ0 .
We now try to get different constraints on Wilson coefficients by considering par-
ticular polarization and the background. Consider the perturbation with polarization
√ √
 = {0, 1, 1, 0}/ 2 and choose background of the form A0µ = E{ 2t, t, −t, 0} where E

– 16 –
 √ √
2 = {0, 1, 1, 0} 2 = {0, 1, 1, 0}
Colors n√ o n√ o
A0µ = E 2(x+y), x+y, −(x+y), 0 A0µ = E 2t, t, −t, 0
(3) 2 (7) (4) 2 (8)
a = 1, b = 8 c8 + c8 > 0 c8 + c8 > 0
3 3
(3) 9 (4) 9
a = 1, b = 2 c8 > c26 c8 > c02
4 4 6
(3) 1 (7) 9 (4) 1 (8) 9
a = 1, b = 4 c8 + c8 > c26 c8 + c8 > c02
2 16 2 16 6
(3) 3 (7) 27 (4) 3 (8) 27
a = 4, b = 8 c8 + c8 > c26 c8 + c8 > c02
2 16 2 16 6
(1) (3) 1 (7) (2) (4) 1 (8)
a=b=1 c8 +c8 + c8 > 0 c8 +c8 + c8 > 0
3 3

JHEP02(2023)199
(1) (3) (7) (2) (4) (8)
a=b=4 c8 +c8 +c8 > 0 c8 +c8 +c8 > 0

√ √
2 = {0, 1, −1, 0} 2 = {0, 1, 1, 0}
Colors np √ √ √ √ o np √ √ √ √ o
A0µ = E 2(D+B)t, ( D+ B)t, ( D− B)t, 0 A0µ = E 2(D+B)t, ( D+ B)t, ( B − D)t, 0

(3) 2 (7) (4) 2 (8) (6) 2 (9)

    2
a = 1, b = 8 4 c8 + c8 c8 + c8 > c8 + c8
3 3 3
(3) 9 (4) 9 (6) 9
    2
a = 1, b = 2 4 c8 − c26 c8 − c02 > c8 − c6 c06
4 4 6 2
(3) 1 (7) 9 (4) 1 (8) 9 (6) 1 (9) 9
    2
a = 1, b = 4 4 c8 + c8 − c26 c8 + c8 − c02 > c8 + c8 − c6 c06
2 16 2 16 6 2 8
(3) 3 (7) 27 (4) 3 (8) 27 (6) 3 (9) 27
    2
a = 4, b = 8 4 c8 + c8 − c26 c8 + c8 − c02 > c8 + c8 − c6 c06
2 16 2 16 6 2 8
(3) 1 (7) (4) 1 (8) (6) 1 (9)
    2
(1) (2) (5)
a=b=1 4 c8 +c8 + c8 c8 +c8 + c8 > c8 +c8 + c8
3 3 3
(9) 2
    
(1) (3) (7) (2) (4) (8) (5) (6)
a=b=4 4 c8 +c8 +c8 c8 +c8 +c8 > c8 +c8 +c8

Table 3. The table contains the constraints on dim 6 and dim 8 operators’ Wilson coeffi-
cients obtained using the superluminality analysis. A0µ and  represent the background field
and polarization of the perturbation, respectively. The color of the background is denoted
(1) (3) (7)
by ‘a’ and that of perturbation by ‘f ’. D = 4(2δ ab c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )−9f abc f abc c26 ;
(2) (4) (8)
B = 4(2δ ab c8 +(1+δ ab )c8 +2dabc dabc c8 )−9f abc f abc c02
6 .

is some arbitrarily small constant. Under this configuration, mass-like term in eq. (4.27)
vanish and we get following non-zero components of Fµν , F01 = −F10 and F02 = −F20 with
F01 = −F02 , which reduces the dispersion relation (4.30) to the following form,
72 af c af 0 2  3 2 2 32  (4) af c af (8)
  2
kµ k µ = f f (c ) k (F 02 ) − c + 2d d c k 3 (F02 )2 (4.31)
Λ4 c 6
Λ4 8 c 8

and for the perturbation to be causal (dictated by the phase velocity) we require,
 
(4) (8)
9f af c f afc (c06 )2 − 4 c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 <0 (4.32)

We can reproduce the C(1, 2), C(2, 2), C(3, 2) and C(4, 2) bounds of table 2 using the above
relation by choosing different colors for perturbations and background. The remaining
bounds of table 2 can also be reproduced by choosing different background and polarization
configurations, details of which have been relegated to the appendix A. In the table 3, we
present all the bounds obtained on dim 6 and 8 gluonic operators using the superluminality
analysis by considering different configurations of the background and perturbation.

– 17 –
4.3 A non-relativistic example: stronger bound from superluminality
Since we got similar bounds from both superluminality and amplitude analysis, therefore, one
might think that this is always the case. Here, following [32] we present a counter-example
where superluminality gives a stronger bound. Consider the following Lagrangian
1 4c3 3 2c4 4
L = (∂π)2 − π̇ + π̇ (4.33)
2 3Λ 2 3Λ4
This Lagrangian emerges from the EFT of Inflation [48] Lagrangian in a particular limit [32].
The 2 → 2 forward scattering amplitude at tree level is given by

JHEP02(2023)199
  s2
A(s) = c4 − (2c3 )2 (4.34)
Λ4
Performing the ‘amplitude analysis’ gives the following bound

c4 > (2c3 )2 (4.35)

As a side remark, it is important to note that, due to subtleties related to spontaneously

broken Lorentz invariance, the derivation of the above bounds in [32] may not be completely
rigorous, see [49] for a recent discussion.
Now, let us check what superluminality gives for this Lagrangian. We derive linearised
EOM for the fluctuations, ξ = π + αt, where α is a small quantity.
8c3 8c4
ξ¨ + 2 αξ¨ + 4 α2 ξ¨ − ∂i2 ξ = 0 (4.36)
Λ Λ
Up to O(α) we have

8c3
ξ¨ + 2 αξ¨ − ∂i2 ξ = 0 (4.37)
Λ
then the phase velocity of the fluctuation is given by
8c3 α
2
vphase =1− (4.38)
Λ2
Since α can have any sign, therefore, the only way to preserve (sub)luminality is by taking
c3 = 0.
Now, up to O(α2 ) we have

8c4 α2 ¨
ξ¨ + ξ − ∂i2 ξ = 0 (4.39)
Λ2
The phase velocity is given by

8c4 α2
2
vphase =1− (4.40)
Λ4
(Sub)luminality demands, c4 ≥ 0. Therefore, superluminality in this particular case gives a
stronger bound than the ‘amplitude analysis’.

– 18 –
5 Summary

We have derived constraints on dim 6 and dim 8 gluon field strength operators of SMEFT
using both the amplitude and superluminality analysis. This significantly reduces the
parameter space of the Wilson coefficients. Interestingly, these bounds imply that dim 6
operators can only exist in the presence of certain dim 8 operators.
The amplitude analysis filters out terms growing as even power of s, s2n where n ≥ 1
(n = 1 in our case). It is because of this filtering property that one is not able to put any
bounds on the Wilson coefficients of dim 6 operators comprising four fields, e.g. cφ2 ∂µ φ∂ µ φ
as their contribution to the tree level scattering amplitude (forward limit) grow as s. But

JHEP02(2023)199
(1) (2)
for dim 6 operators comprising of three fields, like some terms in QG3 and QG3 , one indeed
gets an s2 dependence at tree level due to exchange diagrams. It is this feature that allowed
us to put constraints on the square of the Wilson coefficients of dim 6 gluon field strength
operators in SMEFT. We obtained constraints on the magnitude of dim 6 operators’ Wilson
coefficients in terms of those of dim 8 operators. In appendix B, we have given another
example of a dim 6 operator (containing 3 fields) whose magnitude can be constrained in
terms of dim 8 operators.
In the context of superluminality analysis, we have mentioned the subtleties involving
the relation between low-frequency phase velocity and causality. We showed, in the case of
chiral Lagrangian, that it is unclear if one gets a strict positivity bound from superluminality
when the pion is considered to be massive. The reason for this is that the superluminality
analysis takes into account the contribution from operators of all dimensions (unlike the
‘amplitude analysis’). As we have argued in our work, the contribution of the dimension 4
operator (other than the kinetic term) to the dispersion relation of the perturbation makes it
unclear if one can use the phase velocity to dictate the superluminality of the perturbation.
However, in the case of the gluon field strength operators, we managed to get rid of the
mass-like terms in the dispersion relation by choosing specific background and polarization
of the perturbation. This was possible because the mass-like term entirely depended on
four-vector contractions which could be made zero despite having a non-zero field. We
showed that interestingly and in a non-trivial way, the superluminality analysis for gluonic
operators in the SMEFT reproduces all the bounds obtained from the ‘amplitude analysis’.
The above discussion might give the impression that the amplitude analysis always
gives similar or stronger bounds than the superluminality analysis. However, this is not
always true. In section 4.3, following [32], we showed an example of a non-relativistic theory
(motivated by the EFT of inflation [48]) that the superluminality gives stronger constraints
than the ‘amplitude analysis’ in this case. Thus, we conclude that it is not clear which
of the two analyses will give stronger bounds for a particular theory. Hence, ideally, one
should perform both analyses in order to obtain the maximum amount of constraints on an
IR effective theory.

– 19 –
Acknowledgments

DG acknowledges support through the Ramanujan Fellowship and MATRICS Grant of

the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. DG would also like to
acknowledge support from the ICTP through the Associates Programme (2020–2025). DG
thank Alex Azatov, Paolo Creminelli, and Amartya Harsh Singh for fruitful discussions.

A Details of the subluminality analysis for gluons

  
(1)
• For operator QG4 = Gaµν Gaµν Gbρσ Gbρσ we have,

JHEP02(2023)199
(1)
1 a aµν c8  a aµν   b bρσ 
L = − Gµν G + 4 Gµν G Gρσ G
4 Λ
Applying Euler’s Lagrange equation,

∂L ∂L
∂α  − =0
f
∂ ∂ α Aβ ∂Afβ

for the above Lagrangian, we get EOM as,

(1)
8c8  a 
− ∂α Gf,αβ + 2G (∂ α G a,µν
)G f,αβ
+ G a
G a,µν
∂ α G f,αβ
(A.1)
Λ4 µν µν
(1)
8c
= −gs Ga,βν Ahν f af h + 84 gs f bf j Gaµν Ga,µν Gb,βσ Ajσ
Λ
We expand Aa,µ = Aa,µ 0 +h
a,µ where we choose background Aa,µ of particular color ‘a’
0
having ∂ ν Aa,µ = constant, and look at the linearised equation of motion for perturbation
ha,µ also of same color ‘a’, then we get
(1)
8c8  a c,µ
f,αβ
−∂α H f,αβ
+ 4 2G0µν ∂α H a,µν + gs f a1c A1,µ
0 h
c,ν
+ gs f ac1 A1,ν
0 h G0 (A.2)
Λ 
+ Ga0µν Ga,µν
0 ∂α H f,αβ = 0

where f=a, Ga0µν = ∂µ Aa0ν − ∂ν Aa0µ + gs f abc Ab0µ Ac0ν and Hµν
a = ∂ ha − ∂ ha since Aa
µ ν ν µ 0
is non zero only for particular ‘a’, Ga0µν = F0µνa = ∂ Aa − ∂ Aa and is also non-zero
µ 0ν ν 0µ
only for color index= ‘a’. From now we’ll stop writing color index for background for
convenience as it is fixed to be ‘a’.
(1)
8c8  a,µν αβ µν

−∂α H a,αβ + 2F ∂
0µν α H F + F F
0µν 0 ∂ α H a,αβ
=0 (A.3)
Λ4 0

Since we are working in Lorentz gauge, ∂α hα = 0, then writing H a,µν explicitly

(1) (1)
8c 32c8
!
−∂α ∂ h α a,β
1 − 84 F0µν F0µν + F0µν F0αβ ∂α ∂ µ ha,ν = 0 (A.4)
Λ Λ 4

– 20 –
  
ha,µ
Rescaling ha,µ →  (1)
 and considering terms only up to O 14 ,
Λ
8c
1− 84 F0µν F0µν
Λ

(1)
32c8
−∂α ∂ h α a,β
+ F0µν F0αβ ∂α ∂ µ ha,ν = 0 (A.5)
Λ4

Taking the Fourier transform and multiplying the eq. by normalized polarization of
perturbation: β ,
(1)
32c8
k 2 · β h̃a,β = F0µν F0αβ β kα k µ h̃a,ν (A.6)

JHEP02(2023)199
Λ4

Also, we can write h̃a,ν = −ν h̃a,ρ ρ considering polarization to be transverse and
therefore having components only in spatial direction (⇒ ν ν = −1)
(1)
32c
k = − 48 (F0µν ν k µ )2
2
(A.7)
Λ

Doing the above calculation for other operators gives eq. (4.20).
(1)
• For operator QG3 = f abc Gaν
µ G ν Gρ ,
bρ cµ

1 c6
L = − Gaµν Gaµν + 2 f abc Gaν bρ cµ
µ Gν Gρ
4 Λ
we get EOM as,
6c6 f bc  c,ρα b,β  a,βν h af h 6c6
 
−∂α Gf,αβ + f ∂ α G G = −gs G A f + gs f abc
f af h b,νρ c,β h
G G A
Λ2 ρ ν
Λ2 ρ ν

(A.8)

We again expand Aa,µ = Aa,µ 0 +h

a,µ where we choose background Aa,µ of particular
0
color ‘a’ with ∂ ν Aa,µ = constant, and look at the linearised equation of motion for
perturbation ha,µ of color f.
Then EOM takes the following form for color f,
 
− ∂α H f,αβ + gs f f aj Aa,α
0 h
j,β
+ gs f f ia hi,α Aa,β
0 (A.9)
6c6 f ba 
+ f ∂α F0a,ρα (H b,βρ + gs f baj Aa,β
0 hρ + gs f
j
h A0ρ )
bia i,β a
Λ2 
− F0a,βρ (H b,α
ρ + gs f A0ρ h + gs f bia hiρ Aa,α
baj a j,α
0 )
 
= −gs H d,βν + gs f daj Aa,β
0 h
j,ν
+ gs f dia hi,β Aa,ν
0 Aa0ν f df a − gs F0a,βν hhν f af h
6c6 
df h a,νρ a,β h

+ gs f daa
f F F h
Λ2 0 0ρ ν
6c6  
+ 2 gs f dba f df a (H b,νρ + gs f baj Aa,ν
0 h
j,ρ
+ gs f bia hi,ν Aa,ρ a,β a
0 )F0ρ A0ν
Λ
6c6  
+ 2 gs f dac f df a F0a,νρ (H c,β + g s f caj a j,β
A h + gs f cia i a,β
h A )A a
Λ ρ 0ρ ρ 0 0ν

– 21 –
For this, we work in WKB approximation where the scale of variation of background(r)
is much larger than that of perturbations (ω −1 ), then at order gs , gs2 , 1/Λ2 and leading
order of rω in each of them,
 
− ∂α H f,αβ + gs f f aj Aa,α
0 h
j,β
+ gs f f ia hi,α Aa,β
0 (A.10)
6c6 f ba  a,ρα b,β
+ f ∂α F0 (H ρ + gs f baj Aa,β
0 hρ + gs f
j
h A0ρ )
bia i,β a
Λ2 
− F0a,βρ (H b,α
ρ + gs f A0ρ h + gs f bia hiρ Aa,α
baj a j,α
0 )
 
= −gs H d,βν + gs f daj Aa,β
0 h
j,ν
+ gs f dia hi,β Aa,ν
0 Aa0ν f df a

JHEP02(2023)199
6c6 a,β a 6c6
+ gs f dba f df a H b,νρ F0ρ A0ν + 2 gs f dac f df a F0a,νρ H c,β a
ρ A0ν
Λ 2 Λ

In above eq. since we don’t know the relative order of gs and 1/Λ2 , we ignore only those
terms which are definitely of less order than gs , gs2 , 1/Λ2 like gs2 /Λ2 . Also, in the above
equation and all further equations ‘f ’ and ‘a’ are not contracted but are considered
particular color indices and we’ll also drop ‘a’ from background terms.
Lorentz gauge, ∂α hα = 0 implies

− ∂α ∂α hf,β − 2gs f f aj Aa,α

0 ∂α h
j,β
+ gs f f aj A0ν ∂ β hj,ν (A.11)
 
+ gs2 f df a f daj Aβ0 hj,ν − hj,β Aν0 Aν0
6c6 f ba  βρ

+ f F 0ρα ∂ α β b,ρ
∂ h + F ∂ α ∂ α b
h
Λ2 0 ρ
6c6 
+ 2 gs f f ba f baj Aβ0 F0ρα ∂α hjρ − f baj F0ρα A0ρ ∂α hj,β
Λ 
+ f baj Aα0 F0βρ ∂α hfρ + f baj H j,νρ F0βρ A0ν + f bac F0νρ Hρc, β A0ν = 0

We can also choose the amplitude (max|A0 (xµ )|) of the background to be arbitrary small
without affecting other quantities, which would make the terms of order A20 less relevant
in comparison to terms of lower order,

− ∂α ∂α hf,β + 2gs f f ba Aa,α

0 ∂α h
b,β
− gs f f ba A0ρ ∂ β hb,ρ (A.12)
6c6  
+ 2 f f ba F0ρα ∂ α ∂ β hb,ρ + F0βρ ∂α ∂ α hbρ = 0
Λ
Now for also some other color ‘b’ we’ll have similar wave equation,

− ∂ α ∂α hb,ρ + 2gs f bga Aa,α

0 ∂α h
g,ρ
− gs f bga A0σ ∂ ρ hg,σ (A.13)
6c6
+ 2 f bga (F0σα ∂α ∂ ρ hgσ + F0ρσ ∂ α ∂α hgσ ) = 0
Λ
We consider the following solution of (A.13),
6c6 bga σα ρ g
−∂ α hb,ρ + 2gs f bga Aa,α
0 h
g,ρ
− gs f bga A0ν δ αρ hg,ν + f (F0 ∂ hσ + F0ρσ ∂ α hgσ ) = 0
Λ2
(A.14)

– 22 –
and substitute in (A.12),
3
 
α
−∂ ∂α h f,β
= 2gs2 f f ba f gba 2Aα0 A0α hg,β − A0ν Aβ0 hg,ν (A.15)
2
6c6 f ba gba  βρ α ρβ ρ g,ν

+g f f 5F A ∂ α h g,ρ
− A 0ν F ∂ h + 5F 0ρα A α β g,ρ
∂ h
Λ2 0 0 0 0

c 2  
+ 36 64 f f ba f gba F0βρ F0σα ∂α ∂ρ hgσ + F0ρβ ρσ α
F0 ∂ ∂α hgσ + 2F0ρα F0σα ∂ β ∂ρ hgσ
Λ
Now we try to get the differential equation just in terms of perturbation of color ‘f ’
assuming that we can choose a particular background A0 such that mass term vanishes.
Then in the above equation in second and third terms of r.h.s, we write
 h in terms of

JHEP02(2023)199
g

other colors. When g 6= f we get terms of higher order in A0 or O Λ14 from (A.13),
 
therefore only g = f survives at O 1
Λ4
and leading order in A0 .

6c6 f ba f ba  βρ α ρβ ρ f,ν

−∂ α ∂α hf,β = g f f 5F A ∂
0 α h f,ρ
− A F
0ν 0 ∂ h + 5F A
0ρα 0
α β f,ρ
∂ h
Λ2 0

c 2  
+ 36 64 f f ba f f ba F0βρ F0σα ∂α ∂ρ hfσ + F0ρ
β ρσ α
F0 ∂ ∂α hfσ + 2F0ρα F0σα ∂ β ∂ρ hfσ
Λ
Taking the Fourier transform and multiplying by normalized polarization of perturbation
color ‘f ’ β ,
6c6 f ba f ba  βρ α e f,ρ ρβ ρ e f,ν

k µ kµ (β h
e f,β ) = ig f f  β 5F A k α h −A 0ν F k h +5F 0ρα A α β e f,ρ
k h
Λ2 0 0 0 0

c 2  
−36 64 f f ba f f ba β F0βρ F0σα kα kρ h
e f +F β F ρσ k α kα h
e f +2F ρα F σα k β kρ h
ef
Λ σ 0ρ 0 σ 0 0 σ

(A.16)

We consider polarization to be transverse and since we can write h̃f,ν = −ν h̃f,ρ ρ , we get

6c6 f ba 2  βρ α
!
c2 β ρσ ρβ ρ ν

µ
k kµ 1 − 36 64 (f f ba )2 F0ρ F0  β  σ = −ig (f )  β 5F A k α  ρ
− A 0ν F k 
Λ Λ2 0 0 0

c26 f ba 2  βρ σα 
+ 36 (f ) F F k k  
α ρ β σ (A.17)
Λ4 0 0

Considering k µ to be complex in general then for the real part of dispersion relation at
leading order we get,
c26 f ba 2  βρ 2
k µ kµ = 36 (f ) F k ρ  β (A.18)
Λ4 0

After considering all dim 6 and dim 8 operators we’ll get following dispersion relation,
kµ k µ 9 h i2
= 4 f af c f afc c6 (F0µν kµ ν ) − c06 (Fe0αβ kα β ) (A.19)
4 Λ
4 h (1) (3) (7) 2
− 4 (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) (F0µν kµ ν )
Λ
 2
(2) (4) (8)
+ (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) Fe0αβ kα β
 i
(5) (6) (9)
− (2δ af c8 + (1 + δ af )c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 ) (F0µν kµ ν ) Fe0αβ kα β

– 23 –
 where ‘f ’ denotes the color of perturbation and ‘a’ of the background; given the mass
term in (A.15) vanish.
√
Consider the perturbation with polarization  = {0, 1, 1, 0}/ 2 and choose background
√
of the form A0µ = E{ 2(x + y), x + y, −(x + y), 0} where E is some arbitrary small
constant. Under this configuration, we have A0µ Aµ0 = 0 and µ A0µ = 0 i.e. mass-like
term in eq. (A.15) vanish. For the chosen background, we get the following non-zero
√
components of Fµν , F01 = −F10 , F02 = −F20 and F12 = −F21 with F01 = F02 = F12 / 2,
which reduces the dispersion relation (A.19) to the following form,
72 af c af 2 32  (3) af c af (7)

kµ k µ = (c ) 2
(ωF ) + 2d (ωF01 )2 (A.20)

JHEP02(2023)199
f f c 6 01 − c d c
Λ4 Λ4 8 c 8

then by demanding perturbation to be causal, we get

 
(3) (7)
9f af c f afc (c6 )2 − 4 c8 + 2daf c dafc c8 <0 (A.21)

Choosing different combinations of colors for perturbation and background leads to

constraints C(1,1), C(2,1), C(3,1), and C(4,1). Now, if we choose the background,
q √ √ √ √ 
A0µ = E 2(D + B)t, ( D + B)t, ( B − D)t, 0

where,
 
(1) (3) (7)
D = 4 2δ ab c8 + (1 + δ ab )c8 + 2dabc dabc c8 − 9f abc f abc c26 ;
 
(2) (4) (8)
B = 4 2δ ab c8 + (1 + δ ab )c8 + 2dabc dabc c8 − 9f abc f abc c02
6

with perturbation of the same polarization as before, then the subluminality condition
gives the following constraint,
√ (5) (6) (9)
−2 DB < 4(2δ ab c8 + (1 + δ ab )c8 + 2dabc dabc c8 ) − 18f abc f abc c6 c06 (A.22)

Similarly by choosing the background to be

q √ √ √ √ 
A0µ = E 2(D + B)t, ( D + B)t, ( D − B)t, 0
√
along with the polarization  = {0, 1, −1, 0}/ 2, we get the following constraint
√ 
(5) (6) (9)

2 DB > 4 2δ ab c8 + (1 + δ ab )c8 + 2dabc dabc c8 − 18f abc f abc c6 c06 (A.23)

Combining the above two constraints we can reproduce C(1,3), C(2,3), C(3,3) and C(4,3).

B An example with scalar and fermion

In this appendix, we consider another example of operators of dimensions 6 and 8 which,

when subjected to the ‘amplitude analysis’, get relative bounds on their Wilson coefficients.
Consider the following Lagrangian,
c6 c8
L(6) = 2 φ∂µ Ψ̄∂ µ Ψ ; L(8) = i 4 (∂ µ ∂ν φ∂µ Ψ̄γ ν Ψφ − ∂ µ ∂ν φΨ̄γ ν ∂µ Ψφ)
Λ Λ

– 24 –
Figure 3. The first two exchange diagrams represent s and u-channel contributions, and get

JHEP02(2023)199
contribution from L(6) . The third contact diagram gets contribution from L(8) .

where Ψ represents a fermionic field and φ is a real scalar field. The second term in L(8) has
to be present for it to be hermitian. Note that, the operator L(6) (with φ identified as the
Higgs doublet, and the normal derivatives replaced by appropriate covariant derivatives)
can be written in terms of a linear combination of SMEFT operators of the Warsaw basis
up to total derivatives using the EOM (see eq. (6.4) of [36]).
We calculate 2 → 2 scattering amplitude with  two scalars and fermions of positive
helicities, M(φf2 → φf4 ), at tree level up to O Λ4 . Since the dimension 6 operator
+ + 1

considered has 3 fields, we expect to get a contribution scaling like c26 s2 in the amplitude
M(s, t). The tree level amplitude gets contribution from the Feynman diagrams in figure 3
and is given by:

c26 s u
 
M(φf2+ φf4+ ) = − u+ (p4 )(p
1 + p
2 )v− (p2 ) + u+ (p4 )(p
2 − p
3 )v− (p2 ) (B.1)
Λ4 4 4
c8 u s

+ 4 − u+ (p4 )p
1 v− (p2 ) + u+ (p4 )p
1 v− (p2 )
Λ 2 2
s u

+ u+ (p4 )p
3 v− (p2 ) − u+ (p4 )p
3 v− (p2 )
2 2

which using spinor helicity formalism (for detailed introduction check [50]) can be written as:

c8 −u s s u
 
M(φf2+ φf4+ ) = 4 [41]h12i + [41]h12i + [43]h32i − [43]h32i
Λ 2 2 2 2
c 2 
s u

− 64 [41]h12i − [43]h32i
Λ 4 4

c2
2
 
We now take the forward limit to get A(s) = M(s, t)|t→0 = Λs 4 2c8 − 26 . We don’t
have to worry about t-channel pole divergence since the t-channel doesn’t exist for the
process considered. From positivity condition discussed in section 3.1, we get

4c8 > c26

This puts an upper bound on the magnitude of c6 in terms of c8 similar to what we obtained
for the gluonic operators. It also implies that the 6-dimensional operator that we have

– 25 –
considered in this example cannot exist on its own, it needs some other operator which
gives a positive contribution proportional to s2 in A(s) to survive.
One might not have expected to get s2 dependence from exchange diagrams as there
are only two derivatives present in L(6) (unlike the gluonic case which has three derivatives).
However, the fermion propagator has 1/p dependence instead of the 1/p2 dependence for
gluons, and more importantly, spinors u and v have implicit momentum factors. These
momentum factors, in our case, manifest themselves in the form of Mandelstam variables
once we take forward limit, leading to s2 dependence of exchange diagrams.

Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

JHEP02(2023)199
Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. SCOAP 3 supports
the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.

References

[1] C.P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory, Cambridge University Press (2020)
[INSPIRE].
[2] W. Skiba, Effective Field Theory and Precision Electroweak Measurements, in the proceedings
of Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large
and the Small, (2011), pp. 5–70 [DOI:10.1142/9789814327183_0001] [arXiv:1006.2142]
[INSPIRE].
[3] A. Adams et al., Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion, JHEP 10
(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178] [INSPIRE].
[4] S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin, Causality constraints on
corrections to Einstein gravity, arXiv:2201.06602 [CALT-TH 2021-003] [INSPIRE].
[5] M. Carrillo Gonzalez, C. de Rham, V. Pozsgay and A.J. Tolley, Causal effective field theories,
Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 105018 [arXiv:2207.03491] [INSPIRE].
[6] C. de Rham et al., Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics, in the proceedings
of 2022 Snowmass Summer Study, (2022) [arXiv:2203.06805] [INSPIRE].
[7] T.N. Pham and T.N. Truong, Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral
Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3027 [INSPIRE].
[8] C. de Rham, S. Melville, A.J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,
Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 081702 [arXiv:1702.06134] [INSPIRE].
[9] B. Bellazzini, C. Cheung and G.N. Remmen, Quantum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and
Analyticity, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 064076 [arXiv:1509.00851] [INSPIRE].
[10] J. Bros, H. Epstein and V.J. Glaser, Some rigorous analyticity properties of the four-point
function in momentum space, Nuovo Cim. 31 (1964) 1265 [INSPIRE].
[11] H. Lehmann, Analytic properties of scattering amplitudes as functions of momentum transfer,
Nuovo Cim. 10 (1958) 579 [INSPIRE].
[12] J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri and M.A. Gumus, Bridging Positivity and S-matrix Bootstrap
Bounds, arXiv:2210.01502 [INSPIRE].
[13] I. Low, R. Rattazzi and A. Vichi, Theoretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings,
JHEP 04 (2010) 126 [arXiv:0907.5413] [INSPIRE].

– 26 –
[14] A. Falkowski, S. Rychkov and A. Urbano, What if the Higgs couplings to W and Z bosons are
larger than in the Standard Model?, JHEP 04 (2012) 073 [arXiv:1202.1532] [INSPIRE].
[15] Y. Ema, R. Kitano and T. Terada, Unitarity constraint on the Kähler curvature, JHEP 09
(2018) 075 [arXiv:1807.06940] [INSPIRE].
[16] J. Gu and L.-T. Wang, Sum Rules in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory from Helicity
Amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2021) 149 [arXiv:2008.07551] [INSPIRE].
[17] G.N. Remmen and N.L. Rodd, Signs, spin, SMEFT: Sum rules at dimension six, Phys. Rev. D
105 (2022) 036006 [arXiv:2010.04723] [INSPIRE].
[18] G.N. Remmen and N.L. Rodd, Spinning sum rules for the dimension-six SMEFT, JHEP 09
(2022) 030 [arXiv:2206.13524] [INSPIRE].

JHEP02(2023)199
[19] A. Azatov, D. Ghosh and A.H. Singh, Four-fermion operators at dimension 6: Dispersion
relations and UV completions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 115019 [arXiv:2112.02302]
[INSPIRE].
[20] C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds on vector boson scattering at the LHC, Phys. Rev.
D 100 (2019) 095003 [arXiv:1808.00010] [INSPIRE].
[21] X. Li et al., Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021)
121601 [arXiv:2101.01191] [INSPIRE].
[22] G.N. Remmen and N.L. Rodd, Flavor Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 125 (2020) 081601 [Erratum ibid. 127 (2021) 149901] [arXiv:2004.02885] [INSPIRE].
[23] Q. Bonnefoy, E. Gendy and C. Grojean, Positivity bounds on Minimal Flavor Violation, JHEP
04 (2021) 115 [arXiv:2011.12855] [INSPIRE].
[24] T. Trott, Causality, unitarity and symmetry in effective field theory, JHEP 07 (2021) 143
[arXiv:2011.10058] [INSPIRE].
[25] G.N. Remmen and N.L. Rodd, Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,
JHEP 12 (2019) 032 [arXiv:1908.09845] [INSPIRE].
[26] G. Goon and K. Hinterbichler, Superluminality, black holes and EFT, JHEP 02 (2017) 134
[arXiv:1609.00723] [INSPIRE].
[27] L. Brillouin, Wave propagation and group velocity, Pure and Applied Physics, Academic Press,
New York (1960).
[28] J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley (1998).
[29] I.T. Drummond and S.J. Hathrell, QED Vacuum Polarization in a Background Gravitational
Field and Its Effect on the Velocity of Photons, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 343 [INSPIRE].
[30] X.O. Camanho, J.D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, Causality Constraints on
Corrections to the Graviton Three-Point Coupling, JHEP 02 (2016) 020 [arXiv:1407.5597]
[INSPIRE].
[31] K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and R.A. Rosen, Eikonal scattering and asymptotic superluminality
of massless higher spin fields, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 125019 [arXiv:1712.10021] [INSPIRE].
[32] D. Baumann, D. Green, H. Lee and R.A. Porto, Signs of Analyticity in Single-Field Inflation,
Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 023523 [arXiv:1502.07304] [INSPIRE].
[33] B. Bellazzini, Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles, JHEP 02 (2017) 034
[arXiv:1605.06111] [INSPIRE].
[34] M. Froissart, Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation, Phys.
Rev. 123 (1961) 1053 [INSPIRE].

– 27 –
[35] Y.S. Jin and A. Martin, Number of Subtractions in Fixed-Transfer Dispersion Relations, Phys.
Rev. 135 (1964) B1375 [INSPIRE].
[36] B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzyński, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the
Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884] [INSPIRE].
[37] C.W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Eective Field Theory, JHEP 10
(2020) 174 [arXiv:2005.00059] [INSPIRE].
[38] H.-L. Li et al., Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field
theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015026 [arXiv:2005.00008] [INSPIRE].
[39] V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 256 (2020) 107478 [arXiv:2001.04407] [INSPIRE].

JHEP02(2023)199
[40] V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0, Comput.
Phys. Commun. 207 (2016) 432 [arXiv:1601.01167] [INSPIRE].
[41] R. Mertig, M. Böhm and A. Denner, FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of
Feynman amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 (1991) 345 [INSPIRE].
[42] J. Quevillon, C. Smith and S. Touati, Effective action for gauge bosons, Phys. Rev. D 99
(2019) 013003 [arXiv:1810.06994] [INSPIRE].
[43] C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Convex Geometry Perspective on the (Standard Model) Effective
Field Theory Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 201601 [arXiv:2005.03047] [INSPIRE].
[44] R. Fox, C.G. Kuper and S.G. Lipson, Do faster-than-light group velocities imply violation of
causality?, Nature 223 (1969) 597 [INSPIRE].
[45] N. Brunner et al., Direct Measurement of Superluminal Group Velocity and Signal Velocity in
an Optical Fiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 203902.
[46] E. Recami, Superluminal waves and objects: An overview of the relevant experiments, J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 196 (2009) 012020 [INSPIRE].
[47] T.J. Hollowood and G.M. Shore, Causality and Micro-Causality in Curved Spacetime, Phys.
Lett. B 655 (2007) 67 [arXiv:0707.2302] [INSPIRE].
[48] C. Cheung et al., The Effective Field Theory of Inflation, JHEP 03 (2008) 014
[arXiv:0709.0293] [INSPIRE].
[49] P. Creminelli, O. Janssen and L. Senatore, Positivity bounds on effective field theories with
spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance, JHEP 09 (2022) 201 [arXiv:2207.14224] [INSPIRE].
[50] H. Elvang and Y.-T. Huang, Scattering Amplitudes, arXiv:1308.1697 [INSPIRE].
[51] A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity, JHEP 05
(2010) 095 [Erratum ibid. 11 (2011) 128] [arXiv:0912.4258] [INSPIRE].
[52] Q. Bi, C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity constraints on aQGC: carving out the physical
parameter space, JHEP 06 (2019) 137 [arXiv:1902.08977] [INSPIRE].
[53] L.B. OKUN, Chapter 29 — Appendix (Some useful formulas), in Leptons and Quarks,
L. Okun ed., North-Holland Personal Library, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1984), pp. 308–328
[DOI:10.1016/b978-0-444-86924-1.50032-5].
[54] H. Elvang and Y.-T. Huang, Scattering Amplitudes, arXiv:1308.1697 [INSPIRE].

– 28 –