Exotic branes and mixed-symmetry potentials II: Duality rules and exceptional $p$-form gauge fields

Jose J. Fernandez-Melgarejo; Shozo Uehara; Yuho Sakatani

Exotic branes and mixed-symmetry potentials II: Duality rules and exceptional $p$-form gauge fields

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All exceptional p-form gauge fields descend from a single generalized graviphoton, which fixes the dual graviton's T- and S-duality rules.

desk verdict A solid, honestly scoped extension of the EFT linear-map program to E8, where the dual-graviton results are real but conditional on a brane-coupling restriction. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01335 v2 pith:CKK3F7VM submitted 2019-09-03 hep-th

Jose J. Fernandez-Melgarejo , Yuho Sakatani , Shozo Uehara This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 11.25.-w04.65.+e

keywords exceptionalfieldtheorydualgravitonmixed-symmetrypotentialsT-dualityS-dualityU-dualitygeneralizedgraviphotonE8metric

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to pin down the explicit supergravity content of the U-duality-covariant p-form fields $A^I_p$ that appear in exceptional field theory and in U-duality-manifest brane actions. The authors propose that the 1-form $A^I_1$ is the generalized graviphoton, $A^I_\mu = m_{\mu\nu} M^{\nu I}$, defined through the inverse generalized metric, and that every higher $A^I_p$ in the multiplet follows from it by antisymmetrizing external indices. As the main application, they work out how the dual graviton, a mixed-symmetry potential $A_{8,1}$ in M-theory or $A_{7,1}$ in type IIB, enters these fields, and they derive its T-duality and S-duality transformation rules. The result matters because it converts the formal U-duality packaging into concrete component fields that couple to exotic branes, and it recovers an earlier restricted dual-graviton rule as a special case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the generalized graviphoton relation $A^I_\mu = m_{\mu\nu} M^{\nu I}$, where $m_{\mu\nu}$ is the inverse of the external-space matrix $M_{\mu\nu}$ and $M^{\nu I}$ are off-diagonal blocks of the inverse generalized metric. Alongside it, the paper uses the constant linear map $S^I{}_J$ that relates the M-theory and type IIB parameterizations of the same $E_n$ multiplets, and the restriction rule (2.45), which limits the dual-graviton components that couple to supersymmetric branes. These ingredients let the authors compare the two parameterizations component by component and read off both the parameterization and the duality rules.

What would settle it

Take a dual-graviton component $A_{A_1\cdots A_6 y,B}$ with $B$ outside the antisymmetrized set and compute its T-duality transform using the same linear-map comparison at level $E_9$ or in $E_{11}$: the paper anticipates that the $SL(2)$ doublet $A^{\alpha\beta}_8$ must appear on the right-hand side, so its absence or presence would settle whether the restriction rule (2.45) is complete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the entire tower of exceptional $p$-form gauge fields is encoded in a single object: the 1-form $A^I_\mu$, which is the generalized graviphoton $A^I_\mu = m_{\mu\nu} M^{\nu I}$ obtained from the inverse generalized metric of $E_{11}$ exceptional field theory. All higher forms $A^I_p$ are then generated by replacing an internal index with an external index and antisymmetrizing, so the mixed-symmetry components, including the dual graviton, inherit their parameterizations from the same tensors $N$ that appear in the 1-form. The paper also states explicit T-duality rules (2.50)–(2.53) and the S-duality rule (2.65) for the dual graviton and shows that, when $B_2=C_2=0$, the T-duality rule reduces to the known restricted result. All formulas marked with $\simeq$ hold under the restriction (2.45), which selects only dual-graviton components whose last index lies inside the antisymmetrized set; the other components are not determined.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation only determines components of the dual graviton whose last index lies inside the antisymmetrized set, so if the underlying classification of which components couple to supersymmetric branes is incomplete, the parameterization and duality rules for the remaining components do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The generalized graviphoton identity gives a mechanical rule for producing every $p$-form in the multiplet by antisymmetrization, so the p-form fields no longer need to be parameterized independently.
The explicit dual-graviton T-duality rules (2.50)–(2.53) and S-duality rule (2.65) can be used to write U-duality-covariant Wess–Zumino terms for exotic branes and Kaluza–Klein monopoles in ordinary supergravity variables.
Setting $B_2=C_2=0$ reduces the new T-duality rule to the previously known restricted rule, which confirms consistency with existing results while extending them to nonzero Ramond–Ramond fields.
In the redefined dual-graviton basis introduced through the generalized metric, the S-duality rule becomes simply $A'_{M_1\cdots M_7,N}=A_{M_1\cdots M_7,N}$, making S-duality invariance of this component manifest.
Because the parameterization is determined level by level, the same procedure extends to higher mixed-symmetry potentials beyond the dual graviton once the $E_{11}$ generalized metric is known to higher levels.

Reading between the lines

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

By the same antisymmetrization logic, the full $E_{11}$ $l_1$ representation should yield parameterizations for every mixed-symmetry potential at all levels; the paper only establishes the components that couple to supersymmetric branes, so this is an extrapolation, not a proven claim.
If the generalized graviphoton is truly the 1-form of the multiplet, then brane solutions in exceptional field theory can be viewed as waves propagating in the exceptional spacetime, all carrying charge under this single vector field; the paper notes the conceptual proximity to that picture but does not prove it.
A direct test of the restriction rule would be to compute the T-duality transform of a non-restricted dual-graviton component at level $E_9$ or in $E_{11}$; the paper anticipates that the $SL(2)$ doublet $A^{\alpha\beta}_8$ would then appear, so seeing that field emerge would confirm the brane-coupling classification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

What you should know: this paper extends the linear-map method of Sakatani–Uehara from n≤7 to n=8, where the dual graviton first appears in the EFT 1-form multiplet. The new results are the explicit parameterizations of the dual-graviton components that couple to supersymmetric branes, the T-duality rule (2.53), the S-duality rule (2.65), and the type IIB E8 generator matrices in Appendix B. It also makes a clean proposal that the 1-form is the generalized graviphoton, A^I_1 = m_µν M^νI, and that higher p-forms follow by antisymmetrization.

What is genuinely good: the two derivations in Sections 2 and 3 are not fully independent—both apply the same restriction (2.45)—but the generalized-metric route does provide a non-trivial cross-check of the restricted results, and the B2=C2=0 truncation reproduces Eyras–Lozano. The paper is honest about its main limitation: all dual-graviton formulas hold only for components with i∈{i1,…,i7}, and it explicitly notes that lifting the restriction may bring in the α≠β component of the type IIB 8-form. I found no circular reasoning: the linear map is constructed and checked for closure, not fitted.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags: the restriction (2.45) is load-bearing. If the brane-coupling classification imported from [26–29] is incomplete, or if U-duality mixes the restricted components with the omitted ones, then the parameterizations and duality rules for the full multiplet would need modification. This does not sink the paper on its own terms—the claims are explicitly conditional—but it does mean the headline result is a statement about the restricted subspace, not the whole story. A minor practical caveat: the appendix generator matrices are asserted to close, but no code or ancillary file is included; a referee would need to do some linear algebra to fully audit them.

Who this is for: anyone working on exceptional field theory, U-duality-covariant brane actions, or mixed-symmetry potentials. It deserves a serious referee—the math is intricate, the claims are specific, and the connections to known results are documented. I would send it to review with a note that (2.45) is the main assumption to probe.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a systematic method to determine the components of the U-duality multiplet of p-form fields A^I_p in E_n exceptional field theory in terms of standard supergravity fields and mixed-symmetry potentials. The method uses a constant linear map S between M-theory and type IIB parameterizations, supplemented by an independent generalized-metric construction for E8. The authors determine the parameterization of the dual graviton components that couple to supersymmetric branes, derive their T- and S-duality rules, and argue that the 1-form A^I_1 is the generalized graviphoton m_{\mu\nu} M_{\nu I}, with higher p-forms obtained by antisymmetrization. The T-duality rules reproduce known results in the B2=C2=0 truncation, and the generalized-metric approach provides a consistency check on the linear-map derivation.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful contribution to the EFT literature: it gives explicit E8-level parameterizations involving the dual graviton, new E8 generator matrices in the type IIB parameterization, and a clean interpretation of A^I_1 as the generalized graviphoton. The agreement with the known restricted results of [30,31] and the presence of two independent derivations are notable strengths. The paper is also transparent about its main limitation: all dual-graviton results hold only under the brane-coupling restriction (2.45), and the unrestricted components are explicitly left undetermined.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract, Sections 2.4-2.5] The restriction (2.45) is load-bearing for all dual-graviton results, and although the main text is explicit, the Abstract and the displayed formulas (2.50)-(2.53) and (2.65) should state clearly that the equalities hold only for components with i in {i1,...,i7} and that the remaining components are not determined.
[Eq. (3.42)] The symbol m_{\mu\nu} is introduced in (1.1) as the inverse of M_{\mu\nu}, but in (3.42) it is equated with M_{\mu\nu} itself; please rename one of these objects or clarify the definition to avoid a direct notational conflict.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.13)] The 3-form and 4-form multiplets are labeled AI2 in (4.10)-(4.13); the labels should read AI3 and AI4 respectively.
[Eq. (2.64)] The S-duality transformation of the dilaton appears to be missing a fraction in the displayed formula; please check that e^{-\phi'} is written as the correct ratio.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generalized-graviphoton identification and dual-graviton duality rules are consistency results with independent checks, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The parameterization of the 1-form A^I_mu is obtained by imposing the linear-map consistency condition (2.20) together with standard T-duality covariance and solving for coefficients such as c1 and c2; these are fixed by matching two independent descriptions, not by prescribing the final duality rules for the dual graviton. The claimed identity A^I_mu = m_mu nu M^nu I is introduced as a definition and then verified by direct computation of (L^{-T}) in Eqs. (3.40)-(3.47), reproducing the Section 2 result; no target quantity is inserted as an input. The T-duality rules (2.50)-(2.53) reduce to the independent results of [30] and [31] in the appropriate truncations, and the S-duality rule (2.65) is consistent with the S-duality-invariant redefined dual graviton in Eq. (3.32). The paper explicitly flags the restriction rule (2.45) and states that components violating it are not determined; this is an acknowledged incompleteness or limitation, not a circular step. The self-citations [1] and [22] supply the linear-map method and level decompositions, but the linear map was originally proposed in [25] and is re-derived and checked for n=8 in the present paper, including closure of the algebra and the generalized transpose property (3.17)-(3.19). Thus no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free parameters. The main external inputs are the E11/En symmetry framework, the M-theory/type IIB linear map from prior work, the standard NS-NS T-duality rules in the first approach, and the restriction rule (2.45) that limits which mixed-symmetry components are determined.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The E11/En symmetry algebra and its level decompositions provide the correct U-duality framework for supergravity.
Invoked throughout Sections 2.2, 3 and Appendix B; the whole construction lives in the E11/En EFT framework established in [2-14, 38, 39].
domain assumption The linear map (2.20) between M-theory and type IIB parameterizations, originally proposed in [25] and used in [22], is valid and is extended to E8 in this paper.
Used as the starting identification (2.20); the paper constructs the constant matrix S and checks the orthogonality condition (3.17), but the identification itself is taken from prior work.
domain assumption Only mixed-symmetry potential components satisfying the restriction (2.45) couple to supersymmetric branes, so the T- and S-duality procedure determines only those components.
This restricts all formulas denoted with approximately equal, including the dual graviton parameterization (2.44)-(2.46) and duality rules (2.53), (2.63), (2.65). It is based on [26-29].
domain assumption The standard T-duality rules for NS-NS fields (2.23) are assumed as input in the first approach of Section 2.
Used to determine coefficients c1 and c2 in (2.26)-(2.32); the authors note this assumption is not necessary in the Section 3 approach, which derives the rules from the generalized metric.
domain assumption The E8 generalized metric parameterization of [13, 19] for M-theory and the new type IIB generators of Appendix B are correct matrix representations of the E8 algebra.
Section 3 derives the duality rules by comparing the two parameterizations of the generalized metric; the M-theory side is taken from [13, 19], while the type IIB side is checked against the algebra relations (B.55)-(B.92).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exotic branes and mixed-symmetry potentials II: Duality rules and exceptional $p$-form gauge fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKK3F7VM

@misc{pith2026190901335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exotic branes and mixed-symmetry potentials II: Duality rules and exceptional $p$-form gauge fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKK3F7VM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01335}
}

abstract

In U-duality-manifest formulations, supergravity fields are packaged into covariant objects such as the generalized metric and $p$-form fields $\mathcal{A}_p^{I_p}$. While a parameterization of the generalized metric in terms of supergravity fields is known for U-duality groups $E_n$ with $n\leq 8$, a parameterization of $\mathcal{A}_p^{I_p}$ has not been fully determined. In this paper, we propose a systematic method to determine the parameterization of $\mathcal{A}_p^{I_p}$, which necessarily involves mixed-symmetry potentials. We also show how to systematically obtain the T- and S-duality transformation rules of the mixed-symmetry potentials entering the multiplet. As the simplest non-trivial application, we find the parameterization and the duality rules associated with the dual graviton. Additionally, we show that the 1-form field $\mathcal{A}_1^{I_1}$ can be regarded as the generalized graviphoton in the exceptional spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01335 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: splittings of the M-theory coordinates (xMˆ ) and their index notation. A compactification on a circle S 1 along the direction x z and a T-duality transformation along the x y coordinate are considered. Right: splittings of the type IIB coordinates (x M) and their notations are shown. A T-duality transformation is taken along the coordinate x y . 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Exotic branes and mixed- symmetry potentials I: predictions from E11 symmetry,

J. J. Fern´ andez-Melgarejo, Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “ Exotic branes and mixed- symmetry potentials I: predictions from E11 symmetry,” arXiv:1907.07177 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907
[2]

Exceptional Form of D=11 Super gravity,

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Form of D=11 Super gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 231601 (2013) [arXiv:1308.1673 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Exceptional Field Theory I: E6(6) covariant Form of M- Theory and Type IIB,

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Field Theory I: E6(6) covariant Form of M- Theory and Type IIB,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 066016 (2014) [arXiv:1312.0614 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014
[4]

Exceptional ﬁeld theory. II. E 7(7),

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional ﬁeld theory. II. E 7(7),” Phys. Rev. D 89, 066017 (2014) [arXiv:1312.4542 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014
[5]

Exceptional ﬁeld theory. III. E8(8),

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional ﬁeld theory. III. E8(8),” Phys. Rev. D 90, 066002 (2014) [arXiv:1406.3348 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014
[6]

E(11), SL(32) and central charges,

P. C. West, “E(11), SL(32) and central charges,” Phys. Le tt. B 575, 333 (2003) [hep-th/0307098]

arXiv 2003
[7]

Representations of G+++ and the role of space-time

A. Kleinschmidt and P. C. West, “Representations of G+++ and the role of space-time,” JHEP 0402, 033 (2004) [hep-th/0312247]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[8]

E(11) origin of brane charges and U-duality m ultiplets,

P. C. West, “E(11) origin of brane charges and U-duality m ultiplets,” JHEP 0408, 052 (2004) [hep-th/0406150]

arXiv 2004

Show all 44 references

[9]

E(11)-extended spacetime an d gauged supergravities,

F. Riccioni and P. C. West, “E(11)-extended spacetime an d gauged supergravities,” JHEP 0802, 039 (2008) [arXiv:0712.1795 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[10]

Generalized E(7(7)) coset dynamics and D =11 supergravity,

C. Hillmann, “Generalized E(7(7)) coset dynamics and D =11 supergravity,” JHEP 0903, 135 (2009) [arXiv:0901.1581 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[11]

Generalized Geometry and M theory,

D. S. Berman and M. J. Perry, “Generalized Geometry and M theory,” JHEP 1106, 074 (2011) [arXiv:1008.1763 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[12]

T he Local symmetries of M-theory and their formulation in generalised geometry,

D. S. Berman, H. Godazgar, M. Godazgar and M. J. Perry, “T he Local symmetries of M-theory and their formulation in generalised geometry, ” JHEP 1201, 012 (2012) [arXiv:1110.3930 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[13]

Duali ty Invariant Actions and Generalised Geometry,

D. S. Berman, H. Godazgar, M. J. Perry and P. West, “Duali ty Invariant Actions and Generalised Geometry,” JHEP 1202, 108 (2012) [arXiv:1111.0459 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[14]

The gauge structure of generalised diﬀeomorphisms,

D. S. Berman, M. Cederwall, A. Kleinschmidt and D. C. Tho mpson, “The gauge structure of generalised diﬀeomorphisms,” JHEP 1301, 064 (2013) [arXiv:1208.5884 [hep-th]]. 36

2013 arXiv
[15]

D-Brane Wess-Zumino T erms and U-Duality,

E. A. Bergshoeﬀ and F. Riccioni, “D-Brane Wess-Zumino T erms and U-Duality,” JHEP 1011, 139 (2010) [arXiv:1009.4657 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[16]

Unifying Type-II S trings by Exceptional Groups,

A. S. Arvanitakis and C. D. A. Blair, “Unifying Type-II S trings by Exceptional Groups,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 21, 211601 (2018) [arXiv:1712.07115 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[17]

Exceptional M-brane sigma m odels and η-symbols,

Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “Exceptional M-brane sigma m odels and η-symbols,” PTEP 2018, no. 3, 033B05 (2018) [arXiv:1712.10316 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[18]

The Exceptional Si gma Model,

A. S. Arvanitakis and C. D. A. Blair, “The Exceptional Si gma Model,” JHEP 1804, 064 (2018) [arXiv:1802.00442 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[19]

E8 duality and dual gravity,

H. Godazgar, M. Godazgar and M. J. Perry, “E8 duality and dual gravity,” JHEP 1306, 044 (2013) [arXiv:1303.2035 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[20]

Generalised vielbeins and no n-linear realisations,

A. G. Tumanov and P. West, “Generalised vielbeins and no n-linear realisations,” JHEP 1410, 009 (2014) [arXiv:1405.7894 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[21]

Eﬀective action for non -geometric ﬂuxes duality covariant actions,

K. Lee, S. J. Rey and Y. Sakatani, “Eﬀective action for non -geometric ﬂuxes duality covariant actions,” JHEP 1707, 075 (2017) [arXiv:1612.08738 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Connecting M-theory and typ e IIB parameterizations in Exceptional Field Theory,

Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “Connecting M-theory and typ e IIB parameterizations in Exceptional Field Theory,” PTEP 2017, no. 4, 043B05 (2017) [arXiv:1701.07819 [hep- th]]

2017 arXiv
[23]

On supersym metric E 11 exceptional ﬁeld theory,

G. Bossard, A. Kleinschmidt and E. Sezgin, “On supersym metric E 11 exceptional ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 1910, 165 (2019) [arXiv:1907.02080 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[24]

The Massive Kaluza -Klein monopole,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, E. Eyras and Y. Lozano, “The Massive Kaluza -Klein monopole,” Phys. Lett. B 430, 77 (1998) [hep-th/9802199]

1998 arXiv
[25]

The IIA, IIB and eleven-dimensional theori es and their common E(11) origin,

P. C. West, “The IIA, IIB and eleven-dimensional theori es and their common E(11) origin,” Nucl. Phys. B 693, 76 (2004) [hep-th/0402140]

2004 arXiv
[26]

Branes and wrapping ru les,

E. A. Bergshoeﬀ and F. Riccioni, “Branes and wrapping ru les,” Phys. Lett. B 704, 367 (2011) [arXiv:1108.5067 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[27]

Counting supersymmetric branes,

A. Kleinschmidt, “Counting supersymmetric branes,” J HEP 1110, 144 (2011) [arXiv:1109.2025 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[28]

Brane orbit s,

E. A. Bergshoeﬀ, A. Marrani and F. Riccioni, “Brane orbit s,” Nucl. Phys. B 861, 104 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5819 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[29]

Branes, Weig hts and Central Charges,

E. A. Bergshoeﬀ, F. Riccioni and L. Romano, “Branes, Weig hts and Central Charges,” JHEP 1306, 019 (2013) [arXiv:1303.0221 [hep-th]]. 37

2013 arXiv
[30]

Five-branes, K K mon opoles and T duality,

E. Eyras, B. Janssen and Y. Lozano, “Five-branes, K K mon opoles and T duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 531, 275 (1998) [hep-th/9806169]

1998 arXiv
[31]

Exotic branes and nonperturbat ive seven-branes,

E. Eyras and Y. Lozano, “Exotic branes and nonperturbat ive seven-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 573, 735 (2000) [hep-th/9908094]

2000 arXiv
[32]

A Geometry for non-geometric string backgr ounds,

C. M. Hull, “A Geometry for non-geometric string backgr ounds,” JHEP 0510, 065 (2005) [hep-th/0406102]

2005 arXiv
[33]

Gauge theory of Kaluza-Klein and winding modes,

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Gauge theory of Kaluza-Klein and winding modes,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 085005 (2013) [arXiv:1307.0039 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[34]

Strings and Branes are Waves,

J. Berkeley, D. S. Berman and F. J. Rudolph, “Strings and Branes are Waves,” JHEP 1406, 006 (2014) [arXiv:1403.7198 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[35]

Branes are Waves and Mono poles,

D. S. Berman and F. J. Rudolph, “Branes are Waves and Mono poles,” JHEP 1505, 015 (2015) [arXiv:1409.6314 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[36]

Strings, Branes and the S elf-dual Solutions of Excep- tional Field Theory,

D. S. Berman and F. J. Rudolph, “Strings, Branes and the S elf-dual Solutions of Excep- tional Field Theory,” JHEP 1505, 130 (2015) [arXiv:1412.2768 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[37]

E 6(6) Exceptional Field Theory: Review and Embedding of Type IIB,

A. Baguet, O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “E 6(6) Exceptional Field Theory: Review and Embedding of Type IIB,” PoS CORFU 2014, 133 (2015) [arXiv:1506.01065 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[38]

E(11) and M theory,

P. C. West, “E(11) and M theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 4443 (2001) [hep-th/0104081]

2001 arXiv
[39]

E11, generalised space-time and IIA string theory,

P. West, “ E11, generalised space-time and IIA string theory,” Phys. Lett . B 696, 403 (2011) [arXiv:1009.2624 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[40]

Eﬀec- tive actions of nongeometric ﬁve-branes,

A. Chatzistavrakidis, F. F. Gautason, G. Moutsopoulos and M. Zagermann, “Eﬀec- tive actions of nongeometric ﬁve-branes,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 066004 (2014) [arXiv:1309.2653 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[41]

World-volume Eﬀective Actions of Exotic Five- branes,

T. Kimura, S. Sasaki and M. Yata, “World-volume Eﬀective Actions of Exotic Five- branes,” JHEP 1407, 127 (2014) [arXiv:1404.5442 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[42]

World-volume Eﬀective Action of Exotic Five-brane in M-theory,

T. Kimura, S. Sasaki and M. Yata, “World-volume Eﬀective Action of Exotic Five-brane in M-theory,” JHEP 1602, 168 (2016) [arXiv:1601.05589 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[43]

Branes in Extended Spacetim e: Brane Worldvolume Theory Based on Duality Symmetry,

Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “Branes in Extended Spacetim e: Brane Worldvolume Theory Based on Duality Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 19, 191601 (2016) [arXiv:1607.04265 [hep-th]]. 38

2016 arXiv
[44]

The diﬀerent faces of branes in Double Field Theory,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, A. Kleinschmidt, E. T. Musaev and F. Riccio ni, “The diﬀerent faces of branes in Double Field Theory,” JHEP 1909, 110 (2019) [JHEP 2019, 110 (2020)] [arXiv:1903.05601 [hep-th]]. 39

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Exotic branes and mixed- symmetry potentials I: predictions from E11 symmetry,

J. J. Fern´ andez-Melgarejo, Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “ Exotic branes and mixed- symmetry potentials I: predictions from E11 symmetry,” arXiv:1907.07177 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907

[2] [2]

Exceptional Form of D=11 Super gravity,

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Form of D=11 Super gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 231601 (2013) [arXiv:1308.1673 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

Exceptional Field Theory I: E6(6) covariant Form of M- Theory and Type IIB,

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Field Theory I: E6(6) covariant Form of M- Theory and Type IIB,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 066016 (2014) [arXiv:1312.0614 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Exceptional ﬁeld theory. II. E 7(7),

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional ﬁeld theory. II. E 7(7),” Phys. Rev. D 89, 066017 (2014) [arXiv:1312.4542 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Exceptional ﬁeld theory. III. E8(8),

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional ﬁeld theory. III. E8(8),” Phys. Rev. D 90, 066002 (2014) [arXiv:1406.3348 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014

[6] [6]

E(11), SL(32) and central charges,

P. C. West, “E(11), SL(32) and central charges,” Phys. Le tt. B 575, 333 (2003) [hep-th/0307098]

arXiv 2003

[7] [7]

Representations of G+++ and the role of space-time

A. Kleinschmidt and P. C. West, “Representations of G+++ and the role of space-time,” JHEP 0402, 033 (2004) [hep-th/0312247]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[8] [8]

E(11) origin of brane charges and U-duality m ultiplets,

P. C. West, “E(11) origin of brane charges and U-duality m ultiplets,” JHEP 0408, 052 (2004) [hep-th/0406150]

arXiv 2004