Integer dual dimensions in scale-separated AdS$_3$ from massive IIA

Fotis Farakos; George Tringas

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Integer dual dimensions in scale-separated AdS$_3$ from massive IIA

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

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

Pith's one-line read In the formal limit, all eight closed-string scalar dual dimensions are integers {8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2}.

desk verdict Solid EFT-level construction with genuinely new flux choices and a useful Joyce-orbifold idea; the smeared-backreaction caveat is real but openly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08215 v2 pith:R6HYGEUO submitted 2025-02-12 hep-th

Fotis Farakos , George Tringas This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords AdS3fluxvacuamassivetypeIIAG2orbifoldsscaleseparationintegerconformaldimensionsmodulistabilizationsmearedorientifoldsT^7/Z2^3

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 studies three-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS$_3$) flux vacua of massive type IIA string theory (the ten-dimensional supergravity with a nonzero $F_0$ flux) on G2 orbifolds, and asks whether the light closed-string scalar fields have operator dimensions in the conjectured dual CFT that are integers, a pattern seen in other scale-separated string vacua. The authors show that on two closely related $T^7/\mathbb{Z}_2^3$ orbifolds with the orientifold planes smeared rather than localized, specific flux choices make every untwisted scalar satisfy $\Delta_A = 1+\sqrt{1+m_A^2 L^2} = \{8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2\}$ in the formal limit where the string coupling vanishes and the internal volume is infinite. One of the two orbifolds admits a known desingularization into a smooth G2 manifold, and resolving the singularities may remove the intersecting orientifold planes that otherwise threaten the smeared-source approximation. The paper also exhibits a flux configuration with all moduli stabilized; its mass spectrum approaches these integers parametrically as a large integer $G$ tends to infinity, so the integer dimensions are statements about a limit rather than about finite flux values.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 3D $\mathcal{N}=1$ effective superpotential for G2 orientifold compactifications, $$P = \frac{m}{8}$e^{{\frac{y}}${2}-\frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}x}+\frac{h}{8}$e^{{y+\frac{x}}${\sqrt{7}}}\left(\frac{1}{\tilde{s}_1}+\frac{1}{\tilde{s}_2}+\frac{1}{\tilde{s}_3}\right)-\frac{f}{8}$e^{{y-\frac{x}}${\sqrt{7}}}\left(\tilde{s}_4+\tilde{s}_5+\tilde{s}_6+\frac{1}{\prod_{a=1}^6\tilde{s}_a}\right),$$ together with the harmonic 3-form and 4-form bases $\Phi_i,\Psi_i$ of the G2 orbifold and a shift parameter $c\in\{0,1/2\}$ distinguishing the two orbifold types. Extremizing $P$ fixes the eight scalar fields $\phi^A=(x,y,\tilde{s}_1,\ldots,\tilde{s}_6)$; the masses are the eigenvalues of the normalized Hessian $\langle K^{AB}\rangle^{-1}\langle V_{BC}\rangle/|\langle V\rangle|$, and the relation $\Delta_A = 1+\sqrt{1+m_A^2 L^2}$ converts those eigenvalues into dual conformal dimensions. The second key ingredient is a generalized $F_4$ flux with an integer parameter $G$ that breaks a shift symmetry, removes the flat direction, and reduces to the simpler integer-dimension flux as $G\to\infty$.

What would settle it

Compute the first-order backreaction of the localized O6-planes for these flux choices---for example, by finding localized profiles in the singular and desingularizable orbifolds---and recompute the normalized Hessian of the scalar potential. If the mass eigenvalues deviate from $\{48,8,8,8,8,0,0,0\}$ by a nonvanishing amount that does not vanish as $G\to\infty$, the integer spectrum is an artifact of the smeared approximation and fails as a statement about the actual vacuum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the untwisted closed-string scalar sector of these scale-separated AdS$_3$ vacua can be arranged by choosing fluxes so that every scalar mass squared in units of the AdS scale matches the values $$$m_A^{2}$ $L^{2}$ = \{48,8,8,8,8,0,0,0\},$$ which through the AdS/CFT relation $\Delta_A = 1+\sqrt{1+m_A^2 L^2}$ gives the integer conformal dimensions $$\Delta_A = \{8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2\}.$$ This is shown for both the singular $c=0$ orbifold and the desingularizable $c=1/2$ orbifold, which admit the same flux ansatz and produce the same untwisted spectrum. The paper further shows that adding $F_4$ flux along the remaining harmonic four-forms lifts the flat direction of the simpler flux choice and stabilizes all eight moduli, with the normalized Hessian converging to the matrix that yields the integer spectrum as a single large integer flux $G\to\infty$; at any finite $G$ the dimensions are only parametrically close to integers, exactly as in all other known examples.

Load-bearing premise

The computation treats the orientifold planes as spread out uniformly rather than concentrated along their worldvolumes; if their true localized backreaction cannot be captured this way, or if it shifts the untwisted scalar masses, the integer conformal dimensions would not describe a real string vacuum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the formal limit $G\to\infty$, the fully stabilized vacuum has $g_s\sim G^{-3/2}$, string-frame volume $\sim G^{7/2}$, and $L_{\mathrm{KK}}^2/L_{\mathrm{AdS}}^2\sim G^{-2}$, so weak coupling, large volume, and parametric scale separation coexist.
The singular $c=0$ and desingularizable $c=1/2$ orbifolds give the same untwisted closed-string spectrum and the same integer dual dimensions for the same flux choices.
The normalized mass eigenvalues $\{48,8,8,8,8,0,0,0\}$ translate to dual dimensions $\{8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2\}$; this equality is exact only in the asymptotic limit, with corrections of order $1/G$ at finite flux.
The simple flux choice of Section 3 leaves one flat direction that would be lifted by higher-order corrections; the more general flux of Section 4 stabilizes all eight moduli while preserving the asymptotic integer spectrum.
If the known desingularization of the $c=1/2$ orbifold removes orientifold intersections, the smeared-source approximation may be more defensible in this construction than in the singular case.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the integer spectrum survives in the resolved orbifold, a first-order backreaction calculation in this construction would provide a concrete test of whether the smeared approximation is the leading-order description of a real vacuum.
Beyond the paper: the same $\Delta_A$ values appearing for both orbifolds and being independent of the anisotropy parameter $n$ suggests the integers are fixed by the G2 structure-form topology and the tadpole algebra, not by flux magnitudes; enumerating all flux vectors satisfying the same Bianchi identities could test this.
Beyond the paper: the pattern $\{8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2\}$ may reflect the arithmetic of the $\mathbb{Z}_2^3$ action on the seven-torus, with the $c=1/2$ shift making some involutions freely acting; a scan over $\mathbb{Z}_2^k$ orbifolds could reveal whether integer dimensions always accompany such shifts.
Beyond the paper: since only the untwisted sector is treated, computing twisted-sector masses after blowing up the singularities would show whether integer dimensions are a property of the putative dual CFT or an artifact of the truncation; the paper leaves this open.

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

The short version: this is a solid effective-field-theory construction of scale-separated AdS3 vacua with integer dual dimensions in the formal limit, and it improves on the earlier G2-orientifold work by finding flux choices that actually give the integer spectrum and by adding a Joyce orbifold whose known resolution might sidestep intersecting-O6 issues. The algebra I checked is coherent; the caveats are the ones the authors themselves flag.

What's new: the specific flux choices producing Δ={8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2} in both the singular and Joyce T^7/Z2^3 orbifolds, and the fully stabilized analytic solution parameterized by a single integer G, which approaches the integer-dimension spectrum as G→∞. The superpotential is imported from [43], but the extremization and mass spectrum are derived here, and the integer dimensions are an output, not an input. The Joyce orbifold observation is genuinely interesting: because the involutions other than Θα, Θβ, Θγ act freely for c=1/2, the singular set is smaller, and after blow-up the O6-planes may no longer intersect. That is a concrete way to address the main consistency worry.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the construction lives in the smeared-orientifold truncation. The mass spectrum, the moduli stabilization, and the integer dimensions are all computed in that effective theory. Whether a fully localized solution exists with mutually intersecting O6-planes is not settled; [23] gives reason to worry, and blow-up is not carried out here. The authors say this openly in Sections 2.1 and 5, so it is a limitation, not a hidden flaw. Second, the integer dimensions are formal-limit statements; higher-order corrections shift them, which is standard for this literature and acknowledged. Third, the Hessian and kinetic matrices at large G are presented as leading-order results with O(1/G) corrections not shown in detail. That is fine for the claim, but it makes verification slower.

The citation pattern is honest; self-citation to [43] is appropriate since the superpotential comes from there. I found no circularity. The paper is for people working on scale separation and swampland; it extends the census of AdS3 examples with integer dual dimensions. It deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies supersymmetric, scale-separated AdS3 flux vacua of massive IIA on T7/Z2^3 G2 orbifolds with smeared O2/O6 planes, comparing a 'singular' orbifold with c=0 and a Joyce-type orbifold with c=1/2. Using the 3D N=1 superpotential of [43], the authors specialize to H3 parallel to the O6 currents, Romans mass F0, and specific F4 components, solve the F-term equations analytically, and verify weak coupling, large internal volume, and parametric scale separation. The normalized Hessian gives m^2 L^2 = {48,8,8,8,8,0,0,0}, hence conformal dimensions Delta = {8,4,4,4,4,2,2,2} in the classical smeared untwisted sector. An anisotropic F4 variant is shown to preserve these dimensions. In Section 4, the authors add extra F4 components and adjust the D2-brane/tadpole contribution, breaking the flat direction of the simpler solution; with N = (2/5)G^2 and n = 5/G they find an analytic one-parameter family that stabilizes the eight scalars of the truncation. As G tends to infinity, the kinetic and mass matrices approach those of the integer-dimensional solution, so the dual dimensions are parametrically close to integers while g_s tends to zero and the volume diverges. The paper explicitly states that the backreaction of localized intersecting O6-planes and the twisted sector are not addressed.

Significance. The algebraic core of the paper is coherent: no free parameter is fitted to obtain the integer spectrum, the flux quantization conditions are made explicit, the Section 4 solution is fully analytic, and the parametric scalings are consistent with the stated limits. If the smeared orientifold approximation is a reliable leading-order description, or if the Joyce blow-up removes the O6 intersections as suggested by [24], the paper would be a distinctive addition to the AdS3 scale-separation literature, extending the known integer-conformal-dimension pattern to minimal-supersymmetry AdS3 vacua. The paper is also commendably transparent about its main weaknesses, namely the unresolved backreaction of intersecting smeared O6-planes and the restriction to the untwisted sector. The significance is therefore conditional on a physical assumption that is not established in the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 2.1, eqs. (2.8)-(2.10); Sec. 5] The load-bearing physical assumption is the existence of the localized 10D background. Equations (2.8)-(2.10) impose tadpole cancellation with smeared source currents, and the entire mass spectrum is computed in the effective theory built from this smeared configuration. Sections 2.1 and 5 acknowledge that the backreaction of the mutually intersecting O6-planes remains open, and reference [23] shows that localized intersecting sources can fail to admit a supergravity solution. Since the title and abstract present these as scale-separated AdS3 vacua of massive IIA, the manuscript should either provide evidence that the smeared limit is a controlled leading-order approximation, for example through a first-order backreaction analysis along the lines of [44] or through an explicit blow-up of the Joyce orbifold showing that the sources cease to intersect, or it should rescope the conclusions to the smeared classical truncation and state clearly that the string-vacuum realization is an open assumption. As it stands, the existence of the vacuum is an assumption rather than a result.
[Sec. 4.2, eqs. (4.14)-(4.20)] The exact integer values are recovered only in the limit G -> infinity, and this is the same limit in which the determinant in (4.14) vanishes; the fully stabilized solution therefore degenerates at the point where the spectrum is exactly integer. For every finite G the stabilized vacuum has dimensions that are only parametrically close to integers. The paper is transparent about this, but the logical structure should be made explicit in the abstract and introduction: the exactly integer spectrum (3.17) is a property of the simpler, classically unstabilized vacuum of Section 3, while the fully stabilized vacuum of Section 4 has approximate integers and tends to that unstabilized solution only as G -> infinity. As written, the reader may infer that a single fully stabilized AdS3 vacuum has exactly integer conformal dimensions.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The first sentence says the flux choices 'yield integer dual dimensions,' while the last sentence says the dimensions are 'only parametrically close to integer values.' This is consistent once the formal limit is specified, but the phrasing invites confusion; the abstract should state explicitly that exact integers occur only in the classical smeared truncation or in the formal G -> infinity limit.
[Sec. 4.2, eq. (4.18)] The object displayed in (4.18) is called the 'normalized Hessian,' but it appears to be the second-derivative matrix divided by |V|; the physical mass eigenvalues require multiplication by K^{-1} as in (3.16). Since the kinetic matrix is given separately in (4.19), the text should clarify that the physical mass matrix is K^{-1} V / |V| in the G -> infinity limit.
[Sec. 3.3, eq. (3.24)] The radii r_i in (3.24) are introduced without a definition; the text should state whether they are string-frame or Einstein-frame radii and to which torus coordinates they refer.
[References and notation] Reference [29] is incomplete, as it lacks a title. In addition, the symbol N is used both for the flux quantum in (2.15) and for the large F4 flux in Section 4; please disambiguate these two uses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the integer conformal dimensions are outputs of an algebraic Hessian computation for chosen quantized fluxes, not inputs or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the effective theory. The superpotential (3.4) is imported from the authors' earlier work [43], but that citation is independent support: [43] derives the N=1 superpotential for general G2-orientifold flux choices under stated smeared-source and untwisted-sector assumptions, and its derivation does not assume the target integer spectrum. Given that superpotential, the fluxes in (2.13)-(2.14) are fixed by the O6 tadpole structure (2.10), the vacuum moduli are solved algebraically in (3.11), and the normalized Hessian (3.16) is computed directly; the dimensions (3.17) follow from the standard AdS/CFT relation Delta = 1 + sqrt(1 + m^2 L^2). No parameter is fitted to make the eigenvalues {48,8,8,8,8,0,0,0} integer; the integers emerge from the coefficients 1,3,4 in the flux-aligned superpotential (3.10). The anisotropic example (3.18)-(3.20) and the full-moduli-stabilization example of Section 4 are likewise explicit flux choices solved analytically; eqs. (4.20)-(4.22) show the large-G limit tends to the earlier integer-dimension solution, and the paper is transparent that exact integer values are only attained in the formal limit g_s to 0 with corrections eliminated. The open backreaction question for smeared intersecting O6-planes (Sections 2.1 and 5) is a physical validity risk, not a circularity: it concerns whether the effective vacuum lifts to a 10D string background, not whether the claimed spectrum was used as an input.

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

The central claim rests on the effective supergravity derived in [43], the smeared-source approximation, and the standard AdS/CFT dictionary. No continuous free parameters are fitted: the flux integers are quantized inputs, and the integer-dimension spectrum is independent of their values in the formal limit.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 3D N=1 superpotential (3.4) from [43] correctly describes the untwisted closed-string scalar dynamics of massive IIA on the G2 orientifolds considered here.
This is the starting point of the whole analysis; if the dimensional reduction is corrected by additional terms, the mass spectrum and hence the operator dimensions would change. Entered in Section 3.1.
domain assumption Smeared orientifold sources provide a valid leading-order description of the O2/O6-plane backreaction.
The tadpole conditions (2.8)-(2.10) are imposed with smeared currents, and localized backreaction is not computed; acknowledged as open in Section 5.
domain assumption The standard AdS3/CFT2 mass-dimension relation Delta = 1 + sqrt(1 + m^2 L^2) applies to these scalar operators.
Used in eq. (3.17) to convert the normalized Hessian eigenvalues to conformal dimensions; assumes the scalars are dual to scalar operators in a standard unitary CFT.
domain assumption Flux quantization rules h=(2pi)^2 K, m=(2pi)^{-1} M, f=(2pi)^3 N with KM=16 (eq. (2.15)) are the correct quantization conditions in this background.
Used to justify integrality of the flux parameters and the analytic solution in Section 4.
domain assumption The untwisted cohomology basis Phi_i, Psi_i with the intersection property int Phi_i ^ Psi_j = delta_ij is complete for the fields retained in the truncation.
Underlies the superpotential (3.10) and the orthogonality used in Section 2; twisted-sector forms are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integer dual dimensions in scale-separated AdS$_3$ from massive IIA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6HYGEUO

@misc{pith2026250208215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integer dual dimensions in scale-separated AdS$_3$ from massive IIA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6HYGEUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08215}
}

abstract

We study supersymmetric scale-separated AdS$_3$ flux vacua of massive IIA on G2 orbifolds with smeared orientifold planes. We consider two types of $T^7/Z_2^3$ orbifolds which, with appropriate flux choices, yield integer dual dimensions for the operators corresponding to the closed string scalar fields in the dual CFT. As with all other known examples, the dual conformal dimensions are only parametrically close to integer values.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On the branes behind scale-separated AdS$_{3}$ flux vacua
hep-th 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

Scale-separated supersymmetric AdS3 flux vacua of type IIB G2-orientifolds arise as the near-horizon region of codimension-one smeared D1-D5-KK5 intersections.
Warped G$_2$-throats in IIA and uplift dSillusions
hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Anti-D2 brane uplifting of classical AdS3 vacua in IIA on G2 orientifolds is forbidden by O6 tadpole constraints, so dS3 must rely on quantum corrections to no-scale Minkowski vacua.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[43]

No-scale and sca le-separated ﬂux vacua from IIA on G2 orientifolds

F. Farakos, G. Tringas and T. Van Riet, “No-scale and sca le-separated ﬂux vacua from IIA on G2 orientifolds”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.7, 659 (2020) [arXiv:2005.05246 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2020
[23]

On the absence of supergravity solutions for localized, intersecting sources

J. Bardzell, K. Federico, D. Smith and T. Wrase, “On the a bsence of su- pergravity solutions for localized, intersecting sources ,” JHEP 06, 083 (2024) [arXiv:2403.09873 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[24]

A note on O6 intersections in AdS ﬂux vacua ,

D. Junghans, “A note on O6 intersections in AdS ﬂux vacua ,” JHEP 02 (2024), 126 [arXiv:2310.17695 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024
[44]

O6-plane backrea ction on scale-separated Type IIA AdS 3 vacua,

M. Emelin, F. Farakos and G. Tringas, “O6-plane backrea ction on scale-separated Type IIA AdS 3 vacua,” JHEP 07, 133 (2022) [arXiv:2202.13431 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2022
[1]

AdS and the Swampland

D. Lüst, E. Palti and C. Vafa, “AdS and the Swampland”, Phy s. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134867 [arXiv:1906.05225 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019
[2]

Beginners lectures on ﬂux c ompactiﬁcations and related Swampland topics,

T. Van Riet and G. Zoccarato, “Beginners lectures on ﬂux c ompactiﬁcations and related Swampland topics,” Phys. Rept. 1049, 1-51 (2024) [arXiv:2305.01722 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2024
[3]

Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,

T. Coudarchet, “Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,” Phys. Rept. 1064, 1-28 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12105 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Type I IA moduli stabiliza- tion

O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru and W. Taylor, “Type I IA moduli stabiliza- tion”, JHEP 07 (2005), 066 [arXiv:hep-th/0505160 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2005

Show all 51 references

[5]

Fluxes, moduli ﬁxi ng and MSSM-like vacua in a simple IIA orientifold,

P. G. Camara, A. Font and L. E. Ibanez, “Fluxes, moduli ﬁxi ng and MSSM-like vacua in a simple IIA orientifold,” JHEP 09, 013 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0506066 [hep-th]]

2005 arXiv
[6]

General N = 1 supersymmetric ﬂu x vacua of (massive) type IIA string theory,

K. Behrndt and M. Cvetic, “General N = 1 supersymmetric ﬂu x vacua of (massive) type IIA string theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 021601 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0403049 [hep-th]]

2005 arXiv
[7]

General N=1 supersymmetric ﬂu xes in massive type IIA string theory,

K. Behrndt and M. Cvetic, “General N=1 supersymmetric ﬂu xes in massive type IIA string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 708, 45-71 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0407263 [hep- th]]

2005 arXiv
[8]

Superpotentials in IIA compactiﬁcations with general ﬂuxes,

J. P. Derendinger, C. Kounnas, P. M. Petropoulos and F. Zw irner, “Superpotentials in IIA compactiﬁcations with general ﬂuxes,” Nucl. Phys. B 715, 211-233 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0411276 [hep-th]]

2005 arXiv
[9]

N=1 eﬀective potential fro m dual type-IIA D6/O6 orientifolds with general ﬂuxes,

G. Villadoro and F. Zwirner, “N=1 eﬀective potential fro m dual type-IIA D6/O6 orientifolds with general ﬂuxes,” JHEP 06, 047 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503169 [hep- th]]

2005 arXiv
[10]

A Landscape of AdS Flux Va cua,

F. Marchesano and J. Quirant, “A Landscape of AdS Flux Va cua,” JHEP 12, 110 (2019) [arXiv:1908.11386 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[11]

Scale- separated AdS4 vacua of IIA orientifolds and M-theory,

N. Cribiori, D. Junghans, V. Van Hemelryck, T. Van Riet a nd T. Wrase, “Scale- separated AdS4 vacua of IIA orientifolds and M-theory,” Phy s. Rev. D 104, no.12, 126014 (2021) [arXiv:2107.00019 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Weak G2 manifolds and scale separati on in M-theory from type IIA backgrounds,

V. Van Hemelryck, “Weak G2 manifolds and scale separati on in M-theory from type IIA backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.10, 10 (2024) [arXiv:2408.16609 [hep-th]]. 16

2024 arXiv
[13]

M-theory and Type IIA Flux Comp actiﬁcations,

J. McOrist and S. Sethi, “M-theory and Type IIA Flux Comp actiﬁcations,” JHEP 12, 122 (2012) [arXiv:1208.0261 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Remarks on scale separation in ﬂux vacua

F. F. Gautason, M. Schillo, T. Van Riet and M. Williams, “ Remarks on scale separation in ﬂux vacua”, JHEP 03 (2016), 061 [arXiv:1512.00457 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[15]

On scale separatio n in type II AdS ﬂux vacua

A. Font, A. Herráez and L. E. Ibáñez, “On scale separatio n in type II AdS ﬂux vacua”, JHEP 03, 013 (2020) [arXiv:1912.03317 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Quantum corrections to D GKT and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

M. Montero and I. Valenzuela, “Quantum corrections to D GKT and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” [arXiv:2412.00189 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[17]

O-Plane Backreaction and Scale Separati on in Type IIA Flux Vacua

D. Junghans, “O-Plane Backreaction and Scale Separati on in Type IIA Flux Vacua”, Fortsch. Phys. 68 (2020) 6, 2000040 [arXiv:2003.06274 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[18]

On supersymmetric AdS 4 orientifold vacua

F. Marchesano, E. Palti, J. Quirant and A. Tomasiello, “ On supersymmetric AdS 4 orientifold vacua”, JHEP 08 (2020), 087 [arXiv:2003.13578 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[19]

Extensions of a scale-separ ated AdS 4 solution and their mass spectrum,

D. Andriot and G. Tringas, “Extensions of a scale-separ ated AdS 4 solution and their mass spectrum,” JHEP 01, 008 (2024) [arXiv:2310.06115 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Consistency conditions for O-plane unsmea ring from second-order per- turbation theory,

M. Emelin, “Consistency conditions for O-plane unsmea ring from second-order per- turbation theory,” JHEP 12, 025 (2024) [arXiv:2407.12717 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[21]

Smeared versus localised sources in ﬂux compacti ﬁcations

J. Blaback, U. H. Danielsson, D. Junghans, T. Van Riet, T . Wrase and M. Za- germann, “Smeared versus localised sources in ﬂux compacti ﬁcations”, JHEP 12 (2010), 043 [arXiv:1009.1877 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[22]

Smearing orientifolds in ﬂux compactiﬁcations can be OK

S. Baines and T. Van Riet, “Smearing orientifolds in ﬂux compactiﬁcations can be OK”, Class. Quant. Grav. 37 (2020) no.19, 195015 [arXiv:2005.09501 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[25]

New families of scale separated vacua,

R. Carrasco, T. Coudarchet, F. Marchesano and D. Prieto , “New families of scale separated vacua,” JHEP 11, 094 (2023) [arXiv:2309.00043 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[26]

Anisotropic scale-separated AdS 4 ﬂux vacua,

G. Tringas, “Anisotropic scale-separated AdS 4 ﬂux vacua,” [arXiv:2309.16542 [hep- th]]

arXiv
[27]

Ad S scale separation and the distance conjecture,

G. Shiu, F. Tonioni, V. Van Hemelryck and T. Van Riet, “Ad S scale separation and the distance conjecture,” JHEP 05, 077 (2023) [arXiv:2212.06169 [hep-th]]. 17

2023 arXiv
[28]

Co nnecting ﬂux vacua through scalar ﬁeld excursions,

G. Shiu, F. Tonioni, V. Van Hemelryck and T. Van Riet, “Co nnecting ﬂux vacua through scalar ﬁeld excursions,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 6 (2024) [arXiv:2311.10828 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Palti and N

E. Palti and N. Petri, JHEP 06, 019 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)019 [arXiv:2405.01084 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Weak gravity versus sca le separation

N. Cribiori and G. Dall’Agata, “Weak gravity versus sca le separation”, JHEP 06 (2022), 006 [arXiv:2203.05559 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Supergravity EFTs and swam pland constraints,

N. Cribiori and F. Farakos, “Supergravity EFTs and swam pland constraints,” PoS CORFU2022, 167 (2023) [arXiv:2304.12806 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[32]

On the Conforma l Field Theory Duals of type IIA AdS(4) Flux Compactiﬁcations,

O. Aharony, Y. E. Antebi and M. Berkooz, “On the Conforma l Field Theory Duals of type IIA AdS(4) Flux Compactiﬁcations,” JHEP 02, 093 (2008) [arXiv:0801.3326 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[33]

Exploring the holo graphic Swampland

J. P. Conlon, S. Ning and F. Revello, “Exploring the holo graphic Swampland”, JHEP 04 (2022), 117 [arXiv:2110.06245 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Comments on classical AdS ﬂux vacua with scale separation

F. Apers, M. Montero, T. Van Riet and T. Wrase, “Comments on classical AdS ﬂux vacua with scale separation”, JHEP 05, 167 (2022) [arXiv:2202.00682 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Integer c onformal dimensions for type IIa ﬂux vacua

F. Apers, J. P. Conlon, S. Ning and F. Revello, “Integer c onformal dimensions for type IIa ﬂux vacua”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.10, 106029 [arXiv:2202.09330 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Noninteger conformal dimensions for type IIA ﬂux vacua

J. Quirant, “Noninteger conformal dimensions for type IIA ﬂux vacua”, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.6, 066017 [arXiv:2204.00014 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Holographic perspectives on models of moduli stabilization in M-theory,

S. Ning, “Holographic perspectives on models of moduli stabilization in M-theory,” JHEP 09, 042 (2022) [arXiv:2206.13332 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Aspects of AdS ﬂux vacua with integer conform al dimensions,

F. Apers, “Aspects of AdS ﬂux vacua with integer conform al dimensions,” JHEP 05, 040 (2023) [arXiv:2211.04187 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Mass spectrum of type IIB ﬂux compactiﬁ cations — comments on AdS vacua and conformal dimensions

E. Plauschinn, “Mass spectrum of type IIB ﬂux compactiﬁ cations — comments on AdS vacua and conformal dimensions”, JHEP 02, 257 (2023) [arXiv:2210.04528 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Quantum gravity constrai nts on scale separation and de Sitter in ﬁve dimensions,

N. Cribiori and C. Montella, “Quantum gravity constrai nts on scale separation and de Sitter in ﬁve dimensions,” JHEP 05, 178 (2023) [arXiv:2303.04162 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[41]

On scale-separ ated supersymmetric AdS 2 ﬂux vacua,

N. Cribiori, F. Farakos and N. Liatsos, “On scale-separ ated supersymmetric AdS 2 ﬂux vacua,” [arXiv:2411.04932 [hep-th]]. 18

arXiv
[42]

AdS 2 type-IIA solutions and scale separation,

D. Lüst and D. Tsimpis, “AdS 2 type-IIA solutions and scale separation,” JHEP 07, 060 (2020) [arXiv:2004.07582 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[45]

Type II orienti fold ﬂux vacua in 3D,

Á. Arboleya, A. Guarino and M. Morittu, “Type II orienti fold ﬂux vacua in 3D,” JHEP 12, 087 (2024) [arXiv:2408.01403 [hep-th]]

2024
[46]

Supersymmetric scale-separated Ad S3 vacua of type IIB,

V. Van Hemelryck, “Supersymmetric scale-separated Ad S3 vacua of type IIB,” [arXiv:2502.04791 [hep-th]]
[47]

Three-dimension al ﬂux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds

M. Emelin, F. Farakos and G. Tringas, “Three-dimension al ﬂux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds”, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.5, 456 (2021) [arXiv:2103.03282 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[48]

Scale-Separated AdS3 Vacua from G2- Orientifolds Using Bispinors

V. Van Hemelryck, “Scale-Separated AdS3 Vacua from G2- Orientifolds Using Bispinors”, Fortsch. Phys. 70 (2022) no.12, 2200128 [arXiv:2207.14311 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[49]

On/oﬀ scale sepa ration,

F. Farakos, M. Morittu and G. Tringas, “On/oﬀ scale sepa ration,” JHEP 10, 067 (2023) [arXiv:2304.14372 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[50]

Scale-separated AdS 3×S1 vacua from IIA orientifolds,

F. Farakos and M. Morittu, “Scale-separated AdS 3×S1 vacua from IIA orientifolds,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 98 (2024) [arXiv:2311.08991 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Constructing compact manifolds with except ional holonomy,

D. Joyce, “Constructing compact manifolds with except ional holonomy,” Clay Math. Proc. 3 (2004), 177-191 19

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [43]

No-scale and sca le-separated ﬂux vacua from IIA on G2 orientifolds

F. Farakos, G. Tringas and T. Van Riet, “No-scale and sca le-separated ﬂux vacua from IIA on G2 orientifolds”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.7, 659 (2020) [arXiv:2005.05246 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2020

[2] [23]

On the absence of supergravity solutions for localized, intersecting sources

J. Bardzell, K. Federico, D. Smith and T. Wrase, “On the a bsence of su- pergravity solutions for localized, intersecting sources ,” JHEP 06, 083 (2024) [arXiv:2403.09873 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [24]

A note on O6 intersections in AdS ﬂux vacua ,

D. Junghans, “A note on O6 intersections in AdS ﬂux vacua ,” JHEP 02 (2024), 126 [arXiv:2310.17695 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024

[4] [44]

O6-plane backrea ction on scale-separated Type IIA AdS 3 vacua,

M. Emelin, F. Farakos and G. Tringas, “O6-plane backrea ction on scale-separated Type IIA AdS 3 vacua,” JHEP 07, 133 (2022) [arXiv:2202.13431 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2022

[5] [1]

AdS and the Swampland

D. Lüst, E. Palti and C. Vafa, “AdS and the Swampland”, Phy s. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134867 [arXiv:1906.05225 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019

[6] [2]

Beginners lectures on ﬂux c ompactiﬁcations and related Swampland topics,

T. Van Riet and G. Zoccarato, “Beginners lectures on ﬂux c ompactiﬁcations and related Swampland topics,” Phys. Rept. 1049, 1-51 (2024) [arXiv:2305.01722 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2024

[7] [3]

Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,

T. Coudarchet, “Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,” Phys. Rept. 1064, 1-28 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12105 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024

[8] [4]

Type I IA moduli stabiliza- tion

O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru and W. Taylor, “Type I IA moduli stabiliza- tion”, JHEP 07 (2005), 066 [arXiv:hep-th/0505160 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2005