The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity

Gayatri Ghosh

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in asymptotically safe quantum gravity the running of the electromagnetic gauge coupling shifts the extremal charge-to-mass ratio, so the Weak Gravity Conjecture can be dynamically strengthened or endangered by…

desk verdict The question is worth asking, but the central derivation divides by zero at extremality and the paper contradicts itself on the leading correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20107 v1 pith:TODHQ2SK submitted 2025-04-27 hep-ph gr-qc

Gayatri Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phgr-qc

keywords WeakGravityConjectureAsymptoticSafetyquantumextremalblackholesReissner-Nordströmrenormalizationgroupswamplandgaugecouplingrunning

topics Quantum Gravity

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 tries to show that the Weak Gravity Conjecture need not be imposed by hand: in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity, the scale dependence of couplings can make the conjecture an emergent low-energy consequence. The authors build a scale-dependent Einstein-Maxwell action, identify the renormalization group scale with the inverse radial distance, and expand the running Newton and U(1) couplings around their ultraviolet fixed point. Their central result is that the leading quantum correction to black hole extremality is dominated by the running of the gauge coupling, with a correction of order $\delta \sim \epsilon_e (\ell_P/r_+)^{2\theta}$. If the photon coupling grows in the ultraviolet ($\epsilon_e>0$), the extremal charge-to-mass ratio drops and superextremal states become easier to find, strengthening the WGC; if it shrinks relative to gravity ($\epsilon_e<\epsilon_G$), large extremal black holes may violate the classical bound unless light charged towers restore consistency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the first-order perturbation of the extremal radius, $\delta r = -\Delta f(r_0)/f'_{\rm cl}(r_0)$, applied to the corrected lapse function $f(r)=f_{\rm cl}(r)+\Delta f(r)$. The classical extremality condition $G_0M^2=Q^2/(4\pi e_0^2)$ turns this radius shift into a shift in the extremal charge-to-mass ratio, and the running couplings $G(r)$ and $e(r)$ enter only through the correction $\Delta f(r)$. That is how the ultraviolet fixed-point data, encoded in the small coefficients $\epsilon_G$ and $\epsilon_e$ and the critical exponent $\theta$, reach down to low-energy black hole physics.

What would settle it

Evaluate $f'_{\rm cl}(r)$ at $r_0=G_0M$ with $G_0M^2=Q^2/(4\pi e_0^2)$: it is zero, so Eq. (25) is $0/0$ rather than a finite first-order shift. A direct numerical solution of the fully corrected horizon equation $f(r)=0$, without the expansion, would settle whether the claimed leading correction $\delta\sim\epsilon_e(\ell_P/r_+)^{2\theta}$ actually appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the ultraviolet behavior of the electromagnetic coupling, not Newton's constant, controls the leading shift in extremality. Starting from a scale-dependent effective action with couplings $G(r)=G_0(1+\epsilon_G(\ell_P/r)^{2\theta})$ and $1/e^2(r)=1/e_0^2(1+\epsilon_e(\ell_P/r)^{2\theta})$, and with the standard identification $k(r)=\xi/r$, the corrected lapse function separates into a classical Reissner-Nordström part and a first-order correction. Perturbing the extremal radius and imposing the corrected horizon condition yields a shift in the extremal $Q/M$ that, in the paper's headline form, is $\delta \sim \epsilon_e(\ell_P/r_+)^{2\theta}$; a later version in the same derivation gives the coefficient $\epsilon_G-\epsilon_e$. The sign of this correction decides the fate of the Weak Gravity Conjecture: $\epsilon_e>\epsilon_G$ lowers the extremal charge-to-mass ratio and makes the WGC easier to satisfy, while $\epsilon_e<\epsilon_G$ raises it and forces the theory to supply additional light charged states.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the classical extremal horizon has a nonzero slope of the lapse function, so the first-order shift of the radius is finite; at the classical extremality condition $G_0M^2=Q^2/(4\pi e_0^2)$ that slope is actually zero at $r_0=G_0M$, because the two horizons coincide there, so the perturbative step divides by zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $\epsilon_e>0$ (or $\epsilon_e>\epsilon_G$) at the fixed point, the WGC is satisfied automatically: no extra light states are needed because the corrected extremal bound is lower.
If $\epsilon_e<\epsilon_G$, large extremal black holes can violate the classical WGC bound, and consistency must instead come from refined versions such as the Tower or Sublattice WGC.
The correction is suppressed by $(\ell_P/r_+)^{2\theta}$, so the effect is negligible for astrophysical black holes but can become large near the Planck scale.
The critical exponent $\theta$ and the signs of $\epsilon_G$ and $\epsilon_e$ become low-energy fingerprints of the ultraviolet fixed point, linking quantum gravity to swampland conditions.
Within the paper's framework, asymptotic safety does not merely tolerate the WGC; it actively generates the condition from renormalization-group flow.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct fixed-point computation with specified matter content would decide which branch, $\epsilon_e>\epsilon_G$ or $\epsilon_e<\epsilon_G$, is actually realized; without it, the paper leaves the WGC's fate conditional on ultraviolet data.
Applying the same scale-setting prescription to rotating or AdS black holes would likely produce analogous extremality shifts, but the sign structure may be scheme-dependent because alternative identifications such as $k^4\sim K$ modify near-horizon corrections.
The tension between the abstract's $\epsilon_e$ form and the later $\epsilon_G-\epsilon_e$ form suggests that the dominant-coefficient claim needs to be pinned down by explicit beta functions; resolving it would also fix which branch controls the conjecture.
If the extremality gap of near-extremal black holes could ever be measured, the exponent $2\theta$ would become an observable probe of the asymptotic-safety fixed point.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take on Ghosh's "The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity." The topic is legitimate: does the scale-dependence of G and e in asymptotic safety shift the extremal Reissner-Nordström bound, and what does that mean for the WGC? That is a reasonable thing to check. The paper writes down the standard RG-improved metric, expands in small parameters, and tries to read off a correction to the charge-to-mass ratio. The prose is clear and the references are mostly appropriate.

The problem is that the main derivation does not hold. Equation (25) uses δr = -Δf(r0)/f'_cl(r0). At classical extremality, f_cl(r) = (1 - G0 M/r)^2, so f'_cl(r0)=0 at r0=G0M. The horizon is a double root; the first-order shift is singular. The corrected extremality condition in Eq. (28) is therefore not derived. This is not a cosmetic slip: the whole quantitative claim depends on that expansion.

On top of that, the paper gives two incompatible results. Eq. (29) says the correction is governed by epsilon_e alone, δ = 2θ epsilon_e (ℓ_P/r0)^(2θ). Eq. (42) says the correction to Q/M is controlled by θ(epsilon_G - epsilon_e)(ℓ_P/G0M)^(2θ). These differ in both coefficient and which running coupling matters. The abstract and conclusion repeat only the epsilon_e version. That is a direct internal inconsistency.

The sign-based conclusions in Section 2.4 are also close to tautological. The paper defines epsilon_e and epsilon_G as the coefficients in the running of the couplings, then says "if epsilon_e > epsilon_G, the WGC is strengthened" — that is just restating the sign of an input parameter. No fixed-point computation is done anywhere; the epsilons and theta are free parameters. The k=ξ/r scale identification is assumed, not derived. The appendices list elaborate effective actions but they never feed into the calculation.

What is fair to say: the paper reads clearly, and the question it poses is a sensible one for the asymptotic-safety and swampland communities. But as it stands, the load-bearing math breaks and the conclusions do not follow. A referee could usefully tell the author to redo the perturbation theory around a double root and reconcile the two expressions, but that is a substantial rewrite, not a minor fix.

I would not cite this. I would not bring it to reading group. If it lands on my desk as an editor, I would still send it to a referee — the topic is relevant and a good referee report would either fix the derivation or put the claim to rest. But my own verdict is reject.

Best.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in asymptotically safe quantum gravity, the RG running of Newton's constant and the U(1) gauge coupling, combined with the scale identification k(r)=ξ/r, produces quantum corrections to the Reissner–Nordström extremality condition. The main claimed result is a correction parameter δ∼ε_e(ℓ_P/r_+)^{2θ}, so that ε_e>ε_G strengthens the Weak Gravity Conjecture while ε_e<ε_G may lead to its violation for large black holes. The paper constructs a scale-dependent effective action, derives a corrected lapse function, horizon radius, surface gravity, and extremal charge-to-mass ratio, and discusses implications for the WGC.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would offer a concrete UV/IR connection between asymptotic safety and the WGC, with a falsifiable sign-dependent prediction. The manuscript is clearly organized and includes explicit appendices on beta functions, effective stress-energy tensors, and alternative scale identifications. However, the central derivation is invalid or at least incomplete: the first-order horizon shift is computed by dividing by a derivative that vanishes precisely at extremality, and the paper's own equations give conflicting expressions for the correction. As a result, the advertised quantitative result is not established.

major comments (4)

[§2.3 (Eqs. (24)–(29))] Equation (25) divides by f'_cl(r0). Under the classical extremality condition (22), f_cl(r) = (1 - G0 M / r)^2, so r0 = G0 M is a double root and f'_cl(r0) = 0. The first-order expansion (24) therefore has no linear term in δr, and Eq. (25) is singular. Evaluating Eq. (18) at r0 with the extremality condition gives Δf(r0) = -(ε_G + ε_e)(ℓ_P/r0)^{2θ}, so a consistent expansion would require δr of order sqrt(ε), not the linear shift assumed. Consequently Eq. (28) is not derived.
[Eqs. (28)–(29), (42)–(44), Abstract and Conclusion] The central correction parameter is stated inconsistently. Equation (29) gives δ = 2θ ε_e (ℓ_P/r0)^{2θ}, while Eq. (42) and Eq. (44) give a correction of θ(ε_G - ε_e)(ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ} to Q/M, and Eq. (47) repeats the ε_e version. The abstract and conclusion assert the ε_e version. The two expressions differ in coefficient and in which running parameter controls the effect, and no derivation reconciles them. Since these formulas are the basis for the WGC-strengthening conclusion, the central claim has no stable quantitative content.
[Eqs. (41)–(44)] Equation (42) does not follow from Eq. (41). If G0 M^2 = (Q^2/(4π e0^2)) [1 + (1-2θ)(ε_G - ε_e)(ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ}], then taking the square root gives Q/M = sqrt(4π G0 e0) [1 + (1/2 - θ)(ε_G - ε_e)(ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ}], not [1 - θ(ε_G - ε_e)(ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ}]. The factor 1/2 is dropped without explanation, and the sign patterns in §2.4.1–2.4.2 are inherited from this unverified step.
[Eqs. (32)–(37)] The horizon-radius computation leading to Eq. (37) is internally inconsistent. Substituting the classical extremal value Q^2/(4π e0^2 G0^2 M^2) = 1 into Eq. (36) gives δr = (G0 M / 2) ε_e (ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ}, whereas Eq. (37) reports r_+ = G0 M [1 + (1/2)(ε_G - ε_e)(ℓ_P/G0 M)^{2θ}]. These two expressions agree only if ε_G = 0. This section also assumes Eq. (32) with r0 = G0 M, which is only true at exact extremality, while the derivation is meant to determine corrections away from it.

minor comments (5)

[§2.1, Eqs. (13)–(14)] Equations (13) and (14) introduce separate exponents θ_G and θ_e, but all subsequent equations use a single θ; the paper should state explicitly whether θ_G = θ_e is assumed.
[§2.4.2] There is an unresolved reference placeholder '[ ?]' in the discussion of refined WGC versions; a proper citation is needed.
[§2.5 and Appendix A] The effective stress-energy tensor and effective current in Appendix A are not used in the main derivation of the corrected metric in Eqs. (17)–(18); the relationship between the RG-improved metric and the perturbed field equations of §2.5 is left schematic.
[Abstract and §2.4.2] There are typographical errors such as 'th e' in the abstract and 'a ultraviolet' in §2.4.2 that should be corrected.
[Throughout] The notation for the Planck length appears sometimes as ℓ_P and sometimes as ℓ_P/r with the power suppressed; the expressions should be written consistently, e.g., (ℓ_P/r)^{2θ}.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The WGC-strengthening conclusion is the input ε_e under a new name; the central 'prediction' reduces to the assumed running of the gauge coupling, and the derivation is further undermined by the double-root horizon.

self definitional [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (29); Sec. 2.4, bullets after Eq. (30)]
"δ = 2θǫe ( ℓP r(0) + ) 2θ ... If ǫe > 0, then δ > 0, and the extremal Q/M decreases, strengthening the WGC."

The correction parameter δ is constructed from the assumed running of 1/e^2 in Eq. (14), 1/e^2(r)=1/e0^2(1+ε_e(lP/r)^{2θ}); δ is defined to be proportional to the input ε_e. The paper's central claim that ε_e>0 strengthens the WGC is therefore just the sign of the input parameter, restated through Eq. (30). Since Appendix B never computes ε_e or its sign from the fixed point, the 'prediction' δ∼ε_e(lP/r+)^{2θ} is the ansatz (14) in new notation, not an independent result.

full rationale

The paper contains no self-citations, so no self-citation-chain circularity is present. The circularity is of the self-definitional kind: the abstract's key finding δ∼ε_e(lP/r+)^{2θ} is just the assumed deviation of 1/e^2 in Eq. (14), relabeled as a correction to extremality, and the WGC-strengthening/violation conclusion is read off the sign of the input parameters ε_e and ε_G. Appendix B provides no fixed-point computation fixing those signs. Separately, the linear perturbation at Eq. (25) divides by f'_cl(r0)=0 at classical extremality, so the claimed derivation is mathematically invalid, and Eqs. (29) and (44) give inconsistent forms of the correction; these are correctness problems that reinforce the conclusion that the central claim is not independently derived. I score 6 rather than 8 or 10 because the paper at least states the WGC outcome as a conditional (if ε_e>ε_G), and the sign inconsistency between Eqs. (29) and (44) is an internal contradiction rather than a pure equivalence-by-definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests entirely on the assumed running parametrization (epsilon_G, epsilon_e, theta, xi). No numerical fixed-point data are supplied, and the perturbation expansion uses an invalid simple-root assumption at extremality. The paper's conclusions about WGC strengthening or violation are translations of the assumed signs of these parameters rather than the output of a closed-form fixed-point computation.

free parameters (4)

epsilon_G = unspecified; assumed small
Coefficient of the power-law running of Newton's constant in Eq (13). Its value and sign are not computed from the functional renormalization group, and the qualitative conclusions depend on its relative size to epsilon_e.
epsilon_e = unspecified; assumed small
Coefficient of the power-law running of the gauge coupling in Eq (14). The abstract's central condition 'epsilon_e > 0 strengthens the WGC' is a restatement of this parameter's assumed sign.
theta (critical exponent) = not specified numerically
The exponent in (ell_P / r)^{2 theta} controls the size of the corrections; no fixed-point value or truncation is provided, and the text conflates theta_G and theta_e.
xi (scale identification constant) = of order one, unspecified
The identification k(r) = xi / r in Eq (15) sets the RG scale; Appendix C acknowledges that alternative scale identifications change the quantitative results.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption An asymptotically safe UV fixed point with finite g* and alpha* exists and is physically realized.
Section 2.1 relies on this fixed point to justify running couplings; no evidence for the specific fixed point is given in the paper.
ad hoc to paper The RG scale can be identified with the inverse radial coordinate, k(r) = xi / r.
Eq (15) introduces this scale-setting prescription; Appendix C admits alternative curvature-based identifications that alter results.
ad hoc to paper The running couplings take the power-law forms G = G0 (1 + epsilon_G (ell_P / r)^{2 theta}) and 1/e^2 = 1/e0^2 (1 + epsilon_e (ell_P / r)^{2 theta}) with small epsilon parameters.
Eqs (13)-(14) and (33)-(34) assume these forms rather than deriving them from explicit beta functions; the signs and magnitudes are not computed.
domain assumption The classical Reissner-Nordstrom metric with r-dependent G and e remains a valid solution of the scale-dependent effective action.
Eq (17) simply replaces constants by functions; no consistency check with the corrected field equations of Section 2.5 is performed.
ad hoc to paper First-order perturbation around the extremal horizon is valid, meaning f'_cl(r0) is nonzero.
Section 2.3 Eq (25) uses delta r = -Delta f(r0) / f'_cl(r0); at classical extremality f'_cl(r0) = 0, so this premise fails.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TODHQ2SK

@misc{pith2026250420107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Weak Gravity Conjecture in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TODHQ2SK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20107}
}

abstract

The Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) posits that gravity must be the weakest force in any consistent theory of quantum gravity. Originally formulated to constrain the landscape of effective field theories arising from string theory, the WGC suggests the existence of states with a charge-to-mass ratio larger than that of extremal black holes. In this work, we revisit the WGC within the framework of Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity, a non-perturbative approach where gravitational and gauge couplings flow to a non-Gaussian ultraviolet (UV) fixed point. We construct a scale-dependent effective action, derive quantum-corrected Reissner--Nordstr\"om black hole solutions by incorporating position-dependent renormalization scale identification, and compute leading quantum corrections to the extremality condition. Our key finding is that the quantum correction to the extremal charge-to-mass ratio is dominantly governed by the running of the gauge coupling, characterized by a correction parameter $\delta \sim \epsilon_e (\ell_P/r_+)^{2\theta}$, where $\epsilon_e$ captures deviations from infrared behavior. We show that if the electromagnetic coupling grows in the UV ($\epsilon_e > \epsilon_G$), the WGC is dynamically strengthened, whereas if it decreases ($\epsilon_e < \epsilon_G$), large extremal black holes may violate the WGC unless additional light charged states exist. Our analysis demonstrates that Asymptotic Safety provides a concrete ultraviolet mechanism influencing low-energy swampland criteria, offering a deep UV/IR connection between quantum gravity consistency and effective field theory behavior.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Radiative $\mu-\tau$ Corrections and Renormalization of Neutrino Mass Operators in Type II Seesaw Models
hep-ph 2025-05 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper claims a 3% radiative suppression of the reactor angle in Type II seesaw from RG running of mu-tau breaking parameters, but this 'prediction' is derived from a parameter fitted to the measured angle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstei n Equation of State,

T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstei n Equation of State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260 [arXiv:gr-qc/9504004]

arXiv 1995
[2]

The St ring Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force,

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The St ring Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060 [arXiv: hep-th/0601001]

arXiv 2007
[3]

On the Geometry of the String Lands cape and the Swampland,

H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “On the Geometry of the String Lands cape and the Swampland,” Nucl. Phys. B 766 (2007) 21 [arXiv:hep-th/0605264]

arXiv 2007
[4]

N=2 extremal black holes,

S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, and A. Strominger, “N=2 extremal black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 5412 [arXiv:hep-th/9508072]

arXiv 1995
[5]

Black Holes and Entropy,

J. D. Bekenstein, “Black Holes and Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333

1973
[6]

The Swampland: Introduction and Review,

E. Palti, “The Swampland: Introduction and Review,” For tsch. Phys. 67 (2019) 1900037 [arXiv:1903.06239]

arXiv 2019
[7]

The String Landscape and the Swampland,

C. Vafa, “The String Landscape and the Swampland,” arXiv :hep-th/0509212

arXiv
[8]

Basic concept s of string theory,

R. Blumenhagen, D. L¨ ust, and S. Theisen, “Basic concept s of string theory,” Springer (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 28 references

[9]

String Theory,

J. Polchinski, “String Theory,” Cambridge Monographs o n Mathematical Physics (1998)

1998
[10]

Particle Creation by Black Holes,

S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Comm un. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199

1975
[11]

Macroscopic Entropy of N=2 Extremal Bl ack Holes,

A. Strominger, “Macroscopic Entropy of N=2 Extremal Bl ack Holes,” Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 39 [arXiv:hep-th/9602111]

1996 arXiv
[12]

Renormalization Group Impro ved Black Hole Spacetimes,

A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, “Renormalization Group Impro ved Black Hole Spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043008 [arXiv:hep-th/0002196]

2000 arXiv
[13]

de Si tter Vacua in String Theory,

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “de Si tter Vacua in String Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 046005 [arXiv:hep-th/0301240]

2003 arXiv
[14]

Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theo ries of gravitation,

S. Weinberg, “Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theo ries of gravitation,” in *General Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey*, Cambridge Univ ersity Press (1979)

1979
[15]

Nonperturbative Evolution Equation for Qu antum Gravity,

M. Reuter, “Nonperturbative Evolution Equation for Qu antum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 971 [arXiv:hep-th/9605030]

1998 arXiv
[16]

Fixed Points of Quantum Gravity,

D. F. Litim, “Fixed Points of Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Re v. Lett. 92 (2004) 201301 [arXiv:hep-th/0312114]

2004 arXiv
[17]

Asymptotic Safety,

R. Percacci, “Asymptotic Safety,” in *Approaches to Qu antum Gravity*, Cambridge Uni- versity Press (2009)

2009
[18]

Black holes in asymptotically safe gravity,

F. Saueressig, N. Alkofer, G. D’Odorico, and F. Vidotto , “Black holes in asymptotically safe gravity,” PoS Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 14 (201 6) 174 [arXiv:1503.06472]

arXiv
[19]

Scale invariance vs conformal invarianc e,

Y. Nakayama, “Scale invariance vs conformal invarianc e,” Phys. Rept. 569 (2015) 1 [arXiv:1302.0884]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Spherically symmetric st atic solutions in a nonlocal infrared modiﬁcation of General Relativity,

A. Kehagias and M. Maggiore, “Spherically symmetric st atic solutions in a nonlocal infrared modiﬁcation of General Relativity,” JHEP 08 (2014) 029 [arX iv:1401.8289]. 15

2014 arXiv
[21]

Status of the Asymptotic Safety Paradigm for Quantum Gravity and Mat- ter,

A. Eichhorn, “Status of the Asymptotic Safety Paradigm for Quantum Gravity and Mat- ter,” Found. Phys. 48 (2018) 1407 [arXiv:1709.03696]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Irrational axions as a solution of the strong CP problem in an eternal universe,

T. Banks, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, “Irrational axions as a solution of the strong CP problem in an eternal universe,” Phys. Lett. B 273 (1991) 105

1991
[23]

Beyond the Planck Scale,

S. Giddings, “Beyond the Planck Scale,” arXiv:hep-th/ 0203004
[24]

Gravitational anoma lies,

L. Alvarez-Gaum´ e and E. Witten, “Gravitational anoma lies,” Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 269

1984
[25]

Quantum String Gravity near the Planck S cale,

G. Veneziano, “Quantum String Gravity near the Planck S cale,” CERN-TH-5565/89
[26]

Positivity of Curvature-Sq uared Corrections in Gravity,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Positivity of Curvature-Sq uared Corrections in Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 051601 [arXiv:1608.02942]

2017 arXiv
[27]

Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Q uantum Gravity,

S. Hossenfelder, “Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Q uantum Gravity,” Living Rev. Rel- ativity 16 (2013) 2 [arXiv:1203.6191]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Flux compactiﬁcation,

M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, “Flux compactiﬁcation,” Re v. Mod. Phys. 79 (2007) 733 [arXiv:hep-th/0610102]. 16

2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstei n Equation of State,

T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstei n Equation of State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260 [arXiv:gr-qc/9504004]

arXiv 1995

[2] [2]

The St ring Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force,

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The St ring Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060 [arXiv: hep-th/0601001]

arXiv 2007

[3] [3]

On the Geometry of the String Lands cape and the Swampland,

H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “On the Geometry of the String Lands cape and the Swampland,” Nucl. Phys. B 766 (2007) 21 [arXiv:hep-th/0605264]

arXiv 2007

[4] [4]

N=2 extremal black holes,

S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, and A. Strominger, “N=2 extremal black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 5412 [arXiv:hep-th/9508072]

arXiv 1995

[5] [5]

Black Holes and Entropy,

J. D. Bekenstein, “Black Holes and Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333

1973

[6] [6]

The Swampland: Introduction and Review,

E. Palti, “The Swampland: Introduction and Review,” For tsch. Phys. 67 (2019) 1900037 [arXiv:1903.06239]

arXiv 2019

[7] [7]

The String Landscape and the Swampland,

C. Vafa, “The String Landscape and the Swampland,” arXiv :hep-th/0509212

arXiv

[8] [8]

Basic concept s of string theory,

R. Blumenhagen, D. L¨ ust, and S. Theisen, “Basic concept s of string theory,” Springer (2012)

work page 2012