Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Backtracking AdS flux vacua

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flux backtracking maps an AdS flux vacuum to the singularity its branes probe.

desk verdict A clean systematization of a useful trick, with an explicit new brane picture for DGKT that is conjectural and currently lacks the 10d check that would make it solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03314 v1 pith:I6EM3QCJ submitted 2025-06-03 hep-th

Fien Apers , Miguel Montero , Irene Valenzuela This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords fluxbacktrackingAdSvacuaDGKTvacuumscaleseparationmassiveIIAholographicdualdynamicalcobordismD4-branesingularity
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

The paper introduces “flux backtracking,” a procedure that takes an AdS flux vacuum and recovers the singular brane-plus-geometry system whose near-horizon limit would produce it. The move is to set the brane-sourced fluxes to zero; the scalar potential then loses its AdS critical point and instead drives a running domain-wall solution that ends in a higher-dimensional singularity. Tested on known AdS/CFT pairs, the procedure correctly reproduces the familiar brane configurations, including ABJM’s orbifold singularity. Applied to DGKT, the best-known scale-separated AdS$_4$ vacuum, it outputs a strongly coupled singular metric in massive IIA with string coupling $g_s \sim y^{-1}$; the authors conjecture that D4-branes probing that singularity carry the holographic CFT dual to DGKT, if one exists. The paper also finds a conical, weakly coupled singularity for the massless IIA cousin of DGKT, and warns that for KKLT the method only gives the crudest features of a would-be singularity.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the flux-backtracking algorithm built from first-order BPS flow equations. Given the low-dimensional scalar potential $V(\phi, \vec n)$ and its superpotential $P$, one sets $\vec n = 0$ and integrates $d\phi^i/dr = \alpha G^{ij}\partial_j P$, $dA/dr = \beta P$; the solution is a running domain wall $ds^2_d = dr^2 + e^{2A(r)} ds^2_{d-1}$ that ends in a singular geometry. Uplifting this flow to the full string-theory dimension yields the metric that a stack of branes should probe. For DGKT the output is (4.4), and the singularity is strongly coupled, which makes it inaccessible to perturbative worldsheet or D-brane techniques.

What would settle it

One could settle the central claim by solving the massive IIA equations of motion, including the O6-plane source and $H_3$ flux, for the metric (4.4) and checking whether the singularity is a genuine solution with $g_s \sim y^{-1}$; alternatively, one could construct the worldvolume theory of D4-branes in this background and check whether its central charge grows like $N^{9/2}$ with the DGKT flux $N$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that the brane picture behind an AdS flux vacuum can be reverse-engineered by switching off the flux that the would-be brane stack sources, solving the remaining BPS flow equations, and uplifting the resulting running solution to ten or eleven dimensions. The decisive application is DGKT: with the $F_4$ flux removed, the flow (4.3) uplifts to the orientifold of $ds^2_{10} = dy^2 + y^{-10/9} ds^2_3 + y^{2/3} ds^2_{CY}$ with $g_s \sim y^{-1}$, a strongly coupled massive IIA singularity where the O6-plane and $H_3$ flux end. The paper proposes this singularity, probed by D4-branes in the near-horizon limit, as the brane picture that would produce DGKT, and conjectures that the worldvolume theory of those D4-branes is the holographic CFT dual to DGKT if the vacuum is UV consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation stands on assuming that, after the $F_4$ flux is switched off, the scale-separated four-dimensional DGKT description truncated to the volume and dilaton moduli remains a complete effective theory, so the running solution really corresponds to a ten-dimensional singular geometry and does not merely exit the truncation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conjecture holds, the UV-consistency question for DGKT becomes the question of whether D4-branes on the strongly coupled singularity (4.4) flow to a CFT.
  • The strong coupling of the singularity means the D4 worldvolume theory cannot be analyzed by perturbative D-brane techniques; the central-charge scaling $N^{9/2}$ must come from strong-coupling dynamics.
  • For the massless IIA cousin, the predicted conical weakly coupled singularity supports an M2-brane picture, consistent with its $N^{3/2}$ central-charge growth.
  • The successful tests on known examples justify applying the algorithm to other AdS vacua with unknown duals whenever the off-shell scalar potential is available.
  • For KKLT, the procedure faces the absence of a parametrically large flux and yields only indicative, hard-to-probe singularities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DGKT singularity is real, it converts the debate over DGKT into a question about the existence and dynamics of a D4-brane worldvolume theory; a full solution with central charge $N^{9/2}$ would be the first scale-separated AdS/CFT pair.
  • Because flux backtracking is non-unique, DGKT may admit alternative brane pictures; finding a weakly coupled one would give analytic control that the strongly coupled singularity in (4.4) lacks.
  • The same procedure, run on other proposed scale-separated vacua with known off-shell potentials, would sort them by whether their brane pictures are weakly coupled conical singularities or strongly coupled ones that resist worldsheet analysis.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an algorithm called 'flux backtracking': given an AdS flux vacuum described by a lower-dimensional effective scalar potential, one sets to zero the flux(es) that would be sourced by the dual brane stack and solves the resulting BPS flow equations to obtain a running, singular 'cobordism' geometry. Probing that singularity with the appropriate branes and taking a near-horizon limit should return the original AdS vacuum. The procedure is tested on several known AdS/CFT pairs (Freund-Rubin, ABJM, massive IIA vacua of Guarino-Jafferis-Varela, and comments on others), where it reproduces the expected brane pictures. The main new application is to the scale-separated DGKT vacuum, for which the authors obtain, after switching off F4 flux, the singular massive IIA geometry ds^2_10 = dy^2 + y^{-10/9} ds^2_3 + y^{2/3} ds^2_CY with g_s ~ y^{-1}, and conjecture that D4-branes probing this singularity provide the holographic dual of DGKT (if it exists). Similar applications are given for scale-separated AdS4 vacua without Romans mass (conical, weakly coupled singularity) and for AdS3 vacua in massive IIA, with a discussion of KKLT and its limitations.

Significance. If the central conjecture is correct, the paper would provide the first concrete candidate for the holographic dual of a scale-separated AdS vacuum, directly addressing the long-standing question of whether DGKT-type vacua admit a UV-complete brane/CFT description. The method is clearly explained and, importantly, is benchmarked on several established AdS/CFT pairs; the explicit statement in Section 3.3 that the GJV geometry (3.33) was checked directly against the 10d massive IIA equations of motion is a valuable piece of evidence that the algorithm captures real physics rather than being a purely formal EFT construction. The paper is also honest about its limitations, repeatedly noting that the truncation may fail at n=0 and that the DGKT result is a conjecture. The significance is therefore potentially high, but it is contingent on closing the gap identified below: the central DGKT singularity is not validated at the 10d level, unlike the GJV case.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.4)] The central result for DGKT, the singular metric (4.4), is never checked against the ten-dimensional massive IIA equations of motion. This is in contrast to the treatment of the GJV vacuum in Section 3.3, where the authors explicitly state that (3.33) satisfies the massive IIA equations directly. For DGKT, the flow (4.3) is obtained from the four-dimensional effective potential (4.1) truncated to the universal moduli (u,s), and the paper itself warns in Section 2 that the truncation must remain consistent at n=0, including the case where the flux that is switched off is the one responsible for scale separation. Since the F4 flux being removed is precisely what controls the scale separation and the control of the EFT, the validity of the truncated four-dimensional flow at n=0 is the load-bearing assumption. Without either a direct ten-dimensional check of (4.4) (including the Romans mass, H3 flux, and O6 sources) or a convincing argument that the truncated flow lifts to a genuine ten-dimensional solution, the statement that (4.4) 'unambiguously comes out' of flux backtracking is too strong. Please add this verification or clearly state the additional assumptions under which the result holds.
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.2)] The two-scalar superpotential (4.2) is asserted to generate the scalar potential (4.1) through the master formula (3.9), but the computation is not shown. This is a load-bearing step, because the BPS flow equations (3.7) and hence the running solution (4.3) rely on P being a genuine superpotential for V. The consistency can be checked with the canonical moduli defined in (A.4): the cross term in |∂P|^2 − (d−1)/(d−2) P^2 reproduces the −A_O6/s^3 term with A_O6 = 32 c_F0 c_H3, and the coefficients A_F0, A_H3 are related to c_F0, c_H3 by positive factors. The paper should display this short calculation explicitly, and should also show the derivation of (4.3) from the first-order equations rather than simply stating the solution.
  3. [§4.2 and Appendix B] The scale-separated massless IIA vacua of [12] are anisotropic, with two distinct F2 flux components k1, k2 and two different moduli u1, u2 as used in Appendix B. The main-text metric (4.5) is obtained by borrowing the isotropic ABJM flow (3.27)–(3.28), which treats the internal space with a single volume modulus. In Section 3.4 the authors correctly warn that anisotropic internal spaces may require additional moduli; the same caveat applies here. Please clarify whether (4.5) is intended as a complete description or as a universal-moduli approximation, and explain why the anisotropic flux components do not modify the conical form. As written, the derivation of (4.5) from the more general flow in Appendix B is not transparent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.30)] The uplifted ABJM metric (3.30) is missing a constant factor: with y = r^{1/3} and the rescaling y → tilde y = y^{2/3}, the first term acquires a factor 9/4, so the metric is (9/4)d tilde y^2 + ds_3^2 + tilde y^2 (ds^2_CP3 + dz^2). The constant is irrelevant for the conical structure but should be corrected for accuracy.
  2. [Appendix A] The notation in (A.4) uses the same symbols u and s for both the moduli and the canonically normalized scalars; this is confusing, especially since the main text refers to (u,s) as moduli. Please adopt a distinct notation, e.g. hats or tildes, for the canonical fields.
  3. [§3.3] The claim that (3.33) satisfies the massive IIA equations of motion is not substantiated; the paper only gives a ratio of coefficients c_F0^2/c_R^2. Since this is the only ten-dimensional verification in the paper, please provide the explicit field equations and the checks performed, or a reference where the computation is shown.
  4. [§4.1, after (4.4)] The sentence describing the result as 'an orientifold of (4.4)' is vague: the orientifold involution, the location of the O6-plane, and the way the Romans mass and H3 flux source the geometry are not specified. Specifying these data would make the proposal more concrete and testable.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'friction term' (should be 'friction term' is acceptable in context, but the sentence in Appendix C is unclear), 'difficults' in the Conclusions, and 'enviroment' in the Acknowledgements. Please copyedit the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DGKT singularity (4.4) is computed from the DGKT effective potential via BPS flow, not fitted to the target; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Section 4.1 starts from the explicit 4d N=1 DGKT effective potential (4.1) and superpotential (4.2), sets the unbounded F4 flux to zero, solves the first-order BPS flow equations (3.7) to obtain (4.3), and uplifts via the ansatz to the metric (4.4). No parameter is fitted to reproduce DGKT; the exponents and warping follow from the potential's moduli dependence. The 'recovery' property of the algorithm ('putting back the branes ... recovers the original AdS solution') is definitional to the flux-backtracking method rather than an independently verified prediction, and the paper explicitly labels the dual CFT statement as a conjecture. The known-example tests in Section 3 provide external anchors for the method, and the GJV check against 10d massive IIA equations of motion (3.33) shows the authors know how to validate when possible; the absence of such a check for DGKT is a validation gap, not circularity. The self-citations ([20], [26]) are used for motivation and context (quantum corrections, WGC tension) and are not load-bearing for the derivation of (4.4).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The entire procedure is built on identifying the n=0 running solution with the brane-probe geometry; this is the central unproven assumption. For DGKT it additionally assumes that the scale-separated 4d EFT with universal moduli (u,s) remains valid at zero flux, and that the ansatz superpotential P with the given moduli dependence correctly reproduces the scalar potential. The flow solutions are stated without checking the second-order equations or the 10d equations of motion. No new fundamental entities are invented, but the candidate singularities are new objects without independent falsifiable handles yet.

free parameters (2)
  • Relative coefficient of the two terms in the DGKT superpotential P (4.2) = unspecified
    The flow solution (4.3) requires a specific balance between the c_F0 and c_H3 terms; the paper does not state the required ratio or demonstrate that the DGKT EFT produces it.
  • Coefficients A_R, A_F0, A_H3, A_O6 in the scalar potential (4.1) = unspecified functions of the Calabi-Yau and flux quanta
    These coefficients enter the potential and the flow; the paper works only with their moduli dependence and never shows that the running solution exists for the actual coefficients of a specific Calabi-Yau orientifold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Setting the unbounded flux to zero and solving the BPS flow in the truncated EFT yields the same singular geometry that a stack of branes probes to produce the original AdS vacuum as its near-horizon limit.
    This is the premise of flux backtracking, stated in Section 2 ('A general lesson from those works...'). It is tested on known examples but is not proven, especially for the strongly coupled DGKT singularity.
  • domain assumption The 4d N=1 scale-separated EFT of DGKT, truncated to the universal moduli u and s, remains a complete and valid description after switching off the F4 flux.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to justify using the potential (4.1) and superpotential (4.2). Whether DGKT itself has a full 10d uplift is debated, and the behavior of the truncated EFT at n=0 is not independently established.
  • standard math The BPS flow equations with the ansatz superpotential P reproduce the second-order equations of motion for the multi-scalar field space under consideration.
    The formalism of [49] is used, but the paper assumes a field-space metric with vanishing Christoffel symbols (Section 3) without specifying G_ij for the two-modulus cases. This is a technical assumption.
  • domain assumption The internal manifold remains unchanged when fluxes are turned off, with no topology change.
    Stated in Section 2 after Eq. (3.10): 'ds^2_n is the metric of the internal compactification manifold, which remains the same whether we turn fluxes on or off in all examples considered.' This is non-trivial for orientifolds and singular limits.
invented entities (3)
  • Strongly coupled massive IIA singularity for DGKT (metric (4.4))
    purpose: To serve as the geometry that D4-branes probe to produce the DGKT AdS4 vacuum as their near-horizon limit, i.e., the brane picture of DGKT.
    The metric is derived from the 4d EFT flow, but the singularity is strongly coupled (g_s ~ y^{-1} diverges), so the worldvolume CFT cannot be constructed and no independent falsifiable prediction beyond the existing DGKT central charge scaling is provided. The paper itself calls it a conjecture.
  • Weakly coupled conical singularity with Iwasawa base for the massless IIA scale-separated AdS4 vacua
    purpose: To be probed by D2-branes or M2-branes to yield the scale-separated AdS4 vacuum of [12].
    The paper claims it is weakly coupled and matches the Spin(7) cone expectation, but whether an appropriate family of singularities exists is left for future work (see [66]), so there is no independent falsifiable handle yet.
  • Strongly coupled singularity for AdS3 scale-separated vacua in massive IIA (metric (4.12))
    purpose: To be probed by D4-branes wrapped on 3-cycles to reproduce the AdS3 vacuum of [13].
    The singularity is strongly coupled and the paper provides no independent check beyond the flow derivation, so there is no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Backtracking AdS flux vacua." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6EM3QCJ

@misc{pith2026250603314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Backtracking AdS flux vacua},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6EM3QCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03314}
}
abstract

We introduce an algorithm (dubbed "flux backtracking") to reverse-engineer the brane picture from an AdS flux vacuum. Given an AdS flux vacuum as input, the algorithm outputs a singularity in 10 or 11 dimensions. This singularity has the property that when probed with the appropriate stack of branes (and after taking the near-horizon limit), one recovers the initial AdS vacuum. After testing the procedure on a number of known AdS/CFT pairs, we apply it to AdS flux vacua without known holographic dual, notably the scale-separated DGKT solution. In this case, flux backtracking produces a certain strongly coupled singularity in massive IIA; we conjecture that the worldvolume CFT of D4-branes probing this singularity should be the holographic CFT dual to DGKT (if it exists). Applying the procedure to the DGKT-related scale-separated AdS$_4$ solutions without Romans mass, we find instead a conical and weakly coupled singularity. We also comment on the results and limitations of applying the procedure to KKLT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03314 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Brane picture AdS CFT Flux backtracking Near-horizon limit Low-energy open string EFT Holography [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flux backtracking applied to DGKT produces a strongly coupled singularity in massive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

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

    N. Cribiori, D. Junghans, V. Van Hemelryck, T. Van Riet, and T. Wrase, “Scale-separated AdS4 vacua of IIA orientifolds and M-theory,” Phys. Rev. D104 no. 12, (2021) 126014,arXiv:2107.00019 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2 (1998) 253–291,arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept.323(2000) 183–386, arXiv:hep-th/9905111

    arXiv 2000

  6. [5]

    Superconformal field theory on three-branes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “Superconformal field theory on three-branes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,” Nucl. Phys. B536(1998) 199–218, arXiv:hep-th/9807080

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis, and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” JHEP10 (2008) 091,arXiv:0806.1218 [hep-th]. 29

    arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    Exact results for five-dimensional superconformal field theories with gravity duals,

    D. L. Jafferis and S. S. Pufu, “Exact results for five-dimensional superconformal field theories with gravity duals,” JHEP05(2014) 032,arXiv:1207.4359 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    String Theory Origin of Dyonic N=8 Supergravity and Its Chern-Simons Duals,

    A. Guarino, D. L. Jafferis, and O. Varela, “String Theory Origin of Dyonic N=8 Supergravity and Its Chern-Simons Duals,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115no. 9, (2015) 091601,arXiv:1504.08009 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    AdS 7/CFT6 with orientifolds,

    F. Apruzzi and M. Fazzi, “AdS 7/CFT6 with orientifolds,” JHEP01(2018) 124, arXiv:1712.03235 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    De Sitter vacua in string theory,

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 046005,arXiv:hep-th/0301240

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Type IIA moduli stabilization,

    O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru, and W. Taylor, “Type IIA moduli stabilization,” JHEP07(2005) 066,arXiv:hep-th/0505160

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    F. Farakos, G. Tringas, and T. Van Riet, “No-scale and scale-separated flux vacua from IIA on G2 orientifolds,” Eur. Phys. J. C80no. 7, (2020) 659, arXiv:2005.05246 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

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

    P. G. Camara, A. Font, and L. E. Ibanez, “Fluxes, moduli fixing and MSSM-like vacua in a simple IIA orientifold,” JHEP09(2005) 013,arXiv:hep-th/0506066

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    O. Aharony, Y. E. Antebi, and M. Berkooz, “On the Conformal Field Theory Duals of type IIA AdS(4) Flux Compactifications,” JHEP02(2008) 093, arXiv:0801.3326 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Massive IIA flux compactifications and U-dualities,

    T. Banks and K. van den Broek, “Massive IIA flux compactifications and U-dualities,” JHEP03(2007) 068,arXiv:hep-th/0611185

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Integer conformal dimensions for type IIa flux vacua,

    F. Apers, J. P. Conlon, S. Ning, and F. Revello, “Integer conformal dimensions for type IIa flux vacua,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 10, (2022) 106029,arXiv:2202.09330 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    On Upper Bounds in Dimension Gaps of CFT’s,

    T. C. Collins, D. Jafferis, C. Vafa, K. Xu, and S.-T. Yau, “On Upper Bounds in Dimension Gaps of CFT’s,”arXiv:2201.03660 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Exploring the holographic Swampland,

    J. P. Conlon, S. Ning, and F. Revello, “Exploring the holographic Swampland,” JHEP04(2022) 117,arXiv:2110.06245 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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,” JHEP05(2022) 167,arXiv:2202.00682 [hep-th]. 30

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aspects of AdS flux vacua with integer conformal dimensions,

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

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Noninteger conformal dimensions for type IIA flux vacua,

    J. Quirant, “Noninteger conformal dimensions for type IIA flux vacua,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 6, (2022) 066017,arXiv:2204.00014 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mass spectrum of type IIB flux compactifications — comments on AdS vacua and conformal dimensions,

    E. Plauschinn, “Mass spectrum of type IIB flux compactifications — comments on AdS vacua and conformal dimensions,” JHEP02(2023) 257,arXiv:2210.04528 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

    D. Andriot and G. Tringas, “Extensions of a scale-separated AdS 4 solution and their mass spectrum,” JHEP01(2024) 008,arXiv:2310.06115 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A compendium of logarithmic corrections in AdS/CFT,

    N. Bobev, M. David, J. Hong, V. Reys, and X. Zhang, “A compendium of logarithmic corrections in AdS/CFT,” JHEP04(2024) 020,arXiv:2312.08909 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Quantum corrections to DGKT and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

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

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Entropy of near extremal black p-branes,

    I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Entropy of near extremal black p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B475(1996) 164–178,arXiv:hep-th/9604089

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The Holographic Weyl anomaly,

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “The Holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP07 (1998) 023,arXiv:hep-th/9806087

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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(2024) 1–28,arXiv:2311.12105 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dynamical Cobordism and Swampland Distance Conjectures,

    G. Buratti, J. Calder´ on-Infante, M. Delgado, and A. M. Uranga, “Dynamical Cobordism and Swampland Distance Conjectures,” JHEP10(2021) 037, arXiv:2107.09098 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dynamical tadpoles, stringy cobordism, and the SM from spontaneous compactification,

    G. Buratti, M. Delgado, and A. M. Uranga, “Dynamical tadpoles, stringy cobordism, and the SM from spontaneous compactification,” JHEP06(2021) 170, arXiv:2104.02091 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    At the end of the world: Local Dynamical Cobordism,

    R. Angius, J. Calder´ on-Infante, M. Delgado, J. Huertas, and A. M. Uranga, “At the end of the world: Local Dynamical Cobordism,” JHEP06(2022) 142, arXiv:2203.11240 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dynamical cobordism of a domain wall and its companion defect 7-brane,

    R. Blumenhagen, N. Cribiori, C. Kneissl, and A. Makridou, “Dynamical cobordism of a domain wall and its companion defect 7-brane,” JHEP08(2022) 204,arXiv:2205.09782 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dynamical Cobordism Conjecture: solutions for end-of-the-world branes,

    R. Blumenhagen, C. Kneissl, and C. Wang, “Dynamical Cobordism Conjecture: solutions for end-of-the-world branes,” JHEP05(2023) 123,arXiv:2303.03423 [hep-th]. 31

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On warped string vacuum profiles and cosmologies. Part II. Non-supersymmetric strings,

    J. Mourad and A. Sagnotti, “On warped string vacuum profiles and cosmologies. Part II. Non-supersymmetric strings,” JHEP12(2021) 138,arXiv:2109.12328 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    On codimension-one vacua and string theory,

    S. Raucci, “On codimension-one vacua and string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B985 (2022) 116002,arXiv:2206.06399 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Revisiting Dudas-Mourad Compactifications,

    I. Basile, S. Raucci, and S. Thom´ ee, “Revisiting Dudas-Mourad Compactifications,” Universe8no. 10, (2022) 544,arXiv:2209.10553 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Supersymmetry breaking and stability in string vacua: Brane dynamics, bubbles and the swampland,

    I. Basile, “Supersymmetry breaking and stability in string vacua: Brane dynamics, bubbles and the swampland,” Riv. Nuovo Cim.44no. 10, (2021) 499–596,arXiv:2107.02814 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Brane annihilation in non-supersymmetric strings,

    R. Antonelli and I. Basile, “Brane annihilation in non-supersymmetric strings,” JHEP11(2019) 021,arXiv:1908.04352 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aspects of dynamical cobordism in AdS/CFT,

    J. Huertas and A. M. Uranga, “Aspects of dynamical cobordism in AdS/CFT,” JHEP08(2023) 140,arXiv:2306.07335 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Intersecting end of the world branes,

    R. Angius, A. Makridou, and A. M. Uranga, “Intersecting end of the world branes,” JHEP03(2024) 110,arXiv:2312.16286 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    End of the world boundaries for chiral quantum gravity theories,

    R. Angius, A. M. Uranga, and C. Wang, “End of the world boundaries for chiral quantum gravity theories,” JHEP03(2025) 064,arXiv:2410.07322 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Flux compactifications in string theory: A Comprehensive review,

    M. Grana, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A Comprehensive review,” Phys. Rept.423(2006) 91–158,arXiv:hep-th/0509003

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lectures on constructing string vacua,

    F. Denef, “Lectures on constructing string vacua,” Les Houches87(2008) 483–610,arXiv:0803.1194 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Connes, B

    A. Connes, B. de Wit, A. Van Proeyen, S. Gukov, R. Hernandez, P. Mora, A. Klimyk, A. Klimyk, I. Brevik, A. Gavrilik, M. Schlichenmaier, W. Marcinek, A. Kelarev, M. Shifman, M. Bianchi, D. Leites, R. Schimmrigk, P. Mora, J. de Azcarraga, J. Izquierdo, V. Rivelles, S. Narison, M...

    2004

  38. [46]

    Introduction to AdS-CFT,

    H. Nastase, “Introduction to AdS-CFT,”arXiv:0712.0689 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Phys. Lett. B379(1996) 99–104,arXiv:hep-th/9601029

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cobordism Classes and the Swampland,

    J. McNamara and C. Vafa, “Cobordism Classes and the Swampland,” arXiv:1909.10355 [hep-th]. 32

    1909 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gravitational stability and renormalization group flow,

    K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend, “Gravitational stability and renormalization group flow,” Phys. Lett. B468(1999) 46–51,arXiv:hep-th/9909070

    1999 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fake supergravity and domain wall stability,

    D. Z. Freedman, C. Nunez, M. Schnabl, and K. Skenderis, “Fake supergravity and domain wall stability,” Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 104027,arXiv:hep-th/0312055

    2004 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Comments on fake supersymmetry,

    J. Diaz Dorronsoro, B. Truijen, and T. Van Riet, “Comments on fake supersymmetry,” Class. Quant. Grav.34no. 9, (2017) 095003,arXiv:1606.07730 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Dynamics of Dimensional Reduction,

    P. G. O. Freund and M. A. Rubin, “Dynamics of Dimensional Reduction,” Phys. Lett. B97(1980) 233–235

    1980

  45. [53]

    Kaluza-Klein Supergravity,

    M. J. Duff, B. E. W. Nilsson, and C. N. Pope, “Kaluza-Klein Supergravity,” Phys. Rept.130(1986) 1–142

    1986

  46. [54]

    Beginners lectures on flux compactifications and related Swampland topics,

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

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Branes at conical singularities and holography,

    B. S. Acharya, J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. M. Hull, and B. J. Spence, “Branes at conical singularities and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1999) 1249–1286,arXiv:hep-th/9808014

    1999 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nonspherical horizons. 1.,

    D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, “Nonspherical horizons. 1.,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.3(1999) 1–81,arXiv:hep-th/9810201

    1999 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A Stringy Origin of M2 Brane Chern-Simons Theories,

    M. Aganagic, “A Stringy Origin of M2 Brane Chern-Simons Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B835(2010) 1–28,arXiv:0905.3415 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Dyonic ISO(7) supergravity and the duality hierarchy,

    A. Guarino and O. Varela, “Dyonic ISO(7) supergravity and the duality hierarchy,” JHEP02(2016) 079,arXiv:1508.04432 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Massive type IIA string theory cannot be strongly coupled,

    O. Aharony, D. Jafferis, A. Tomasiello, and A. Zaffaroni, “Massive type IIA string theory cannot be strongly coupled,” JHEP11(2010) 047,arXiv:1007.2451 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.21(2017) 1787–1801,arXiv:1610.01533 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Polchinski and E

    J. Polchinski and E. Silverstein, Dual Purpose Landscaping Tools: Small Extra Dimensions in AdS/CFT, pp. 365–390. World Scientific, 8, 2009.arXiv:0908.0756 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Rigorous Holographic Bound on AdS Scale Separation,

    E. Perlmutter, “Rigorous Holographic Bound on AdS Scale Separation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 6, (2024) 061601,arXiv:2402.19358 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    AdS and the Swampland,

    D. L¨ ust, E. Palti, and C. Vafa, “AdS and the Swampland,” Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134867,arXiv:1906.05225 [hep-th]. 33

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pure supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,

    M. Montero, M. Rocek, and C. Vafa, “Pure supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” JHEP01(2023) 094,arXiv:2212.01697 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    AdS4 flux vacua in type II superstrings and their domain-wall solutions,

    C. Kounnas, D. Lust, P. M. Petropoulos, and D. Tsimpis, “AdS4 flux vacua in type II superstrings and their domain-wall solutions,” JHEP09(2007) 051, arXiv:0707.4270 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  58. [66]

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

    V. Van Hemelryck, “Weak G2 manifolds and scale separation in M-theory from type IIA backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D110no. 10, (2024) 106013, arXiv:2408.16609 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Small cosmological constants in string theory,

    M. Demirtas, M. Kim, L. McAllister, J. Moritz, and A. Rios-Tascon, “Small cosmological constants in string theory,” JHEP12(2021) 136,arXiv:2107.09064 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Exponentially Small Cosmological Constant in String Theory,

    M. Demirtas, M. Kim, L. McAllister, J. Moritz, and A. Rios-Tascon, “Exponentially Small Cosmological Constant in String Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128no. 1, (2022) 011602,arXiv:2107.09065 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Candidate de Sitter Vacua,

    L. McAllister, J. Moritz, R. Nally, and A. Schachner, “Candidate de Sitter Vacua,”arXiv:2406.13751 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Holography and the KKLT scenario,

    S. L¨ ust, C. Vafa, M. Wiesner, and K. Xu, “Holography and the KKLT scenario,” JHEP10(2022) 188,arXiv:2204.07171 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    KKLT Ex Nihilo,

    I. Bena, Y. Li, and S. L¨ ust, “KKLT Ex Nihilo,”arXiv:2410.22400 [hep-th]. 34

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.