Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

This paper proves universal, purely low-energy bounds on the previously uncontrolled intersections between E-strings and (-3)- or (-2)-charges in six-dimensional (1,0) supergravity, using a lattice analogue of Zariski decomposition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:30 UTC pith:I77ZNXVE

load-bearing objection New EFT bounds on tensor intersections are likely sound, but the advertised finiteness claim is not proven; two classes are explicitly left open. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26197 v1 pith:I77ZNXVE submitted 2026-07-28 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Intersection Bounds for BPS Strings in Six-Dimensional Supergravity

Hee-Cheol Kim , Kai Xu This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MP MSC 81T3083E50 PACS 04.65.+e11.25.-w
keywords six-dimensional supergravityBPS stringstensor charge latticeintersection boundsZariski decompositionattractor mechanismE-stringanomaly cancellation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Six-dimensional (1,0) supergravity is a test bed for deciding which low-energy theories can come from quantum gravity, and its tensor moduli space is controlled by the intersection pairing of primitive BPS string charges. When both charges support gauge algebras, anomaly cancellation fixes their intersection, but intersections involving the E-string—the ungauged (-1)-charge whose worldsheet carries an E8 current algebra—had no universal bound. The paper proves those intersections are universally finite using only low-energy consistency: a (-3)-charge meets the E-string at most 3 times, a (-2)-charge in a non-Higgsable cluster at most 7 times, and an isolated gauged (-2)-charge at most 1240 times. The engine is a lattice Zariski decomposition of the gravitational anomaly vector b0 into a part non-negative against every BPS generator and a negative-definite tensionless part, interpreted as the attractor endpoint of the BPS string. If correct, every primitive tensor intersection is fixed, bounded, or removed by duality, removing a known obstacle to exhaustive classification of the tensor sector.

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the previously uncontrolled tensor intersections in 6d N=(1,0) supergravity are universally finite, and the bounds follow from two low-energy inputs: the gravitational anomaly vector b0 lies in the cone generated by primitive BPS strings, and distinct primitive BPS strings have non-negative mutual intersections. From these inputs the authors construct a unique lattice Zariski decomposition b0 = P + N, where N is supported on a negative-definite tensionless sector; the unit pairing b0·e = 1 then forces the coefficient of any generator in N to give Ci·e ≤ 1/αi. This yields C_-3·e ≤ 3 and C_-2·e ≤ 7 for (-2)-charges in non-Higgsable clusters, while the maximal emb

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the lattice Zariski decomposition of the gravitational anomaly vector b0 = P + N, with P·Ci ≥ 0 for every primitive BPS generator Ci and P·N = 0, where N is an effective combination supported on a negative-definite Gram matrix. This decomposition does the work by converting the single unit number b0·e = 1 into componentwise inequalities: because b0·e = P·e + Σ αi Ci·e and every term is non-negative, each coefficient αi directly bounds the intersection Ci·e ≤ 1/αi. The coefficients are fixed by the orthogonality equations on each negative block; for an isolated (-3)-charge this gives α = 1/3, and for the three non-Higgsable clusters it gives coefficients (2/5, 1/5), (

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the claim that the gravitational anomaly vector b0 can be written as a finite non-negative combination of the primitive BPS string charges of the theory; if b0 is not effective in this sense, the lattice Zariski decomposition has no starting point and none of the coefficient inequalities follow.

What would settle it

Run a complete scan of the known geometric bases used to classify 6d supergravity theories, looking for a primitive (-3)-curve meeting a (-1)-curve with multiplicity 4, or a (-2)-curve in a non-Higgsable cluster meeting the E-string with multiplicity 8. Any such base that also satisfies the anomaly and worldsheet-unitarity conditions would violate the claimed universal bounds.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every primitive tensor intersection is now either fixed by anomaly cancellation, bounded by the Zariski decomposition, bounded by worldsheet current-algebra unitarity, or removed by charge-lattice duality; no uncontrolled intersection family remains.
  • Exhaustive classification of tensor bases in 6d supergravity can proceed with finite intersection multiplicities; the missing bound had been a known obstacle to a purely low-energy enumeration.
  • For the non-Higgsable clusters the EFT bounds match geometric string-theory bounds except for an isolated (-3)-charge (3 vs 2) and some (-2) components (3, 4, 5, 7 vs 2), so the gap is a concrete target for further quantum-gravity consistency conditions.
  • The isolated gauged (-2) case shows the extremal embedding index 1240 is an upper bound in principle and is not expected to be physically realized; stronger constraints from matter, anomalies, and the full tensor spectrum should lower it.
  • Distinct E-string intersections are not bounded here, but the paper argues they are determined once the other intersections are fixed by mutual non-negativity; a planned separate analysis completes the sector.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The Zariski-coefficient method is a general lattice trick: any distinguished vector with a negative-definite orthogonal block immediately yields 1/α bounds, so analogous decompositions could bound unconstrained charge pairings in other supergravity dimensions or duality frames.
  • The EFT-versus-geometry gap (3 vs 2, 7 vs 2) suggests an as-yet unidentified low-energy condition, possibly from positivity of higher-derivative corrections or full unitarity of the string worldsheet, that would reproduce the geometric bounds without importing geometric data.
  • The 1240 bound is a pure embedding-theoretic extremum; a targeted computation of which affine SU(2) embeddings are compatible with 6d anomaly and matter constraints could reduce it by orders of magnitude and is a natural next calculation.
  • Because the monotonicity property is independent of the size of the spectrum, the Zariski coefficients can be treated as canonical attractor weights for algorithmic scans of tensor cones, an application the paper sketches but does not develop into a full reconstruction algorithm.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives bounds on intersections between primitive BPS string charges in 6D N=(1,0) supergravity, using a lattice Zariski decomposition of the gravitational anomaly charge b0=P+N. Given effectiveness of b0 and mutual non-negativity of distinct BPS generators (Eqs. (2.8)-(2.9)), the decomposition yields C_-3·e ≤ 3, C_-2·e ≤ 7 for (-2)-generators in NHCs, and, with E8 current-algebra input, C_-2·e ≤ 1240 for isolated gauged (-2)-generators. The authors claim that together with known anomaly/current-algebra constraints this establishes finiteness of tensor charge intersection numbers up to charge-lattice duality.

Significance. The method is novel and the core arithmetic checks out: the orthogonality equations for the negative blocks, the M-matrix monotonicity argument of §4.2, and the principal sl2 index calculation in Eq. (4.22) are all sound. The comparison with F-theory bounds in Table 2 is informative and shows exactly where EFT arguments reproduce or fall short of geometric constraints. If the missing cases can be closed, the paper will provide a genuinely EFT-derived universal bound on previously uncontrolled tensor intersections. However, the advertised finiteness conclusion is not fully supported by the stated theorems: two classes of intersections are explicitly left unbounded, and the phrase 'removed by charge-lattice duality' is never defined. The paper is transparent about these gaps, but the abstract and §4.3 present the full finiteness claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, final paragraph] The proof does not bound intersections between distinct E-strings; the text states that these are 'expected to be determined' in a separate paper. Since E-string/E-string intersections are tensor intersection numbers, the Abstract's 'finiteness of tensor charge intersection numbers up to duality' requires either a proof for this class or an explicit restriction of the claim. As written, the central conclusion is conditional on a future argument, not established here.
  2. [§4.2, 'Isolated(−2)-generators' and §3.3] Only isolated (-2)-generators supporting a gauge algebra are bounded. If an isolated (-2)-generator has no gauge algebra and lies outside the Zariski support S, then b0·C = 0 implies P·C = N·C = 0, so Eq. (4.6) reduces to 0 = 0 and yields no bound on e·C. The E8 current-algebra argument of Eq. (4.24) does not apply because there is no gauge algebra on C. The statement in §4.3 that such cases are 'removed by charge-lattice duality' is not defined and is not accompanied by any argument. This class of intersections is therefore unconstrained, and the finiteness claim is unproven.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (2.9)] The derivation rests on the finite populated presentation of b0 in the BPS cone, imported from [9] and the strong Cobordism Conjecture. The paper does flag this assumption in §2.2, but the Abstract and §4.3 state the finiteness result without this qualifier. Since Eq. (2.9) is load-bearing for every bound in §4, the main theorem should be stated as conditional on (2.8)-(2.9) and on the classification inputs of [9].
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 after Eq. (4.15)] The matrix M_BR is used in Eq. (4.16) but never defined. It should be defined as (M_BR)_{ik} = -C_i·C_k for i in B and k in R.
  2. [§3.3] The sentence 'We may naturally expect that there can not be any isolated (−2)-generators lying inside S' is weaker than what the equations show. If C is an isolated (-2)-generator in S, then P·C = 0 and N'·C = 0, so b0·C = 0 would force 0 = α C^2 = -2α, contradicting α > 0. The F-theory digression is unnecessary and could be replaced by this algebraic statement.
  3. [Abstract and §4.3] The phrase 'charge-lattice duality' is central to the finiteness statement but is never defined. Please define it or remove it, since as written it obscures the precise class of intersection numbers that are claimed to be finite.
  4. [§5.2] The AI-guided discovery narrative is not part of the physics content and is likely out of place in a JHEP paper. Consider shortening it or moving the acknowledgments to a footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: intersection bounds are solved from the Zariski decomposition, not assumed; the finiteness headline overreaches but is not circular.

full rationale

The claimed bounds are derived, not fitted. For an isolated (-3)-generator, Eq. (4.11) imposes 0 = P·C_-3 = (b0 - N)·C_-3 = -1 + 3α_-3, so α_-3 = 1/3; then (4.6)-(4.8) give C_-3·e ≤ 3 from b0·e = 1, b0·C_-3 = -1, C_-3^2 = -3 and mutual non-negativity. For NHCs, (4.19) solves the orthogonality equations for each block, and the Stieltjes/M-matrix monotonicity result transfers local bounds to larger supports. The 1240 bound is the principal sl2 ⊂ e8 Dynkin index, an external Lie-algebra fact. In none of these steps does an input equation contain the quantity being bounded, nor is a parameter fitted to data and renamed a prediction. The two background inputs (2.8) and (2.9) are imported from [9], which shares two authors with this paper, but [9] is a published prior result with its own stated assumptions and does not contain the target intersection bounds; relying on it is not circular. I therefore find no equation-level circularity. The finiteness sentence in the Abstract and Sec. 4.3 is stronger than the proof: Sec. 4.3 says 'The only intersections not analyzed here are those between distinct E-string generators' and only expects them to be 'determined systematically', while Sec. 4.2 treats only an 'isolated(-2)-generator supporting a gauge algebra'; an isolated non-gauged (-2) has b0·C = 0 with P·C = N·C = 0, so (4.6) gives no bound, and 'removed by charge-lattice duality' is never defined. That is an overclaim/incompleteness, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: the Zariski coefficients α_i are determined by orthogonality equations from lattice data. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the lattice Zariski decomposition is a mathematical construction. The load-bearing assumptions are the completeness/tensionless-boundary inputs, effectiveness of b0, and mutual non-negativity, all imported from [9] and the SCFT/LST classification literature.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Completeness of the classification of 6d SCFTs and LSTs
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to identify all primitive BPS generator types and in Section 4 to use NHC and SCFT intersection rules; if the classification is incomplete, the generator list and bounds could miss cases.
  • domain assumption Every boundary of tensor moduli space hosts a tensionless BPS string
    Stated as the second assumption in Section 2.2; needed so each primitive generator falls into the classified SCFT/LST list and so the support of N describes an actual SCFT sector.
  • domain assumption b0 is effective in the BPS cone: a positive multiple of b0 is carried by a physical BPS string (Eq. 2.9)
    Supports the Zariski decomposition; established in [9] using supersymmetric compactification and the strong Cobordism Conjecture; load-bearing for all coefficient bounds.
  • domain assumption Mutual non-negativity of distinct primitive BPS generators: Ci·Cj ≥ 0 (Eq. 2.8)
    Proved in [9] using anomaly cancellation, E-string current algebra, Weyl symmetry and tension positivity; every inequality in Section 4 depends on it.
  • standard math The tensor charge lattice is integral unimodular with signature (1,T) (Eq. 2.1)
    Standard Dirac quantization / self-dual field consistency result from [33]; background for the lattice formulation.
  • domain assumption The E-string worldsheet carries an (E8)1 current algebra with left central charge 8 (Eq. 4.1)
    Used for the isolated (-2) bound and earlier worldsheet constraints; from E-string worldsheet CFT [17,18].
  • standard math Dynkin index and affine embedding level-multiplication formulas (Eq. 4.22)
    Known Lie theory from Dynkin and Panyushev; used to bound the induced worldsheet current level by the maximal E8 principal index 1240.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17037 in / 17534 out tokens · 160060 ms · 2026-08-01T00:30:56.656947+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In six-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=(1,0)$ supergravity, the structure of tensor moduli space is governed by primitive BPS string charges known as BPS generators and their intersection pairing. We derive bounds on the intersection numbers of these generators from a purely effective field theory (EFT) perspective. Although gauge anomaly cancellation constrains intersections between generators supporting gauge algebras, bounds for E-strings intersecting generators with self-intersection numbers $-2$ and $-3$ have previously remained incomplete. We show that the Zariski decomposition, interpreted as the charge lattice counterpart of the attractor mechanism, together with current algebra embeddings on the E-string worldsheet theory, yields strong universal bounds on these intersection numbers. These results establish the finiteness of tensor charge intersection numbers up to duality. The underlying structure was identified through AI-guided investigation and is proven here analytically using EFT arguments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vafa,The String Landscape and the Swampland,hep-th/0509212

    C. Vafa,The String Landscape and the Swampland,hep-th/0509212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang, and C. Vafa,Lectures on the String Landscape and the Swampland,arXiv:2212.06187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and P. C. West,Anomaly Free Chiral Theories in Six-Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B254(1985) 327–348

    1985

  4. [4]

    Sagnotti,A Note on the Green-Schwarz mechanism in open string theories,Phys

    A. Sagnotti,A Note on the Green-Schwarz mechanism in open string theories,Phys. Lett. B 294(1992) 196–203, [hep-th/9210127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  5. [5]

    Vafa,Evidence for F-theory,Nucl

    C. Vafa,Evidence for F-theory,Nucl. Phys. B469(1996) 403–418, [hep-th/9602022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa,Compactifications of F-theory on Calabi–Yau threefolds. I,Nucl. Phys. B473(1996) 74–92, [hep-th/9602114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa,Compactifications of F-theory on Calabi–Yau threefolds. II,Nucl. Phys. B476(1996) 437–469, [hep-th/9603161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    H.-C. Kim, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa,Branes and the Swampland,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 6 066006, [arXiv:1905.08261]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    H.-C. Kim, C. Vafa, and K. Xu,Finite landscape of 6d N=(1,0) supergravity,SciPost Phys.20 (2026), no. 1 016, [arXiv:2411.19155]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, T. Rudelius, and C. Vafa,Atomic Classification of 6D SCFTs, Fortsch. Phys.63(2015) 468–530, [arXiv:1502.05405]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Bhardwaj,Classification of 6dN= (1,0)gauge theories,JHEP11(2015) 002, [arXiv:1502.06594]

    L. Bhardwaj,Classification of 6dN= (1,0)gauge theories,JHEP11(2015) 002, [arXiv:1502.06594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Bhardwaj, M

    L. Bhardwaj, M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, T. Rudelius, and C. Vafa, F-theory and the Classification of Little Strings,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 8 086002, [arXiv:1511.05565]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 029901 (2019)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Bhardwaj, D

    L. Bhardwaj, D. R. Morrison, Y. Tachikawa, and A. Tomasiello,The frozen phase of F-theory, JHEP08(2018) 138, [arXiv:1805.09070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Bhardwaj,Revisiting the classifications of 6d SCFTs and LSTs,JHEP03(2020) 171, [arXiv:1903.10503]

    L. Bhardwaj,Revisiting the classifications of 6d SCFTs and LSTs,JHEP03(2020) 171, [arXiv:1903.10503]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Hamada, S

    Y. Hamada, S. Jeon, and H.-C. Kim,6d Supergravity Blocks,arXiv:2607.05496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Taylor and A

    W. Taylor and A. P. Turner,An infinite swampland ofU (1)charge spectra in 6D supergravity theories,JHEP06(2018) 010, [arXiv:1803.04447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    J. A. Minahan, D. Nemeschansky, C. Vafa, and N. P. Warner,E-Strings andN= 4 Topological Yang-Mills Theories,Nucl. Phys. B527(1998) 581–623, [hep-th/9802168]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    J. Kim, S. Kim, K. Lee, J. Park, and C. Vafa,Elliptic Genus of E-strings,JHEP09(2017) 098, [arXiv:1411.2324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    D. R. Morrison and W. Taylor,Classifying bases for 6D F-theory models,Central Eur. J. Phys. 10(2012) 1072–1088, [arXiv:1201.1943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Zariski,The theorem of Riemann–Roch for high multiples of an effective divisor on an algebraic surface,Ann

    O. Zariski,The theorem of Riemann–Roch for high multiples of an effective divisor on an algebraic surface,Ann. Math.76(1962), no. 3 560–615

    1962

  21. [21]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, and A. Strominger,N=2 extremal black holes,Phys. Rev. D52(1995) R5412–R5416, [hep-th/9508072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  22. [22]

    Ferrara and R

    S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh,Supersymmetry and attractors,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1514–1524, [hep-th/9602136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  23. [23]

    Denef,Supergravity flows and D-brane stability,JHEP08(2000) 050, [hep-th/0005049]

    F. Denef,Supergravity flows and D-brane stability,JHEP08(2000) 050, [hep-th/0005049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  24. [24]

    Het Lam and S

    H. Het Lam and S. Vandoren,BPS solutions of six-dimensional (1, 0) supergravity coupled to tensor multiplets,JHEP06(2018) 021, [arXiv:1804.04681]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    H.-C. Kim, S. Kim, and J. Park,6d strings from new chiral gauge theories, arXiv:1608.03919

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Shimizu and Y

    H. Shimizu and Y. Tachikawa,Anomaly of strings of 6dN= (1,0)theories,JHEP11(2016) 165, [arXiv:1608.05894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    E. B. Dynkin,Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras,Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 26(1957) 111–244

    1957

  28. [28]

    D. I. Panyushev,On the Dynkin index of a principalsl2-subalgebra,Adv. Math.221(2009), no. 4 1115–1121, [arXiv:0903.0398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    D. I. Panyushev,The Dynkin index andsl2-subalgebras of simple Lie algebras,J. Algebra430 (2015) 15–25, [arXiv:1311.3170]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Nishino and E

    H. Nishino and E. Sezgin,Matter and Gauge Couplings of N=2 Supergravity in Six-Dimensions,Phys. Lett. B144(1984) 187–192

    1984

  31. [31]

    Nishino and E

    H. Nishino and E. Sezgin,The Complete N=2, d=6 Supergravity With Matter and Yang-Mills Couplings,Nucl. Phys. B278(1986) 353–379

    1986

  32. [32]

    Romans,Self-duality for interacting fields: Covariant field equations for six-dimensional chiral supergravities,Nuclear Physics B276(1986), no

    L. Romans,Self-duality for interacting fields: Covariant field equations for six-dimensional chiral supergravities,Nuclear Physics B276(1986), no. 1 71–92

    1986

  33. [33]

    Seiberg and W

    N. Seiberg and W. Taylor,Charge Lattices and Consistency of 6D Supergravity,JHEP06 (2011) 001, [arXiv:1103.0019]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz,Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory,Phys. Lett. B149(1984) 117–122

    1984

  35. [35]

    Erler,Anomaly cancellation in six-dimensions,J

    J. Erler,Anomaly cancellation in six-dimensions,J. Math. Phys.35(1994) 1819–1833, [hep-th/9304104]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    Monnier, G

    S. Monnier, G. W. Moore, and D. S. Park,Quantization of anomaly coefficients in 6D N= (1,0)supergravity,JHEP02(2018) 020, [arXiv:1711.04777]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Haghighat, A

    B. Haghighat, A. Iqbal, C. Kozcaz, G. Lockhart, and C. Vafa,M-Strings,Commun. Math. Phys.334(2015), no. 2 779–842, [arXiv:1305.6322]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    S.-J. Lee, W. Lerche, and T. Weigand,Emergent strings from infinite distance limits,JHEP02 (2022) 190, [arXiv:1910.01135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    McNamara and C

    J. McNamara and C. Vafa,Cobordism Classes and the Swampland,arXiv:1909.10355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  40. [40]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Positivity of Curvature-Squared Corrections in Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017), no. 5 051601, [arXiv:1608.02942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Hamada, T

    Y. Hamada, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu,Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality, Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019), no. 5 051601, [arXiv:1810.03637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Berman and R

    A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons,Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences, vol. 9 of Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1994

    1994

  43. [43]

    Haghighat, S

    B. Haghighat, S. Murthy, C. Vafa, and S. Vandoren,F-Theory, Spinning Black Holes and Multi-string Branches,JHEP01(2016) 009, [arXiv:1509.00455]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Fujita,Zariski decomposition and canonical rings of elliptic threefolds,J

    T. Fujita,Zariski decomposition and canonical rings of elliptic threefolds,J. Math. Soc. Japan 38(1986), no. 1 19–37

    1986

  45. [45]

    Sadov,Generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism in F theory,Phys

    V. Sadov,Generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism in F theory,Phys. Lett. B388(1996) 45–50, [hep-th/9606008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  46. [46]

    B. R. Greene, A. D. Shapere, C. Vafa, and S.-T. Yau,Stringy Cosmic Strings and Noncompact Calabi-Yau Manifolds,Nucl. Phys. B337(1990) 1–36

    1990

  47. [47]

    Weigand,TASI Lectures on F-theory,PoST ASI2017(2018) 016, [arXiv:1806.01854]

    T. Weigand,TASI Lectures on F-theory,PoST ASI2017(2018) 016, [arXiv:1806.01854]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Lee and T

    S.-J. Lee and T. Weigand,Swampland Bounds on the Abelian Gauge Sector,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 2 026015, [arXiv:1905.13213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    1997

  50. [50]

    D. R. Morrison and B. Sung,On the frozen F-theory landscape,JHEP05(2024) 126, [arXiv:2310.11432]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024