Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

EFT & Species Scale: Friends or foes?

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the apparent tension between infinite towers of states and effective field theory disappears when the species scale is understood as a strong coupling scale, and demonstrates this with an explicit one-loop graviton…

desk verdict A careful 1-loop study of the species scale with an infinite tower; the KK result is believable, but the heavy-state contribution is only an EFT prediction if the tower is the whole UV. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08230 v3 pith:7APGTGV3 submitted 2025-01-14 hep-th

Bruno Valeixo Bento , João F. Melo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords speciesscaleeffectivefieldtheorygravitonpropagatorstrongcouplinginfinitetowersKaluza-Kleintowerswamplandquantumgravity
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 asks whether the 'species scale'—the scale at which a perturbative description of gravity breaks down when many fields are present—can be computed inside effective field theory when the fields form an infinite tower. It argues that it can, provided the tower is kept inside the EFT rather than integrated out, and provided the sum over tower states converges. The supporting calculation is an explicit one-loop graviton self-energy with a tower of scalars, which shows how each state contributes and why states above the strong coupling scale do not spoil the EFT as long as they appear only in internal loops. For a simple circle compactification Kaluza-Klein tower the procedure is consistent; for string-oscillator towers the sum diverges and the field-theoretic estimate should not be trusted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-loop graviton vacuum polarisation, computed explicitly for scalars of mass $m$ and then summed over a tower of states with masses $m_n = f(n)m$ and degeneracy $d_n$. The strong coupling condition is $q^2 = M_{\rm Pl}^2 - \sum_n \frac{q^2}{240\pi^2} d_n H(\alpha_n)$, with $\alpha_n = 4m_n^2/q^2$ and $H(\alpha)$ a bounded function coming from the loop integral. The convergence of the sum is governed by $\sum_n d_n/f(n)^2$, which converges for a circle-KK tower ($f(n)=n$, $d_n=2$) and diverges for string-like towers ($f(n)=\sqrt{n}$, $d_n\sim e^{\sqrt{n}}$). This machinery turns the question 'does the tower break the EFT?' into a concrete convergence test.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop correction to the graviton propagator for a circle-Kaluza-Klein tower and check whether states with masses above the one-loop strong coupling scale contribute a suppressed correction; if their two-loop contribution is not suppressed, the assumption that internal-loop states do not invalidate the EFT fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there is no fundamental conflict between infinite towers and the EFT framework when it comes to the species scale. The species scale should be understood as the gravitational strong coupling scale—the momentum at which the running gravitational mass scale $M_{\rm grav}(q^2)$ satisfies $q^2/M_{\rm grav}^2 \sim 1$—and not as the EFT cutoff itself. The computation must be done in the EFT that includes the infinite tower, not in one where the tower has been integrated out. For certain towers, such as a simple Kaluza-Klein tower from a circle compactification, the perturbative argument can be used consistently to estimate the strong coupling scale; for others, like the string tower, the argument fails.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that an effective field theory containing infinitely many massive tower states remains valid even when most of those states are heavier than the strong coupling scale, because they enter only as virtual particles in loops and never as real external particles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The species scale is an upper bound on the perturbative regime of the gravitational EFT, not necessarily the EFT cutoff; the scale suppressing higher-curvature corrections is set by unknown coefficients $a_1,a_2$ and can differ.
  • An infinite tower is compatible with the EFT when the tower is kept in the theory and appears only in internal loops; there is no need for scale separation between tower masses above and below the strong coupling scale.
  • The lightest states dominate the strong coupling scale, but when the number of states is large, heavier states can give a non-negligible 'dangerously irrelevant' contribution that lowers the scale beyond the light-states-only estimate.
  • For a circle-compactification KK tower the strong coupling scale lies partway along the tower and is close to the light-states-only estimate $M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{N_L}$; for string towers the divergent sum means the bottom-up EFT estimate should not be matched to top-down string-scale expectations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the convergence criterion $\sum_n d_n/f(n)^2$ offers a practical classification of which towers admit a purely field-theoretic species-scale estimate: polynomial degeneracy with sufficiently fast-growing masses qualifies, exponential string degeneracy does not.
  • Editorial inference: because the strong coupling scale and the EFT cutoff are logically distinct, bottom-up species-scale numbers should not be quoted as the scale suppressing higher-curvature operators unless independent UV information fixes $a_1,a_2$; string-theoretic coincidences where they agree may be special rather than generic.
  • Editorial inference: a natural next test is to include tower states on external legs; if processes producing those states change the breakdown scale, the internal-loop-only justification would need revisiting.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the "species scale" — the scale at which perturbative gravity breaks down in the presence of many fields — from the point of view of effective field theory. After a pedagogical review that distinguishes the strong-coupling scale Lambda_strong from the EFT cutoff Lambda_EFT (Section 2), it presents a complete 1-loop computation of the graviton propagator for a massive scalar minimally coupled to gravity (Section 3 and Appendix A), obtaining the running gravitational scale M_grav and Lambda_strong^grav ≈ M_Pl for a single scalar. Section 4 generalizes to N identical scalars, recovering the species-scale scaling Lambda_sp ~ M_Pl/sqrt(N) for light scalars and analyzing the heavy-mass and intermediate regimes. Section 5 treats infinite towers of scalars: the convergence of the tower sum is analyzed (Section 5.1); the sum is computed by splitting states into light (5.2.1), heavy (5.2.2) and intermediate (5.2.3) sectors, with the number of light states n_L defined self-consistently and its circularity acknowledged; and Section 5.3 argues that keeping the full tower in the EFT is consistent because tower states never appear on external legs. The central conclusion is that there is no fundamental conflict between infinite towers and the EFT framework for convergent towers such as the circle-compactification KK tower, while string-like towers make the field-theoretic sum divergent and should not be treated by state-counting arguments.

Significance. The paper's main positive contributions are: (i) a fully explicit, checkable 1-loop derivation of the graviton self-energy (Appendix A), with Ward identities verified at two stages of the computation; (ii) a clear, well-argued distinction between the strong-coupling scale and the EFT cutoff (Eq. (3.39)), which should help settle a recurring confusion in the Swampland literature; (iii) a concrete convergence analysis showing which towers (KK from a circle) are amenable to the field-theoretic computation and which (string, gonion-like) are not; and (iv) an honest accounting of assumptions, including the self-consistency of n_L and the limitation that the strong-coupling scale is not guaranteed to control higher-curvature corrections. If the central claim holds, it resolves a live debate about whether cutting infinite towers in species-scale estimates is consistent. The claims are concrete enough to be checked: the KK-tower estimate and the string-tower divergence follow explicitly from Eqs. (5.1)–(5.7).

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2.2, Eqs. (5.10)–(5.12), Fig. 8] For a state with m_n >> Lambda_strong^tower, H(alpha_n) ≈ 3q^2/(28m_n^2), so its contribution to Eq. (5.1) is proportional to q^4/m_n^2 — a local, analytic term of the same form as the R^2 and R_mu_nu^2 counterterms whose coefficients a1, a2 are unknown (Eq. (3.21)). This is precisely the situation the authors themselves declare non-predictive in §4.3: "The only contribution is a q^4 term, where the effect of these scalars appears intertwined with the unknowable a2 coefficient. There is therefore no physical significance in the scalar contribution in this case." The heavy-state correction entering (5.12) and quantified in Fig. 8 is therefore not evidently an EFT prediction; treating the tower propagators as giving the full heavy-state contribution is a scheme choice (a choice of the finite parts of a1, a2) and hence an assumption about the UV completion. The central claim that the perturbative argument can be used consistently for a KK tower requires the authors either (i) to demonstrate that the combination of heavy-state terms in (5.10)–(5.13) is independent of the renormalization scheme and of the unknown a_i, or (ii) to present (5.9) as the EFT-safe estimate and label (5.12) as an illustrative scheme-dependent refinement.
  2. [§5.2.2–5.3 ('Towers and EFTs')] The defense that states with m_n above Lambda_strong appear only on internal lines (end of §5.2.2 and §5.3) responds to the wrong concern. The loop momentum k is integrated to infinity; for a state with m_n >> Lambda_EFT the integral is dominated by virtual momenta k ~ m_n, far above the EFT cutoff, and in a Wilsonian treatment those contributions are absorbed into the counterterms rather than computed from the tower propagators. Hence the statement that "there is no need for scale separation between the masses of the scalars above and below Lambda_tower_strong" does not follow from the EFT framework itself; it presupposes that the heavy tower states have exactly the 1-loop self-energies of the full QFT, which is an assumption on the UV completion. This is the load-bearing assumption of Section 5, and the paper should flag it as such rather than presenting it as a consequence of the computation.
  3. [§5.2.3, Eqs. (5.16)–(5.19)] The linear fit H(alpha) ≈ c1 − c2*alpha with c1 ≈ 0.46, c2 ≈ 0.18 is accurate only very close to alpha = 1 (at alpha = 0.1 it gives ≈ 0.44 against the exact H ≈ 0.73; at alpha = 2 it gives ≈ 0.10 against ≈ 0.17) and turns negative for alpha ≳ 2.6, whereas the exact H(alpha) is strictly positive (cf. Fig. 4 and H ≈ 3/(7alpha) > 0 for large alpha). As a result, Eq. (5.18) contains a shift of M_Pl^2 to M_Pl^2(1 + xi_I), with xi_I = c2*vartheta_I*m^2/(60*pi^2*M_Pl^2), and (5.19) can return Lambda_strong^tower > M_Pl for sufficiently large vartheta_I, in conflict with the exact bound Lambda_strong^tower < M_Pl that follows from (5.1) together with H > 0 (compare (4.16)). The authors should state the window of validity of the linear approximation and check that (5.19) respects the exact bound; their own suggestion that the equation be solved numerically is probably the safest route.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (4.3)] In Eq. (4.3) the right-hand side reads M_Pl rather than M_Pl^2; this is a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] The notation for the tower strong-coupling scale is inconsistent (Lambda_tower_strong, Lambda_strong^tower, Lambda_strong^tower appear in different places); a single convention should be adopted.
  3. [§5.2.1] The circularity of n_L is acknowledged, but the resolution procedure is only sketched; a reader cannot tell from the text whether Fig. 9 is produced by iterating (5.8) and (5.14), by the balance condition (5.14), or by direct numerical solution of (5.1).
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption of Fig. 2 states that q^2 = m^2 corresponds to x = 4; it would be clearer to say that the argument of F is alpha = 4m^2/q^2, so that q^2 = m^2 gives alpha = 4.
  5. [§3.2] The symbol epsilon is used both for the dimensional regulator (epsilon = d − 4) and for the Feynman i*epsilon prescription; while standard, this can confuse readers of the appendix, where both appear in the same line.
  6. [end of §4.3] The comparison of the combined effect of many heavy scalars to "dangerously irrelevant contributions" is suggestive but not made precise; since the heavy-scalar contribution is a q^4 term rather than an irrelevant operator that grows toward the IR, the analogy may mislead.
  7. [§5.3] The works of Branchina et al. [58–60], which argue that scale separation is not required for KK towers, are cited in a footnote but deserve more direct engagement in Section 5.3, since the present argument is closely related yet distinct (it concerns the loop computation rather than the Wilsonian matching).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Admitted self-consistency in defining nL is the only circular step; the parameter-free 1-loop computation and the exact tower sum remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2.1 (Light states), paragraph after Eq. (5.8)]
    "It is worth remarking that the definition of nL is somewhat circular—we need to know nL to find Λtower_strong but, simultaneously, we need to know the solution to verify (5.8). This circularity is present in most estimates of the species scale for a tower of states [30]."

    Eq. (5.8) selects nL as the largest level satisfying 2 f(nL) m ≪ MPl sqrt(240π^2/(NL+240π^2)), where NL = Σ_{k≤nL} d_k depends on nL. Eq. (5.9) then returns Λtower_strong ≈ MPl sqrt(240π^2/(NL+240π^2)) using the same NL. Thus nL and Λtower_strong are mutually defined: the count of 'light states' that supposedly determines the strong-coupling scale is itself defined through that scale. The paper acknowledges the circularity and proposes a one-by-one iterative construction to justify it, and later notes that the numerical solution of the full tower equation avoids this arbitrariness; but the light-states-only estimate is, as stated, a self-consistency condition rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and not circular. Sections 2.5–3 compute the 1-loop graviton self-energy in dimensional regularization from a specified action; the strong-coupling scale follows from solving q^2/Mgrav^2(q^2)=1 with no fitted parameters. The N-scalar generalization in Section 4 and the exact tower equation (5.1) are analytic consequences of that computation. The only definitional circularity is the approximate 'light-states-only' counting in Section 5.2.1, where nL is defined via the scale it is used to compute; the paper flags this explicitly and resolves it by an iterative procedure and, ultimately, by solving the full equation numerically. The skeptic's concern about summing states above the EFT cutoff is a physical assumption about the validity of including such internal states, not a circular reduction: the paper's own caveat that 'adding a known quantity to an unknown one does not give us more knowledge' qualifies the reliability of the heavy-state contribution without making the derivation tautological. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The partial circularity in nL lowers the score but does not destroy the independent content of the main computation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained except for the definition of the strong coupling scale and the assumption that the tower-containing EFT is valid for internal heavy states. The c1,c2 linear fit and the n_L cutoff are the only hand-chosen elements.

free parameters (2)
  • c1, c2 (linear fit to H(alpha)) = c1 ≈ 0.46, c2 ≈ 0.18
    Used in Eq. (5.16) to approximate H(alpha) ≈ c1 - c2*alpha for intermediate states with alpha ≈ 1; chosen by fitting the known function H, affecting only the closed-form approximation (5.19), not the numerical result.
  • n_L (number of light states) = determined self-consistently via (5.14)
    The split between light and heavy states is not unique; n_L is chosen so that states below are light and states above are heavy, but this requires knowing the strong coupling scale in advance, as acknowledged in Section 5.2.1.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Dimensional regularization and Feynman parametrization are valid and preserve gauge invariance.
    Used throughout Section 3 and Appendix A for the 1-loop integrals.
  • domain assumption The strong coupling scale is defined by q^2 = M_grav^2(q), where M_grav is the renormalized gravitational mass scale.
    This is the operational definition of the species scale in Section 3.5 and is used to solve for Lambda_strong.
  • domain assumption The contribution of N identical scalars is N times the single-scalar contribution, with no interactions among scalars.
    Used in Section 4 to generalize the 1-loop result to N fields, ignoring scalar self-interactions or other species.
  • domain assumption The EFT used is the one that includes the infinite tower, and external momenta stay below the strong coupling scale.
    Invoked in Section 5.3 to argue that tower states in internal loops do not require scale separation.
  • domain assumption The tower sum converges; for example a KK tower with f(n)=n and d_n=2 converges, while string towers diverge.
    Section 5.1 restricts the analysis to convergent towers; the central claim does not apply to stringy towers.
  • domain assumption Higher-loop corrections and other unknown states are subleading.
    The perturbative treatment assumes the 1-loop result dominates and that the EFT expansion is valid up to the strong coupling scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EFT & Species Scale: Friends or foes?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7APGTGV3

@misc{pith2026250108230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EFT & Species Scale: Friends or foes?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7APGTGV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08230}
}
read the original abstract

Recently the notion that quantum gravity effects could manifest at scales much lower than the Planck scale has seen an intense Swamplandish revival. Dozens of works have explored how the so-called species scale -- at which an effective description of gravity must break down -- relates to String Theory and the Swampland conjectures. In particular, the interplay between this scale and the abundant towers of states becoming lighter in asymptotic regions of moduli spaces has proved to be key in understanding the real scale of quantum gravity. Nevertheless concerns have been raised regarding the validity of using infinite towers of states when estimating this scale within Effective Field Theory and, more precisely, the consistency of cutting the tower part way through in a framework that relies on a clear separation of scales. In this work we take an EFT point-of-view and provide a detailed perturbative derivation of the species scale -- by computing the 1-loop graviton propagator in the presence of many fields -- thereby clarifying common sources of confusion in the literature. Not only do we clarify the setup, assumptions and regimes of validity of the result, but more importantly apply the same methods to an infinite tower of states. We show how each state in the tower contributes to the species scale and how the procedure of counting only ''light fields'' can be compatible with not cutting the tower, thereby maintaining the harmony between infinite towers and EFTs even in the context of the species scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams contributing to the graviton propagator involving only scalar field loops. P µνρσ = 1 2 (η µρη νσ + η µση νρ − η µνη ρσ). (3.4) From this action one can derive the Feynman rules needed to compute the 1-loop correction to the graviton propagator due to the scalar field, = −i 1 MPl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the function F(x) defined in (3.18). The argument of F(x) is always α = 4m2 q 2 , so that the limit q 2 → 0 corresponds to x → ∞ and q 2 = m2 corresponds to x = 4. 3.4 Counterterms In order to cancel these divergences, one must introduce counterterms in the original action and choose their coefficients appropriately. The counterterm action is Sc.t. = Z d 4x √ −g n δΛ + M2 Pl 2 δZg · R − 1 2 δZϕ · ∇µϕ∇µϕ − 1 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of (3.30), rescalled by the factor 960π 2 . We can see that in the limit q 2 ≫ 4m2 (i.e. α ≪ 1), Mgrav decreases at a constant rate, while in the limit q 2 ≪ 4m2 (i.e. α ≫ 1), Mgrav is approximately constant. Physically, we can interpret this as the scale Mgrav running (to smaller values) at energies much higher than m2 and not running at energies much smaller than m2 , at which the scalar could be integrated o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In terms of the function H(q 2 ) we can clearly still see the behaviour from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Strong coupling scale as a function of m/MPl for different values of N. m = 10-3 MPl m = MPl m = 103 MPl ∝ 1 N ∝ 1 N1/4 10 1000 105 107 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 N Λstrong MPl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Strong coupling scale as a function of N for different values of m/MPl. with H(α) = 1 + 5 2 α  5 6 − F(α)  − 5 4 α 2 (1 − F(α)). (4.6) Writing it fully in terms of α, it becomes clear that the solution depends only on the parameters m/MPl and N, α 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strong coupling scale as a function of the parameter ξ (4.13), which depends on both the number of scalars N and their mass m/MPl. The black line corresponds to the exact solution from (4.14) and the dashed gray line to the first order approximation for small ξ (4.17).…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of the difference between Λ grav strong obtained from (5.12) including the correction from the heavy states and the one obtained from the light-states-only estimate (5.9). Note that for m ∼ MPl, the two result agree—this is simply reflecting the fact that Λ grav s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Strong coupling scale as a function of the mass of the lightest scalar for a KK tower. The solid curve includes both light and heavy states, corresponding to the solution (5.12). The dot-dashed line only includes the light states and corresponds to the solution (5.9). …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Tame Complexity of Effective Field Theories in the Quantum Gravity Landscape

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Effective field theories consistent with quantum gravity are conjectured to have uniformly bounded 'tame complexity', a quantitative measure of the information needed to specify them.

  2. The Double EFT Expansion in Quantum Gravity

    hep-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quantum gravity EFT actions organize higher-curvature corrections into a field-theoretic expansion suppressed by the lightest new mass and a quantum-gravitational expansion suppressed by the species scale.

  3. Kaluza-Klein tower thresholds and scheme dependence of the species scale

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Leading KK-tower local corrections to four-derivative gravity are regulator-dependent EFT matching data, while log N terms are universal within proper-time cutoffs, so species-scale definitions match only parametrically.

  4. Classical Black Hole Probes of UV Scales

    hep-th 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Minimal classical BPS black holes in string compactifications track the species or KK scale in infinite-distance limits, and violations may signal inconsistent EFTs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quan- tum corrections

    John F. Donoghue. “General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quan- tum corrections”. In:Physical Review D50.6 (Sept. 1994), pp. 3874–3888.issn: 0556-

    1994

  2. [2]

    Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effec- tive Field Theory

    Cliff P. Burgess. “Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effec- tive Field Theory”. In:Living Reviews in Relativity7.1 (Apr. 2004).issn: 1433-8351. doi: 10.12942/lrr-2004-5. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2004-5

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-5 2004

  3. [3]

    Donoghue, Mikhail M

    John F. Donoghue, Mikhail M. Ivanov, and Andrey Shkerin.EPFL Lectures on Gen- eral Relativity as a Quantum Field Theory. 2017. arXiv:1702.00319 [hep-th]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00319

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    C. P. Burgess. Introduction to Effective Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, Dec.2020. isbn:978-1-139-04804-0,978-0-521-19547-8. doi: 10.1017/9781139048040

    doi:10.1017/9781139048040 2020

  5. [5]

    Quantum General Relativity and Effective Field Theory

    John F. Donoghue. “Quantum General Relativity and Effective Field Theory”. In:

    work page

  6. [6]

    Large N bounds on, and compositeness limit of, gauge and gravita- tional interactions

    G. Veneziano. “Large N bounds on, and compositeness limit of, gauge and gravita- tional interactions”. In:JHEP 06 (2002), p. 051.doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/ 2002

  7. [7]

    Scale of quantum gravity

    Tao Han and Scott Willenbrock. “Scale of quantum gravity”. In:Physics Letters B 616.3–4 (June 2005), pp. 215–220.issn: 0370-2693.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005. 04.040. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.04.040

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005 2005

  8. [8]

    Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem

    Gia Dvali. “Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem”. In: Fortsch. Phys. 58 (2010), pp. 528–536. doi: 10.1002/prop.201000009 . arXiv: 0706.2050 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quan- tumGravityatLHC

    Gia Dvali and Michele Redi. “Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quan- tumGravityatLHC”.In: Phys. Rev. D77(2008),p.045027. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 77.045027. arXiv: 0710.4344 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Predictive landscapes and new physics at a TeV

    Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Shamit Kachru. “Predictive landscapes and new physics at a TeV”. In: (Jan. 2005). arXiv:hep-th/0501082

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Random polynomials and the friendly land- scape

    Jacques Distler and Uday Varadarajan. “Random polynomials and the friendly land- scape”. In: (July 2005). arXiv:hep-th/0507090

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Species and Strings

    Gia Dvali and Cesar Gomez. “Species and Strings”. In: (Apr. 2010). arXiv:1004.3744 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    On the running of the gravitational constant

    Mohamed M. Anber and John F. Donoghue. “On the running of the gravitational constant”. In:Phys. Rev. D85 (2012), p. 104016.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.104016. arXiv: 1111.2875 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Self-healing of unitarity in effective field theories and the onset of new physics

    Ufuk Aydemir, Mohamed M. Anber, and John F. Donoghue. “Self-healing of unitarity in effective field theories and the onset of new physics”. In:Phys. Rev. D86 (2012), p. 014025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014025. arXiv: 1203.5153 [hep-ph]. – 58 –

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Graviton propagator, renormalization scale and black-hole like states

    X. Calmet et al. “Graviton propagator, renormalization scale and black-hole like states”. In: Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017), pp. 332–337. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . physletb . 2017.09.080. arXiv: 1708.01485 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity

    Simon Caron-Huot et al. “Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity”. In: JHEP 05 (2023), p. 122. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2023)122 . arXiv: 2201.06602 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The String landscape and the swampland

    Cumrun Vafa. “The String landscape and the swampland”. In: (Sept. 2005). arXiv: hep-th/0509212

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Swampland: Introduction and Review

    Eran Palti. “The Swampland: Introduction and Review”. In: Fortsch. Phys. 67.6 (2019), p. 1900037.doi: 10.1002/prop.201900037. arXiv: 1903.06239 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    LecturesontheSwamplandPrograminStringCompactifica- tions

    MariekevanBeestetal.“LecturesontheSwamplandPrograminStringCompactifica- tions”. In:Phys. Rept.989 (2022), pp. 1–50.doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.002. arXiv: 2102.01111 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The String Landscape, the Swampland, and the Missing Corner

    T. Daniel Brennan, Federico Carta, and Cumrun Vafa. “The String Landscape, the Swampland, and the Missing Corner”. In:PoS TASI2017 (2017), p. 015. doi: 10 . 22323/1.305.0015. arXiv: 1711.00864 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The Swampland Conjectures: A Bridge from Quantum Gravity to Particle Physics

    Mariana Graña and Alvaro Herráez. “The Swampland Conjectures: A Bridge from Quantum Gravity to Particle Physics”. In:Universe 7.8 (2021), p. 273. doi: 10 . 3390/universe7080273. arXiv: 2107.00087 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lectures on the string landscape and the Swamp- land

    Nathan Benjamin Agmon et al. “Lectures on the string landscape and the Swamp- land”. In: (Dec. 2022). arXiv:2212.06187 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beginners lectures on flux compactifi- cations and related Swampland topics

    Thomas Van Riet and Gianluca Zoccarato. “Beginners lectures on flux compactifi- cations and related Swampland topics”. In:Phys. Rept.1049 (2024), pp. 1–51.doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2023.11.003. arXiv: 2305.01722 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland

    Hirosi Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa. “On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland”. In:Nucl. Phys. B766 (2007), pp. 21–33.doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb. 2006.10.033. arXiv: hep-th/0605264

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Stringy evidence for a uni- versal pattern at infinite distance

    Alberto Castellano, Ignacio Ruiz, and Irene Valenzuela. “Stringy evidence for a uni- versal pattern at infinite distance”. In: JHEP 06 (2024), p. 037. doi: 10 . 1007 / JHEP06(2024)037. arXiv: 2311.01536 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Universal Pattern in Quan- tum Gravity at Infinite Distance

    Alberto Castellano, Ignacio Ruiz, and Irene Valenzuela. “Universal Pattern in Quan- tum Gravity at Infinite Distance”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.132.18 (2024), p. 181601.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.181601. arXiv: 2311.01501 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Taxonomy of Infinite Distance Limits

    Muldrow Etheredge et al. “Taxonomy of Infinite Distance Limits”. In: (May 2024). arXiv: 2405.20332 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Persistence of the pattern in the interior of 5d moduli spaces

    Tom Rudelius. “Persistence of the pattern in the interior of 5d moduli spaces”. In: Phys. Lett. B853 (2024), p. 138640.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138640. arXiv: 2312.00120 [hep-th]. – 59 –

    2024

  21. [29]

    The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland

    Alberto Castellano. “The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland”. PhD thesis. U. Autonoma, Madrid (main), 2024. arXiv:2409.10003 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The emergence proposal in quantum gravity and the species scale

    Alberto Castellano, Alvaro Herráez, and Luis E. Ibáñez. “The emergence proposal in quantum gravity and the species scale”. In:JHEP 06 (2023), p. 047.doi: 10.1007/ JHEP06(2023)047. arXiv: 2212.03908 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Moduli-dependent species scale

    Damian van de Heisteeg et al. “Moduli-dependent species scale”. In:Beijing J. Pure Appl. Math. 1.1 (2024), pp. 1–41. doi: 10 . 4310 / bpam . 2024 . v1 . n1 . a1. arXiv: 2212.06841 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Black hole entropy and moduli- dependent species scale

    Niccolò Cribiori, Dieter Lüst, and Georgina Staudt. “Black hole entropy and moduli- dependent species scale”. In:Phys. Lett. B844 (2023), p. 138113.doi: 10.1016/j. physletb.2023.138113. arXiv: 2212.10286 [hep-th]

    2023

  25. [33]

    Bounds on Species Scale and the Distance Conjecture

    Damian van de Heisteeg, Cumrun Vafa, and Max Wiesner. “Bounds on Species Scale and the Distance Conjecture”. In:Fortsch. Phys. 71.10-11 (2023), p. 2300143. doi: 10.1002/prop.202300143. arXiv: 2303.13580 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Species scale in diverse dimensions

    Damian van de Heisteeg et al. “Species scale in diverse dimensions”. In: JHEP 05 (2024), p. 112.doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)112. arXiv: 2310.07213 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On the Species Scale, Mod- ular Invariance and the Gravitational EFT expansion

    Alberto Castellano, Alvaro Herráez, and Luis E. Ibáñez. “On the Species Scale, Mod- ular Invariance and the Gravitational EFT expansion”. In: (Oct. 2023). arXiv:2310. 07708 [hep-th]

    2023

  28. [36]

    Species entropy and thermo- dynamics

    Niccolò Cribiori, Dieter Lust, and Carmine Montella. “Species entropy and thermo- dynamics”. In: JHEP 10 (2023), p. 059. doi: 10 . 1007 / JHEP10(2023 ) 059. arXiv: 2305.10489 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shedding black hole light on the emergent string conjecture

    Ivano Basile, Dieter Lüst, and Carmine Montella. “Shedding black hole light on the emergent string conjecture”. In:JHEP 07 (2024), p. 208.doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Minimal black holes and species thermodynamics

    Ivano Basile et al. “Minimal black holes and species thermodynamics”. In:JHEP 06 (2024), p. 127.doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2024)127. arXiv: 2401.06851 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    On the Origin of Species Thermodynamics and the Black Hole - Tower Correspondence

    Alvaro Herráez et al. “On the Origin of Species Thermodynamics and the Black Hole - Tower Correspondence”. In: (June 2024). arXiv:2406.17851 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wormholes in the axiverse, and the species scale

    Luca Martucci et al. “Wormholes in the axiverse, and the species scale”. In:JHEP 07 (2024), p. 240.doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)240. arXiv: 2404.14489 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Axion species scale and axion weak gravity conjecture-like bound

    Min-Seok Seo. “Axion species scale and axion weak gravity conjecture-like bound”. In: JHEP 11 (2024), p. 082. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2024)082 . arXiv: 2407.16156 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The Tale of Three Scales: the Planck, theSpecies,andtheBlackHoleScales

    Alek Bedroya, Cumrun Vafa, and David H. Wu. “The Tale of Three Scales: the Planck, theSpecies,andtheBlackHoleScales”.In:(Mar.2024).arXiv: 2403.18005 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Continuum effective field the- ories, gravity, and holography

    Sylvain Fichet, Eugenio Megias, and Mariano Quiros. “Continuum effective field the- ories, gravity, and holography”. In:Phys. Rev. D107.9 (2023), p. 096016.doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.107.096016. arXiv: 2208.12273 [hep-ph]. – 60 –

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    1/N resolution to infla- tionary η-problem

    A. Ashoorioon, U. Danielsson, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari. “1/N resolution to infla- tionary η-problem”. In: Phys. Lett. B 713 (2012), pp. 353–357. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . physletb.2012.06.034. arXiv: 1112.2272 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    BumpingintotheSpeciesScalewiththeScalarPotential

    DavidAndriot.“BumpingintotheSpeciesScalewiththeScalarPotential”.In: Fortsch. Phys.71.10-11(2023),p.2300139. doi: 10.1002/prop.202300139.arXiv: 2305.07480 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A Note on Modular Invariant Species Scale and Potentials

    Niccolò Cribiori and Dieter Lüst. “A Note on Modular Invariant Species Scale and Potentials”. In: Fortsch. Phys. 71.10-11 (2023), p. 2300150. doi: 10 . 1002 / prop . 202300150. arXiv: 2306.08673 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Species Scale and Primordial Gravitational Waves

    Marco Scalisi. “Species Scale and Primordial Gravitational Waves”. In:Fortsch. Phys. 72.6(2024),p.2400033. doi: 10.1002/prop.202400033.arXiv: 2401.09533 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Modular Invariant Starobinsky Inflation and the Species Scale

    Gonzalo F. Casas and Luis E. Ibáñez. “Modular Invariant Starobinsky Inflation and the Species Scale”. In: (July 2024). arXiv:2407.12081 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Inflationary constraints on the moduli-dependent species scale in modular invariant theories

    Shuntaro Aoki and Hajime Otsuka. “Inflationary constraints on the moduli-dependent species scale in modular invariant theories”. In: (Nov. 2024). arXiv: 2411 . 08467 [hep-th]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Emergence of R4-terms in M-theory

    Ralph Blumenhagen et al. “Emergence of R4-terms in M-theory”. In:JHEP 07 (2024), p. 018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)018. arXiv: 2404.01371 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    arXiv: hep-th/0110129

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Demystifying the Emergence Proposal

    Ralph Blumenhagen et al. “Demystifying the Emergence Proposal”. In: JHEP 04 (2024), p. 053.doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2024)053. arXiv: 2309.11551 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The emer- gence proposal and the emergent string

    Ralph Blumenhagen, Aleksandar Gligovic, and Antonia Paraskevopoulou. “The emer- gence proposal and the emergent string”. In:JHEP 10 (2023), p. 145.doi: 10.1007/ JHEP10(2023)145. arXiv: 2305.10490 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjec- ture

    Daniel Harlow. “Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjec- ture”. In: JHEP 01 (2016), p. 122. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)122 . arXiv: 1510. 07911 [hep-th]

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Emergent M-theory limit

    Ralph Blumenhagen et al. “Emergent M-theory limit”. In:Phys. Rev. D109.2 (2024), p. L021901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L021901. arXiv: 2309.11554 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Emergence of Weak Coupling at Large Distance in Quantum Gravity

    Ben Heidenreich, Matthew Reece, and Tom Rudelius. “Emergence of Weak Coupling at Large Distance in Quantum Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.121.5 (2018), p. 051601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051601. arXiv: 1802.08698 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Perils of towers in the swamp: dark dimensions and therobustnessofEFTs

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo. “Perils of towers in the swamp: dark dimensions and therobustnessofEFTs”.In: JHEP 09(2023),p.159. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2023)159. arXiv: 2304.03902 [hep-th]. – 61 –

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Naturalness and UV sensitivity in Kaluza-Klein theories

    Carlo Branchina, Vincenzo Branchina, and Filippo Contino. “Naturalness and UV sensitivity in Kaluza-Klein theories”. In:Phys. Rev. D108.4 (2023), p. 045007.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.045007. arXiv: 2304.08040 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Infinite Distances in Field Space and Massless Towers of States

    Thomas W. Grimm, Eran Palti, and Irene Valenzuela. “Infinite Distances in Field Space and Massless Towers of States”. In:JHEP 08 (2018), p. 143. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP08(2018)143. arXiv: 1802.08264 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Dark Dimension and the Effective Field Theory limit

    Carlo Branchina et al. “Dark Dimension and the Effective Field Theory limit”. In: (Apr. 2024). doi: 10.1142/S0219887824503031. arXiv: 2404.10068 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    The Double EFT Expansion in Quantum Gravity

    José Calderón-Infante, Alberto Castellano, and Alvaro Herráez. “The Double EFT Expansion in Quantum Gravity”. In: (Jan. 2025). arXiv:2501.14880 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sharp boundaries for the swampland

    Simon Caron-Huot et al. “Sharp boundaries for the swampland”. In:JHEP 07 (2021), p. 110. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)110. arXiv: 2102.08951 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Does the Cosmological Constant really indicate the existence of a Dark Dimension?

    Carlo Branchina et al. “Does the Cosmological Constant really indicate the existence of a Dark Dimension?” In: (Aug. 2023). arXiv:2308.16548 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies

    Simon Caron-Huot and Junsei Tokuda. “String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies”. In: JHEP 11 (2024), p. 055. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2024)055. arXiv: 2406.07606 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole

    Lasma Alberte et al. “Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole”. In:Phys. Rev. D 102.12 (2020), p. 125023.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.125023. arXiv:2007.12667 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Emergence of species scale black hole horizons

    José Calderón-Infante, Matilda Delgado, and Angel M. Uranga. “Emergence of species scale black hole horizons”. In:JHEP 01 (2024), p. 003.doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2024)

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory

    Simon Caron-Huot and Yue-Zhou Li. “Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory”. In: (Aug. 2024). arXiv:2408.06440 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Review of Particle Physics

    S Navas. “Review of Particle Physics”. In:Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), p. 030001

    2024

  61. [69]

    ULTRAVIOLET DIVERGENCES IN QUANTUM THEORIES OF GRAVITATION

    Steven Weinberg. “ULTRAVIOLET DIVERGENCES IN QUANTUM THEORIES OF GRAVITATION”. In:General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey. 1980, pp. 790–831

    1980

  62. [70]

    The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity

    Max Niedermaier and Martin Reuter. “The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity”. In:Living Rev. Rel.9 (2006), pp. 5–173.doi: 10.12942/lrr-2006-5

    2006 doi

  63. [71]

    arXiv: 2310.04488 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    An attempt of a theory of beta radiation. 1

    E. Fermi. “An attempt of a theory of beta radiation. 1.” In: Z. Phys. 88 (1934), pp. 161–177. doi: 10.1007/BF01351864

    1934 doi

  65. [73]

    Green, John H

    Michael B. Green, John H. Schwarz, and Edward Witten.Superstring Theory Vol. 1: 25th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cam- bridge University Press, Nov. 2012.isbn: 978-1-139-53477-2, 978-1-107-02911-8.doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139248563. – 62 –

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    Intersecting brane worlds

    G. Aldazabal et al. “Intersecting brane worlds”. In: JHEP 02 (2001), p. 047. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/02/047. arXiv: hep-ph/0011132

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Yukawa Couplings at Infinite Distance and Swampland Towers in Chiral Theories

    Gonzalo F. Casas, Luis E. Ibáñez, and Fernando Marchesano. “Yukawa Couplings at Infinite Distance and Swampland Towers in Chiral Theories”. In: (Mar. 2024). arXiv: 2403.09775 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Are nonrenormalizable gauge theories renor- malizable?

    Joaquim Gomis and Steven Weinberg. “Are nonrenormalizable gauge theories renor- malizable?” In:Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996), pp. 473–487.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(96) 00132-0. arXiv: hep-th/9510087

    1996 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Can you hear the Planck mass?

    G. Bruno De Luca et al. “Can you hear the Planck mass?” In:JHEP 08 (2024), p. 123. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2024)123. arXiv: 2406.00095 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [81]

    The Anthropic landscape of string theory

    Leonard Susskind. “The Anthropic landscape of string theory”. In: (Feb. 2003). Ed. by Bernard J. Carr, pp. 247–266. arXiv:hep-th/0302219

    2003 arXiv

  71. [82]

    The F-theory geometry with most flux vacua

    Washington Taylor and Yi-Nan Wang. “The F-theory geometry with most flux vacua”. In: JHEP 12 (2015), p. 164. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2015)164 . arXiv: 1511.03209 [hep-th]. – 63 –

    2015 arXiv

  72. [208]

    arXiv: 2311.12113 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  73. [2023]

    arXiv: 2211.09902 [hep-th]

    doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_1-1 . arXiv: 2211.09902 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  74. [2821]

    1103 / physrevd

    doi: 10 . 1103 / physrevd . 50 . 3874. url: http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD.50.3874

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.