K\"ahler moduli stabilization from ten dimensions

Ander Retolaza; Iosif Bena; Mariana Gra\~na; Nicolas Kovensky

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

K\"ahler moduli stabilization from ten dimensions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A ten-dimensional supersymmetry equation keeps the D7-brane four-cycle at finite size and reproduces the four-dimensional vacuum condition, giving a ten-dimensional account of Kähler-moduli stabilization.

desk verdict The qualitative 10D mechanism is a genuine contribution, but the quantitative match to KKLT is not demonstrated because the coefficient k is left undetermined. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01785 v2 pith:QP7PF2H3 submitted 2019-08-05 hep-th

Iosif Bena , Mariana Graña , Nicolas Kovensky , Ander Retolaza This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords KählermodulistabilizationgauginocondensationD7-branesten-dimensionalsupergravitygeneralizedcomplexgeometryAdS4compactificationdynamicSU(2)structure

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 aims to show that Kähler-modulus stabilization in the standard flux compactification construction is not merely a four-dimensional effective-field-theory artifact but follows from ten-dimensional supergravity once nonperturbative gaugino condensation on D7-branes is included. Working in supersymmetric AdS$_4$ compactifications, the authors argue that the ten-dimensional supersymmetry equation (3.5) forces the four-cycle wrapped by the D7-branes to remain at finite size: the nonzero cosmological constant prevents the cycle from shrinking, unlike ordinary geometric transitions in flat space. Matching the supergravity solution very close to the branes, where the condensate source dominates, with the solution far away, where the cosmological constant dominates, gives a relation between the four-cycle volume and the vacuum energy, equation (4.24). This relation reproduces, up to a numerical coefficient, the known four-dimensional vacuum condition (1.2), which the paper takes as confirmation that the effective-field-theory description captures the relevant physics. If correct, this supplies a ten-dimensional mechanism for Kähler-moduli stabilization and a foundation for later attempts to uplift the vacuum energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified ten-dimensional supersymmetry equation (3.5), which adds a localized nonperturbative source to the standard pure-spinor F-flatness condition of generalized complex geometry, where the internal geometry is encoded in the two pure spinors $\Psi_1,\Psi_2$: $d_H(e^{3A-\varphi}\Psi_2)=2i\mu e^{2A-\varphi}\mathrm{Im}\Psi_1+2i\langle S\rangle\delta^\alpha_{9-p}[\Sigma]$. Here $A$ is the warp factor, $\varphi$ the dilaton, $\mu$ the on-shell superpotential, and $\delta^\alpha_{9-p}[\Sigma]$ is the Poincaré-dual form that localizes the gaugino condensate on the wrapped cycle. For D7-branes the source is a two-form $\delta^2[\Sigma_4]$; because $\mu\neq 0$, the equation no longer forces this form to be exact, which is what keeps the cycle at finite size. The same equation, in the resolved-$\mathbb{C}^3/\mathbb{Z}_3$ example, yields the matching condition (4.17) and, after rewriting in terms of the cycle volume, the stabilization equation (4.24).

What would settle it

A direct field-theory calculation of the gaugino bilinear $\langle\lambda\lambda\rangle$ on a D7-brane worldvolume with an AdS$_4$ factor would settle the key assumption: if the condensate vanishes, the localized source in (3.5) is absent and the claimed stabilization mechanism fails. Alternatively, a complete ten-dimensional solution satisfying all supersymmetry and Bianchi equations in which the wrapped four-cycle can shrink to zero while $\mu\neq 0$ would contradict the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the back-reaction of a D7-brane gaugino condensate in a supersymmetric AdS$_4$ compactification is governed by the quantum-corrected supersymmetry equation $d_H(e^{3A-\varphi}\Psi_2) = 2i\mu e^{2A-\varphi}\mathrm{Im}\Psi_1 + 2i\langle S\rangle \delta^\alpha_{9-p}[\Sigma]$, where $\mu$ is the on-shell superpotential (with cosmological constant $\Lambda=-3|\mu|^2$) and $\langle S\rangle$ is the gaugino condensate localized on the wrapped four-cycle $\Sigma_4$. Because $\mu\neq 0$, the localized source form is not exact, so the cycle cannot be dissolved through a geometric transition; its volume is kept finite. In a resolved-$\mathbb{C}^3/\mathbb{Z}_3$ example with a dynamic $SU(2)$ structure—a generalized-geometry configuration in which the two internal supersymmetry spinors have a position-dependent relative angle—matching the solution near the branes, where the condensate dominates, with the solution far from them, where the cosmological constant dominates, yields the stabilization equation (4.24), equivalent up to a coefficient to the four-dimensional F-term condition (1.2). The paper concludes that Kähler-moduli stabilization has a genuine ten-dimensional origin and that the internal geometry is deformed away from Calabi-Yau into a dynamic $SU(2)$ structure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated rather than derived in the paper, is that gaugino condensation actually forms on D7-branes whose worldvolume has an AdS$_4$ factor and that it generates the localized exponential superpotential source in equation (3.5); if condensation does not occur there, the finite-size mechanism and the matching relation (4.24) would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The size of the wrapped four-cycle is fixed by a ten-dimensional balance between the localized gaugino condensate and the negative four-dimensional cosmological constant, so Kähler-moduli stabilization is a genuine higher-dimensional effect rather than an artifact of four-dimensional supergravity.
The matching of near-brane and far-brane solutions reproduces the four-dimensional vacuum condition (1.2) up to a numerical coefficient, supporting the validity of effective-field-theory descriptions of this sector.
A nonzero cosmological constant is required for the stabilization: in flat space the same supersymmetry equation would let the cycle undergo a geometric transition and shrink, so the cycle would not survive as a finite-volume object.
In a supersymmetric AdS$_4$ vacuum, backgrounds with D5-brane-type Killing spinors are excluded even after adding nonperturbative effects, ruling out certain classes of throats from such compactifications.
The internal manifold is deformed from Calabi-Yau to a dynamic $SU(2)$ structure; far from the branes this approaches an $SU(3)$-like structure, so smeared descriptions capture the physics far away but miss the localized stabilization mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper stops short of deriving the ten-dimensional stabilization equation for Euclidean D3-instanton corrections; repeating the near/far matching with the replacement $N_{D7}\to 1$ would give a testable extension of the same machinery.
The same matching procedure could serve as a consistency test for de Sitter uplift proposals: any anti-brane addition must be embedded in the dynamic-$SU(2)$ geometry with the finite-size cycle, and the near/far equations would determine whether the uplift is compatible with the stabilized vacuum.
A field-theory computation of the gaugino condensate on an AdS$_4$-factor D7 worldvolume would directly test the premise the paper assumes, deciding whether the localized source in (3.5) exists in the first place.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The useful part of this paper is the qualitative 10D picture; the quantitative claim is not established. What is actually new: the observation that in AdS4 the modified supersymmetry equation (3.5) has a nonzero µ term on the right, so the localized source δ2[Σ4] is not exact and the D7 four-cycle is not forced through the usual geometric transition. That is a real step and it gives a clean physical interpretation: the cosmological constant keeps the wrapped cycle finite, which is the 10D seed of Kähler moduli stabilization. The use of generalized complex geometry is appropriate, and connecting the Koerber–Martucci source to the dynamic SU(2) structure of [35] is well done.

The soft spots are real, but most of them are on the table. The advertised quantitative check—matching near- and far-brane solutions to produce (4.24)—is underdetermined. The constant k in (4.21)–(4.24) is defined by an integral over the cycle, but no value or bound is computed. With k free, the 10D relation has the KKLT functional form only up to an arbitrary numerical coefficient; it does not fix σ* and does not quantitatively confirm (1.2). The paper's own Section 5 concedes that only limits of the full solution were matched and the full modified supersymmetry equations are left for future work. Also, footnote 8 and Section 5 explicitly assume gaugino condensation occurs on an AdS4 worldvolume and produces the exponential superpotential; if that assumption fails, the source term in (3.5) and the matching do not follow. These gaps are acknowledged honestly, which I respect—but they are load-bearing, not cosmetic.

I don't think the stress-test note is too harsh. The paper would be stronger if it either computed k in the explicit P2 example or explicitly reframed the result as 'functional-form agreement up to a coefficient determined by the IR solution.' That said, the qualitative conclusion—that a nonzero cosmological constant obstructs the shrinking transition and stabilizes the cycle—is plausible and supported by the structure of the equations, even if not proven at the level of a complete solution.

Who gets value: anyone working on 10D descriptions of KKLT, string phenomenology, or generalized geometry. The citation pattern is normal for the subfield and the paper engages properly with the recent literature. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for the k computation or a softened quantitative claim, but this is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ten-dimensional back-reaction of D7-brane gaugino condensates in supersymmetric AdS4 compactifications of type IIB string theory with fluxes, using generalized complex geometry and the dynamic SU(2) structure of reference [35]. Its central qualitative claim is that the modified supersymmetry equation (3.5)/(3.7) implies that the four-cycle wrapped by the branes cannot shrink when the four-dimensional cosmological constant is nonzero, so the usual geometric transition is avoided. Its central quantitative claim is that matching the near-brane and far-brane solutions yields equation (4.24), which the authors state agrees with the KKLT F-term condition (1.2). The paper also derives constraints excluding D5-brane-type Killing spinors in supersymmetric AdS compactifications, in particular ruling out Maldacena-Núñez and baryonic-branch throats in such settings.

Significance. If the qualitative mechanism is correct, it is a valuable step toward a ten-dimensional understanding of Kähler moduli stabilization, and the dynamic SU(2) structure provides a concrete geometric framework in which localized gaugino condensation can be studied beyond smeared-instanton approximations. The use of generalized complex geometry makes the supersymmetry conditions compact and the matching equations are explicit, so the claims are checkable. However, the quantitative claim is substantially weakened by an undetermined coefficient k in equations (4.21)-(4.24), by the use of four-dimensional EFT relations as inputs, and by the explicitly conceded assumption that gaugino condensation occurs on an AdS4 brane worldvolume; the result should therefore be read as a consistency check rather than an independent derivation of the KKLT relation.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.21)-(4.24)] The advertised quantitative check is underdetermined because the constant k is never computed. Equation (4.24) contains the coefficient 3k/pi^2 in place of the EFT coefficient 2/3 in (1.2), and k is defined through (4.22) only as an integral over the IR solution. Since no value or bound for k is derived, the relation (4.24) can be made to hold at essentially any desired sigma* by an appropriate choice of k, so the matching calculation neither predicts sigma* nor quantitatively confirms (1.2). This is a load-bearing gap for the paper's claim that the ten-dimensional result confirms the validity of the KKLT relation.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.7)] The argument that a nonzero cosmological constant prevents the four-cycle from shrinking is stated rather than proven. From d(e^{3A-phi}Psi2) = 2i mu e^{2A-phi}Im Psi1 - 2i<S>delta2[Sigma4], the conclusion that delta2[Sigma4] is not exact requires establishing that the cohomology class of the right-hand side is non-trivial and is not cancelled by the mu-dependent term. The text asserts this from mu != 0, but no cohomological computation is presented, so the reader cannot verify that the localized class survives in the relevant cohomology.
[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.19)-(4.20)] The derivation is partly circular as a test of the four-dimensional EFT. Equation (4.19) imports the four-dimensional relation mu = e^{K/2}W with K = -3 log(2 sigma), and (4.20) imports WNP = Nc<S> = (2 pi/a)<S>; both are statements of the 4D EFT/KKLT framework. Substituting these into the matching condition (4.17) produces (4.24), whose functional form is close to (1.2) by construction. The only genuinely new coefficient is 3k/pi^2, which is undetermined, so the computation should be described as a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation.
[Footnote 8 and Section 5] The analysis assumes that gaugino condensation occurs on D7-branes whose worldvolume has an AdS4 factor and that it produces the non-perturbative superpotential (1.1). The text explicitly concedes in footnote 8 and in Section 5 that this dynamical premise is not established. Since the source term in (3.5) and the entire matching procedure depend on this assumption, the results are conditional on an input that is plausible but unproven; the paper should state this contingency more prominently in the abstract or introduction.

minor comments (3)

[Section 1, p. 3] The word 'compatification' in the sentence 'or if the higher dimensional analysis may reveal new features of the compatiﬁcation' is a typo for 'compactification'.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.13)] The physical normalization of <S> should be clarified: (3.6) defines <S> = (1/16 pi^2)<lambda lambda>, while (4.13) fixes the integration constant as -(1/pi)<S>; the reader needs to know whether these conventions are consistent and whether the pi factors are absorbed in the definition of the delta function or of <S>.
[Section 4.1] The text refers to the resolved space inconsistently as 'P2', 'P^2' and 'resolvedP2'; it should be typeset uniformly, for example as P^2.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantitative KKLT check reduces to a rearrangement of the assumed EFT superpotential with an undetermined coefficient k.

self definitional [Section 3, Eq. (3.5); Section 4, Eqs. (4.19)-(4.24)]
"Taking the covariant variation of the full superpotential (namely the sum of the non-perturbative piece (1.1) and the perturbative one (2.13)) with respect to the 10D holomorphic variable T one concludes that (2.6a) gets an additional non-perturbative term. ... Hence, the quantum corrected version of (2.6a) is dH(e3A−φΨ2) = 2iµe2A−φIm Ψ1 + 2i⟨S⟩δ9−pα[Σ]. (3.5)"

The source term in (3.5) is constructed from the assumed 4D non-perturbative superpotential (1.1), WNP = A exp(aT), together with the dictionary WNP = Nc⟨S⟩ adopted later in (4.20). The derivation of (4.24) then combines the same WNP with the 4D supergravity on-shell relation (4.19), µ = (W0+WNP)/(2σ)^{3/2}, and the relation (4.21) between e^{2l2} and σ. Substituting these inputs into the 10D matching condition (4.17) is algebraic manipulation; the exponential F-term structure of the output is already present in the input. Thus (4.24) does not independently confirm (1.2); it re-expresses the assumed EFT superpotential and Kähler potential in 10D variables.
fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (4.21)-(4.24)]
"e2l2 = √ 2σ k , (4.21) for some proportionality constant k that depends on the details of the IR solution. ... W0 = −Ae−aσ∗(1 + 3k π2 aσ∗) (4.24) ... Up to a numerical factor, this equation agrees with the bottom-up EFT relation that was used in the KKLT construction, (1.2), thus conﬁrming the validity of the latter."

The final relation (4.24) contains an undetermined constant k that the paper never computes; the text says only that it 'depends on the details of the IR solution.' Since k multiplies the aσ* term, choosing k = 2π^2/9 exactly reproduces the coefficient 2/3 in (1.2), while other choices give different coefficients. The equation therefore imposes no quantitative constraint on σ* and cannot be regarded as a prediction of the KKLT stabilization condition. The claimed agreement 'up to a numerical factor' is a consistency condition on an unconstrained parameter, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper contains two distinct strands. The qualitative 10D mechanism—equation (3.7)/(3.5) implies the D7 four-cycle cannot shrink when the 4D cosmological constant is nonzero—is a genuine new interpretation and does not reduce to the EFT relation; it follows from the structure of the supersymmetry equation and the localized source. The quantitative claim is different. The advertised confirmation of the KKLT relation (1.2) is obtained by combining the 10D matching condition (4.17) with the input relations (4.19), (4.20), and (4.21). Since WNP = A exp(-aT) was assumed from the start and k is left undetermined, equation (4.24) is an algebraic rewriting of the EFT F-flatness condition with a free coefficient; its 'agreement' with (1.2) is therefore not an independent prediction. The paper itself acknowledges the input assumption (Section 1, footnote 8; Section 5) and notes that the full set of modified supersymmetry equations and the computation of k are left for future work. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain here: the cited prior work is external or establishes the generalized-geometry framework rather than the final KKLT relation. The circularity is partial: the qualitative mechanism survives, but the quantitative confirmation is not established.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on established generalized geometry supersymmetry conditions, the assumed gaugino condensation source, the dynamic SU(2) structure solution of [35], and the assumed existence of a full interpolating solution. The only new undetermined quantity is the constant k that controls the quantitative match to KKLT.

free parameters (1)

k
Proportionality constant in (4.21) relating e^{2l2} to sqrt(2σ)/k; defined by the integral (4.22) but never computed. Equation (4.24) depends on k, so the claimed agreement with KKLT holds only up to this undetermined numerical factor.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The generalized complex geometry supersymmetry conditions (2.6) from [27] correctly describe N=1 warped AdS4 compactifications of type II supergravity.
Invoked throughout Sections 2-3 without proof; it is the framework on which the modified equation (3.5) is based.
domain assumption D7-brane gaugino condensation occurs on a worldvolume with an AdS4 factor and produces a localized non-perturbative superpotential WNP = A exp(-aT), as assumed in KKLT.
Explicitly assumed in Section 1, footnote 8 and Section 5; the paper does not derive the condensation process. This is the input that generates the source term in (3.5).
domain assumption The dynamic SU(2) structure solution of Heidenreich, McAllister and Torroba [35], with D7-branes on the resolved C3/Z3 P2 cycle, provides the correct background in the regions away from and near the condensate source.
The matching derivation in Section 4 relies entirely on the ansatz and integration constants of [35]; the localized source term was omitted there and added here.
domain assumption The near-brane and far-brane solutions can be matched with the functional form used in equations (4.13) and (4.16), implying the existence of a full solution that interpolates between the two regimes.
The paper matches only asymptotic limits of the solution and does not construct the full background, as acknowledged in Section 5. This matching is the step that produces (4.17) and hence (4.24).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of K\"ahler moduli stabilization from ten dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QP7PF2H3

@misc{pith2026190801785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: K\"ahler moduli stabilization from ten dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QP7PF2H3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01785}
}

abstract

We describe the back-reaction of gaugino condensates in supersymmetric AdS$_4$ Type II String Theory compactifications with fluxes. We use generalized complex geometry to capture the modification of the ten-dimensional supersymmetry equations and show that the cosmological constant prevents the cycle wrapped by the branes with gaugino condensation from shrinking to zero size. Thus, unlike in ordinary geometric transitions in flat space, the volume of this cycle remains finite. For D7 branes with gaugino condensation, this gives a ten-dimensional account of K\"ahler moduli stabilization. Furthermore, by matching the ten-dimensional supergravity solutions near and far from the cycle wrapped by the D7 branes, we find a relation between the size of this cycle and the cosmological constant. This relation agrees with the supersymmetric AdS vacuum condition obtained by KKLT using effective field theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

de Sitter Vacua from Ten Dimensions
hep-th 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gaugino condensation on D7-branes plus anti-D3-branes produce a ten-dimensional stress-energy that exactly reproduces the KKLT four-dimensional scalar potential and curvature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[35]

Heidenreich, L

B. Heidenreich, L. McAllister, and G. Torroba,Dynamic SU(2) Structure from Seven-branes, JHEP 05 (2011) 110, [arXiv:1011.3510]

arXiv 2011
[1]

Kachru, R

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

arXiv 2003
[2]

S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, and J. Polchinski,Hierarchies from ﬂuxes in string compactiﬁcations, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 106006, [hep-th/0105097]

arXiv 2002
[3]

Supersymmetric Three-Form Flux Perturbations on $AdS_5$

M. Grana and J. Polchinski,Supersymmetric three form ﬂux perturbations on AdS(5), Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 026001, [hep-th/0009211]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[4]

Cicoli, J

M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, and F. Quevedo,Systematics of String Loop Corrections in Type IIB Calabi-Yau Flux Compactiﬁcations, JHEP 01 (2008) 052, [arXiv:0708.1873]

arXiv 2008
[5]

I. Bena, M. Grana, and N. Halmagyi,On the Existence of Meta-stable Vacua in Klebanov-Strassler, JHEP 09 (2010) 087, [arXiv:0912.3519]

arXiv 2010
[6]

(Anti-)Brane backreaction beyond perturbation theory

J. Blaback, U. H. Danielsson, D. Junghans, T. Van Riet, T. Wrase, and M. Zagermann, (Anti-)Brane backreaction beyond perturbation theory, JHEP 02 (2012) 025, [arXiv:1111.2605]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[7]

I. Bena, M. Grana, S. Kuperstein, and S. Massai,Giant Tachyons in the Landscape, JHEP 02 (2015) 146, [arXiv:1410.7776]

arXiv 2015

Show all 51 references

[8]

Moritz, A

J. Moritz, A. Retolaza, and A. Westphal,Toward de Sitter space from ten dimensions, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 4 046010, [arXiv:1707.08678]

2018 arXiv
[9]

F. F. Gautason, V. Van Hemelryck, and T. Van Riet,The Tension between 10D Supergravity and dS Uplifts, Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019), no. 1-2 1800091, [arXiv:1810.08518]

2019 arXiv
[10]

I. Bena, E. Dudas, M. Grana, and S. Luest,Uplifting Runaways, Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019), no. 1-2 1800100, [arXiv:1809.06861]

2019 arXiv
[11]

Obied, H

G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa,De Sitter Space and the Swampland, arXiv:1806.08362

arXiv
[12]

Sethi,Supersymmetry Breaking by Fluxes, JHEP 10 (2018) 022, [arXiv:1709.03554]

S. Sethi,Supersymmetry Breaking by Fluxes, JHEP 10 (2018) 022, [arXiv:1709.03554]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Blumenhagen, D

R. Blumenhagen, D. Klaewer, and L. Schlechter,Swampland Variations on a Theme by KKLT, JHEP 05 (2019) 152, [arXiv:1902.07724]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Witten,Nonperturbative superpotentials in string theory, Nucl

E. Witten,Nonperturbative superpotentials in string theory, Nucl. Phys. B474 (1996) 343–360, [hep-th/9604030]

1996 arXiv
[15]

Luest, E

D. Luest, E. Palti, and C. Vafa,AdS and the Swampland, arXiv:1906.05225

1906 arXiv
[16]

de Wit, D

B. de Wit, D. J. Smit, and N. D. Hari Dass,Residual Supersymmetry of Compactiﬁed D=10 Supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B283 (1987) 165

1987
[17]

J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez,Supergravity description of ﬁeld theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A16 (2001) 822–855, [hep-th/0007018]. [,182(2000)]

2001 arXiv
[18]

Hamada, A

Y. Hamada, A. Hebecker, G. Shiu, and P. Soler,On brane gaugino condensates in 10d, JHEP 04 (2019) 008, [arXiv:1812.06097]

2019 arXiv
[19]

Kallosh,Gaugino Condensation and Geometry of the Perfect Square, Phys

R. Kallosh,Gaugino Condensation and Geometry of the Perfect Square, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 6 066003, [arXiv:1901.02023]

2019 arXiv
[20]

Hamada, A

Y. Hamada, A. Hebecker, G. Shiu, and P. Soler,Understanding KKLT from a 10d perspective, JHEP 06 (2019) 019, [arXiv:1902.01410]. – 19 –

2019 arXiv
[21]

F. F. Gautason, V. Van Hemelryck, T. Van Riet, and G. Venken,A 10d view on the KKLT AdS vacuum and uplifting, arXiv:1902.01415

1902 arXiv
[22]

Carta, J

F. Carta, J. Moritz, and A. Westphal,Gaugino condensation and small uplifts in KKLT, arXiv:1902.01412

1902 arXiv
[23]

Koerber and L

P. Koerber and L. Martucci,From ten to four and back again: How to generalize the geometry, JHEP 08 (2007) 059, [arXiv:0707.1038]

2007 arXiv
[24]

Koerber and L

P. Koerber and L. Martucci,Warped generalized geometry compactiﬁcations, eﬀective theories and non-perturbative eﬀects, Fortsch. Phys. 56 (2008) 862–868, [arXiv:0803.3149]

2008 arXiv
[25]

Koerber,Lectures on Generalized Complex Geometry for Physicists, Fortsch

P. Koerber,Lectures on Generalized Complex Geometry for Physicists, Fortsch. Phys. 59 (2011) 169–242, [arXiv:1006.1536]

2011 arXiv
[26]

Cassani and A

D. Cassani and A. Bilal,Eﬀective actions and N=1 vacuum conditions from SU(3) x SU(3) compactiﬁcations, JHEP 09 (2007) 076, [arXiv:0707.3125]

2007 arXiv
[27]

Grana, R

M. Grana, R. Minasian, M. Petrini, and A. Tomasiello,Generalized structures of N=1 vacua, JHEP 11 (2005) 020, [hep-th/0505212]

2005 arXiv
[28]

Grana, J

M. Grana, J. Louis, and D. Waldram,Hitchin functionals in N=2 supergravity, JHEP 01 (2006) 008, [hep-th/0505264]

2006 arXiv
[29]

Grana, J

M. Grana, J. Louis, and D. Waldram,SU(3) x SU(3) compactiﬁcation and mirror duals of magnetic ﬂuxes, JHEP 04 (2007) 101, [hep-th/0612237]

2007 arXiv
[30]

Benmachiche and T

I. Benmachiche and T. W. Grimm,Generalized N=1 orientifold compactiﬁcations and the Hitchin functionals, Nucl. Phys. B748 (2006) 200–252, [hep-th/0602241]

2006 arXiv
[31]

Gukov, C

S. Gukov, C. Vafa, and E. Witten,CFT’s from Calabi-Yau four folds, Nucl. Phys. B584 (2000) 69–108, [hep-th/9906070]. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B608,477(2001)]

2000 arXiv
[32]

Baumann, A

D. Baumann, A. Dymarsky, S. Kachru, I. R. Klebanov, and L. McAllister,D3-brane Potentials from Fluxes in AdS/CFT, JHEP 06 (2010) 072, [arXiv:1001.5028]

2010 arXiv
[33]

P. G. Camara, L. E. Ibanez, and A. M. Uranga,Flux-induced SUSY-breaking soft terms on D7-D3 brane systems, Nucl. Phys. B708 (2005) 268–316, [hep-th/0408036]

2005 arXiv
[34]

Dymarsky and L

A. Dymarsky and L. Martucci,D-brane non-perturbative eﬀects and geometric deformations, JHEP 04 (2011) 061, [arXiv:1012.4018]

2011 arXiv
[36]

A. H. Chamseddine and M. S. Volkov,NonAbelian BPS monopoles in N=4 gauged supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.79 (1997) 3343–3346, [hep-th/9707176]

1997 arXiv
[37]

J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez,Towards the large N limit of pure N=1 superYang-Mills, Phys. Rev. Lett.86 (2001) 588–591, [hep-th/0008001]

2001 arXiv
[38]

Butti, M

A. Butti, M. Grana, R. Minasian, M. Petrini, and A. Zaﬀaroni,The Baryonic branch of Klebanov-Strassler solution: A supersymmetric family of SU(3) structure backgrounds, JHEP 03 (2005) 069, [hep-th/0412187]

2005 arXiv
[39]

Koerber,Stable D-branes, calibrations and generalized Calabi-Yau geometry, JHEP 08 (2005) 099, [hep-th/0506154]

P. Koerber,Stable D-branes, calibrations and generalized Calabi-Yau geometry, JHEP 08 (2005) 099, [hep-th/0506154]

2005 arXiv
[40]

Martucci and P

L. Martucci and P. Smyth,Supersymmetric D-branes and calibrations on general N=1 backgrounds, JHEP 11 (2005) 048, [hep-th/0507099]. – 20 –

2005 arXiv
[41]

Koerber and L

P. Koerber and L. Martucci,D-branes on AdS ﬂux compactiﬁcations, JHEP 01 (2008) 047, [arXiv:0710.5530]

2008 arXiv
[42]

A. R. Frey and M. Lippert,AdS strings with torsion: Non-complex heterotic compactiﬁcations, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 126001, [hep-th/0507202]

2005 arXiv
[43]

Garcia-Valdecasas and A

E. Garcia-Valdecasas and A. Uranga,On the 3-form formulation of axion potentials from D-brane instantons, JHEP 02 (2017) 087, [arXiv:1605.08092]

2017 arXiv
[44]

Garcia-Valdecasas Tenreiro and A

E. Garcia-Valdecasas Tenreiro and A. Uranga,Backreacting D-brane instantons on branes at singularities, JHEP 08 (2017) 061, [arXiv:1704.05888]

2017 arXiv
[45]

Vafa,Superstrings and topological strings at large N, J

C. Vafa,Superstrings and topological strings at large N, J. Math. Phys.42 (2001) 2798–2817, [hep-th/0008142]

2001 arXiv
[46]

Atiyah, J

M. Atiyah, J. M. Maldacena, and C. Vafa,An M theory ﬂop as a large N duality, J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 3209–3220, [hep-th/0011256]

2001 arXiv
[47]

Petrini, G

M. Petrini, G. Solard, and T. Van Riet,AdS vacua with scale separation from IIB supergravity, JHEP 11 (2013) 010, [arXiv:1308.1265]

2013 arXiv
[48]

I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler,Supergravity and a conﬁning gauge theory: Duality cascades and chi SB resolution of naked singularities, JHEP 08 (2000) 052, [hep-th/0007191]

2000 arXiv
[49]

Heidenreich,SL(2,R) covariant conditions for N=1 ﬂux vacua, JHEP 10 (2011) 057, [arXiv:1107.3163]

B. Heidenreich,SL(2,R) covariant conditions for N=1 ﬂux vacua, JHEP 10 (2011) 057, [arXiv:1107.3163]

2011 arXiv
[50]

Luest, F

D. Luest, F. Marchesano, L. Martucci, and D. Tsimpis,Generalized non-supersymmetric ﬂux vacua, JHEP 11 (2008) 021, [arXiv:0807.4540]

2008 arXiv
[51]

Grana, N

M. Grana, N. Kovensky, and A. Retolaza,in preparation, . – 21 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [35]

Heidenreich, L

B. Heidenreich, L. McAllister, and G. Torroba,Dynamic SU(2) Structure from Seven-branes, JHEP 05 (2011) 110, [arXiv:1011.3510]

arXiv 2011

[2] [1]

Kachru, R

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

arXiv 2003

[3] [2]

S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, and J. Polchinski,Hierarchies from ﬂuxes in string compactiﬁcations, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 106006, [hep-th/0105097]

arXiv 2002

[4] [3]

Supersymmetric Three-Form Flux Perturbations on $AdS_5$

M. Grana and J. Polchinski,Supersymmetric three form ﬂux perturbations on AdS(5), Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 026001, [hep-th/0009211]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001

[5] [4]

Cicoli, J

M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, and F. Quevedo,Systematics of String Loop Corrections in Type IIB Calabi-Yau Flux Compactiﬁcations, JHEP 01 (2008) 052, [arXiv:0708.1873]

arXiv 2008

[6] [5]

I. Bena, M. Grana, and N. Halmagyi,On the Existence of Meta-stable Vacua in Klebanov-Strassler, JHEP 09 (2010) 087, [arXiv:0912.3519]

arXiv 2010

[7] [6]

(Anti-)Brane backreaction beyond perturbation theory

J. Blaback, U. H. Danielsson, D. Junghans, T. Van Riet, T. Wrase, and M. Zagermann, (Anti-)Brane backreaction beyond perturbation theory, JHEP 02 (2012) 025, [arXiv:1111.2605]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012

[8] [7]

I. Bena, M. Grana, S. Kuperstein, and S. Massai,Giant Tachyons in the Landscape, JHEP 02 (2015) 146, [arXiv:1410.7776]

arXiv 2015