Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 61 references

Holographic Consequences of Heterotic String Theory beyond its Supergravity Approximation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that heterotic α′ corrections shift the holographic Breitenlohner-Freedman bound by a sign set by internal flux versus curvature, relaxing it for flux-dominated vacua and tightening it for curvature-dominated vacua.

desk verdict Neat packaging (single □² coupling from heterotic compactification, sign controlled by flux vs curvature) with a plausible qualitative story, but the central quartic (3.4) is internally inconsistent — b→0 gives m²L⁴ instead of m²L² — so all quantitative claims need redoing; worth a referee because the fix is concrete and the sign logic may survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19969 v1 pith:TYTRVS34 submitted 2025-04-28 hep-th

Leon Berdichevsky Acosta , Salman Sajad Wani , Arshid Shabir , Abrar Ahmed Naqash , Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat , Naveed Ahmad Shah , Hrishikesh Patel , Saif Al-Kuwari
show 1 more author
Mir Faizal
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.25.-w11.25.Tq
keywords heteroticstringtheoryalpha-primecorrectionsAdS/CFTcorrespondenceBreitenlohner-Freedmanboundholographicsuperconductorfluxcompactificationhigher-derivativeeffectiveactionLee-Wickregulator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the first stringy (α′) corrections to heterotic supergravity, once dimensionally reduced to anti-de Sitter spacetime, change the stability criterion for scalar fields in a way controlled entirely by the balance between internal flux and internal curvature. The full tower of corrections collapses, after field redefinitions, into a single higher-derivative operator $(\square\phi)^2$ with coefficient $b=\alpha' C$, where $C$ is fixed by the internal volume, averaged curvature, and NS-NS flux. The paper claims this shifts the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound: flux-dominated vacua relax the bound and widen the allowed mass window, while curvature-dominated vacua tighten it and shrink the window. Through AdS/CFT, this becomes a computable $1/N$ correction to operator dimensions, renormalization-group running, and the critical temperature of a holographic superconductor. A sympathetic reader should care because the geometry of the compactification manifold becomes a dial for finite-$N$ effects in the dual field theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single higher-derivative operator $(\square_{10}\phi)^2$ in the α′-corrected heterotic effective action, whose one-loop coefficients fix $\gamma_1=-1/4$ and $\gamma_2=+1/24$. After compactification this becomes $b(\square\phi)^2$ in $(d+1)$ dimensions, with $b=\alpha' C$ and $C=V_M/(2\kappa_{10}^2)[1 - \tfrac{1}{4}\alpha'\langle R_M\rangle + \tfrac{1}{24}\alpha'\langle H^2\rangle + \cdots]$, so the dimensionless ratio $\Xi = 6\langle H^2\rangle/\langle R_M\rangle - 1$ determines the sign of $b$. The argument then rests on the quartic equation (3.4) obtained by substituting the asymptotic power law $\phi\sim z^\beta$ into the equation of motion; its reality condition is the generalized BF bound, which guarantees both bulk stability and real CFT operator dimensions. The auxiliary field $\chi\equiv\square\phi$ recasts the higher-derivative theory as two coupled second-order systems, producing the heavy Lee-Wick pole at $p^2\approx -1/b$ and the $1/N$ shift in operator dimensions.

What would settle it

Compute the α′-corrected heterotic four-point dilaton amplitude and compare the resulting on-shell effective action to the claimed form $(1+\gamma_1\alpha' R_{10}+\gamma_2\alpha' H^2)(\square_{10}\phi)^2$; if additional independent tensor structures such as $R^{MN}\nabla_M\nabla_N\phi$ terms survive the field redefinition, the quartic equation (3.4) is not the governing equation and the predicted BF shifts and $T_c$ changes are not guaranteed. Alternatively, solve the full scalar equation with backreaction in a flux-dominated compactification and check whether the near-horizon effective mass actually decreases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the α′-corrected heterotic effective action for a scalar in AdS is governed by the fourth-order equation $(\square - m^2 - b\square^2)\phi=0$, with $b=\alpha' C$, and that the associated near-boundary exponent $\beta$ obeys a quartic equation whose reality condition is a generalized BF bound. The sign and size of $b$ are set by $\Xi \equiv 6\langle H^2\rangle/\langle R_M\rangle - 1$, so that flux dominance ($\Xi>0$) yields $b>0$, relaxes the stability bound, and raises dual operator dimensions, while curvature dominance ($\Xi<0$) yields $b<0$, tightens the bound, and lowers them. The same coefficient shifts the effective bulk mass of a charged scalar, lowering it and raising $T_c$ when flux dominates, and doing the opposite when curvature dominates. The paper also claims that the heavy auxiliary mode introduced by the higher-derivative term acts as a holographic Lee-Wick regulator, and that positive $b$ leaves essentially all $(m,L)$ parameter space allowed while negative $b$ produces finite stability islands.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation assumes, without a shown derivation, that after field redefinitions every α′-correction to the heterotic dilaton collapses to the single operator $(\square_{10}\phi)^2$ with coefficients $\gamma_1=-1/4$ and $\gamma_2=1/24$, and that on compactification only the averaged internal curvature and flux survive; if other independent higher-derivative structures remain, the quartic equation and all BF shifts built from it do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In flux-dominated heterotic compactifications, the scalar mass window in AdS widens, so more masses satisfy stability and the dual operator dimensions are shifted upward by a calculable $\delta\Delta$ of order $10^{-3}$.
  • In curvature-dominated vacua, the stability window narrows; for example, in $d=3$ with $b=-1$ unitarity requires approximately $m\gtrsim 5$ and $L\lesssim 1.5$, otherwise operator dimensions become complex.
  • The slope of the Wilsonian beta function in the dual CFT is changed by $\delta\Delta$, so positive $b$ accelerates RG running and negative $b$ flattens it, moving almost-marginal operators toward or away from criticality.
  • In holographic superconductors, stringy corrections lower the effective near-horizon mass and raise $T_c$ when flux dominates, and raise the mass and lower $T_c$ when curvature dominates.
  • The heavy auxiliary mode generated by the $(\square\phi)^2$ term behaves as a holographic Lee-Wick regulator: a negative-residue pole for $b>0$ and a Pauli-Villars subtraction for $b<0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats the internal averages as inputs; a natural extension is to compute $\Xi$ from the stabilized moduli of a concrete heterotic vacuum and derive $\delta\Delta$ as a prediction rather than an input, connecting string phenomenology to CFT data.
  • Because the sign of $b$ flips the entire pattern of $1/N$ corrections, vacua with $\Xi$ near zero form a critical surface where operator dimensions, RG slopes, and $T_c$ shifts all vanish; this could be searched for in explicit half-flat or $G_2$ examples.
  • The heavy mode sits at radial depth $z\sim\sqrt{|b|}\ll L$ and never becomes a boundary primary; if the same structure appears for vector or spinor fields with α′ corrections, analogous Lee-Wick poles would produce $1/N$ corrections in conserved-current correlators, which the paper does not analyze.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript attempts to take α′ corrections in heterotic string theory beyond the supergravity approximation and study their holographic consequences. It starts from a ten-dimensional α′-corrected heterotic action, assumes a warped-product compactification, and claims that after field redefinitions the dilaton sector reduces to a single higher-derivative operator (□ϕ)^2 with coupling b = α′C determined by internal volume, average curvature, and NS-NS flux. In an AdS background the asymptotic exponent β is then governed by the quartic equation (3.4), from which the paper derives a generalized Breitenlohner-Freedman bound, shifts δΔ in dual operator dimensions, changes in RG beta functions, a Lee-Wick/Pauli-Villars interpretation of an auxiliary field, and shifts in the critical temperature of holographic superconductors. Numerical solutions of Eq. (3.4) are presented as constraints in the m–L plane. The central technical object is Eq. (3.4), and all quantitative results of the paper flow from it.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, the paper would provide a concrete dictionary between heterotic compactification data and finite-N CFT corrections, with falsifiable sign statements for flux-dominated versus curvature-dominated vacua. The paper also does several useful things: it collects numerical data for a number of heterotic vacua, formulates a clean parametric model in which a single coefficient b controls all corrections, and gives a plausible auxiliary-field interpretation of the higher-derivative term. However, the central quartic is internally inconsistent, and the reduction to a single (□ϕ)^2 operator is asserted rather than derived. As a result, the quantitative results for δΔ, δTc, and the m–L stability regions are not reliable, and the manuscript does not currently meet the standard for a rigorous holographic string-theory result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.4)] The displayed quartic in Eq. (3.4) is not the expansion of the equation written immediately above it, and its b→0 limit is wrong. The preceding equation is L²β(β−d) − m²L⁴ − b[β(β−d)]² = 0, whose expansion contains β⁴ with coefficient −b and β³ with coefficient +2bd; Eq. (3.4) instead has β⁴ coefficient +b and β³ coefficient 4b(1−d), and its remaining coefficients cannot be matched for any rescaling of b. Setting b=0 in Eq. (3.4) gives β(β−d) = m²L⁴, whereas the correct limit, stated in the same paragraph, is β(β−d) = m²L². Since Section 5 and the δΔ and δTc estimates solve Eq. (3.4), every quantitative result derived from this equation is invalid until the polynomial is corrected.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.7)] The reduction to a single operator (□10ϕ)^2 with γ1 = −1/4 and γ2 = 1/24 is asserted without derivation. The step from Eq. (2.5) to Eq. (2.6) replaces R10 and H² by internal averages and drops external curvature, but the assumption ϕ(x,y) = ϕ(x) only ensures □10ϕ = □(d+1)ϕ for the d'Alembertian factor; the curvature and flux prefactors are then evaluated with no justification that zero-mode averages dominate. Because b = α′C and the ratio Ξ set the sign and magnitude of all downstream effects, this unproven compactification step is load-bearing for the paper's central claim. Citations to Refs. [2,8] do not by themselves establish that all other α′ operators can be removed by field redefinitions.
  3. [§3 and §5] The paper asserts that requiring Eq. (3.4) to have only real roots is equivalent to a generalized BF bound, but no derivation is supplied. For b ≠ 0 the relation between root reality, bulk stability, and CFT unitarity is nontrivial because the fourth-order equation introduces an additional propagating mode. Likewise, the formula δΔ = −ϵ(Δ0−3/2)(Δ0−1/2)/(1−2Δ0+3), used for the numerical estimates in Section 3, appears without derivation. These formulas are load-bearing for the claimed shifts and for the claimed 'universal pattern' governed by Ξ.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] The phrase 'can shift ∆ by almost in either direction' appears to be missing a word or words, and the text contains typographical errors such as 'rˆole' for 'role'.
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption for Fig. 1(b) states that the blue and orange curves share the same x-axis but does not specify which curve corresponds to m and which to L; explicit axis labels or a legend would remove the ambiguity.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (4.6)–(4.8)] The relation between δ(m²) and δΔ in Eqs. (4.6)–(4.8) is stated without derivation, and the sign convention in Eq. (4.7) is not specified; this makes it difficult to verify the direction of the claimed Tc shift in the superconductor section.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central quartic (3.4) is not the stated expansion of the higher-derivative equation of motion, so the BF-bound and operator-dimension predictions are consequences of an assumed polynomial, not of the heterotic effective action.

  1. other [Section 3, Eq. (3.4), immediately after the asymptotic substitution leading to L^2 beta(beta-d) - m^2 L^4 - b [beta(beta-d)]^2 = 0]
    "L2β(β−d)−m2L4−b [β(β−d)]2 = 0. Now, after expanding and rearranging the terms, the equation can be recast as a quartic polynomial in β bβ4 + 4b(1−d)β3 + (1+bm2L2+10b+5bd+bd2)β2 + (6b−d−3bd+bdm2L2)β−m2L4 = 0. (3.4) In the limit b→0 this quartic equation reduces to the familiar quadratic equation β(β−d)=m2L2."

    The claimed 'recasting' is not an identity. Expanding L^2 beta(beta-d) - m^2 L^4 - b[beta(beta-d)]^2 gives -b beta^4 + 2bd beta^3 + (L^2 - bd^2) beta^2 - L^2 d beta - m^2 L^4 = 0, which contains no 4b(1-d) beta^3 term and no 6b-d-3bd term, and whose b=0 limit is beta(beta-d)=m^2 L^4, not the beta(beta-d)=m^2 L^2 stated two sentences later. Equation (3.4) is therefore not a rearrangement of (box - m^2 - b box^2) phi = 0; it is an independent algebraic input. Since the smallest root beta_1, the generalized BF bound, the shifts delta-Delta, and the Delta-T_c/T_c estimates are all computed from Eq. (3.4), the paper's headline predictions are equivalent to assuming Eq. (3.4) rather than to the effective action derived from compactification.

full rationale

The paper's use of external citations for the coefficients gamma_1=-1/4 and gamma_2=1/24, and its import of geometric averages for specific manifolds, is not circularity by itself: those are independent inputs rather than fits to the target CFT data. The self-citations [21,22] are motivational, and the main derivation is supposed to be self-contained. The decisive problem is that the keystone equation (3.4) is not the expansion of the equation of motion displayed immediately above it, and its b=0 limit contradicts the paper's own stated limit, beta(beta-d)=m^2 L^2. All subsequent statements about stability, operator dimensions, RG running, and holographic superconductors are computed from this unexplained polynomial, so the central claim reduces to an assumed algebraic object rather than to the heterotic effective action. This is a constructed input presented as a derivation, and it independently affects every quantitative result in Sections 3-6. The score is therefore 6: the central claim is partially forced by an unproven algebraic input, though not by a self-citation chain. Correctness issues of this kind are distinct from circularity, but the effect on the paper's argument is similar: the 'predictions' do not follow from the stated first-principles action.

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

The central claim rests almost entirely on the assumed coupling b and the assumed mass/geometry inputs. The paper supplies no first-principles computation of b, no derivation of the coefficients, and no code. The only genuinely new quantity is the packaging Xi, which is a combination of inputs from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • b = alpha-prime C (higher-derivative coupling) = varies by vacuum; delta-C/C0 in {-0.18, -0.08, +0.047, +0.07, +0.11}
    The sign and magnitude of b control all results. The paper does not derive b from a stringy calculation; it adopts values for specific compactifications from prior literature.
  • m (scalar mass) = scanned over m in [0,50] in Section 5
    The paper claims m^2 is fixed by internal geometry, then treats m as an independent free parameter in the numerical analysis.
  • L (AdS radius) = scanned over L in [0,50] in Section 5
    L is a background scale, but the scans treat it as a free parameter alongside m.
  • internal averages <R_M> and <H^2> = e.g., <R_M> ~ 2.1e-2 alpha-prime^-1 and <H^2> ~ 2.4e-2 alpha-prime^-1 for Fu-Yau
    These inputs determine Xi and the sign of b. They are taken from cited papers and are not computed here.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper All ten-dimensional alpha-prime corrections to the heterotic dilaton can be reduced to a single (Box10 phi)^2 term with gamma1 = -1/4 and gamma2 = 1/24 after field redefinitions.
    Stated in Section 2 without derivation; the Gauss-Bonnet term is said to decouple without proof.
  • domain assumption On compactification, R10 and H^2 in the higher-derivative term can be replaced by their internal averages, dropping the external AdS curvature.
    Used in Eqs. (2.6)-(2.7); no justification for neglecting R_AdS and cross-terms.
  • domain assumption The boundary operator dimension is obtained from the asymptotic exponent beta via the standard two-derivative dictionary even for the fourth-order bulk equation.
    Used in Section 3 around Eqs. (3.6)-(3.8); the source/VEV split for a fourth-order system is more subtle and is not discussed.
  • domain assumption The scalar mass m^2 is fixed by compactification data, yet Section 5 scans m freely.
    This inconsistency underlies the parameter-space plots; the paper does not restrict m to the compactification values.
invented entities (1)
  • Heavy auxiliary mode chi (Lee-Wick ghost / Pauli-Villars regulator)
    purpose: To diagonalize the higher-derivative action and interpret the extra pole as a UV regulator.
    Introduced in Eq. (3.9). It is a formal device with no independent observable handle; its mass is set by b^-1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Consequences of Heterotic String Theory beyond its Supergravity Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYTRVS34

@misc{pith2026250419969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Consequences of Heterotic String Theory beyond its Supergravity Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYTRVS34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19969}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we study the effects of stringy corrections on the low energy effective action derived from heterotic string theory beyond its supergravity approximation. Compactifying the ten dimensional theory with these stringy corrections produces an effective action for a scalar field whose higher derivative term is governed by a single coefficient that depends on the internal volume, average curvature, and flux of the compactification manifold. The higher derivative coupling imported from compactification shifts the Breitenlohner Freedman stability bound by an amount set by the relative strengths of internal flux and curvature, relaxing it in flux dominated vacua and tightening it in curvature dominated ones. Furthermore, we analyze how the stringy corrections shift the scaling dimensions of the dual operators, track the resulting renormalization group flow, and investigate the higher derivative term using a holographic Lee Wick regulator. In holographic superconductors, stringy corrections lower the effective bulk mass and raise the critical temperature when flux dominates, but have the opposite effect when curvature dominates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    String theory, supersymmetry, unification, and all that,

    J. H. Schwarz and N. Seiberg, “String theory, supersymmetry, unification, and all that,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 71(2) (1999) S112. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S112

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.71.s112 1999

  2. [2]

    The quartic effective action for the heterotic string,

    D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The quartic effective action for the heterotic string,” Nucl. Phys. B 291 (1987) 41. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90465-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90465-2 1987

  3. [3]

    Heterotic String Covariant Amplitudes and Low-energy Effective Action,

    Y. Cai and C. A. N´ u˜ nez, “Heterotic String Covariant Amplitudes and Low-energy Effective Action,” Nucl. Phys. B 287 (1987) 279. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90106-4

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90106-4 1987

  4. [4]

    Order α′ (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,

    R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Order α′ (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,” Nucl. Phys. B 293 (1987) 385–419. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90077-0

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90077-0 1987

  5. [5]

    Strings in background fields,

    C. G. Callan, D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec, and M. J. Perry, “Strings in background fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 262(4) (1985) 593–609. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90506-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90506-1 1985

  6. [6]

    Effective Action Approach to Superstring Theory,

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Effective Action Approach to Superstring Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 160 (1985) 69–76. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91468-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91468-6 1985

  7. [7]

    Quantum String Theory Effective Action,

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Quantum String Theory Effective Action,” Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 1–27. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90559-0

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90559-0 1985

  8. [8]

    Curvature Cubed Terms in String Theory Effective Actions,

    R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Curvature Cubed Terms in String Theory Effective Actions,” Phys. Lett. B 185 (1987) 52–58. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91527-9. – 20 –

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)91527-9 1987

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Higher-Derivative Supergravity and Moduli Stabilization,

    D. Ciupke, J. Louis, and A. Westphal, “Higher-Derivative Supergravity and Moduli Stabilization,” JHEP 10 (2015) 094. doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)094

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Minkowski 3-forms, Flux String Vacua, Axion Stability and Naturalness,

    S. Bielleman, L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez, and I. Valenzuela, “Minkowski 3-forms, Flux String Vacua, Axion Stability and Naturalness,” JHEP 12 (2015) 119. doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)119

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    F-theory at order α′3,

    R. Minasian, T. G. Pugh, and R. Savelli, “F-theory at order α′3,” JHEP 10 (2015) 050. doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)050

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Systematics of the α′ expansion in F-theory,

    M. Cicoli, F. Quevedo, R. Savelli, A. Schachner, and R. Valandro, “Systematics of the α′ expansion in F-theory,” JHEP 08 (2021) 099. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)099

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    The effective action of warped M-theory reductions with higher-derivative terms – Part II,

    T. W. Grimm, T. G. Pugh, and M. Weissenbacher, “The effective action of warped M-theory reductions with higher-derivative terms – Part II,” JHEP 12 (2015) 117. doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)117

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Higher Derivative Corrections and Central Charges from Wrapped M5-branes,

    M. Baggio, N. Halmagyi, D. R. Mayerson, D. Robbins, and B. Wecht, “Higher Derivative Corrections and Central Charges from Wrapped M5-branes,” JHEP 12 (2014) 042. doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)042

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    On four-derivative terms in IIB Calabi–Yau orientifold reductions,

    M. Weissenbacher, “On four-derivative terms in IIB Calabi–Yau orientifold reductions,” JHEP 04 (2017) 063. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)063

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    On NS-NS couplings at order α′3,

    M. R. Garousi, “On NS-NS couplings at order α′3,” Nucl. Phys. B 971 (2021) 115510. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115510

    2021

  9. [17]

    T-duality constraint on R-R couplings,

    M. R. Garousi, “T-duality constraint on R-R couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 102(8) (2020) 086019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.086019

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    α′-corrections to DBI action via T-duality constraint,

    S. Karimi and M. R. Garousi, “ α′-corrections to DBI action via T-duality constraint,” Nucl. Phys. B 939 (2019) 485–506. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.01.006

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    T-duality of O-plane action at order α′2,

    M. R. Garousi, “T-duality of O-plane action at order α′2,” Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.05.049

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252. doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1

    1998 doi

  13. [21]

    AdS/CFT Correspondence Beyond its Supergravity Approximation,

    M. Faizal, A. F. Ali, and A. Nassar, “AdS/CFT Correspondence Beyond its Supergravity Approximation,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30(30) (2015) 1550183. doi:10.1142/S0217751X15501833

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Generalized uncertainty principle as a consequence of the effective field theory,

    M. Faizal, A. F. Ali, and A. Nassar, “Generalized uncertainty principle as a consequence of the effective field theory,” Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 238–243. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.11.054

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    1/ N and loop corrections in higher spin AdS 4/CFT3 duality,

    A. Jevicki, K. Jin, and J. Yoon, “1/ N and loop corrections in higher spin AdS 4/CFT3 duality,” Phys. Rev. D 89(8) (2014) 085039. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.085039

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    1/ N correction in the D3-brane description of a circular Wilson loop at strong coupling,

    E. I. Buchbinder and A. A. Tseytlin, “1/ N correction in the D3-brane description of a circular Wilson loop at strong coupling,” Phys. Rev. D 89(12) (2014) 126008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.126008

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    R2 corrected AdS2 holography,

    P. Aniceto, G. L. Cardoso, and S. Nampuri, “ R2 corrected AdS2 holography,” JHEP 03 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    On the connection between hydrodynamics and quantum chaos in holographic theories with stringy corrections,

    S. Grozdanov, “On the connection between hydrodynamics and quantum chaos in holographic theories with stringy corrections,” JHEP 01 (2019) 048. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)048. – 21 –

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    1/ N 2 corrections to the holographic Weyl anomaly,

    A. A. Ardehali, J. T. Liu, and P. Szepietowski, “1/ N 2 corrections to the holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP 01 (2014) 002. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)002

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Higher derivative effects on η/s at finite chemical potential,

    S. Cremonini, K. Hanaki, J. T. Liu, and P. Szepietowski, “Higher derivative effects on η/s at finite chemical potential,” Phys. Rev. D 80(2) (2009) 025002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.025002

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    More realistic holographic model of color superconductivity with higher derivative corrections,

    C. H. Nam, “More realistic holographic model of color superconductivity with higher derivative corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 104(4) (2021) 046006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.046006

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Higher derivatives driven symmetry breaking in holographic superconductors,

    H.-L. Li, G. Fu, Y. Liu, J.-P. Wu, and X. Zhang, “Higher derivatives driven symmetry breaking in holographic superconductors,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80(2) (2020) 102. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7670-y

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Below the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound in the nonrelativistic AdS/CFT correspondence,

    S. Moroz, “Below the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound in the nonrelativistic AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 066002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.066002

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Holographic superconductors near the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound,

    G. Siopsis, J. Therrien, and S. Musiri, “Holographic superconductors near the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound,” Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 085007. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/8/085007

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    M. S. Narasimhan, Mathematics and the 21st Century , World Scientific, Singapore (2001), p

    2001

  26. [34]

    I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on D-branes,

    M. B. Green, J. A. Harvey, and G. W. Moore, “I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on D-branes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 14 (1997) 47–52. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/14/1/008

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    Anomalies, branes, and currents,

    Y.-K. E. Cheung and Z. Yin, “Anomalies, branes, and currents,” Nucl. Phys. B 517 (1998) 69–91. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00115-1

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    K-theory and Ramond–Ramond charge,

    R. Minasian and G. Moore, “K-theory and Ramond–Ramond charge,” JHEP 11 (1997) 002. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/11/002

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    Heterotic moduli stabilization with fractional Chern–Simons invariants,

    S. Gukov, S. Kachru, X. Liu, and L. McAllister, “Heterotic moduli stabilization with fractional Chern–Simons invariants,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 086008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.086008

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    Gaugino Condensation and Duality Invariance,

    H. P. Nilles and M. Olechowski, “Gaugino Condensation and Duality Invariance,” Phys. Lett. B 248 (1990) 268–272. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90290-M

    1990 doi

  31. [39]

    Type IIB orientifolds, F-theory, Type I strings on orbifolds and Type I-heterotic duality,

    Z. Kakushadze, G. Shiu, and S.-H. H. Tye, “Type IIB orientifolds, F-theory, Type I strings on orbifolds and Type I-heterotic duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 533(1) (1998) 25–87. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00491-X

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Moduli stabilization in the heterotic/IIB discretuum,

    G. Curio, A. Krause, and D. L¨ ust, “Moduli stabilization in the heterotic/IIB discretuum,” Fortsch. Phys. 54 (2006) 225–245. doi:10.1002/prop.200510270

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Heterotic Moduli Stabilisation,

    M. Cicoli, S. de Alwis, and A. Westphal, “Heterotic Moduli Stabilisation,” JHEP 10 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    R4 terms in supergravities via T-duality constraint,

    H. Razaghian and M. R. Garousi, “ R4 terms in supergravities via T-duality constraint,” Phys. Rev. D 97(10) (2018) 106013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.106013

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic String and Supersymmetry,

    E. A. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo, “The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic String and Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 328 (1989) 439–468. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90336-2

    1989 doi

  36. [44]

    Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive review,

    M. Gra˜ na, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive review,” Physics Reports 423 (2006) 91–158. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.008. – 22 –

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger and E. Witten, “Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B 258 (1985) 46–74. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90602-9

    1985 doi

  38. [46]

    Superstrings with torsion,

    A. Strominger, “Superstrings with torsion,” Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 253–284. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90286-5

    1986 doi

  39. [47]

    Compactifications of the heterotic superstring,

    C. M. Hull, “Compactifications of the heterotic superstring,” Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 357–364. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91393-6

    1986 doi

  40. [48]

    A construction of non-K¨ ahler Calabi–Yau manifolds and new solutions to the Strominger system,

    T. Fei, “A construction of non-K¨ ahler Calabi–Yau manifolds and new solutions to the Strominger system,” Adv. Math. 302 (2016) 529–550. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.07.023

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-K¨ ahler solutions in heterotic string theory,

    K. Becker, M. Becker, J.-X. Fu, L.-S. Tseng, and S.-T. Yau, “Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-K¨ ahler solutions in heterotic string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B 751 (2006) 108–128. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.05.034

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    The Intrinsic torsion of SU(3) and G(2) structures,

    S. Chiossi and S. Salamon, “The Intrinsic torsion of SU(3) and G(2) structures,” in International Conference on Differential Geometry held in honor of the 60th Birthday of A.M. Naveira (2002). arXiv:math/0202282

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Heterotic string compactified on half-flat manifolds,

    S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas, and A. Micu, “Heterotic string compactified on half-flat manifolds,” Phys. Rev. D 70(12) (2004) 126009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.126009

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    Heterotic compactifications on nearly K¨ ahler manifolds,

    O. Lechtenfeld, C. N¨ olle, and A. D. Popov, “Heterotic compactifications on nearly K¨ ahler manifolds,” JHEP 09 (2010) 074. doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)074

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    Heterotic G2-manifold compactifications with fluxes and fermionic condensates,

    K.-P. Gemmer and O. Lechtenfeld, “Heterotic G2-manifold compactifications with fluxes and fermionic condensates,” JHEP 11 (2013) 182. doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)182

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    On the Holographic Renormalization Group,

    J. de Boer, E. Verlinde, and H. Verlinde, “On the Holographic Renormalization Group,” JHEP 0008 (2000) 003. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/08/003

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization,

    K. Skenderis, “Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization,” Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 5849–5876. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/22/306

    2002 doi

  48. [56]

    Finite Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics,

    T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, “Finite Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1033–1048. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.2.1033

    1970 doi

  49. [57]

    The Lee–Wick Standard Model,

    B. Grinstein, D. O’Connell, and M. B. Wise, “The Lee–Wick Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 025012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.025012

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    Building a Holographic Superconductor,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, “Building a Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 031601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.031601

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    Holographic Superconductors,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, “Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP 12 (2008) 015. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/015. – 23 –

    2008 doi

  52. [199]

    doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)199

    2013 doi

  53. [255]

    doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)255

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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