Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 86 references

In quintessence cosmology, instability and trans-Planckian censorship violation are the same condition: the species entropy of descending tower states outgrows the apparent-horizon entropy.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:05 UTC pith:W6FY37UJ

load-bearing objection A solid entropy-rate analysis of quintessence, but the claimed TCC equivalence only holds in the string-tower limit; for KK towers there is a window where TCC is violated yet the background is entropy-stable. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21136 v2 pith:W6FY37UJ submitted 2026-01-29 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Background instability of quintessence model in light of entropy and distance conjecture

Min-Seok Seo This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords quintessenceswampland conjecturestrans-Planckian censorshipcovariant entropy boundspecies entropydistance conjectureAdS distance conjecturescale separation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that in quintessence cosmology — a universe accelerated by a scalar field rolling down an exponential potential — the stability of the background is governed by a single entropy race. It compares the matter entropy of the effective theory, identified with the species number N_sp of light tower states descending from the ultraviolet as the scalar rolls, against the geometric entropy of the apparent horizon, which scales as its area. The central claim is an equivalence: the background becomes unstable, because species entropy eventually exceeds horizon entropy and so violates the covariant entropy bound, exactly when the universe has a finite event horizon — which is exactly when the trans-Planckian censorship bound is violated. The time to instability reproduces the trans-Planckian censorship lifetime, and the same rates, read inversely, give the condition for the Kaluza-Klein scale to stay above the Hubble scale, matching the AdS distance conjecture. If correct, this unifies the distance, de Sitter, trans-Planckian censorship, and AdS distance conjectures into one statement about entropy.

Core claim

The paper's boxed result, stated for the quintessence model (scalar on an exponential potential, a(t) ~ t^p), is an equivalence: the trans-Planckian censorship bound — no event horizon — holds exactly when the species entropy S_sp = N_sp of descending tower states does not outgrow the apparent-horizon entropy S_hor ∝ H^{-(d-2)}. Comparing growth rates R_sp = 2/λ_R and R_hor = (d-2)λ/2 on the accelerating attractor, the matter entropy overtakes the geometry — background unstable by the covariant entropy bound — precisely when λ < 4/((d-2)λ_R), i.e. p > 1, a finite event horizon, TCC violation. The converse also holds when only the string tower is present. The saturation time reproduces the TC

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the entropy-rate ratio R_sp/R_hor. The species entropy S_sp = N_sp counts the particle species below the species scale Λ_sp; the paper adopts the 'species thermodynamics' identification of this number with the EFT's matter entropy, supported by log(N_sp!) ≃ N_sp and a saddle-point evaluation of a partition function (Eqs. (24)–(26)). The geometric entropy S_hor comes from the apparent horizon, whose radius is 1/H, so S_hor ∝ area ∝ H^{-(d-2)}; the Einstein equations make the apparent horizon obey the first law with this entropy. The distance conjecture supplies the growth of S_sp: as the modulus/dilaton rolls, the KK or string tower descends and N_sp grows exponenti

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the entropy of the tower states inside the apparent horizon is not literally the species number N_sp: the identification rests on the combinatorial estimate log(N_sp!) ≃ N_sp and a saddle-point evaluation of a generating function (Eqs. (24)–(26) of §3.1), not on a proven count of states in the FLRW background.

What would settle it

A direct counting calculation of the tower states inside the apparent horizon r_app = 1/H for a concrete quintessence solution (fixed d, n, λ). If the microcanonical entropy is not N_sp — for instance if it carries a Boltzmann suppression exp(-m_t/T) with T ~ H, or is cut off by the horizon volume — then the rate comparison, the instability/TCC equivalence, and the lifetime estimate (Eq. (43)) all change; the predicted saturation time would fail to match the trans-Planckian censorship lifetime.

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

If this is right

  • Stability of accelerating quintessence becomes an entropy-budget question: the background survives only while S_sp stays below S_hor, and the moment of equality is the lifetime, matching the trans-Planckian censorship log(M_Pl/H) bound.
  • TCC violation and entropy-driven instability are the same physical statement in quintessence: a finite event horizon exists exactly when species entropy outgrows horizon entropy.
  • The AdS distance conjecture's α ≤ 1/2 bound for the scale separation m_t ~ V^α is reproduced by the lower bound R_sp R_hor ≥ d-2, so scale separation is an entropy-uncertainty condition.
  • The distance, de Sitter, trans-Planckian censorship, and AdS distance conjectures form one family expressible in a single entropy language, with the covariant entropy bound as the organizing principle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The rate-comparison machinery is not restricted to the two attractor solutions; applying it to non-attractor or tracker initial conditions would test whether every accelerating background with a finite event horizon is entropically unstable.
  • If S_sp = N_sp survives a direct state count in a concrete compactification, the entropy argument would upgrade TCC from an independent conjecture to a corollary of species counting — a stronger statement than the paper explicitly makes.
  • The product bound R_sp R_hor ≥ d-2 reads as an uncertainty-type obstruction to arbitrarily flat potentials: making the horizon entropy grow slowly forces the species entropy to grow fast, which is exactly the instability regime; this could be turned into a quantitative bound on the potential's slope.
  • A numerical toy model — a scalar rolling down an exponential potential with a tower of massive fields, measuring the tower's entropy inside the apparent horizon r_app = 1/H — would locate the instability point and check the lifetime formula directly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper applies the covariant entropy bound / species-entropy argument to quintessence models with exponential potentials. After reviewing the distance conjecture for KK and string towers and the attractor solutions of the quintessence model, it computes the growth rates of the species number N_sp (taken as the matter entropy) and of the apparent-horizon entropy S_hor. From the rate comparison it derives a stability/instability condition, identifies the unstable regime with the violation of the trans-Planckian censorship conjecture (TCC), estimates the lifetime of the unstable background, and obtains a scale-separation bound that it relates to the AdS distance conjecture. The paper contains an explicit boxed claim that TCC is equivalent to the condition R_sp < R_hor, i.e., that S_sp never exceeds S_hor.

Significance. The paper is a serious attempt to unify swampland conjectures through entropy language. If the central claims hold, the covariant entropy bound, the distance conjecture, the TCC, and the AdS distance conjecture would be linked by a simple rate comparison. The algebraic setup is explicit and mostly self-consistent: the definitions of R_sp, R_hor, and the lifetime estimate are transparent, and the scale-separation product (49) is an elegant result that reproduces the AdS distance conjecture bound. The paper also builds on recent species-thermodynamics literature and does not introduce invented entities. However, the advertised equivalence between entropy-rate instability and TCC violation is false for finite KK towers; it holds only in the string-tower limit n→∞. In addition, the whole argument depends on the unproven identification S_sp = N_sp. Both issues are load-bearing and require substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Conclusions] The boxed theorem states that the TCC (absence of an event horizon) is equivalent to R_sp < R_hor. This is not correct for finite n. From Eq. (37), R_sp > R_hor is equivalent to λ < 4/[(d−2)λ_R]. With p = 4/[(d−2)λ²], this condition is p > 1 + (d−2)/n. TCC violation / finite event horizon, however, is only p > 1. Therefore, for every finite n there is an interval 1 < p < 1 + (d−2)/n where the TCC is violated but the entropy-instability criterion is not met. A concrete example is d=4, n=1, λ=1, which gives p=2>1 and R_sp/R_hor ≈ 0.816 < 1. The derivation in (38)-(39) only gives p > λ_R/λ, and the subsequent 'hence p>1' is a one-way implication. The correct statement is that entropy-rate instability implies TCC violation, with the converse holding only for the string tower (n→∞, λ_R=2/√(d−2)). The boxed statement and the §4 conclusion must be revised accordingly.
  2. [§3.1] The central instability criterion depends on identifying the matter entropy of the EFT with the species number N_sp. The derivation in Eqs. (24)-(26) is a saddle-point estimate of log D(M), where D(M) is a weighted state count of tower states; it does not establish that the physical entropy of the tower fields inside the apparent horizon of the FLRW background equals N_sp. This identification is an external heuristic from species thermodynamics, not a proven result in the cosmological setting. Since the rate comparison, the lifetime estimate, and all derived stability conclusions would collapse if S_sp ≠ N_sp, the manuscript should state this identification explicitly as an assumption and discuss the sensitivity of the conclusions to corrections or alternative entropy assignments.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §3.2, §4] The abstract correctly notes that the converse is true 'when the string tower is taken into account', but this caveat is absent from the boxed statement in §3.2 and from the summary in §4. The caveat should be part of the theorem statement itself.
  2. [Eq. (40)-(41)] The notation in Eq. (40) is hard to follow: the denominator κ_d² H_0^{d−2} is introduced before H_0 is defined in Eq. (41), and the displayed factors involving λ and d could be arranged more transparently. Please clarify the definitions and the dimensional counting.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (49)] The phrase 'analogue uncertainty principle' is potentially confusing because the product R_sp R_hor is a lower bound on a product of classical rates, not on quantum variances. Suggest rewording to avoid confusion with the standard uncertainty principle.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: species-entropy vs horizon-entropy comparison is self-contained; the boxed TCC–entropy equivalence is overbroad for KK towers, but this is a correctness issue rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular in the sense of reducing to its inputs. The matter-entropy rate R_sp is constructed from the distance-conjecture tower via the species scale (Eqs. (3)-(10), (28)), while the geometrical-entropy rate R_hor is computed from the apparent-horizon area law in the quintessence background (Eqs. (27), (36)); the instability criterion R_sp>R_hor and the saturation time (43) are then solved explicitly rather than assumed. The species-entropy identification is cited to independent authors (refs. [61-65]), and the self-citations ([38,39,43,60]) are contextual, not load-bearing. The main defect is algebraic, not circular: from Eqs. (37)-(39), R_sp>R_hor is equivalent to p>1+(d-2)/n, so the boxed equivalence to the TCC condition p>1 holds only in the string-tower limit n→∞. The abstract's caveat that the converse 'is also true when the string tower is taken into account' is correct, but the boxed statement in §3.2 and the §4 conclusion drop that qualification. This is an overstatement of the result, not a circular definition or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports the distance conjecture, covariant entropy bound, and TCC as background inputs. The two new load-bearing postulates are S_sp = N_sp and the identification of the rolling quintessence scalar with the modulus controlling the tower mass. No empirical data or machine-checked proof is provided, so the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions and prior conjectures.

free parameters (4)
  • λ
    Exponential decay rate of the quintessence potential V = V0 e^{−λκφ}. It is an input parameter, not fitted, but all central inequalities (entropy instability, event-horizon existence, scale separation) are conditions on λ.
  • n
    Number of extra dimensions in the KK tower. It controls λ_R and the string-tower limit n→∞; the exact equivalence between entropy instability and TCC violation holds only at n→∞.
  • V0
    Amplitude of the quintessence potential. It sets the fiducial Hubble scale H0 and the lifetime normalization in Equations (40)-(43), but cancels in the rate inequalities.
  • d
    Spacetime dimension, assumed d > 2. It enters all rate formulas and the product bound; it is a model choice rather than a fitted constant.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The covariant entropy bound of Bousso applies to the FLRW apparent horizon and bounds the entropy on the associated light-sheet.
    Used in §3.2 to declare instability when S_sp exceeds S_hor; imported from [14] without proof.
  • domain assumption The distance conjecture: as a scalar moves an infinite distance in field space, a tower of states descends from the UV and its mass scale follows m_t = m_t(φ).
    Basis for the R_sp and N_sp formulas in §2.1 and §3.1; imported from [15].
  • ad hoc to paper The matter entropy of the EFT tower equals the species number N_sp.
    Load-bearing identification made in §3.1, Equations (24)-(26); supported by 'species thermodynamics' [61-65] and a saddle-point estimate, not by an independent state count.
  • domain assumption The apparent-horizon entropy is given by Area/(4G_d).
    Used to write S_hor in Equation (27); based on the first law of thermodynamics on the horizon [68-73].
  • standard math The exponential-potential attractor solutions A and B, with a(t) ∼ t^p, exhaust the late-time scaling solutions of the quintessence equations.
    Known solutions of Equation (18); cited to [57-59].
  • ad hoc to paper The rolling quintessence field is the same modulus or dilaton whose motion drives the tower descent, so that φ = ρ or φ = −D.
    Explicitly assumed in §3.2: 'we assume that the cosmological evolution is driven by ρ or D such that they can be identified with φ'. Without this, the distance-conjecture rates are not tied to the quintessence trajectory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14777 in / 17651 out tokens · 194925 ms · 2026-08-03T07:05:16.860246+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We apply the covariant entropy bound argument supporting the de Sitter swampland conjecture to the quintessence model, to find out the condition for the background to be unstable. More concretely, the background is unstable when the matter entropy given by the species number of the effective field theory increases more rapidly than the geometrical entropy proportional to the apparent horizon area, since it contradicts the covariant entropy bound. The rapid increase in the matter entropy is proposed by the distance conjecture, which states that the time evolution of some scalar field along the geodesic in the field space brings about the descent of a tower of states from UV. From this, we find that for the quintessence model, the unstable background admits the event horizon of finite size, and the converse is also true when the string tower is taken into account. Here, the presence of the event horizon implies that the trans-Planckian modes can be classicalized, violating the trans-Planckian censorship bound. We also point out that the scale separation between the Kaluza-Klein mass scale and the Hubble parameter can be realized when the product between the increasing rates of the matter and the geometrical entropies is bounded from below, which is consistent with the AdS distance conjecture. Our study suggests that various swampland conjectures can be comprehensively understood in the language of the entropy.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vafa, [arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]]

    C. Vafa, [arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    T. D. Brennan, F. Carta and C. Vafa, PoST ASI2017, 015 (2017) [arXiv:1711.00864 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Palti, Fortsch

    E. Palti, Fortsch. Phys.67, no.6, 1900037 (2019) [arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    van Beest, J

    M. van Beest, J. Calder´ on-Infante, D. Mirfendereski and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rept.989, 1-50 (2022) [arXiv:2102.01111 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Gra˜ na and A

    M. Gra˜ na and A. Herr´ aez, Universe7, no.8, 273 (2021) [arXiv:2107.00087 [hep-th]]. 10The same bound also can be obtained from the Cohen-Kaplan-Nelson (CKN) bound [86] which forbids the black hole formation at energy scale below the UV cutoff [54]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang and C. Vafa, [arXiv:2212.06187 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27, no.12, 1830007 (2018) [arXiv:1804.01120 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa, [arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Andriot, Phys

    D. Andriot, Phys. Lett. B785, 570-573 (2018) [arXiv:1806.10999 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Cicoli, S

    M. Cicoli, S. De Alwis, A. Maharana, F. Muia and F. Quevedo, Fortsch. Phys.67, no.1-2, 1800079 (2019) [arXiv:1808.08967 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan, JHEP11, 075 (2019) [arXiv:1807.05193 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B788, 180-184 (2019) [arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Andriot and C

    D. Andriot and C. Roupec, Fortsch. Phys.67, no.1-2, 1800105 (2019) [arXiv:1811.08889 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Bousso, JHEP07, 004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9905177 [hep-th]]

    R. Bousso, JHEP07, 004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9905177 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B766, 21-33 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0605264 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    S. J. Lee, W. Lerche and T. Weigand, JHEP02, 096 (2022) [arXiv:1904.06344 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    S. J. Lee, W. Lerche and T. Weigand, JHEP02, 190 (2022) [arXiv:1910.01135 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Bedroya and C

    A. Bedroya and C. Vafa, JHEP09, 123 (2020) [arXiv:1909.11063 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.325, L17 (1988)

    1988

  20. [20]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  21. [21]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1582-1585 (1998) [arXiv:astro- ph/9708069 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 1998

  22. [22]

    Martin, Mod

    J. Martin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A23, 1252-1265 (2008) [arXiv:0803.4076 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 214003 (2013) [arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Hellerman, N

    S. Hellerman, N. Kaloper and L. Susskind, JHEP06, 003 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0104180 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    Fischler, A

    W. Fischler, A. Kashani-Poor, R. McNees and S. Paban, JHEP07, 003 (2001) [arXiv:hep- th/0104181 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Kaloper and L

    N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D79, 043528 (2009) [arXiv:0810.5346 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. G. Pedro and G. Tasinato, JCAP07, 044 (2012) [arXiv:1203.6655 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Olguin-Trejo, S

    Y. Olguin-Trejo, S. L. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, JCAP01, 031 (2019) [arXiv:1810.08634 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla and F. G. Pedro, Fortsch. Phys.70, no.4, 2200009 (2022) [arXiv:2112.10779 [hep-th]]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla and F. G. Pedro, Fortsch. Phys.70, no.4, 2200008 (2022) [arXiv:2112.10783 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Brinkmann, M

    M. Brinkmann, M. Cicoli, G. Dibitetto and F. G. Pedro, JHEP11, 044 (2022) [arXiv:2206.10649 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    J. P. Conlon and F. Revello, JHEP11, 155 (2022) [arXiv:2207.00567 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Rudelius, JHEP10, 018 (2022) [arXiv:2208.08989 [hep-th]]

    T. Rudelius, JHEP10, 018 (2022) [arXiv:2208.08989 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Calder´ on-Infante, I

    J. Calder´ on-Infante, I. Ruiz and I. Valenzuela, JHEP06, 129 (2023) [arXiv:2209.11821 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Apers, J

    F. Apers, J. P. Conlon, M. Mosny and F. Revello, JHEP08, 156 (2023) [arXiv:2212.10293 [hep- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    G. Shiu, F. Tonioni and H. V. Tran, Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 063527 (2023) [arXiv:2303.03418 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    G. Shiu, F. Tonioni and H. V. Tran, Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 063528 (2023) [arXiv:2306.07327 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    M. S. Seo, Nucl. Phys. B1008, 116705 (2024) [arXiv:2402.00241 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    M. S. Seo, Fortsch. Phys.72, no.11, 2400112 (2024) [arXiv:2403.07307 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Bedroya, JHEP06, 016 (2024) [arXiv:2211.09128 [hep-th]]

    A. Bedroya, JHEP06, 016 (2024) [arXiv:2211.09128 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Bedroya and P

    A. Bedroya and P. J. Steinhardt, [arXiv:2511.15784 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106113 [hep-th]]

    A. Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106113 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    M. S. Seo, Phys. Lett. B807, 135580 (2020) [arXiv:1911.06441 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    R. G. Cai and S. J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.64, no.1, 210011 (2021) [arXiv:1912.00607 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Sun and Y

    S. Sun and Y. L. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B816, 136245 (2021) [arXiv:1912.13509 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Coudarchet, Phys

    T. Coudarchet, Phys. Rept.1064, 1-28 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12105 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Veneziano, JHEP06, 051 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0110129 [hep-th]]

    G. Veneziano, JHEP06, 051 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0110129 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    Dvali, Fortsch

    G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys.58, 528-536 (2010) [arXiv:0706.2050 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Dvali and M

    G. Dvali and M. Redi, Phys. Rev. D77, 045027 (2008) [arXiv:0710.4344 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    Dvali and D

    G. Dvali and D. Lust, Fortsch. Phys.58, 505-527 (2010) [arXiv:0912.3167 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, [arXiv:1004.3744 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez and D. Lust, Fortsch. Phys.61, 768-778 (2013) [arXiv:1206.2365 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Kani and C

    I. Kani and C. Vafa, Commun. Math. Phys.130, 529-580 (1990)

    1990

  54. [54]

    Castellano, A

    A. Castellano, A. Herr´ aez and L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez, JHEP08, 217 (2022) [arXiv:2112.10796 [hep-th]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Castellano, I

    A. Castellano, I. Ruiz and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.18, 181601 (2024) [arXiv:2311.01501 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Castellano, I

    A. Castellano, I. Ruiz and I. Valenzuela, JHEP06, 037 (2024) [arXiv:2311.01536 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Lucchin and S

    F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D32, 1316 (1985)

    1985

  58. [58]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D57, 4686-4690 (1998) [arXiv:gr- qc/9711068 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1998

  59. [59]

    R. J. van den Hoogen, A. A. Coley and D. Wands, Class. Quant. Grav.16, 1843-1851 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9901014 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  60. [60]

    M. S. Seo, Phys. Lett. B797, 134904 (2019) [arXiv:1907.12142 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Cribiori, D

    N. Cribiori, D. Lust and C. Montella, JHEP10, 059 (2023) [arXiv:2305.10489 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Basile, D

    I. Basile, D. L¨ ust and C. Montella, JHEP07, 208 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12113 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Basile, N

    I. Basile, N. Cribiori, D. Lust and C. Montella, JHEP06, 127 (2024) [arXiv:2401.06851 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Herr´ aez, D

    A. Herr´ aez, D. L¨ ust, J. Masias and M. Scalisi, SciPost Phys.18, 083 (2025) [arXiv:2406.17851 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Herr´ aez, D

    A. Herr´ aez, D. L¨ ust, J. Masias and C. Montella, PoSCORFU2024, 161 (2025) [arXiv:2506.02335 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    van de Heisteeg, C

    D. van de Heisteeg, C. Vafa, M. Wiesner and D. H. Wu, Beijing J. Pure Appl. Math.1, no.1, 1-41 (2024) [arXiv:2212.06841 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Cribiori, D

    N. Cribiori, D. L¨ ust and G. Staudt, Phys. Lett. B844, 138113 (2023) [arXiv:2212.10286 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147-3162 (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9710089 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    Bak and S

    D. Bak and S. J. Rey, Class. Quant. Grav.17, L83 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9902173 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [70]

    R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP02, 050 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0501055 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [71]

    R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007) [arXiv:gr-qc/0611071 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    Abreu and M

    G. Abreu and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D82, 044027 (2010) [arXiv:1004.1456 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [73]

    Bin´ etruy and A

    P. Bin´ etruy and A. Helou, Class. Quant. Grav.32, no.20, 205006 (2015) [arXiv:1406.1658 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    G. Gibbons, ”Aspects of Supergravity Theories”, in Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Related Topics: Proceedings of the XVth GIFT International Seminar on Theoretical Physics, 4–9 June 1984, Sant Feliu de Gu ´ ıxols, Girona, Spain F. del Aguila, J. A. de Azc´ arraga and L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez eds., World Scientific (1985) [ISBN: 9789971966805]

    1984

  75. [75]

    de Wit, D

    B. de Wit, D. J. Smit and N. D. Hari Dass, Nucl. Phys. B283, 165 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(87)90267-7

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1987

  76. [76]

    J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 822-855 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0007018 [hep-th]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  77. [77]

    F. F. Gautason, M. Schillo, T. Van Riet and M. Williams, JHEP03, 061 (2016) [arXiv:1512.00457 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [78]

    Andriot, N

    D. Andriot, N. Cribiori and T. Van Riet, Phys. Rev. D112, no.2, 026028 (2025) [arXiv:2504.08634 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Bedroya, H

    A. Bedroya, H. Lee and P. Steinhardt, [arXiv:2504.13260 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Bedroya and P

    A. Bedroya and P. J. Steinhardt, [arXiv:2509.25313 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

Showing first 80 references.