Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Effective Action in M-Theory: $(DF)^4$ Superinvariants

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By imposing local supersymmetry, the paper reduces the 24 independent $(DF)^4$ terms of the M-theory effective action to 10 free parameters and shows that the surviving coefficients match the supermembrane and superparticle…

desk verdict Solid, honest supersymmetry computation with a real external match, but the 10-parameter result is conditional on an unproven DDF/DR truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14984 v2 pith:Y5CFJ4VX submitted 2025-07-20 hep-th

Yoshifumi Hyakutake This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 83E5081T3081T60 PACS 04.65.+e11.25.-w11.30.Pb
keywords M-theoryeleven-dimensionalsupergravityhigher-derivativecorrectionslocalsupersymmetry(DF)^4termssuperinvariantsscatteringamplitudesgravitinobilinears
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 tries to establish that local supersymmetry alone fixes most of the eight-derivative corrections to eleven-dimensional supergravity in the $(DF)^4$ sector, the terms built from four derivatives of the four-form field strength. It classifies all index contractions in the bosonic bases $B_1=[e(DF)^4]$ and $B_2=[e\epsilon_{11}R(DF)^3]$ together with the related fermionic bilinears, computes their variations, and imposes cancellation up to second order in the gravitino. The outcome is that 14 of the 24 independent $B_1$ coefficients and 5 of the 10 independent $B_2$ coefficients become fixed linear combinations of the remaining parameters, leaving 10 free parameters in the $(DF)^4$ sector. The significance is that this parameter count agrees with the effective action obtained from supermembrane and superparticle scattering amplitudes, so the same structure is reached from symmetry and from amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a large linear-algebraic cancellation condition assembled from classified tensor bases. The bosonic bases are $B_1=[e(DF)^4]$ and $B_2=[e\epsilon_{11}R(DF)^3]$, with fermionic bilinears $F_1=[e(DF)^2\psi_2\gamma D\psi_2]$, $F_2=[e(DF)^3\bar\psi\gamma\psi_2]$ and $F_3=[eF(DF)^3\bar\psi\gamma\psi]$; their variations fall into $V_1=[e(DF)^2DDF\,\bar\epsilon\gamma\psi_2]$, $V_2=[e(DF)^3\bar\epsilon\gamma D\psi_2]$, $V_4=[e(DF)^4\bar\epsilon\gamma\psi]$ and $V_5=[eF(DF)^2DDF\,\bar\epsilon\gamma\psi]$. Each basis is reduced by Bianchi identities, commutators of covariant derivatives, and dimension-dependent identities special to $D=11$, then projected onto independent variations. The cancellation condition (129) combines the variation of the generic action with corrections to the supersymmetry transformations; solving it fixes the coefficient relations (130)-(131).

What would settle it

Extend the same cancellation to the $O(R)$ variations that Section 5.5 leaves for future work and check whether the new equations impose additional relations among the ten free $b_1$ parameters or alter the fixed relations (130)-(131). If any residual variation at $O(R)$ mixes with the $(DF)^4$ sector, the claimed 10-parameter structure is not the final superinvariant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, imposing $N=1$ local supersymmetry in eleven dimensions constrains the basis $B_1=[e(D\hat F)^4]$ to 10 parameters: equations (130) express 14 of the 24 coefficients as rational linear combinations of the other ten, and the 32 terms that contain the supergravity equations of motion are removed by field redefinitions. The related $B_2=[e\epsilon_{11}\hat R(D\hat F)^3]$ basis has 5 of its 10 coefficients fixed by equations (131). The same cancellation works only when corrections to the local supersymmetry transformations are included; the appendix B solution with no corrections is inconsistent with the amplitude result. Section 6 shows that the 10-parameter solution coincides exactly, up to an overall factor, with the $(DF)^4$ action obtained in [44] from scattering amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The counting assumes that the truncated sector is self-contained: excluding terms with extra covariant derivatives, and checking cancellation only at $O(R^0)$ and up to $O(\psi^2)$, cannot miss variations that later feed back into the $(DF)^4$ coefficients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The eight-derivative $(DF)^4$ action is not a 24-parameter polynomial: 14 coefficients are forced linear combinations of 10 free parameters, so any complete M-theory effective action must respect these relations.
  • The Riemann-tensor-containing terms $B_2=[e\epsilon_{11}R(DF)^3]$ are partly fixed by the pure $(DF)^4$ sector, so the two sectors cannot be tuned independently.
  • A supersymmetry-based construction agrees with scattering-amplitude calculations only if the local supersymmetry transformations receive higher-derivative corrections; the no-correction action is excluded by the amplitude comparison.
  • Extending the same cancellation to the remaining $O(R^0)$ sectors listed in (29)-(30) should further constrain the M-theory effective action beyond $(DF)^4$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to reduce the 10-parameter $(DF)^4$ superinvariant to ten dimensions and compare with one-loop type IIA amplitudes; the recent mismatch noted in [45] for the $R^4$ sector makes this reduction a sharp check.
  • If the match with [44] survives the residual $O(R)$ variations, the ten free parameters are probably field-redefinition and scheme ambiguities rather than ten physical couplings.
  • The classification pipeline used here could be applied to other maximally supersymmetric higher-derivative sectors, since the dimension-dependent identities that are handled centrally here were neglected in earlier $R^4$ determinations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs higher-derivative M-theory effective action terms of the form (DF)^4 together with their fermionic partners by imposing N=1 local supersymmetry in eleven dimensions. Using a large Mathematica computation, it classifies the O(R0) bosonic bases B1 = [e(D\hat F)^4] (56 terms, 24 after equations-of-motion reduction) and B2 = [e \epsilon_{11} \hat R (D\hat F)^3] (22 terms, 10 after reduction), the fermionic bilinear bases F1, F2, F3 (1298, 4933, and 14337 terms), and the variation classes V1, V2, V4, V5 (5392, 3067, 10285, and 60394 terms). The cancellation conditions (128) and (129), including field-redefinition ambiguities and corrections to the local supersymmetry transformations, are solved to obtain the explicit relations (130) and (131), which leave ten free B1 coefficients and five free B2 coefficients. Section 6 claims that this result reproduces the scattering-amplitude effective action of reference [44] through the identifications (134).

Significance. The explicit final relations (130) and (131) are a valuable, falsifiable output, and the comparison with reference [44] is a genuine external benchmark. The derivation is not circular: the ten coefficients are left undetermined by the supersymmetry cancellation and are only later matched to the independently computed parameters of the amplitude action. The paper is also honest about its restrictions, explicitly deferring O(R) variations in Sections 2.3 and 5.5 and stating the derivative-counting ansatz in Section 2.2. If the ansatz-completeness gap described below can be closed (or precisely delineated), the result would be a substantial independent confirmation of the structure of the (DF)^4 sector of the M-theory effective action.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §5.5; Eqs. (26), (29), (129)–(131)] The central claim—that the 24 on-shell (DF)^4 terms are governed by 10 parameters—is proven only within the minimum-derivative ansatz of Section 2.2, which excludes terms containing [D\hat R] or [DD\hat F] from the action. The stated reason is computational convenience ('the inclusion of such terms ... makes the cancellation mechanism quite complicate'), not a demonstration that the excluded terms reduce to the B1/B2 basis modulo total derivatives, the equations of motion, and the Bianchi identities (42)–(43). The gap is concrete: a term e\hat F (D\hat F)^2 DD\hat F carries the same O(R0) field content as B1 (four F fields, four derivatives, engineering dimension eight), and under the variation (26) it produces a (DF)^2 DDF \bar{\epsilon}\gamma\psi_2 contribution, i.e., an element of the V1 class that enters the first line of the cancellation equations (129). Additional such terms would add rows to (129) and could change the relations (130) and (131). The paper itself flags the closely related residual O(R) variations in Sections 2.3 and 5.5 as future work, so the abstract's claim should carry the qualifier 'within this ansatz,' and the manuscript needs either a completeness proof for the O(R0) basis or an explicit statement that the 10-parameter result is conditional on the truncation.
  2. [§6, Eqs. (133)–(134)] The consistency with the scattering-amplitude action is the abstract's central external check, but it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that 'after some calculations, it is possible to show' that (133) follows from (130) via the identifications (134); no derivation, substitution table, or verifying notebook is provided. Furthermore, the parameter counts do not match exactly: the supersymmetry result leaves 10 free B1 coefficients, whereas the amplitude action (133) contains only 9 free parameters \tilde z_1,...,\tilde z_9, so one combination of the ten b1 parameters is not fixed by the comparison. The paper should clarify whether this leftover combination is a genuine new superinvariant within the ansatz or an artifact of the truncation, and the claimed identity should be made checkable, for example as an appendix or through a deposited notebook.
  3. [Appendix C and ref. [47]] The paper is a large automated computation, but the deposited code is incomplete. Appendix C.6 states that the variations are generated by notebooks 'V1 SusyTr (DF)2DDFeP2.nb', 'V2 SusyTr (DF)3eDP2.nb', 'V4 SusyTr (DF)4e.nb', and 'V5 SusyTr F(DF)2DDFeP.nb', while reference [47] provides only 'ActVarBase.nb', 'ActVarBiaEOM.nb', and 'GammaProduct.nb'. Consequently, the solution of (129) behind Eqs. (130)–(131), the simultaneous solution for the roughly 20,000 f1, f2, f3 coefficients, and the Section 6 identity cannot be independently checked from the public artifacts. Given the scale of the calculation, the full set of notebooks (or equivalent verification data, such as spot-checked coefficients) should be released before the results can be fully assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6, Eq. (133)] The overall normalization '21937' (also typeset as '2 1937') is unexplained and likely garbled; please clarify the intended numerical factor.
  2. [§2.2, after Eq. (25)] 'vatiation' is a typo for 'variation'; the paper would also benefit from a general proofreading pass (e.g., the spacing in '2κ2 11 = (2π)8ℓ9 p').
  3. [Table 5] The parenthetical entries in the #ADJ, #IND, and #Bianchi id. rows (e.g., '7324 (29043)') are never defined; please explain these numbers or remove them.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The unqualified statement that '24 independent terms of (DF)^4 are governed by 10 parameters' should carry the restriction to the minimum-derivative ansatz at O(R0), matching the careful qualifications in the body of the paper.
  5. [§6] Since (134) maps 10 b1 parameters onto 9 \tilde z parameters, please add a remark on whether the image covers the full supersymmetric family or whether an extra superinvariant exists.
  6. [§5.5] The claim that the results (130) and (131) 'remain the same' under field redefinitions would be easier to trust with a one-line argument, given that field redefinitions were used earlier in the same section to set b1[25] through b1[56] to zero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the 10-parameter (DF)^4 result follows from an explicit local-SUSY cancellation calculation, and the comparison with the scattering-amplitude action of ref. [44] is an external consistency check, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The generic action (101) is a linear combination of independently classified B1, B2, F1, F2 and F3 terms, and the transformation matrices (87), (91), (94), (97) and (100) are computed from the explicit variation formulae (26)-(27) rather than being set equal to the final answer. The cancellation equations (129) are then solved for the coefficients; Section 5.5 reports that '14 parameters out of b1[1], ..., b1[24] can be determined' and that 'there remain 10 free parameters of b1[1], ..., b1[3], b1[5], ..., b1[10], b1[14]'. These free parameters are not fitted to the scattering-amplitude action. In Section 6 the paper quotes the independent amplitude result of ref. [44] and states that 'the eq. (133) can be reproduced from the eq. (130) by choosing 10 free parameters as ...' (134). This is a benchmark consistency check against an external calculation by Peeters, Plefka and Stern, not a circular reduction, because the SUSY cancellation itself already leaves the 10 parameters undetermined and the amplitude action independently contains 9 free z-parameters plus an overall normalization. The self-citations [33]-[35] are used only as background for known R^4 and R^3F^2 superinvariants; the central (DF)^4 constraint equations do not rest on them. Moreover, the Conclusion explicitly questions the earlier 'uniquely determined' claim in ref. [35] by noting that dimension dependent identities were neglected there, so no uniqueness is imported from the author's prior work. The main caveats are the explicit minimum-derivative ansatz of Section 2.2, which excludes [DDF]- or [DR]-containing terms from the action, and the paper's own admission in Section 5.5 that variations at O(R) remain; these are completeness and correctness risks, not circularity, because the paper neither defines the target result in terms of the ansatz nor uses the amplitude comparison to force the relations (130)-(131). Score 1 reflects the presence of background self-citations that are not load-bearing; no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the standard 11D supergravity framework, an explicit minimum-derivative ansatz, field redefinition choices, arbitrary supersymmetry-correction coefficients, and the external scattering-amplitude action of ref. [44]. The genuinely new output is the algebraic solution of the supersymmetry cancellation equations; its free parameters are not fitted to data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Ten undetermined B1 coefficients (b1[1], b1[2], b1[3], b1[5], b1[6], b1[7], b1[8], b1[9], b1[10], b1[14]) = not fitted; left free by the supersymmetry cancellation
    Eq. (130) leaves these 10 coefficients free and expresses the other 14 B1 terms in terms of them. They are not fixed by data, but they are free parameters of the superinvariant and later map to the free parameters of ref. [44].
  • Five undetermined B2 coefficients (b2[1], b2[2], b2[3], b2[9], b2[10]) = not fitted; left free
    Eq. (131) leaves these 5 B2 coefficients free. The comparison in Section 6 fixes some relations between them and the B1 parameters, but they are not determined by supersymmetry alone.
  • Correction coefficients z1, z2, z4, z5 for the local supersymmetry transformations = not fitted; chosen nonzero in the main solution
    Eq. (127) introduces arbitrary coefficients for the corrections to the supersymmetry transformations. The main solution keeps them nonzero, and Section 6 argues that setting them to zero contradicts the amplitude result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The standard eleven-dimensional N=1 supergravity transformation laws (8) and the supercovariant building blocks (20), (22) and (25) are the correct starting point for higher-derivative invariants.
    Section 2.1 sets up the whole construction on this framework; if the supercovariantization or the transformation rules were modified, the variation computation would change.
  • ad hoc to paper At O(R0) the effective action contains only terms with the minimum number of covariant derivatives, and terms with [DR] or [DDF] in the action are excluded.
    Section 2.2 states this ansatz explicitly and justifies it by computational practicality, not by a derivable symmetry principle.
  • domain assumption The cancellation is checked only up to O(psi^2) and at O(R0); variations of O(R) are deferred to future work.
    Sections 2.3 and 7 note that O(R) variations remain after the O(R0) cancellation; this means the final 10-parameter structure may receive further constraints.
  • domain assumption Field redefinitions allow any term containing the supergravity equations of motion to be removed, including B1[25..56] and B2[11..22], and the coefficients of the correction terms z1, z2, z4, z5 can be chosen arbitrarily.
    Subsection 5.3 applies standard field-redefinition ambiguities, while subsection 5.4 uses arbitrary corrections to the supersymmetry transformations. The final solution assumes these choices do not alter the physical content.
  • domain assumption The scattering-amplitude effective action of ref. [44], eq. (133), is a valid external benchmark and its parameters z_i are genuinely free at the considered order.
    Section 6 defines consistency as matching eq. (133). If that amplitude result were incomplete or its z_i were not independent, the consistency claim would weaken.
  • standard math Bianchi identities (42), commutation relations (43), and dimension-dependent identities obtained by antisymmetrizing 12 indices in 11 dimensions are applied to reduce the tensor bases.
    Section 3 steps 3 and 4 apply these standard identities; they are necessary for the reported basis counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective Action in M-Theory: $(DF)^4$ Superinvariants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5CFJ4VX

@misc{pith2026250714984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective Action in M-Theory: $(DF)^4$ Superinvariants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5CFJ4VX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14984}
}
abstract

We construct superinvariants in M-theory via local supersymmetry, which include $(DF)^4$ terms and fermionic bilinear terms with mass dimension eight. The bases of the $(DF)^4$ and the fermionic bilinear terms are classified and the variations under the local supersymmetry are evaluated by using the Mathematica codes. By imposing the local supersymmetry, we find that 24 independent terms of $(DF)^4$ are governed by 10 parameters. The result is consistent with the effective action obtained by analyzing scattering amplitudes of superparticles or supermembranes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variations of the eleven dimensional supergravity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variations at O(R0 ) up to O(ψ 2 ) under the local supersymmetry It is also clear that, even at O(R0 ), we should deal with a lot of terms in order to check the local supersymmetry. Thus we restrict our calculations to the upper part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , and we assign B1, B2 for the bosonic terms in the effective action, F1, F2, F3 for the fermionic bilinears, and V1, · · · , V5 for the variations. A number of independent terms for each class is shown in the subscript. Details are explained in the next section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Higher-derivative gauge field terms in the M-theory action

    K. Peeters, J. Plefka and S. Stern, “Higher-derivative gauge field terms in the M-theory action”, JHEP 08 (2005), 095, [arXiv:hep-th/0507178 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  2. [47]

    ActVarBase.nb

    “ActVarBase.nb”: https://yoshi.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ActVarBase.nb “ActVarBiaEOM.nb”: https://yoshi.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ActVarBiaEOM.nb “GammaProduct.nb”: https://yoshi.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/GammaProduct.nb Note that some commands require at least 128GB for RAM. 60

    work page

  3. [1]

    SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1,2

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, “SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1,2”, 1988

    work page 1988

  4. [2]

    String theory. Vol. 1, 2

    J. Polchinski, “String theory. Vol. 1, 2”, Cambridge University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    SUPERGRA VITIES IN DIVERSE DIMENSIONS. VOL. 1, 2

    A. Salam and E. Sezgin, “SUPERGRA VITIES IN DIVERSE DIMENSIONS. VOL. 1, 2”

    work page

  6. [4]

    Superstring Theory

    J. H. Schwarz, “Superstring Theory”, Phys. Rept. 89, 223-322 (1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [5]

    Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations”, Nucl. Phys. B 277, 1 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [6]

    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, 41-89 (1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye, “A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings”, Nucl. Phys. B 269, 1-23 (1986)

    1986

  2. [8]

    One Loop Amplitudes and Effective Action in Superstring Theories

    N. Sakai and Y. Tanii, “One Loop Amplitudes and Effective Action in Superstring Theories”, Nucl. Phys. B 287, 457 (1987)

    1987

  3. [9]

    Four Loop beta Function for the N=1 and N=2 Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model in Two-Dimensions

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven and D. Zanon, “Four Loop beta Function for the N=1 and N=2 Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model in Two-Dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B 173, 423-428 (1986)

    1986

  4. [10]

    Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven and D. Zanon, “Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite”, Nucl. Phys. B 277, 388-408 (1986)

    1986

  5. [11]

    Four Loop Divergences for the N=1 Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model in Two-Dimensions

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven and D. Zanon, “Four Loop Divergences for the N=1 Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model in Two-Dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B 277, 409-428 (1986)

    1986

  6. [12]

    σ Model Superstring Corrections to the Einstein-hilbert Action

    M. T. Grisaru and D. Zanon, “ σ Model Superstring Corrections to the Einstein-hilbert Action”, Phys. Lett. B 177, 347-351 (1986)

    1986

  7. [13]

    Higher Order σ Model Counterterms and the Effective Action for Superstrings

    M. D. Freeman, C. N. Pope, M. F. Sohnius and K. S. Stelle, “Higher Order σ Model Counterterms and the Effective Action for Superstrings”, Phys. Lett. B 178, 199-204 (1986). 57

    1986

  8. [14]

    Supersymmetric higher derivative actions in ten-dimensions and eleven-dimensions, the associated superalgebras and their formu- lation in superspace

    K. Peeters, P. Vanhove and A. Westerberg, “Supersymmetric higher derivative actions in ten-dimensions and eleven-dimensions, the associated superalgebras and their formu- lation in superspace”, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 843-890 (2001), [arXiv:hep-th/0010167 [hep-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [15]

    The One-Loop Five-Graviton Amplitude and the Effective Action

    D. M. Richards, “The One-Loop Five-Graviton Amplitude and the Effective Action”, JHEP 10, 042 (2008), [arXiv:0807.2421 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Chiral splitting and world sheet graviti- nos in higher derivative string amplitudes

    K. Peeters, P. Vanhove and A. Westerberg, “Chiral splitting and world sheet graviti- nos in higher derivative string amplitudes”, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 2699-2716 (2002), [arXiv:hep-th/0112157 [hep-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [17]

    The One-Loop H 2R3 and H 2(∆H)2R Terms in the Effective Action

    D. M. Richards, “The One-Loop H 2R3 and H 2(∆H)2R Terms in the Effective Action”, JHEP 10, 043 (2008), [arXiv:0807.3453 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities and the B-field

    J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, “Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities and the B-field”, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 413-470 (2013), [arXiv:1304.3137 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Higher derivatives in Type II and M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds

    T. W. Grimm, K. Mayer and M. Weissenbacher, “Higher derivatives in Type II and M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds”, JHEP 02, 127 (2018), [arXiv:1702.08404 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: five-point contact terms

    J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, “Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: five-point contact terms”, Nucl. Phys. B 967, 115386 (2021), [arXiv:1912.10974 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [21]

    The Ramond-Ramond sector of string theory beyond leading order

    K. Peeters and A. Westerberg, “The Ramond-Ramond sector of string theory beyond leading order”, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1643-1666 (2004), [arXiv:hep-th/0307298 [hep- th]]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [22]

    R**4, purified

    G. Policastro and D. Tsimpis, “R**4, purified”, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 4753-4780 (2006), [arXiv:hep-th/0603165 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory”, Phys. Lett. B 149, 117-122 (1984)

    1984

  18. [24]

    A One loop test of string duality

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “A One loop test of string duality”, Nucl. Phys. B 447, 261-270 (1995), [arXiv:hep-th/9505053 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Eleven-dimensional origin of string/string duality: a one-loop test

    M. J. Duff, J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, “Eleven-dimensional origin of string/string duality: a one-loop test”, Nucl. Phys. B 452, 261-282 (1995), [arXiv:hep-th/9506126 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  20. [26]

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, Phys. Lett. B 408, 122-134 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(97)00785-5 [arXiv:hep-th/9704145 [hep-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [27]

    R**4 couplings in M and type II theories on Calabi-Yau spaces

    I. Antoniadis, S. Ferrara, R. Minasian and K. S. Narain, “R**4 couplings in M and type II theories on Calabi-Yau spaces”, Nucl. Phys. B 507, 571-588 (1997), [arXiv:hep- th/9707013 [hep-th]]

    1997

  22. [28]

    One loop four graviton amplitude in eleven-dimensional supergravity

    J. G. Russo and A. A. Tseytlin, “One loop four graviton amplitude in eleven-dimensional supergravity”, Nucl. Phys. B 508, 245-259 (1997), [arXiv:hep-th/9707134 [hep-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  23. [29]

    R**4 terms in 11 dimensions and conformal anomaly of (2,0) theory

    A. A. Tseytlin, “R**4 terms in 11 dimensions and conformal anomaly of (2,0) theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 584, 233-250 (2000), [arXiv:hep-th/0005072 [hep-th]]. 58

    2000 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Supersymmetric R**4 actions in ten- dimensions

    M. de Roo, H. Suelmann and A. Wiedemann, “Supersymmetric R**4 actions in ten- dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B 280, 39-46 (1992)

    1992

  25. [31]

    The Supersymmetric effective action of the heterotic string in ten-dimensions

    M. de Roo, H. Suelmann and A. Wiedemann, “The Supersymmetric effective action of the heterotic string in ten-dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B 405, 326-366 (1993), [arXiv:hep- th/9210099 [hep-th]]

    1993

  26. [32]

    Supersymmetry and string effective actions

    J. H. Suelmann, “Supersymmetry and string effective actions”, RX-1510 (GRONIN- GEN)

  27. [33]

    R**4 corrections to eleven dimensional supergravity via supersymmetry

    Y. Hyakutake and S. Ogushi, “R**4 corrections to eleven dimensional supergravity via supersymmetry”, Phys. Rev. D 74, 025022 (2006), [arXiv:hep-th/0508204 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Higher derivative corrections to eleven dimensional super- gravity via local supersymmetry

    Y. Hyakutake and S. Ogushi, “Higher derivative corrections to eleven dimensional super- gravity via local supersymmetry”, JHEP 02, 068 (2006), [arXiv:hep-th/0601092 [hep- th]]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Toward the Determination of R**3 F**2 Terms in M-theory

    Y. Hyakutake, “Toward the Determination of R**3 F**2 Terms in M-theory”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 109 (2007), [arXiv:hep-th/0703154 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [36]

    String Dualities at Order α′ 3

    T. Codina, O. Hohm and D. Marques, “String Dualities at Order α′ 3”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.17, 171602 (2021), [arXiv:2012.15677 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [37]

    T duality and hints of generalized geometry in string α’ corrections

    M. David and J. T. Liu, “T duality and hints of generalized geometry in string α’ corrections”, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.10, 106008 (2022), [arXiv:2108.04370 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [38]

    T-duality building blocks for α’ string corrections

    M. David and J. T. Liu, “T-duality building blocks for α’ string corrections”, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.4, 046008 (2023), [arXiv:2210.16593 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Effective action of type II superstring theories at order α′3: NS-NS couplings

    M. R. Garousi, “Effective action of type II superstring theories at order α′3: NS-NS couplings”, JHEP 02, 157 (2021), [arXiv:2011.02753 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [40]

    On NS-NS couplings at order α’3

    M. R. Garousi, “On NS-NS couplings at order α’3”, Nucl. Phys. B 971, 115510 (2021), [arXiv:2012.15091 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Higher-derivative couplings and torsional Riemann curvature

    M. R. Garousi, “Higher-derivative couplings and torsional Riemann curvature”, JHEP 12, 139 (2022), [arXiv:2210.17069 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Higher derivative supergravities in diverse dimen- sions

    M. Ozkan, Y. Pang and E. Sezgin, “Higher derivative supergravities in diverse dimen- sions”, Phys. Rept. 1086, 1-95 (2024), [arXiv:2401.08945 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Tree amplitudes and two loop counterterms in D = 11 supergravity

    S. Deser and D. Seminara, “Tree amplitudes and two loop counterterms in D = 11 supergravity”, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084010 (2000), [arXiv:hep-th/0002241 [hep-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [45]

    One loop in D = 11 vs D = 10: a mismatch

    A. Aggarwal, S. Chakrabarti, S. W. Hsia, A. R. Kamal and L. Wulff, “One loop in D = 11 vs D = 10: a mismatch”, [arXiv:2506.16391 [hep-th]]

  39. [46]

    Type IIB at eight derivatives: Five- Point Axio-Dilaton Couplings

    J. Liu, R. Minasian, R. Savelli and A. Schachner, “Type IIB at eight derivatives: Five- Point Axio-Dilaton Couplings”, [arXiv:2507.07934 [hep-th]]. 59

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.