Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A complete list within a restricted class: 17 non-supersymmetric Type II orbifolds with pointwise zero one-loop vacuum energy.

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

2026-08-01 23:38 UTC pith:BOXRIU4X

load-bearing objection The classification rests on an incomplete Narain-lattice criterion; several of the 17 models likely do not exist as stated. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15349 v1 pith:BOXRIU4X submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th

Non-abelian asymmetric orbifolds with vanishing one-loop vacuum energy

Bernardo Fraiman , Vittorio Larotonda , Michelangelo Tartaglia This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords asymmetric orbifoldsnon-supersymmetric compactificationsone-loop vacuum energycosmological constantpoint groupbordismanomalyScherk-Schwarz compactification
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.

This paper classifies four-dimensional Type II asymmetric toroidal orbifolds with non-abelian rotation point groups whose one-loop vacuum energy vanishes pointwise in the absence of spacetime supersymmetry. Within the subclass where the point group acts on a T^5 inside T^6 and the leftover S^1 is a purely geometric shift, it finds exactly 17 inequivalent models. The strategy is to require that every element of the orbifold group preserves some supercharge, while no supercharge is preserved by the whole group, so the partition function summands cancel in pairs yet global SUSY is broken. The authors verify modular invariance, absence of global anomalies, and the absence of accidental massless gravitini, and they show the models can be viewed as Scherk-Schwarz compactifications of T^5 orbifolds. A sympathetic reader would care because a non-supersymmetric vacuum with exactly zero one-loop energy is a concrete step toward understanding how the cosmological constant could be suppressed in string theory.

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete list, within the stated subclass, of 17 non-supersymmetric Type II asymmetric orbifolds with non-abelian point groups and pointwise vanishing one-loop partition function. In each model the fermionic action has the property that every group element fixes a supercharge in the 8-dimensional spinor representation, but no nontrivial subrepresentation is fixed by the entire group; the induced bosonic action is a symmetry of a common 5D lattice. The list is obtained by enumerating crystallographic groups, testing fermionic representations, and then checking that all remaining commuting pairs also fix a supercharge (condition VI). The authors additionally compute

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the modular-orbit argument combined with a carefully chosen fermionic representation. In the orbifold sum, Z = 1/|G| Σ Z[f,g]; if Z[1,g]=0 for every g, then modular covariance forces Z[g^a,g^b]=0 for all pairs in the modular orbit. The paper reduces the search to a representation-theoretic problem: find a faithful ρ_F: G → SU(4)_L × SU(4)_R with (i) every element has an eigenvalue 1 in each 4D block, (ii) no trivial subrepresentation, and (iii) induced bosonic action crystallographic on a common 5D lattice. Anomaly cancellation is then handled by computing the second Stiefel-Whitney class and, for groups with non-abelian anomalies, the reduced eta-invariants on generators of

Load-bearing premise

The completeness of the list relies on the correctness of the external 5D crystallographic database and on the unexhibited assertion that every listed bosonic representation is realized as an integral symmetry of one common lattice; the authors state this is guaranteed by their search algorithm but do not display the matrices for all cases (Sec. 5).

What would settle it

Choose one of the 17 listed groups, derive the induced bosonic representation explicitly, and check whether it can be written as integral matrices preserving a single 5D lattice; the paper only claims existence of such matrices, and a concrete failure for any entry would overturn that vacuum. Additionally, a brute-force enumeration of all commuting pairs for the listed fermionic representations could confirm or refute condition VI (existence of a common fixed vector) and hence the vanishing of each Z[f,g].

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

If this is right

  • If the classification holds, no other non-abelian point groups acting on T^5 × S^1 can achieve pointwise zero one-loop vacuum energy—the 17 models form the complete set.
  • Each model is tachyon-free, because a tachyon would create a divergence in the one-loop integral; the pointwise cancellation also rules out tachyonic instabilities in the partition function.
  • The vanishing is stronger than integrated cancellation (e.g., Atkin-Lehner symmetry): it holds separately for every commuting pair, so the result does not rely on modular integration tricks.
  • The decompactification analysis shows all 17 solutions can be obtained from T^5 asymmetric orbifolds via Scherk-Schwarz compactifications, and for the models with G = Dic24, S3×Q8, and S3×Dic12 the limit is genuinely non-supersymmetric with zero vacuum energy.
  • The bordism computations give the spin-bordism groups Ω_3^{Spin}(BG) for the non-abelian groups involved, which are of independent interest for determining possible global anomalies of 2D theories with those discrete symmetries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the authors' observation that all solutions of conditions I–V automatically cancel anomalies is general, future classifications could skip the bordism step; proving this would be a meaningful structural insight.
  • The same representation-theoretic conditions could be applied to point groups acting faithfully on T^6; the authors expect more candidates but also more accidental SUSY restoration, so the T^5×S^1 list may be a large fraction of the full set.
  • A direct two-loop check on the decompactified non-SUSY vacua would test whether the cancellation is an accident of one loop or a symptom of a deeper (possibly non-invertible) supersymmetry.
  • The models may provide a testing ground for the conjecture that some non-invertible supersymmetry protects the vacuum energy at higher orders, a notion the paper sketches in its outlook.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper aims to classify four-dimensional non-supersymmetric Type II asymmetric toroidal orbifolds with non-abelian point groups acting on T^5, with a leftover S^1 acted on by geometric shifts, and with pointwise vanishing one-loop partition function. The authors formulate representation-theoretic conditions (I--VII) on the fermionic action that guarantee Z[f,g]=0 for all commuting pairs, combine the CARAT classification of 5D crystallographic groups with a GAP search for fermionic representations, compute bordism-group anomalies for the relevant non-abelian groups, and obtain a list of 17 solutions (Table 1). They also study decompactification limits, finding that some models reduce to Scherk--Schwarz-like compactifications, and compute several bordism groups such as Omega_3^{Spin}(BQ_8), Omega_3^{Spin}(BDic_{12}), Omega_3^{Spin}(BDic_{24}), Omega_3^{Spin}(BSL(2,3)), and Omega_3^{Spin}(BG^7_{36}).

Significance. If the classification is correct, the paper provides the first systematic non-abelian extension of the abelian asymmetric orbifold constructions with vanishing one-loop vacuum energy, yielding explicit non-supersymmetric string vacua that are tachyon-free and have Z=0 pointwise. The representation-theoretic conditions and the bordism computations are valuable technical contributions, and the effort to exhibit explicit generators and check anomaly cancellation for each model is commendable. However, the central existence claim rests on a lattice-glueing criterion that is not sufficient (see major comments), and the completeness claim depends on an unshipped computational pipeline. The methods are promising, but the load-bearing checks need to be redone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Eq. (2.7)] The condition for realizing a toroidal orbifold is insufficient. Stating that both ρ_L^B and ρ_R^B are automorphisms of the same lattice Λ is not enough for the pair (ρ_L(g),ρ_R(g)) to preserve the Narain lattice Γ^{5,5}(Λ) = {(p_L,p_R)∈Λ*×Λ* | p_L−p_R∈Λ}. One must also require compatibility of the induced actions on the discriminant group D(Λ)=Λ*/Λ: for each generator g there must exist an isometry f of D(Λ) with f∘ρ_L(g)|_D = ρ_R(g)|_D∘f (for the identity gluing). This is never checked. In the S3×Z4 model, Sec. 5.7, Eq. (5.26), the order-4 generator t acts on the left by exchanging the two A2 summands of Λ=Λ1⊕Λ_R(A1)⊕Λ_R(A2)⊕Λ_R(A2); on D(Λ)≃Z3⊕Z3 this is (d1,d2)↦(−d2,d1), while t_R=id acts trivially. Since t_L|_D−id is invertible over F3, no isometry f can satisfy f∘t_L|_D=f. Thus (t_L,id) is not an automorphism of Γ(Λ) for this lattice, so the model as written is not a toroidal orbif
  2. [Sec. 5 (after Table 2)] The completeness of the 17-model list rests on an unshipped computational pipeline (CARAT/GAP). The paper states that 'The search algorithm we just described guarantees that for each lattice we list, such an integral representation does exist,' but no code, intermediate database output, or explicit integral matrices are provided for most models. Since the classification is the central result, an independent reader cannot verify either exhaustiveness or the existence of the integral realizations. Please release the search code and/or the relevant CARAT/GAP outputs as supplementary material, or provide a detailed reproducible log.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The columns G, G_F, G_B are not defined in the caption. After reading the text it is clear that G is the point group, G_F the fermionic group, and G_B the bosonic group, but the caption should state this explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (5.20)] The notation γ=0 or γ=1 is used to distinguish the two S3×Z3 solutions, but the explanation is terse. Please clarify which sign choice corresponds to which solution.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The phrase 'a symmetry of lattices 1-4,12,16 and 17 in Table 2' relies on the numbering of Table 2. It would be helpful to repeat the lattice names (e.g., Λ_R(B5), Λ_R(A2⊕A2⊕A1)) in the text.
  4. [Sec. 5.13] In Table 4, the column header 'n_untw^Q' is not self-explanatory; please define it in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the 17-model classification is produced by an a priori representation-theoretic scan over independent crystallographic data, not by fitting or by a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The classification is a first-principles search: conditions I.–VII. are imposed before any vacuum-energy datum; candidate groups come from the external CARAT 5D classification (Table 2, refs. [24,25,58]), and each model is exhibited with explicit fermionic (and often bosonic) generators in Secs. 5.1–5.12. The one-loop partition function is not an input fitted to select models; it is the target object that conditions III and VI are designed to make vanish. Anomaly cancellation was computed after the fact and did not filter the list: the paper states 'all solutions to properties I.-V. satisfy anomaly cancellation' (Sec. 5), so there is no survivorship circularity. The main self-citation, [15], supplies the standard lemma that an untwisted-sector fermionic partition function vanishes iff the element preserves a supercharge, and supplies context; it is not used as a uniqueness theorem, and the present models' explicit generators make the central claim independently checkable. The acknowledged gaps—unexhibited integral matrices for some lattices ('The search algorithm we just described guarantees that for each lattice we list, such an integral representation does exist', Sec. 5) and the possible need to check discriminant-group compatibility of the left/right actions on the glued Narain lattice (Eq. 2.7)—are correctness/completeness concerns, not circular reductions. Hence score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard string-orbifold formalism, on external crystallographic data (CARAT), and on hand-picked shift assignments. No continuous parameters are fitted to enforce the result; the ad hoc choices are discrete (shifts, lattices, spin structure). The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • S3 shift vector v2 = v2 = (1/3)alpha1 + (2/3)alpha2 in A2 simple-root basis
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 5.1 to lift massless twisted gravitini in the S3 model; a discrete construction choice, not derived.
  • Base-circle shift orders per model = orders 2, 3, 4, or 6 (varies by generator/model)
    Selected as the 'minimalist' choice to remove massless twisted sectors while keeping the space group isomorphic to the point group (Secs. 5.1-5.12); ad hoc model-by-model choices.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption CARAT classification of 5D Bravais groups and maximal finite subgroups of GL(5,Z) is exhaustive (Table 2; refs [24,25,58]).
    The completeness of the search over point groups rests on this external database; no independent derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Anomaly-free asymmetric orbifolds require w2(rho_B)=0, hence the fermionic lift is trivial: G_F = G_B x Z2 (Sec. 3.1, Appendix B).
    Invoked to restrict candidate groups to subdirect products of G_B x Z2; standard orbifold/modular-invariance lore, cited to [28,32].
  • standard math If Z[1,g]=0 for all g, modular covariance makes the full orbifold sum vanish provided condition VI holds for all commuting pairs (Eqs. 3.3 and Section 3.1).
    Central logical bridge; the paper checks commuting pairs case by case but does not display the full enumeration.
  • standard math The bordism groups Omega_3^Spin(BG) and eta-invariant values quoted for Q8, Dic12, Dic24, SL(2,3), G^7_36 (Sec. 4) are correct.
    The anomaly-cancellation claim for all 17 models depends on these computations; some values are taken from [35,49] without recomputation.
  • domain assumption The orbifold partition function is exactly the sum (1.4) over commuting pairs; for models with G = P_G, no additional translation-induced pairs contribute.
    The paper explicitly ensures shifts do not enhance the space group for the 17 solutions (Sec. 5 intro), relying on this standard decomposition.
  • ad hoc to paper Periodic spin structure on the base S^1 is selected, so the geometric shifts do not induce (-1)^F holonomies and no fermionic group enhancement occurs (Sec. 5, para. 'we are allowed to always choose the periodic spin structure').
    A choice the paper asserts is permitted because the point group acts trivially on the S^1; it is load-bearing for keeping the orbifold group unenhanced.
  • ad hoc to paper Scope restriction: the point group acts on a T^5, leaving an S^1 as a pure geometric shift (condition VII, Sec. 5).
    The classification is explicitly partial because of this restriction; not derived from consistency.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40153 in / 23264 out tokens · 233274 ms · 2026-08-01T23:38:16.831068+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a partial classification of four-dimensional, non-supersymmetric Type II toroidal orbifolds with non-abelian point groups of rotations, and vanishing vacuum energy at one loop in string perturbation theory. The classification is complete within a class of such orbifolds with the restriction that the point group only acts on a $T^5$ inside the full internal $T^6$. By studying their decompactification limits along the leftover $S^1$, we see that the 17 solutions we find can alternatively be obtained as Scherk--Schwarz compactifications of some parent asymmetric orbifold. Along the way, to ensure the absence of anomalies, we compute bordism groups $\Omega_3^{Spin(BG)}$ for a variety of non-abelian crystallographic groups $G$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15349 by Bernardo Fraiman, Michelangelo Tartaglia, Vittorio Larotonda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of the algorithm used to classify the orbifold groups. We start from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A pictorial representation of the decompactification limit for an element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CasimirRFM: A Mathematica package for Riemann-flat compactifications with Casimir energies

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    CasimirRFM computes Casimir potentials and energy densities for Riemann-flat compactifications with Ewald-accelerated lattice sums, illustrated on Type IIB supergravity on T^6/Z_8.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. J. Martinec,Nonrenormalization Theorems and Fermionic String Finiteness,Phys. Lett. B 171(1986) 189

    1986

  2. [2]

    Witten,Superstring Perturbation Theory Revisited,1209.5461

    E. Witten,Superstring Perturbation Theory Revisited,1209.5461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Witten,More On Superstring Perturbation Theory: An Overview Of Superstring Perturbation Theory Via Super Riemann Surfaces,1304.2832

    E. Witten,More On Superstring Perturbation Theory: An Overview Of Superstring Perturbation Theory Via Super Riemann Surfaces,1304.2832

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    G. W. Moore,ATKIN-LEHNER SYMMETRY,Nucl. Phys. B293(1987) 139

    1987

  5. [5]

    K. R. Dienes,GENERALIZED ATKIN-LEHNER SYMMETRY,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 2004–2021

    1990

  6. [6]

    Gannon and C

    T. Gannon and C. S. Lam,Can a lattice string have a vanishing cosmological constant?,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 1710–1720, [hep-th/9201028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  7. [7]

    Kachru, J

    S. Kachru, J. Kumar and E. Silverstein,Vacuum energy cancellation in a nonsupersymmetric string,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 106004, [hep-th/9807076]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Kachru and E

    S. Kachru and E. Silverstein,Selfdual nonsupersymmetric type II string compactifications, JHEP11(1998) 001, [hep-th/9808056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Shiu and S

    G. Shiu and S. H. H. Tye,Bose-Fermi degeneracy and duality in nonsupersymmetric strings, Nucl. Phys. B542(1999) 45–72, [hep-th/9808095]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    Blumenhagen and L

    R. Blumenhagen and L. Gorlich,Orientifolds of nonsupersymmetric asymmetric orbifolds,Nucl. Phys. B551(1999) 601–616, [hep-th/9812158]. – 53 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    Angelantonj, I

    C. Angelantonj, I. Antoniadis and K. Forger,Nonsupersymmetric type I strings with zero vacuum energy,Nucl. Phys. B555(1999) 116–134, [hep-th/9904092]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    Angelantonj and M

    C. Angelantonj and M. Cardella,Vanishing perturbative vacuum energy in nonsupersymmetric orientifolds,Phys. Lett. B595(2004) 505–512, [hep-th/0403107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Satoh, Y

    Y. Satoh, Y. Sugawara and T. Wada,Non-supersymmetric Asymmetric Orbifolds with Vanishing Cosmological Constant,JHEP02(2016) 184, [1512.05155]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Aoyama and Y

    K. Aoyama and Y. Sugawara,Non-SUSY Gepner Models with Vanishing Cosmological Constant,PTEP2020(2020) 103B01, [2005.13198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Larotonda, M

    V. Larotonda, M. Montero and M. Tartaglia,Asymmetric orbifolds with vanishing one-loop vacuum energy,JHEP06(2026) 142, [2602.07113]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Angelantonj and I

    C. Angelantonj and I. Antoniadis,Suppressing the cosmological constant in nonsupersymmetric type I strings,Nucl. Phys. B676(2004) 129–148, [hep-th/0307254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    S. Abel, K. R. Dienes and E. Mavroudi,GUT precursors and entwined SUSY: The phenomenology of stable nonsupersymmetric strings,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 126017, [1712.06894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Satoh and Y

    Y. Satoh and Y. Sugawara,Notes on a vanishing cosmological constant without Bose–Fermi cancellation,PTEP2022(2022) 053B04, [2111.09663]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Dudas, S

    E. Dudas, S. Parameswaran and M. Serra,The Cosmological Constant and Dark Dimensions from Non-Supersymmetric Strings,2512.20570

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Groot Nibbelink, O

    S. Groot Nibbelink, O. Loukas, A. M¨ utter, E. Parr and P. K. S. Vaudrevange,Tension Between a Vanishing Cosmological Constant and Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic Orbifolds,Fortsch. Phys.68(2020) 2000044, [1710.09237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    J. A. Harvey,String duality and nonsupersymmetric strings,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 026002, [hep-th/9807213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    Florakis, I

    I. Florakis, I. Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria, D. Lust and D. Regalado,2d orbifolds with exotic supersymmetry,JHEP02(2018) 146, [1712.04318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Z. K. Baykara, H.-C. Tarazi and C. Vafa,Quasicrystalline string landscape,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 086025, [2406.00129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Plesken and T

    W. Plesken and T. Schulz,Counting crystallographic groups in low dimensions,Experimental Mathematics9(2000) 407 – 411

    2000

  25. [25]

    Plesken, J

    W. Plesken, J. Opgenorth and T. Schulz,CARAT – a package for mathematical crystallography, Journal of Applied Crystallography31(Oct, 1998) 827–828

    1998

  26. [26]

    Narain,New heterotic string theories in uncompactified dimensions<10,Physics Letters B 169(1986) 41–46

    K. Narain,New heterotic string theories in uncompactified dimensions<10,Physics Letters B 169(1986) 41–46

    1986

  27. [27]

    K. S. Narain, M. H. Sarmadi and C. Vafa,Asymmetric Orbifolds,Nucl. Phys. B288(1987) 551

    1987

  28. [28]

    D. S. Freed and C. Vafa,GLOBAL ANOMALIES ON ORBIFOLDS,Commun. Math. Phys. 110(1987) 349

    1987

  29. [29]

    P. H. Ginsparg,Comment on Toroidal Compactification of Heterotic Superstrings,Phys. Rev. D 35(1987) 648. – 54 –

    1987

  30. [30]

    Dabholkar and J

    A. Dabholkar and J. A. Harvey,String islands,JHEP02(1999) 006, [hep-th/9809122]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    The GAP Group,GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.16.0, 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Delgado, L

    M. Delgado, L. Eberhardt and M. Tomaˇ sevi´ c,What makes spacetime spin in string theory?, 2606.18380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M

    I. Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M. Montero,Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics,JHEP08(2019) 003, [1808.00009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Cheng and H

    P. Cheng and H. Parra De Freitas,Dai-Freed anomalies and level matching in heterotic asymmetric orbifolds,2604.19634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios and N. Lohitsiri,Anomalies of non-Abelian finite groups via cobordism, JHEP09(2022) 147, [2207.10700]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Braeger, A

    N. Braeger, A. Debray, M. Dierigl, J. J. Heckman and M. Montero,Cobordism Utopia: U-Dualities, Bordisms, and the Swampland,2505.15885

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Alvarez-Gaume and E

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and E. Witten,Gravitational Anomalies,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 269

    1984

  38. [38]

    Basile and G

    I. Basile and G. Leone,Anomaly constraints for heterotic strings and supergravity in six dimensions,JHEP04(2024) 067, [2310.20480]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Dierigl and M

    M. Dierigl and M. Tartaglia,(Quadratically) Refined discrete anomaly cancellation,JHEP08 (2025) 145, [2504.02934]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    P. B. Gilkey,The Geometry of Spherical Space Form Groups. World Scientific, 2nd ed., 2018, 10.1142/10467

    work page doi:10.1142/10467 2018

  41. [41]

    Monnier,The Anomaly line bundle of the self-dual field theory,Commun

    S. Monnier,The Anomaly line bundle of the self-dual field theory,Commun. Math. Phys.325 (2014) 41–72, [1109.2904]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Monnier,The Global Anomaly of the Self-Dual Field in General Backgrounds,Annales Henri Poincare17(2016) 1003–1036, [1309.6642]

    S. Monnier,The Global Anomaly of the Self-Dual Field in General Backgrounds,Annales Henri Poincare17(2016) 1003–1036, [1309.6642]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Hsieh, Y

    C.-T. Hsieh, Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura,Anomaly Inflow and p-Form Gauge Theories, Commun. Math. Phys.391(2022) 495–608, [2003.11550]

    arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997, 10.1007/978-1-4612-2256-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2256-9 1997

  45. [45]

    Blumenhagen and E

    R. Blumenhagen and E. Plauschinn,Introduction to conformal field theory: with applications to String theory, vol. 779. Springer, 2009, 10.1007/978-3-642-00450-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00450-6 2009

  46. [46]

    Witten,Five-brane effective action inM-theory.,J

    E. Witten,Five-brane effective action inM-theory.,J. Geom. Phys.22(1997) 103–133, [hep-th/9610234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    Belov and G

    D. Belov and G. W. Moore,Holographic Action for the Self-Dual Field,hep-th/0605038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    M. Guo, K. Ohmori, P. Putrov, Z. Wan and J. Wang,Fermionic Finite-Group Gauge Theories and Interacting Symmetric/Crystalline Orders via Cobordisms,Commun. Math. Phys.376 (2020) 1073–1154, [1812.11959]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Botvinnik and P

    B. Botvinnik and P. Gilkey,An analytic computation ofko 4ν−1(BQ8),Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis6(1995) 127 – 135

    1995

  50. [50]

    M. F. Atiyah and F. Hirzebruch,Vector bundles and homogeneous spaces,Matematika6(1962) 3–39. – 55 –

    1962

  51. [51]

    Brown,Cohomology of Groups

    K. Brown,Cohomology of Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 1982

    1982

  52. [52]

    Group cohomology of dicyclic groups

    Groupprops, The Subwiki Project, “Group cohomology of dicyclic groups.” https://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Group_cohomology_of_dicyclic_groups, 2026

    2026

  53. [53]

    Besche, B

    H. Besche, B. Eick and E. O’brien,A millennium project: Constructing small groups, International Journal of Algebra and Computation12(10, 2002) 623–644

    2002

  54. [54]

    Becker and D

    J. Becker and D. Gottlieb,The transfer map and fiber bundles,Topology14(1975) 1–12

    1975

  55. [55]

    Hatcher,Algebraic topology

    A. Hatcher,Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  56. [56]

    L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten,Strings on Orbifolds,Nucl. Phys. B261 (1985) 678–686

    1985

  57. [57]

    Z. K. Baykara, Y. Hamada, H.-C. Tarazi and C. Vafa,On the string landscape without hypermultiplets,JHEP04(2024) 121, [2309.15152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Veysseyre and H

    R. Veysseyre and H. Veysseyre,Crystallographic point groups of five-dimensional space. 1. Their elements and their subgroups,Acta Crystallographica Section A58(Sep, 2002) 429–433

    2002

  59. [59]

    Valeixo Bento and M

    B. Valeixo Bento and M. Montero,An M-theory dS maximum from Casimir energies on Riemann-flat manifolds,JHEP01(2026) 099, [2507.02037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Dabholkar and C

    A. Dabholkar and C. Hull,Generalised T-duality and non-geometric backgrounds,JHEP05 (2006) 009, [hep-th/0512005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

    J. J. Heckman, J. McNamara, M. Montero, A. Sharon, C. Vafa and I. Valenzuela,Fate of stringy noninvertible symmetries,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 106001, [2402.00118]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Opgenorth, W

    J. Opgenorth, W. Plesken and T. Schulz,Crystallographic Algorithms and Tables,Acta Crystallographica Section A54(Sep, 1998) 517–531

    1998

  63. [63]

    Z. K. Baykara, M. Dierigl, H.-C. Kim, C. Vafa and K. Xu,Bounds on discrete gauge symmetries in supergravity,JHEP03(2026) 171, [2511.09613]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Szczepanski,Geometry of crystallographic groups

    A. Szczepanski,Geometry of crystallographic groups. Algebra and discrete mathematics (World Scientific (Firm)) ; v. 4. World Scientific, New Jersey, 2012

    2012

  65. [65]

    Kuzmanovich and A

    J. Kuzmanovich and A. Pavlichenkov,Finite groups of matrices whose entries are integers,The American Mathematical Monthly109(2002) 173–186

    2002

  66. [66]

    Goursat,Sur les substitutions orthogonales et les divisions r´ eguli` eres de l’espace,Annales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure3e s´ erie, 6(1889) 9–102

    E. Goursat,Sur les substitutions orthogonales et les divisions r´ eguli` eres de l’espace,Annales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure3e s´ erie, 6(1889) 9–102. – 56 –