The heterotic superpotential and the alpha' expansion

Jock McOrist

REVIEW

The heterotic superpotential and the alpha' expansion

Jock McOrist

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 27 Oct 2026 · 37 references

Pith's verdict: A serious alpha'^2 check and a genuinely new summation trick, with the alpha'^3 match deferred to an unpublished companion—conditional but worth refereeing.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.36604 (version 1)

Pith IDJNYBORBQ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJock McOrist. "The heterotic superpotential and the alpha' expansion." arXiv:2610.36604 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNYBORBQ

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Short version: the new idea is real and the alpha'^2 part holds up; the alpha'^3 claim is plausible but not self-contained.

The genuinely new move is varying the composite Hull connection in H as a recursion and summing it into bOmega via a geometric series. That turns the superpotential variation into clean all-order expressions and gives F^{0,2} = 0 in the corrected complex structure. The alpha'^2 comparison in Section 3 is worked out in enough detail to be checked by hand, matches BdR and [9], and I did not find an internal inconsistency. No constants are fitted to the benchmark; the comparison targets are independent published derivations. The paper also states its own limitations clearly: holomorphy off-shell, decomposability of bOmega, and the cubic D-terms are all flagged as open.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The alpha'^3 coefficient-level comparisons are mostly deferred to [10], listed as work in progress. In particular, equation (4.21) is an order statement—F^{0,2} = O(alpha'^3)—not a demonstration that the coefficient computed from W equals the coefficient in the BdR gaugino variation. The cancellations leading to (4.22), the (0,3)-part statement, and the identification of the gravitino term in (4.6) are asserted with details assigned to [10]. That is an availability gap, not circularity: the author does not hide the dependence, and nothing in the text suggests the match is false. But a reader cannot verify the central alpha'^3 claim from this manuscript alone. The all-order system is honestly labelled as conditional and should be read as conjecture, not as established output.

One smaller thing: the alpha'^3 flux-torsion check against BdR's (A.10) has real content, including a coefficient and sign for the leading correction, so the situation is not uniformly deferred. Still, the paper's own summary goes slightly beyond what is demonstrated when it says the equations agree at alpha'^3 without marking which parts are checked here and which are carried by [10].

This is a paper for people working on heterotic SU(3) compactifications and alpha' corrections. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee needs access to [10] or the submission needs to include the deferred equations. I would not desk reject it; I would send it out with the request that the author either append the needed alpha'^3 equations or soften the agreement claim to what the present manuscript actually proves.

Referee report

Significance

If the α′^3 comparison can be made fully self-contained, the paper would provide strong evidence that the usual heterotic superpotential is not renormalised in the Chern–Simons sector, with the α′ dependence entering only through the composite nature of H and the resulting corrected three-form bΩ. The α′^2 check is already a nontrivial and internally consistent calculation: it uses no fitted parameters, benchmarks against the independent published analyses of Bergshoeff–de Roo and McOrist–Picard, and reproduces the known field redefinitions. The geometric-series mechanism for solving the H-recursion is a clean technical idea and is likely to be useful for the all-order problem. The α′^3 and all-order statements are conditional, however, on comparison data supplied by an unpublished companion paper and on unproved holomorphy and decomposability assumptions that the authors themselves flag. With those conditions stated, the paper is a valuable contribution; without the deferred calculations, the central α′^3 claim cannot be verified from the manuscript alone.

Major objections (4)

[§4.3, Eq. (4.21)] The a- and k-stationary equations are presented as order statements, H^{0,3}=O(α′^4) and α′F^{0,2}=O(α′^4), and the text concludes that these agree with the BdR equations at α′^3. The comparison is not displayed: the relevant α′^3 terms of the BdR gaugino variation quoted as (A.11) of [2] are never written down in the manuscript, and the sentence "we will report on these α′^3 results in more detail in upcoming work [10]" delegates exactly the coefficient-level part of the check. Since [10] is listed as work in progress, a reader cannot verify the α′^3 portion of the abstract's central claim from this manuscript. Please either include the explicit comparison or state the α′^3 result as conditional on [10]. The authors acknowledge this: “The cubic corrections to the D-terms we have not yet determined.”
[§4.1, Eqs. (4.5)–(4.6)] The key coefficient-level α′^3 check is the identification of the BdR gravitino term α′^2/8 ∇^q(∇_m P_{qab}−∇_q P_{mab})γ^{ab}η with the right-hand side of (4.5). The text says this matches "including its coefficient and sign", but the intervening step from (4.6) to the tensor equation (4.5) is asserted rather than displayed. The subsequent statement that all remaining curvature terms in (A.10) of [2] act on η as scalar multiples, and therefore drop out of the flux–torsion equation, is also an unexpanded Clifford-type counting argument. Because this is the only direct α′^3 flux–torsion comparison in the manuscript, the calculation should be shown in full or the equality should be marked as a conjecture pending [10].
[§4.4, Eqs. (4.22)–(4.25)] The derivation of the Z^{0,2} equation and of d bΩ=O(α′^4) depends on two asserted cancellations: that the α′^3 corrections cancel in the combination δλ+√2γ^mδψ_m/4, and that the curvature terms acting as scalars on the spinor cancel. These statements are not demonstrated in the manuscript, and the surrounding text does not cite a displayed computation in the appendices for them. Together with the comparison in (4.5)–(4.6), these cancellations are load-bearing for the α′^3 agreement. I ask that the combined fermionic variation be evaluated explicitly, or that the α′^3 match be presented as conditional on the companion calculation in [10].
[§5 and Appendix A.4, Eqs. (5.8)–(5.10), (A.24)–(A.25)] The deduction d bΩ=O(α′^4) uses the estimate δ_{ᾱ}W=O(α′^4) in a holomorphic parameter gauge and then identifies stationarity under B-field variations with stationarity under Z variations. The manuscript acknowledges that only one derivative has been checked and that holomorphy in an off-shell neighbourhood remains open, and it defers the full proof to future work. Nevertheless, (4.26) lists d bΩ=O(α′^4) as part of the α′^3 stationary system, and Section 6 relies on d bΩ=0 all orders under the same holomorphy assumption. Please state explicitly which entries of (4.26) and (6.4) are established theorems and which are conjectures pending the holomorphy proof; the present text blurs this distinction. The authors acknowledge this: “So far, we have checked just one derivative; we really need holomorphy in an neighbourhood.”

Minor objections (5)

[§1] There are small typos: "Chern–Simons form fo the composite Hull connection" should read "form of", and "This becomes even more more pronounced" repeats "more".
[Appendix A.2] The heading "The∆varation" should read "The∆variation".
[§2.3, Eq. (2.16)] The formal inverse (1−α′K/4)^{-1}Ω is used as a geometric series; a sentence on the regularity and convergence of this series on compact X would remove ambiguity, although this is a presentation point rather than a correctness concern.
[§3.2, Eq. (3.8)] The phrase "the first order α′ F-term equations" could be misread as "equations of first order in α′"; consider "the leading-order α′ F-term equations" for clarity.
[General] The symbol O(α′^n) is used both for field equations and for differential forms without a common convention; specifying that order is measured with respect to a fixed smooth background norm would make the counting easier to verify.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Taken literally, with the three-form $H$ built recursively from the Hull connection's Chern–Simons term, the heterotic superpotential has stationary equations that reproduce the Bergshoeff–de Roo supersymmetry conditions through…

The reading

The paper asks whether the standard heterotic superpotential $W=\int_X (H+i\,d\omega)\wedge\Omega$ can be compared with ten-dimensional supersymmetry beyond leading order in $\alpha'$, given that the three-form $H$ is defined through the Chern–Simons form of the composite Hull connection and so carries an infinite, recursive $\alpha'$ dependence. The author's answer is yes: iterating the recursion and summing it as a geometric series yields stationary equations that agree with the Bergshoeff–de Roo supersymmetry conditions on an $SU(3)$ structure of the six-dimensional internal space through $\alpha'^2$, and through $\alpha'^3$ once the lower-order conformally-balanced and Hermitian–Yang–Mills D-terms are imposed. This matters because it supports the view that the superpotential itself receives no perturbative corrections even though its critical locus is $\alpha'$-corrected, and it yields concrete all-order predictions: the gauge bundle is holomorphic in the corrected complex structure, the corrected volume form is closed, and the Hull–Strominger tensor equations admit an all-order extension. The $\alpha'^3$ comparison leans on a companion reduction that is still in progress, and the all-order statements assume holomorphy of $W$ and decomposability of the corrected three-form, both flagged by the author as open.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hull connection $\Theta^H$, the composite torsionful connection whose curvature $R^H$ enters $H$ through a gravitational Chern–Simons term, making $H$ recursive: $\delta H=dB+\frac{\alpha'}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\delta A\wedge F)-\frac{\alpha'}{4}\mathrm{tr}(\delta\Theta^H\wedge R^H)$. Variations of $W$ are computed by iterating this recursion, and the iteration is summed in closed form: the contraction identity $R^H_{pq}\wedge\delta H^{pq}\wedge\eta=\delta H\wedge K(\eta)$ converts the recursion into a geometric series in $\alpha'K/4$, whose sum is the corrected three-form $\widehat\Omega=(1-\alpha'K/4)^{-1}\Omega$. The comparison machinery is the Bergshoeff–de Roo fermionic variation set — gravitino, gaugino and dilatino — at orders $\alpha'^2$ and $\alpha'^3$, organised on an $SU(3)$ structure by the tensors $P_{mnp}$, $C_m$ and the scalar $q_H$, which correspond respectively to the flux–torsion, conformally-balanced and volume-form data. The lower-order D-terms (conformally balanced and Hermitian–Yang–Mills) are imposed after the variation; the differences between the stationary equations of $W$ and the Bergshoeff–de Roo equations are proportional to these D-terms, so the two systems share the same supersymmetry locus.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the heterotic superpotential in its original form, with no modification to the integrand, is already the correct functional for the F-term supersymmetry conditions once the composite nature of the tangent-bundle connection is taken seriously. Because $H$ is defined through the gravitational Chern–Simons form of the Hull connection, variations of $W$ obey a recursion in $\alpha'$; the recursion is rearranged into a geometric series using the contraction identity $R^H_{pq}\wedge\delta H^{pq}\wedge\eta=\delta H\wedge K(\eta)$, and the series sums to a corrected three-form $\widehat\Omega=(1-\alpha'K/4)^{-1}\Omega$. The stationary equations of $W$ are then expanded order by order and compared with the ten-dimensional supersymmetry transformations of Bergshoeff–de Roo reduced to an $SU(3)$ structure: agreement is found at $\alpha'^2$ with the reduction of [9], and at $\alpha'^3$ with the spinor transformations of [2] as reduced in the forthcoming [10], after imposing the lower-order D-terms. In the process the paper obtains the renormalised volume form $\widehat\Omega$, shows $d\widehat\Omega=O(\alpha'^4)$ on the stationary locus, matches $\widehat\Omega$ with the holomorphic volume form of [9] through $\alpha'^2$, and proposes an all-order system in which $H^{0,3}_J=0$ and $F^{0,2}_{\widehat J}=0$, with $\widehat J$ the almost complex structure of $\widehat\Omega$, together with $d\widehat\Omega=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The $\alpha'^3$ match is measured against an $SU(3)$ reduction of the Bergshoeff–de Roo equations that is still in progress, and the all-order predictions assume the superpotential is holomorphic and the corrected three-form stays decomposable — both points the author leaves to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The unmodified superpotential reproduces the $\alpha'^2$ and $\alpha'^3$ supersymmetry corrections of the Chern–Simons sector, so perturbative non-renormalisation of $W$ is consistent through those orders even though its critical locus shifts.
The holomorphic volume form of the compactification is renormalised: $\widehat\Omega$ agrees with the volume form of [9] through $\alpha'^2$, satisfies $d\widehat\Omega=O(\alpha'^4)$ on the stationary locus, and is closed to all orders under the holomorphy assumption.
Holomorphy of the gauge bundle is stated in the corrected complex structure: the all-order equation $F^{0,2}_{\widehat J}=0$ follows from the gauge variation and reproduces the Bergshoeff–de Roo gaugino equation order by order.
The system (6.4) — $H^{0,3}_J=0$, $F^{0,2}_{\widehat J}=0$, $d\widehat\Omega=0$, with the two flux–torsion equations — is proposed as the all-order extension of the Hull–Strominger tensor equations.
Differentiating the shifted flux–torsion equation gives a resolved Bianchi identity (7.1) that is manifestly of type $(2,2)$ through $\alpha'^3$, even though the original Hull-connection Bianchi identity is not.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $\alpha'^3$ agreement survives the completion of the companion reduction, the superpotential plus the D-terms becomes a compact generator of higher-order corrections: varying one six-dimensional integral would replace a full ten-dimensional fermionic analysis at each order.
The corrected complex structure $\widehat J$ defined by $\widehat\Omega$ is the paper's most consequential all-order object; a concrete test is to compute $F^{0,2}_{\widehat J}$ in an explicit non-Kähler heterotic solution and verify its vanishing at order $\alpha'^3$.
The $\alpha'^3$ corrections to the D-terms are left undetermined; demanding that the all-order system together with a closed $\widehat\Omega$ and a holomorphic bundle describe a genuine supersymmetry locus should fix them, turning (6.4) into a closed set of equations.
The gravitational $\alpha'^3\zeta(3)$ multiplet lies outside the sector compared here, and the author explicitly asks what it does to $W$; if it contributes, the non-renormalisation picture would need refinement, since that multiplet is already known to enter the Kähler potential.

Original abstract

We study the role of the Hull connection in the heterotic superpotential for N=1 d=4 vacua. The integrand is defined in terms of H, which is in turn defined in terms of a gravitational Chern--Simons coupling involving H. We show this recursive structure is key to W reproducing some of the ten--dimensional supersymmetry conditions written down by Bergshoeff--de Roo through \alpha'^3. With this evidence in hand we make some observations about extending some of the tensor equations of Hull and Strominger to all orders in \alpha'.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-28: 1 request, 3,614 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.24 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.17 · compares with prior results 0.75 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study the role of the Hull connection in the heterotic superpotential for N=1 d=4 vacua. The integrand is defined in terms of H, which is in turn defined in terms of a gravitational Chern--Simons coupling involving H. We show this recursive structure is key to W reproducing some of the ten--dimensional supersymmetry conditions written down by Bergshoeff--de Roo through \alpha'^3. With this evidence in hand we make some observations about extending some of the tensor equations of Hull and Strominger to all orders in \alpha'.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study the role of the Hull connection in the heterotic superpotential for N=1 d=4 vacua.	contribution 0.93	0.87	0.06	unclear 0.59
s1	The integrand is defined in terms of H, which is in turn defined in terms of a gravitational Chern--Simons coupling involving H.	method 0.72	0.40	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	We show this recursive structure is key to W reproducing some of the ten--dimensional supersymmetry conditions written down by Bergshoeff--de Roo through \alpha'^3.	result 0.97	0.94	0.62	asserted 1.00
s3	With this evidence in hand we make some observations about extending some of the tensor equations of Hull and Strominger to all orders in \alpha'.	future work 0.57	0.74	0.19	speculative 0.36

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.99 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (37)

[9]

J. McOrist and S. Picard,Stringy Corrections to Heterotic SU(3)-Geometry, Commun. Math. Phys.407(2026), no. 5 105, [arXiv:2507.0238]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[10]

J. McOrist and S. Picard,Onα′3 corrections in heterotic string theory,work in progress(2026)

View on Pith 2026
[2]

E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo,The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic String and Supersymmetry,Nucl.Phys.B328(1989) 439

View on Pith 1989
[1]

E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo,Supersymmetric Chern-Simons Terms in Ten-Dimensions,Phys.Lett.B218(1989) 210. 28

View on Pith 1989
[3]

C. Hull,Compactifications of the Heterotic Superstring,Phys.Lett.B178(1986) 357

View on Pith 1986
[4]

A. Strominger,Superstrings with Torsion,Nucl. Phys. B274(1986) 253

View on Pith 1986
[5]

K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and S. Prokushkin,Properties of heterotic vacua from superpotentials,Nucl. Phys. B666(2003) 144–174, [hep-th/0304001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[6]

G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, and D. Lust,BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes,JHEP10(2003) 004, [hep-th/0306088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[7]

S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas, and A. Micu,Heterotic on half-flat,Phys.Rev.D70(2004) 126009, [hep-th/0408121]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[8]

M. de Roo, H. Suelmann, and A. Wiedemann,The Supersymmetric effective action of the heterotic string in ten-dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B405(1993) 326–366, [hep-th/9210099]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[11]

A. Coimbra, R. Minasian, H. Triendl, and D. Waldram,Generalised geometry for string corrections,JHEP11(2014) 160, [arXiv:1407.7542]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[12]

G. R. Smith, D. Tennyson, and D. Waldram,All-orders moduli for type ii flux backgrounds,arXiv:2409.0384

View on Pith arXiv
[13]

J. Liu, R. Minasian, R. Savelli, and A. Schachner,Type iib at eight derivatives: Five-point axio-dilaton couplings, 2025

View on Pith 2025
[14]

A. Ashmore and S. Sethi,A real superpotential for M-theory on eight-manifolds, arXiv:2610.1243

View on Pith arXiv
[15]

S. Gukov, C. Vafa, and E. Witten,CFT’s from Calabi-Yau four folds,Nucl. Phys. B584(2000) 69–108, [hep-th/9906070]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 608, 477–478 (2001)]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[16]

M. Becker and D. Constantin,A Note on flux induced superpotentials in string theory,JHEP08(2003) 015, [hep-th/0210131]. 29

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[17]

K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and P. S. Green,Compactifications of heterotic theory on nonKahler complex manifolds. 1.,JHEP04(2003) 007, [hep-th/0301161]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[18]

J. McOrist,On the Effective Field Theory of Heterotic Vacua,Lett. Math. Phys. 108(2018), no. 4 1031–1081, [arXiv:1606.0522]

View on Pith arXiv 2018
[19]

S. Sethi,Supersymmetry Breaking by Fluxes,JHEP10(2018) 022, [arXiv:1709.0355]

View on Pith arXiv 2018
[20]

X. de la Ossa, E. Hardy, and E. E. Svanes,The Heterotic Superpotential and Moduli,JHEP01(2016) 049, [arXiv:1509.0872]

View on Pith arXiv 2016
[21]

A. Ashmore, X. De La Ossa, R. Minasian, C. Strickland-Constable, and E. E. Svanes,Finite deformations from a heterotic superpotential: holomorphic Chern-Simons and anL∞ algebra,JHEP10(2018) 179, [arXiv:1806.0836]

View on Pith arXiv 2018
[22]

A. Ashmore, C. Strickland-Constable, D. Tennyson, and D. Waldram,Heterotic backgrounds via generalised geometry: moment maps and moduli,JHEP11(2020) 071, [arXiv:1912.0998]

View on Pith arXiv 2020
[23]

J. Kupka, C. Strickland-Constable, E. E. Svanes, D. Tennyson, and F. Valach,BPS complexes and Chern–Simons theories fromG-structures in gauge theory and gravity,arXiv:2406.0355

View on Pith arXiv
[24]

A. Ashmore, J. J. M. Ibarra, D. D. McNutt, C. Strickland-Constable, E. E. Svanes, D. Tennyson, and S. Winje,A heterotic Kodaira-Spencer theory at one-loop,JHEP 10(2023) 130, [arXiv:2306.1010]

View on Pith arXiv 2023
[25]

X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes,Holomorphic Bundles and the Moduli Space of N=1 Supersymmetric Heterotic Compactifications,JHEP10(2014) 123, [arXiv:1402.1725]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[26]

J. McOrist and E. E. Svanes,Heterotic quantum cohomology,JHEP11(2022) 096, [arXiv:2110.0654]

View on Pith arXiv 2022
[27]

L. Anguelova, C. Quigley, and S. Sethi,The Leading Quantum Corrections to Stringy Kahler Potentials,JHEP1010(2010) 065, [arXiv:1007.4793]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[28]

P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, and J. McOrist,A Metric for Heterotic Moduli, Commun. Math. Phys.356(2017), no. 2 567–612, [arXiv:1605.0525]

View on Pith arXiv 2017
[29]

J. McOrist and R. Sisca,Small gauge transformations and universal geometry in heterotic theories,SIGMA16(2020) 126, [arXiv:1904.0757]. 30

View on Pith arXiv 2020
[30]

J. McOrist, S. Picard, and E. E. Svanes,A Heterotic Hermitian-Yang-Mills Equivalence,Commun. Math. Phys.406(2025), no. 5 107, [arXiv:2402.1035]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[31]

I. V. Melnikov, R. Minasian, and S. Sethi,Heterotic fluxes and supersymmetry, JHEP06(2014) 174, [arXiv:1403.4298]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[32]

K. Becker and S. Sethi,Torsional Heterotic Geometries,Nucl. Phys.B820(2009) 1–31, [arXiv:0903.3769]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[33]

G. Chapline and N. Manton,Unification of Yang-Mills Theory and Supergravity in Ten-Dimensions,Phys.Lett.B120(1983) 105–109

View on Pith 1983
[34]

N. J. Hitchin,The Geometry of Three-Forms in Six Dimensions,J. Diff. Geom.55 (2000), no. 3 547–576, [math/0010054]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[35]

P. Candelas, X. De La Ossa, J. McOrist, and R. Sisca,The Universal Geometry of Heterotic Vacua,JHEP02(2019) 038, [arXiv:1810.0087]

View on Pith arXiv 2019
[36]

J. McOrist,Universal geometry as an organising principle for heterotic moduli, arXiv:2606.3119

View on Pith arXiv
[37]

J. McOrist and Q. Yin,Heterotic moduli, the double extension and the alpha’^2 metric,arXiv:2607.1581. 31

View on Pith arXiv

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [9]

J. McOrist and S. Picard,Stringy Corrections to Heterotic SU(3)-Geometry, Commun. Math. Phys.407(2026), no. 5 105, [arXiv:2507.0238]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[2] [10]

J. McOrist and S. Picard,Onα′3 corrections in heterotic string theory,work in progress(2026)

View on Pith 2026

[3] [2]

E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo,The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic String and Supersymmetry,Nucl.Phys.B328(1989) 439

View on Pith 1989

[4] [1]

E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo,Supersymmetric Chern-Simons Terms in Ten-Dimensions,Phys.Lett.B218(1989) 210. 28

View on Pith 1989

[5] [3]

C. Hull,Compactifications of the Heterotic Superstring,Phys.Lett.B178(1986) 357

View on Pith 1986

[6] [4]

A. Strominger,Superstrings with Torsion,Nucl. Phys. B274(1986) 253

View on Pith 1986

[7] [5]

K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and S. Prokushkin,Properties of heterotic vacua from superpotentials,Nucl. Phys. B666(2003) 144–174, [hep-th/0304001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[8] [6]

G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, and D. Lust,BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes,JHEP10(2003) 004, [hep-th/0306088]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[9] [7]

S. Gurrieri, A. Lukas, and A. Micu,Heterotic on half-flat,Phys.Rev.D70(2004) 126009, [hep-th/0408121]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[10] [8]

M. de Roo, H. Suelmann, and A. Wiedemann,The Supersymmetric effective action of the heterotic string in ten-dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B405(1993) 326–366, [hep-th/9210099]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[11] [11]

A. Coimbra, R. Minasian, H. Triendl, and D. Waldram,Generalised geometry for string corrections,JHEP11(2014) 160, [arXiv:1407.7542]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[12] [12]

G. R. Smith, D. Tennyson, and D. Waldram,All-orders moduli for type ii flux backgrounds,arXiv:2409.0384

View on Pith arXiv

[13] [13]

J. Liu, R. Minasian, R. Savelli, and A. Schachner,Type iib at eight derivatives: Five-point axio-dilaton couplings, 2025

View on Pith 2025

[14] [14]

A. Ashmore and S. Sethi,A real superpotential for M-theory on eight-manifolds, arXiv:2610.1243

View on Pith arXiv

[15] [15]

S. Gukov, C. Vafa, and E. Witten,CFT’s from Calabi-Yau four folds,Nucl. Phys. B584(2000) 69–108, [hep-th/9906070]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 608, 477–478 (2001)]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[16] [16]

M. Becker and D. Constantin,A Note on flux induced superpotentials in string theory,JHEP08(2003) 015, [hep-th/0210131]. 29

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[17] [17]

K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and P. S. Green,Compactifications of heterotic theory on nonKahler complex manifolds. 1.,JHEP04(2003) 007, [hep-th/0301161]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[18] [18]

J. McOrist,On the Effective Field Theory of Heterotic Vacua,Lett. Math. Phys. 108(2018), no. 4 1031–1081, [arXiv:1606.0522]

View on Pith arXiv 2018

[19] [19]

S. Sethi,Supersymmetry Breaking by Fluxes,JHEP10(2018) 022, [arXiv:1709.0355]

View on Pith arXiv 2018

[20] [20]

X. de la Ossa, E. Hardy, and E. E. Svanes,The Heterotic Superpotential and Moduli,JHEP01(2016) 049, [arXiv:1509.0872]

View on Pith arXiv 2016

[21] [21]

A. Ashmore, X. De La Ossa, R. Minasian, C. Strickland-Constable, and E. E. Svanes,Finite deformations from a heterotic superpotential: holomorphic Chern-Simons and anL∞ algebra,JHEP10(2018) 179, [arXiv:1806.0836]

View on Pith arXiv 2018

[22] [22]

A. Ashmore, C. Strickland-Constable, D. Tennyson, and D. Waldram,Heterotic backgrounds via generalised geometry: moment maps and moduli,JHEP11(2020) 071, [arXiv:1912.0998]

View on Pith arXiv 2020

[23] [23]

J. Kupka, C. Strickland-Constable, E. E. Svanes, D. Tennyson, and F. Valach,BPS complexes and Chern–Simons theories fromG-structures in gauge theory and gravity,arXiv:2406.0355

View on Pith arXiv

[24] [24]

A. Ashmore, J. J. M. Ibarra, D. D. McNutt, C. Strickland-Constable, E. E. Svanes, D. Tennyson, and S. Winje,A heterotic Kodaira-Spencer theory at one-loop,JHEP 10(2023) 130, [arXiv:2306.1010]

View on Pith arXiv 2023

[25] [25]

X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes,Holomorphic Bundles and the Moduli Space of N=1 Supersymmetric Heterotic Compactifications,JHEP10(2014) 123, [arXiv:1402.1725]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[26] [26]

J. McOrist and E. E. Svanes,Heterotic quantum cohomology,JHEP11(2022) 096, [arXiv:2110.0654]

View on Pith arXiv 2022

[27] [27]

L. Anguelova, C. Quigley, and S. Sethi,The Leading Quantum Corrections to Stringy Kahler Potentials,JHEP1010(2010) 065, [arXiv:1007.4793]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[28] [28]

P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, and J. McOrist,A Metric for Heterotic Moduli, Commun. Math. Phys.356(2017), no. 2 567–612, [arXiv:1605.0525]

View on Pith arXiv 2017

[29] [29]

J. McOrist and R. Sisca,Small gauge transformations and universal geometry in heterotic theories,SIGMA16(2020) 126, [arXiv:1904.0757]. 30

View on Pith arXiv 2020

[30] [30]

J. McOrist, S. Picard, and E. E. Svanes,A Heterotic Hermitian-Yang-Mills Equivalence,Commun. Math. Phys.406(2025), no. 5 107, [arXiv:2402.1035]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[31] [31]

I. V. Melnikov, R. Minasian, and S. Sethi,Heterotic fluxes and supersymmetry, JHEP06(2014) 174, [arXiv:1403.4298]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[32] [32]

K. Becker and S. Sethi,Torsional Heterotic Geometries,Nucl. Phys.B820(2009) 1–31, [arXiv:0903.3769]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[33] [33]

G. Chapline and N. Manton,Unification of Yang-Mills Theory and Supergravity in Ten-Dimensions,Phys.Lett.B120(1983) 105–109

View on Pith 1983

[34] [34]

N. J. Hitchin,The Geometry of Three-Forms in Six Dimensions,J. Diff. Geom.55 (2000), no. 3 547–576, [math/0010054]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[35] [35]

P. Candelas, X. De La Ossa, J. McOrist, and R. Sisca,The Universal Geometry of Heterotic Vacua,JHEP02(2019) 038, [arXiv:1810.0087]

View on Pith arXiv 2019

[36] [36]

J. McOrist,Universal geometry as an organising principle for heterotic moduli, arXiv:2606.3119

View on Pith arXiv

[37] [37]

J. McOrist and Q. Yin,Heterotic moduli, the double extension and the alpha’^2 metric,arXiv:2607.1581. 31

View on Pith arXiv