On U-Folds and Their Construction

Marcelo Oyarzo; Mario Trigiante; Ruggero Noris; Stefano Maurelli

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

On U-Folds and Their Construction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Type IIB U-fold with O(4,4;Z) monodromy breaks all supersymmetry

desk verdict Clear review of the U-fold construction, but the new non-supersymmetry claim is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the reduction to a non-integer-monodromy background needs proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21590 v1 pith:B5PIQAMN submitted 2025-04-30 hep-th

Stefano Maurelli , Ruggero Noris , Marcelo Oyarzo , Mario Trigiante This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords U-foldsTypeIIBsupergravitymonodromyorientifoldsupersymmetryCremmer-Scherk-SchwarzreductionAdSbackgroundsO(44Z)

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 gives a general recipe for building U-fold backgrounds of Type IIB superstring theory: start from an $AdS_d \times S^d$ solution, compactify one boundary direction, let the moduli travel along a geodesic in the scalar moduli space, and ask that the two ends be identified by a monodromy matrix in the string-duality group. For $d=3$ this yields backgrounds of the form $AdS_2 \times S^1 \times S^3 \times CY_2$ with monodromy in $O(4,4;\mathbb{Z})$; the paper works out the explicit geodesics and the ten-dimensional uplift. The new result is a supersymmetry check for the $T^4/\mathbb{Z}_2$ orientifold version of this background: the ten-dimensional dilatino variation $\delta\lambda$ does not vanish, so this simplest U-fold is nonsupersymmetric. A sympathetic reader should care because the higher-dimensional S-fold relatives preserve half the supercharges, and this construction tests what happens to duality-twisted compactifications when the global identification breaks supersymmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the duality twist along the circle, implemented through the coset representative $V(\eta)$: as $\eta$ runs from 0 to the period, the moduli trace a geodesic in the totally geodesic submanifold $G_0/H_0$ of the scalar manifold, and the twist matrix $A(\eta) = V_0(\eta)$ encodes the global symmetry transformation; the monodromy is $M = A(0)^{-1} A(\tau)$. The scalar potential coming from the charge vector fixes the so-called dilatonic scalar, while the remaining moduli move along flat directions; the supersymmetry calculation then evaluates the Type IIB dilatino variation on the uplifted ten-dimensional metric, dilaton and three-form flux.

What would settle it

Evaluate the ten-dimensional spin-1/2 variations on a background with an actual integer monodromy, obtained by $O(4,4)$-conjugating the simplified geodesic and choosing period $\tau$ so that the endpoints are identified by a matrix in $O(4,4;\mathbb{Z})$. If $\delta\lambda = 0$ there, the claimed nonsupersymmetry is an artifact of the simplification; if $\delta\lambda \neq 0$, the conclusion survives the equivalence assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that U-folds with geometry $AdS_{d-1} \times S^1 \times S^d$ and monodromy along the $S^1$ can be produced uniformly by a Cremmer-Scherk-Schwarz twist: the dependence of fields on the circle coordinate is a geodesic in the duality-group coset $G_0/H_0$, and consistency requires the endpoints to be identified by an integer duality matrix $M$. In the $d=3$ Type IIB case with $CY_2 = T^4$ or $K3$, the monodromy can be chosen as $M = D_{n_1} D_{n_2} \in SL(2,\mathbb{Z}) \times SL(2,\mathbb{Z}) \subset O(4,4;\mathbb{Z})$, and the paper gives the explicit hyperbolic geodesic solution for the moduli. After uplifting the $T^4/\mathbb{Z}_2$ orientifold version to ten dimensions, the variation of the spin-1/2 fields on this background is $\delta\lambda \neq 0$, meaning no supersymmetry is preserved; the paper interprets this as the $d=3$ counterpart of the nonsupersymmetric S-fold solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The supersymmetry computation is done on the one-modulus version with geodesic $\sigma(\eta)=-\kappa\eta/2$, for which no nontrivial integer monodromy exists; the paper asserts that acting with the $O(4,4)$ symmetry and fixing the period $\tau$ will not affect supersymmetry, but it does not prove the equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same geodesic-twist mechanism produces both the known $AdS_4 \times S^1 \times S^5$ J-folds and the new $AdS_2 \times S^1 \times S^3$ U-folds from one construction.
For the orientifold model, the simplest U-fold with monodromy in $O(4,4;\mathbb{Z})$ preserves no supersymmetry, so any supersymmetric $AdS_2$ U-fold would need extra fields or a different monodromy.
Around the circle the ten-dimensional string coupling changes by the factor $\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}$; the monodromy is therefore a genuine non-perturbative duality identification.
The solution suggests a holographic dual: the IR limit of an interface $(1+0)$-theory inside the $1+1$ SCFT dual to the D1-D5 system, with the monodromy acting on the moduli along the circle.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper's equivalence assumption holds, the no-supersymmetry result would distinguish the $d=3$ U-fold family from the half-maximal S-folds: with no supercharges, stability is not protected, and one could test for tachyonic modes in the scalar spectrum around this vacuum.
The one-modulus geodesic $\sigma(\eta)=-\kappa\eta/2$ is only a local model; conjugating by $O(4,4)$ and fixing the period should give a genuine integer monodromy. Computing supersymmetry directly on that monodromy-consistent background would settle whether the vanishing of $\delta\lambda$ is an artifact of the simplification.
One could extend the same construction to generic $O(4,4)$ moduli beyond the two-complex-modulus truncation and search for subfamilies that do preserve supersymmetry, which would fill the gap between this nonsupersymmetric background and the supersymmetric S-folds.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is mostly a review of the authors' own U-fold construction from [41], with one genuinely new piece: a supersymmetry variation check for a d=3 orientifold U-fold in the T^4/Z2 model. Second, that new check is under-derived, and the paper's central claim—that these U-folds preserve no supersymmetry—rests on an equivalence that is asserted, not proved.

What is good: Sections 2 and 3 give a clean, explicit summary of the geodesic-in-moduli-space construction. The backgrounds in equations (14) and (17) are complete and checkable, and the T^4/Z2 orientifold model is a useful addition. The review is reliable.

Where it is soft: The supersymmetry analysis in Section 4 is the whole point of the paper, and it reads as a sketch. Equation (19) is only a proportionality for δλ; no projection onto independent gamma-matrix structures is shown, so a reader cannot see why δλ≠0 rather than a cancellation. More seriously, the computation is done on the 1-modulus geodesic σ(η)=−κη/2, which the paper itself says does not admit a non-trivial integer monodromy. The authors say that acting with O(4,4) and fixing the period τ "will not affect supersymmetry", but that transformation is generically in O(4,4;R), not O(4,4;Z). It is therefore not automatically a symmetry of the quantum charge lattice, and there is no check that D1-D5 charges remain quantized or that the spinor boundary condition around S^1 survives. Without that justification, the δλ≠0 claim applies to an auxiliary local supergravity solution, not to the actual U-fold with O(4,4;Z) monodromy. This is a load-bearing gap, but it looks fixable.

Who is it for: people working on S-fold/J-fold/U-fold constructions and their holography will find the survey useful, and the new claim is worth nailing down. As it stands, the paper is not self-contained on its central new result. I would send it to a serious referee, with the request that the derivation be supplied or the 1-modulus equivalence justified. If I were the editor, I would not desk-reject; I would ask for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reviews a general scheme for constructing U-fold backgrounds in Type IIB superstring theory with spacetime of the form AdS_{d-1} x S^1 x S^d and a monodromy along S^1 in the string-duality group. Sections 2 and 3 present the general coset construction, the geodesic ansatz for the moduli, and explicit d=3 examples on T^4, K3, and T^4/Z2, including the two-modulus solution (17) with monodromy M = D_{n1} D_{n2}. Section 4 treats the T^4/Z2 orientifold model, uplifts the simplified one-modulus background to ten dimensions, and claims that the gravitino/dilatino variation satisfies delta-lambda != 0, so that no supersymmetry is preserved. The paper states that this supersymmetry analysis is new and was not contained in [41].

Significance. If the Section 4 claim is correct, it identifies the simplest O(4,4;Z) monodromy U-fold in the orientifold d=3 model as nonsupersymmetric, providing a contrast with the half-maximal S-fold backgrounds in higher dimensions. The review portion is also useful: the general construction is clearly presented and the explicit profiles (14) and (17) are checkable, so the paper has value as a proceedings contribution even apart from the new claim. However, the new supersymmetry statement is not supported by the evidence shown in the manuscript: the delta-lambda computation is not displayed, and the relation between the simplified background on which it is evaluated and the actual O(4,4;Z) U-fold is asserted rather than proved. The claimed significance is therefore conditional on work that still needs to appear.

major comments (3)

[§4, Eq. (19)] The central new result, delta-lambda != 0, is not demonstrated. Equation (19) gives only a proportionality expression involving the ten-dimensional spin-1/2 variations, but no evaluation of the right-hand side on the background is shown, no projection onto independent gamma-matrix structures is performed, and no argument excluding cancellations among the terms is supplied. The sentence "We find that, on this background, delta-lambda != 0" is therefore an uncheckable assertion. Please include the full computation, or a precise reference to a paper where it appears, so that the non-supersymmetry claim can be verified.
[§4, simplified background after Eq. (19)] The supersymmetry analysis is performed on the one-modulus background with sigma(eta) = -kappa eta/2, which the paper itself notes does not allow a non-trivial integer monodromy matrix. The actual U-fold monodromy M = D_{n1} D_{n2} of Eq. (16) is therefore not realized by the background on which delta-lambda is evaluated. The assertion that acting with an O(4,4) transformation and fixing the period "will not affect supersymmetry" is not proved; a generic O(4,4;R) conjugation need not preserve the O(4,4;Z) charge lattice or the spinor periodicity around S^1. Unless this equivalence is established, the conclusion that the full monodromy U-fold preserves no supersymmetry does not follow from the computation shown.
[§4, global spinor structure] The supersymmetry check is incomplete also because no spinor boundary conditions around the S^1 are specified. Equation (19) involves the projectors Gamma_* sigma_1 lambda = +/- lambda and the chirality constraints, but the paper does not state which Killing spinor Ansatz on AdS2 x S^1 x S^3 is being used, how the spinors transform under the monodromy, or which sign choice is adopted. Without this global data, a non-vanishing local delta-lambda is not by itself enough to establish a supersymmetry-breaking statement for the globally defined U-fold.

minor comments (4)

[§2 heading] The heading "General Contruction of U-Folds" contains a typo; it should read "Construction".
[§4, final paragraph] The word "supersymetry" is misspelled, and the displayed symbol in the final sentence is difficult to read; please clarify the notation for delta-lambda and its suppressed R-symmetry indices.
[Eq. (16)] The matrices D_{n1} and D_{n2} are used in the monodromy matrix before being defined; please define them in the text or refer explicitly to the earlier hyperbolic SL(2,Z) element introduced near Eq. (13).
[§4, paragraph after Eq. (19)] It would improve the paper to state explicitly that the O(4,4) rotation and period-fixing step is a conjecture or an assumption, rather than presenting it as an evident symmetry statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the new non-supersymmetry result is a direct computation, and the review material cited from the authors' prior work is independent published input rather than a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

I find no step in which a predicted quantity reduces by construction to an input, or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The general U-fold construction and the explicit geodesic solution (17) are taken from the authors' prior work [41], which shares an author (M. Trigiante) with the present paper; however, that citation is external, published, and checkable, and it is not used to force the target conclusion. The monodromy parameters n1 and n2 enter through the chosen M = D_{n1}·D_{n2}, and the scalar vev is fixed by extremizing the potential, V = 2(q1^2 e^{-a} + q5^2 e^a), giving e^{a*} = q1/q5, rather than by fitting to the supersymmetry outcome. The new claim in Section 4, 'We find that, on this background, δλ ≠ 0,' is presented as an evaluation of the independent variation formula (19). The main weakness is a missing-proof issue rather than circularity: the paper explicitly notes that the 1-modulus geodesic σ(η) = -κη/2 'does not allow for a non-trivial integer monodromy matrix,' and then asserts that acting with O(4,4) and fixing τ appropriately 'will not affect supersymmetry.' That is an unproved representativeness assumption about the actual two-modulus integer-monodromy background, so it affects the reliability of the conclusion but is not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its own input. No equation is defined in terms of the result, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; the circularity score is therefore 0.

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

No fitted parameters appear: the scalar vevs are fixed by extremizing the potential (8), the geodesic velocity κ is fixed by the monodromy integers via (17), and the radii are fixed by the charges through (10). The central supersymmetry claim depends on the unproven simplification in the fifth axiom.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The 2d-dimensional bosonic model, with scalar manifold G/H and (d-1)-forms in a pseudo-orthogonal representation R of G, captures the relevant Type IIB truncations on Ricci-flat manifolds such as K3 or T^4/Z2.
Section 2, eqs. (1)-(2). The construction's domain is exactly this class of models.
ad hoc to paper The field-strength ansatz H(d) = -Ω·M(φ)·vol_M + Γ·vol_Sd (eq. 5) covers the solutions of interest.
Imposed without derivation; the subsequent solution is built on this ansatz.
domain assumption Scalars can be restricted to the totally geodesic submanifold G0/H0 × G1/H1 without sourcing the remaining scalars.
Section 2.1, after eq. (8). Requires total geodesicity of the submanifold and vanishing of off-diagonal sources.
domain assumption The monodromy M must lie in the discrete symmetry group G(Z) so the endpoints of the geodesic are identified in the quantum moduli space.
Section 2.1, 'U-Fold structure of the solution'. This is the quantization condition defining a consistent U-fold.
ad hoc to paper The O(4,4) transformation and choice of τ used to restore a non-trivial monodromy do not affect supersymmetry.
Section 4, paragraph after eq. (18). Asserted without proof; this is the key step for transferring the δλ result to the actual U-fold.
domain assumption The orientifold truncation projectors and the Type IIB chirality conditions select the spinors on which δλ is evaluated.
Section 4, after eq. (19). Standard for the T^4/Z2 orientifold with O5 planes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On U-Folds and Their Construction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5PIQAMN

@misc{pith2026250421590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On U-Folds and Their Construction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5PIQAMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21590}
}

abstract

We review a general paradigm for constructing U-fold backgrounds in (dimensionally reduced) Type IIB superstring theory, of the form ${\rm AdS}_{d-1}\times S^1\times S^d$, with a monodromy along $S^1$ in the string-duality group. We also consider a special instance with $d=3$ in Type IIB superstring theory, discuss its ten-dimensional uplift and assess its supersymmetry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[41]

Astesiano, D

D. Astesiano, D. Ruggeri and M. Trigiante, U folds from geodesics in moduli space , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 086018 [24/zero.alt31./zero.alt342/zero.alt39]

work page 2024
[1]

Polchinski, String theory

J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press (12, 2007), 10.1017/CBO9780511618123

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618123 2007
[2]

Hull and P.K

C.M. Hull and P.K. Townsend, Unity of superstring dualities , Nucl. Phys. B 438 (1995) 109 [hep-th/941/zero.alt3167]

work page 1995
[3]

Samtleben, Lectures on Gauged Supergravity and Flux Compactiﬁcations , Class

H. Samtleben, Lectures on Gauged Supergravity and Flux Compactiﬁcations , Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008) 214002 [/zero.alt38/zero.alt38.4/zero.alt376]

work page 2008
[4]

Trigiante, Gauged Supergravities, Phys

M. Trigiante, Gauged Supergravities, Phys. Rept. 680 (2017) 1 [16/zero.alt39./zero.alt39745]. /six.supThis theory is conjectured to be described, in an appropriat e limit, by the hyper-Kähler sigma model whose target space is symmetric product orbifold Sym /u1D441(/u1D436/u1D44C2) [47]. 12 On U-Folds and Their Construction Mario Trigiante

work page 2017
[5]

Dall’ Agata and G

G. Dall’ Agata and G. Inverso, On the Vacua of N = 8 Gauged Supergravity in 4 Dimensions , Nucl.Phys. B859 (2012) 70 [1112.3345]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Dall’ Agata, G

G. Dall’ Agata, G. Inverso and M. Trigiante,Evidence for a family of SO(8) gauged supergravity theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 201301 [12/zero.alt39./zero.alt376/zero.alt3]

work page 2012
[7]

Inverso and M

G. Inverso and M. Trigiante, New (maximal) gauged supergravities, 3, 2025 [ 25/zero.alt33./zero.alt38616]

work page 2025

Show all 50 references

[8]

Hohm and H

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, Exceptional Form of D=11 Supergravity , Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 231601 [13/zero.alt38.1673]

2013
[9]

Hohm and H

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, Exceptional Field Theory II: E7(7) , Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 066017 [1312.4542]

2014 arXiv
[10]

Hohm and H

O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, Consistent Kaluza-Klein Truncations via Exceptional Fiel d Theory, JHEP 1501 (2015) 131 [141/zero.alt3.8145]

2015
[11]

Samtleben, Exceptional ﬁeld theories , 3, 2025 [ 25/zero.alt33.16947]

H. Samtleben, Exceptional ﬁeld theories , 3, 2025 [ 25/zero.alt33.16947]

2025
[12]

Coimbra, C

A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram, /u1D438/u1D451(/u1D451) × R+ generalised geometry, connections and M theory , JHEP 02 (2014) 054 [1112.3989]

2014 arXiv
[13]

Coimbra, C

A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram, Supergravity as Generalised Geometry II:/u1D438/u1D451(/u1D451) × R+ and M theory , JHEP 03 (2014) 019 [1212.1586]

2014 arXiv
[14]

K. Lee, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram, Spheres, generalised parallelisability and consistent truncations, 14/zero.alt31.336/zero.alt3
[15]

Cassani, G

D. Cassani, G. Josse, M. Petrini and D. Waldram, Systematics of consistent truncations from generalised geometry, JHEP 11 (2019) 017 [19/zero.alt37./zero.alt3673/zero.alt3]

2019
[16]

Hull and A

C.M. Hull and A. Catal-Ozer, Compactiﬁcations with S duality twists , JHEP 10 (2003) 034 [hep-th//zero.alt33/zero.alt38133]

2003
[17]

Hull, A Geometry for non-geometric string backgrounds , JHEP 10 (2005) 065 [hep-th//zero.alt34/zero.alt361/zero.alt32]

C.M. Hull, A Geometry for non-geometric string backgrounds , JHEP 10 (2005) 065 [hep-th//zero.alt34/zero.alt361/zero.alt32]

2005
[18]

Plauschinn, Non-geometric backgrounds in string theory , Phys

E. Plauschinn, Non-geometric backgrounds in string theory , Phys. Rept. 798 (2019) 1 [1811.112/zero.alt33]

2019
[19]

Inverso, H

G. Inverso, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante, Type II supergravity origin of dyonic gaugings , Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 066020 [1612./zero.alt35123]

2017
[20]

Gallerati, H

A. Gallerati, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante, The/u1D441 >2 supersymmetric AdS vacua in maximal supergravity, 141/zero.alt3./zero.alt3711
[21]

D’Hoker, J

E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and M. Gutperle, Exact half-BPS Type IIB interface solutions. II. Flux solutions and multi-Janus, JHEP 06 (2007) 022 [/zero.alt37/zero.alt35./zero.alt3/zero.alt324]. 13 On U-Folds and Their Construction Mario Trigiante

2007
[22]

D’Hoker, J

E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and M. Gutperle, Exact half-BPS Type IIB interface solutions. I. Local solution and supersymmetric Janus , JHEP 06 (2007) 021 [/zero.alt37/zero.alt35./zero.alt3/zero.alt322]

2007
[23]

Assel and A

B. Assel and A. Tomasiello, Holographic duals of 3d S-fold CFTs , JHEP 06 (2018) 019 [18/zero.alt34./zero.alt36419]

2018
[24]

Gaiotto and E

D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, S-Duality of Boundary Conditions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13 (2009) 721 [/zero.alt38/zero.alt37.372/zero.alt3]

2009
[25]

Guarino and C

A. Guarino and C. Sterckx, S-folds and (non-)supersymmetric Janus solutions, 19/zero.alt37./zero.alt34177
[26]

Bobev, F.F

N. Bobev, F.F. Gautason, K. Pilch, M. Suh and J. Van Muide n, Janus and J-fold Solutions from Sasaki-Einstein Manifolds, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 081901 [19/zero.alt37.11132]

2019
[27]

Guarino, C

A. Guarino, C. Sterckx and M. Trigiante, N = 2 supersymmetric S-folds, JHEP 04 (2020) 050 [2/zero.alt3/zero.alt32./zero.alt33692]

2020
[28]

Bobev, F.F

N. Bobev, F.F. Gautason, K. Pilch, M. Suh and J. van Muide n, Holographic interfaces in N = 4 SYM: Janus and J-folds , JHEP 05 (2020) 134 [2/zero.alt3/zero.alt33./zero.alt39154]

2020
[29]

Giambrone, E

A. Giambrone, E. Malek, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante, Global properties of the conformal manifold for S-fold backgrounds, JHEP 06 (2021) 111 [21/zero.alt33.1/zero.alt3797]

2021
[30]

Guarino and C

A. Guarino and C. Sterckx, S-folds and holographic RG ﬂows on the D3-brane , JHEP 06 (2021) 051 [21/zero.alt33.12652]

2021
[31]

Arav, J.P

I. Arav, J.P. Gauntlett, M.M. Roberts and C. Rosen, Marginal deformations and RG ﬂows for type IIB S-folds, JHEP 07 (2021) 151 [21/zero.alt33.152/zero.alt31]

2021
[32]

Bobev, F.F

N. Bobev, F.F. Gautason and J. van Muiden, The holographic conformal manifold of 3d N = 2 S-fold SCFTs, JHEP 07 (2021) 221 [21/zero.alt34./zero.alt3/zero.alt3977]

2021
[33]

Guarino and C

A. Guarino and C. Sterckx, Flat deformations of type IIB S-folds , JHEP 11 (2021) 171 [21/zero.alt39./zero.alt36/zero.alt332]

2021
[34]

Cesàro, G

M. Cesàro, G. Larios and O. Varela, The spectrum of marginally-deformed N = 2 CFTs with AdS4 S-fold duals of type IIB , JHEP 12 (2021) 214 [21/zero.alt39.116/zero.alt38]

2021
[35]

Giambrone, A

A. Giambrone, A. Guarino, E. Malek, H. Samtleben, C. Ste rckx and M. Trigiante,Holographic evidence for nonsupersymmetric conformal manifolds , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 066018 [2112.11966]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Guarino and C

A. Guarino and C. Sterckx, Type IIB S-folds: ﬂat deformations, holography and stabili ty, PoS CORFU2021 (2022) 163 [22/zero.alt34./zero.alt39993]

2022
[37]

Bobev, S

N. Bobev, S. Choi, J. Hong and V . Reys, Superconformal indices of 3d N = 2 SCFTs and holography, JHEP 10 (2024) 121 [24/zero.alt37.13177]

2024
[38]

Guarino, A

A. Guarino, A. Rudra, C. Sterckx and M. Trigiante, Blackening S-folds, JHEP 10 (2024) 120 [24/zero.alt37.11593]. 14 On U-Folds and Their Construction Mario Trigiante

2024
[39]

Guarino, C

A. Guarino, C. Sterckx and M. Trigiante, Consistent N=4, D=4 truncation of type IIB super- gravity on S1× S5, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 046019 [241/zero.alt3.23149]

2025
[40]

Cremmer, J

E. Cremmer, J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Spontaneously Broken N=8 Supergravity , Phys. Lett. B 84 (1979) 83

1979
[42]

Schwarz, Covariant Field Equations of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity , Nucl

J.H. Schwarz, Covariant Field Equations of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity , Nucl. Phys. B 226 (1983) 269

1983
[43]

Aspinwall and D.R

P.S. Aspinwall and D.R. Morrison, String theory on K3 surfaces , AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. 1 (1996) 703 [ hep-th/94/zero.alt34151]

1996
[44]

Angelantonj and A

C. Angelantonj and A. Sagnotti, Open strings, Phys. Rept. 371 (2002) 1 [hep-th//zero.alt32/zero.alt34/zero.alt389]

2002
[45]

Sezgin, Survey of supergravities, 2312./zero.alt36754

E. Sezgin, Survey of supergravities, 2312./zero.alt36754
[46]

Dibitetto, J.J

G. Dibitetto, J.J. Fernández-Melgarejo and M. Nozawa, 6D (1,1) Gauged Supergravities from Orientifold Compactiﬁcations , JHEP 05 (2020) 015 [1912./zero.alt34142]

2020
[47]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten, The D1 / D5 system and singular CFT , JHEP 04 (1999) 017 [hep-th/99/zero.alt33224]

1999
[48]

Astesiano, D

D. Astesiano, D. Ruggeri, M. Trigiante and T. Van Riet, Instantons and no wormholes in /u1D434/u1D451/u1D4463 ×/u1D4463 ×/u1D436/u1D44C2, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 086022 [22/zero.alt31.11694]

2022
[49]

Chiodaroli, M

M. Chiodaroli, M. Gutperle and D. Krym, Half-BPS Solutions locally asymptotic to AdS(3) x S**3 and interface conformal ﬁeld theories , JHEP 02 (2010) 066 [/zero.alt391/zero.alt3./zero.alt3466]

2010
[50]

Maurelli, R

S. Maurelli, R. Noris, M. Oyarzo, H. Samtleben and M. Tri giante, work in progress, . 15

Pith tools

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

[1] [41]

Astesiano, D

D. Astesiano, D. Ruggeri and M. Trigiante, U folds from geodesics in moduli space , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 086018 [24/zero.alt31./zero.alt342/zero.alt39]

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Polchinski, String theory

J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press (12, 2007), 10.1017/CBO9780511618123

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618123 2007

[3] [2]

Hull and P.K

C.M. Hull and P.K. Townsend, Unity of superstring dualities , Nucl. Phys. B 438 (1995) 109 [hep-th/941/zero.alt3167]

work page 1995

[4] [3]

Samtleben, Lectures on Gauged Supergravity and Flux Compactiﬁcations , Class

H. Samtleben, Lectures on Gauged Supergravity and Flux Compactiﬁcations , Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008) 214002 [/zero.alt38/zero.alt38.4/zero.alt376]

work page 2008

[5] [4]

Trigiante, Gauged Supergravities, Phys

M. Trigiante, Gauged Supergravities, Phys. Rept. 680 (2017) 1 [16/zero.alt39./zero.alt39745]. /six.supThis theory is conjectured to be described, in an appropriat e limit, by the hyper-Kähler sigma model whose target space is symmetric product orbifold Sym /u1D441(/u1D436/u1D44C2) [47]. 12 On U-Folds and Their Construction Mario Trigiante

work page 2017

[6] [5]

Dall’ Agata and G

G. Dall’ Agata and G. Inverso, On the Vacua of N = 8 Gauged Supergravity in 4 Dimensions , Nucl.Phys. B859 (2012) 70 [1112.3345]

arXiv 2012

[7] [6]

Dall’ Agata, G

G. Dall’ Agata, G. Inverso and M. Trigiante,Evidence for a family of SO(8) gauged supergravity theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 201301 [12/zero.alt39./zero.alt376/zero.alt3]

work page 2012

[8] [7]

Inverso and M

G. Inverso and M. Trigiante, New (maximal) gauged supergravities, 3, 2025 [ 25/zero.alt33./zero.alt38616]

work page 2025