Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

How to uplift non-maximal gauged supergravities

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that lifting a non-maximal gauged supergravity to ten or eleven dimensions reduces to one simpler PDE on the base of the internal manifold.

desk verdict A systematic algorithm for uplifting non-maximal gauged supergravities with a genuinely new classification for N=4, but the global-extension and hidden-computation gaps make it a strong paper needing careful refereeing rather than a definitive proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.24850 v2 pith:M5TFABNH submitted 2025-10-28 hep-th

Davide Rovere , Colin Sterckx This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords consistenttruncationsexceptionalfieldtheorygeneralisedgeometrygaugedsupergravitytypeIIBM-theoryN=4harmonicfunctions
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 addresses the bottom-up question of supergravity: when does a four-dimensional gauged supergravity come from type IIB or eleven-dimensional supergravity? It shows that if the gauge group $G_g$ acts on the internal manifold, the internal manifold splits locally as a fibre $G_g/H$ over a base $B$, and every potential uplift is encoded in a generalised frame on that space. The central result is that consistency of the uplift is equivalent to a single differential condition, written $d[P(L\cdot E^\flat\cdot \hat{e}^{-1})]=0$ on the base $B$, rather than a system of non-linear PDEs over the whole internal manifold. Applied to pure $\mathcal{N}=4$, $D=4$ SO(4)-gauged supergravity, the method classifies all type IIB uplifts in terms of two harmonic functions on a Riemann surface and recovers consistent truncations around every exact half-BPS interface solution of [1].

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalised frame, a vielbein valued in the exceptional duality group (here $E_{7(7)}$) that packages the internal metric and fluxes into a single section of the generalised tangent bundle. The paper restricts to frames of the form $E=L\cdot E^\flat\cdot \hat{e}^{-1}$, where $L$ is a coset representative on $G_g/H$, $\hat{e}$ is the coset vielbein, and the flat frame $E^\flat$ depends only on the base $B$; $E^\flat$ is assembled from a compatible solution of the section constraints together with $H$-invariant flux factors. The decisive identity is the reduction of the torsion condition to $d[P(L\cdot E^\flat\cdot \hat{e}^{-1})]=0$, an exterior-derivative equation on the poly-form components of the invariant sections, which lives on $B$ rather than on the full internal manifold. That reduction is what turns the classification of uplifts into a tractable algebraic and PDE problem.

What would settle it

Choose harmonic functions $h_1,h_2$ on the base $\Sigma$ such that $h_1h_2\,\partial\bar{\partial}(h_1h_2)$ has a zero in the interior of $\Sigma$, and compute the frame determinant (5.25): if it vanishes at an interior point, the frame is not globally well-defined and that harmonic pair does not yield a consistent truncation, contradicting the claimed classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that consistency of a truncation from type IIB or eleven-dimensional supergravity to a non-maximal gauged supergravity is a statement about $G_S$-invariant sections of the generalised tangent bundle, and that the problem reduces to finding a generalised frame of the form $E=L\cdot E^\flat\cdot \hat{e}^{-1}$ on $M_{\mathrm{int}}\simeq G_g/H\times B$. The frame's compatibility with the embedding tensor fixes $E^\flat$ through algebraic equations, while the torsion condition, requiring the intrinsic torsion to be a constant $G_S$-singlet equal to the embedding tensor $\Theta$, collapses to the condition that the poly-form components of $K^A=P^A{}_M E^M$ be (co)closed. After factoring out the group element and the coset vielbein, that condition is exactly the PDE $d[P(L\cdot E^\flat\cdot \hat{e}^{-1})]=0$ on $B$. For pure half-maximal SO(4)-gauged supergravity in four dimensions, the paper classifies all type IIB uplifts: the internal manifold is $S^2\times S^2\times\Sigma$, the compatible frames form an SL(2)$\times$GL(2)$_\Sigma$ family, and the torsion condition selects two harmonic functions $h_1,h_2$ on $\Sigma$. The explicit sections (5.23) satisfy both compatibility and torsion, and the frame determinant (5.25) vanishes only at the boundary brane singularities, so the truncations are consistent arbitrarily close to the sources of [1].

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local description of the internal space as a group fibre over a base extends without obstruction across every stratum of the internal manifold, including the strata where the group action degenerates; a hidden topological obstruction there would make the claimed classification of uplifts incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The type IIB uplifts of pure $\mathcal{N}=4$, $D=4$ SO(4)-gauged supergravity are classified: the internal space is $S^2\times S^2\times\Sigma$ and each uplift is fixed by two harmonic functions $h_1,h_2$ on the Riemann surface $\Sigma$.
  • All consistent truncations around the exact half-BPS interface solutions of [1] are recovered as particular choices of those harmonic functions.
  • The compatibility constraint is algebraic: if no compatible solution of the section constraints exists for a chosen principal stabiliser $H$, then no uplift of that type exists, so possible uplifts can be ruled out without solving the equations of motion.
  • The same algorithm is directly applicable to other non-maximal gauged supergravities whose gauge group admits a proper action on a suitable internal manifold and whose cohomological conditions are met.
  • Because the frame determinant vanishes only at boundary brane singularities, the constructed truncations are well-defined arbitrarily close to those sources, making them usable for holographic checks near the branes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the harmonic-function parametrisation is exhaustive, the moduli space of type IIB uplifts of this theory is essentially the space of holomorphic data on $\Sigma$; it would be interesting to compare that space with the conformal moduli of the interface solutions of [1] and test whether every pair of harmonic functions yields a genuinely different truncation.
  • The central role of the principal stabiliser suggests a practical no-go test: for any proposed gauge group, enumerate the conjugacy classes of $H\subset G_g$, solve the algebraic compatibility equations, and read off whether type IIB, M-theory, or no uplift exists; this is a finite computation that could be automated.
  • Massive type IIA is left out because the Romans term changes the generalised Lie derivative, so the same reduction to a base PDE is not automatic; an uplift to massive IIA would probably need a deformed version of the frame ansatz (3.39) rather than a direct application of this theorem.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a systematic ExFT/generalised-geometry construction for uplifting non-maximal gauged supergravities to type IIB or 11D supergravity. Starting from an embedding tensor, the authors argue that the internal manifold admits a proper G_g-action and a local model M_loc = G_g/H × B. They reduce the constant-singlet intrinsic-torsion condition to a set of algebraic compatibility constraints plus a PDE on the base B, equations (3.34) and (3.42). The method is illustrated in an M-theory example in Section 4 and then applied in Section 5 to classify type IIB uplifts of pure four-dimensional SO(4)-gauged N=4 supergravity, with explicit sections (5.23) and a determinant check (5.25). The paper claims to recover consistent truncations around any D'Hoker-Estes-Gutperle solution.

Significance. If the main structural claim holds, this is a valuable step: it extends the generalised Scherk-Schwarz/ExFT technology from maximal to non-maximal gauged supergravities, provides an explicit algorithm, and produces a concrete family of type IIB uplifts with explicit supergravity fields. The derivation uses the slice theorem, equivariant forms, and the ExFT section constraints in a coherent way, and appendix D contains proofs of several of the frame constraints. The paper also contains explicit checks and reproduces the known S-fold truncation of [3]. The main risk is that the global-extension and classification claims are stronger than what is actually proved; these issues are localisable and, in my view, fixable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.1, §3.2.3, §5.1] The local model M_loc = G_g/H × B is obtained from the slice theorem only in a neighbourhood of a point of the principal stratum, and the text explicitly warns that 'one should be careful when extending these results to the full of M_int, where topological obstructions might arise' and that 'one needs to be careful when patching different strata'. No theorem is given showing that the frame E = L·E^♭·ê^{-1} in (3.39) and the sections K_A in (3.41) extend smoothly across non-principal strata, nor that the principal quotient is globally trivialisable as G_g/H × B. In the type IIB example the only global check is det(E)^{1/28} = c × h_1 h_2 ∂∂̄(h_1 h_2) in (5.25), which vanishes at the brane-source loci, so the frame is regular only on the complement of those points. This gap is load-bearing for the claim that the algorithm produces an uplift on the full internal manifold and for the 'all possible uplifts' classification: either a proof of extension (or a precise regularity statement) must be supplied, or the claims should be restricted to the principal stratum and to the complement of the singular set.
  2. [§5.1, first paragraph] The assertion that H = SO(2)_1 × SO(2)_2 is 'the only principal stabiliser admitting an uplift to type IIB' is justified by the existence of one solution in [3] and by an unstated one-to-one correspondence with compatible sections. The enumeration of all inequivalent embeddings H → G_D × G_S and of the associated solutions to the section constraints is not displayed. Without this enumeration, the classification of 'all possible uplifts' is not established. Please either display the complete classification of compatible H-embeddings or reformulate the statement as a construction of the uplifts associated with this particular H.
  3. [§3.2.3, equation (3.20)] The introduction assumes H^p_dR(G_g/H) = 0 for p = 1, 3, 5, 7 in type IIB, but equation (3.20) imposes vanishing only for p = 3, 5, 7. The p = 1 condition is needed to ensure that closed K-invariant 1-form fluxes are exact, so that the torsion constraints reduce to d[P·(L·E^♭·ê^{-1})] = 0 in (3.34). If H^1(G_g/H) is non-zero, there may be equivariant closed 1-form components of the sections that are not exact, and the reduction to a PDE on B can fail. Please correct (3.20) or explain why p = 1 is automatic in the cases considered.
  4. [§5.2] The consistency of the type IIB truncation is asserted rather than demonstrated in the text: the statement that 'we have verified that the Bianchi identity for F5 and the e.o.m. of the type IIB axio-dilaton do reduce to the four-dimensional equations of motion' is not backed by a detailed calculation, and the remaining equations (Einstein, 2-form, 4-form) are not shown. Given the central role of these checks for the classification, the authors should include the verification or an explicit statement of which equations were checked and on which open subset of M_int. The singularity of the frame at the brane loci (5.25) makes it particularly important to specify the domain of validity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5.19)] The expression for k_3 appears to contain a typo: the second term should probably be −cot θ_1 cos φ_1 ∂_{φ_1} rather than a second ∂_{θ_1}. Please check all Killing vector components on the two spheres.
  2. [§3.1.1, §3.2.1, title page] There are several typographical errors and garbled symbol sequences, for example 'andColin Sterckx' on the title page, 'we insists' in §3.2.3, 'embedd' in §5.1, and unreadable fragments around equation (3.15). The file should be regenerated so that all formulas typeset correctly.
  3. [§5.1] The counting '32+2×16 such singlets' is stated without derivation; a short explanation of how this is obtained from the branching of the 56 would improve readability.
  4. [§5.2] The notation h_1 ∧ h_2 is used for a combination of 1-forms on Σ, but h_1 and h_2 are functions; please define this wedge notation explicitly, for instance next to the products in (5.30).
  5. [§3.2.3] The Künneth argument assumes H^q(B) = 0 for q ≥ 1; this is stated in words but should be listed among the explicit topological assumptions used in the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Classification of 'all' type IIB uplifts leans on a self-cited uniqueness claim; the core ExFT/PDE derivation is otherwise independent.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 5, 'The internal manifold', around Eq. (5.10)]
    "The only principal stabiliser admitting an uplift to type IIB is H=SO(2)_1×SO(2)_2. Indeed, principal stabiliser are in one to one correspondence with solutions to the section constraints and one such solution was built in [3]."

    The paper's central 'all possible uplifts' conclusion is forced by a uniqueness claim that is not proven in this work. The one-to-one correspondence between principal stabilisers and solutions to the section constraints is asserted, and the existence of one solution is imported from reference [3], coauthored by the present second author. That cited construction provides a single S^1×S^5 truncation; it does not enumerate or exclude other principal stabilisers. Thus the 'only' step, which is load-bearing for the word 'all' in the abstract and in Section 5, rests on an unshown bijection plus a self-citation rather than on an independent enumeration.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 5.1, 'Compatible solution to the section constraints']
    "Since, for a given type of solution to the section constraint this map is unique when it exists, and we have an example of such a map from [3]. Thus, we must embedd H diagonally in SU(4)_S×SO(6)_D."

    The H→SU(4)_S embedding used to build the ansatz is taken from [3] (Guarino, Sterckx, Trigiante), and the present second author is a coauthor of that paper. The assertion that the map is 'unique when it exists' is exactly the uniqueness needed to make the ansatz exhaustive, but it is not derived here. Using the authors' own prior construction to fix the embedding, while claiming uniqueness, makes the classification inherit the scope of [3] rather than proving exhaustiveness. The later recovery of the S-fold truncation of [3] confirms that the benchmark is the authors' own earlier S^1×S^5 result.

full rationale

The core derivation of the paper is not circular: the reduction of the consistent-truncation torsion condition to the base PDE d[P(L·E♭·ê^{-1})]=0 is obtained from the standard ExFT theorem that a reduction with constant singlet intrinsic torsion defines a consistent truncation, and the explicit type IIB sections (5.23) are verified against the compatibility and torsion constraints as an independent computation. The M-theory example in Section 4 is also self-contained. The main circularity concern is concentrated in the classification claim in Section 5. The paper declares H=SO(2)_1×SO(2)_2 to be the only principal stabiliser admitting a type IIB uplift, justifying this by a one-to-one correspondence with compatible section-constraint solutions and by citing [3] for one such solution. Reference [3] is a self-citation and supplies existence, not the required uniqueness or exhaustive enumeration; the asserted correspondence is not displayed or proved. The subsequent use of the H→SU(4)_S embedding from [3] is load-bearing for the ansatz, and the final check recovers the S^1×S^5 truncation of [3]. These steps make the word 'all' in the classification depend on the authors' own prior construction. Separately, the paper explicitly warns that extending the local model M_loc=G_g/H×B to the full internal manifold may encounter topological obstructions and that patching strata requires care; this is an acknowledged correctness gap rather than a circular step, and I do not count it toward the circularity score. Overall, the central ExFT/PDE machinery and the explicit harmonic-function solutions have independent content, so the appropriate score is 4 rather than 6 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard ExFT/EGG framework and on several specific topological and group-action assumptions; no new physical entities are invented. The harmonic data h1,h2 are the physical freedom of the family, not fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • Harmonic functions h1, h2 (and conjugates h_D1, h_D2)
    In the type IIB classification of §5, the torsion constraints are solved in terms of two arbitrary harmonic functions on the base Σ (eqs. 5.21-5.24). These are not fitted to data; they are free functional data that select the D'Hoker-Estes-Gutperle geometry.
  • Integration constants in §4 (C1, C2, k, g, λ(α)) = Killed by gauge and coordinate choices; g→1, λ(α)=tan(α)
    These enter the intermediate solution (4.12)-(4.14) and are then eliminated by M-theory gauge transformations, so they do not affect the final uplift; listed for completeness.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The E7(7) ExFT section constraints (2.3) admit exactly two inequivalent maximal solutions, corresponding to type IIB (d'=6) and 11D (d'=7).
    Used throughout §2 and §3.3 to fix the type of uplift; standard ExFT fact from [10-12].
  • domain assumption A reduction of the structure group to G_S with constant G_S-singlet intrinsic torsion defines a consistent truncation (X^A_BC = Θ embedded), following [32].
    This is the load-bearing theorem (eqs. 2.19-2.21) that connects ExFT geometry to gauged supergravity; the paper relies on it without reproving it.
  • standard math Principal orbit type theorem and slice theorem for proper Lie group actions (M_loc = G/H × B near generic orbits).
    Used in §3.1.1 and proven in appendix B citing Meinrenken [46].
  • domain assumption Cohomological assumption H^p(G_g/H)=0 for p=3,5,7 (IIB) or p=4,7 (M-theory) ensures closed G-invariant forms are exact via averaging.
    Stated in eq. (3.20); this is the topological condition that reduces sections to (co-)closed equivariant forms and is checked explicitly for S^2×S^2 in §5.
  • domain assumption For pure N=4 D=4 supergravity the duality group is G_D = SO(6)×SL(2) and the structure group is G_S = SU(4)_S, so G_D is the commutant of G_S in E7(7).
    Used in §5 (eq. 5.7) to set up the decomposition of the 56; taken from [32,56].
  • standard math The embedding tensor must satisfy the linear constraint X_{(MNP)}=0 and the quadratic constraints (E.4), so that the tensor hierarchy terminates.
    Used in appendix E to build the KK twist operator and the dictionary; standard gauged-supergravity result [49-51].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to uplift non-maximal gauged supergravities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5TFABNH

@misc{pith2026251024850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to uplift non-maximal gauged supergravities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5TFABNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.24850}
}
abstract

In this paper, we provide an algorithm to perform the uplift of non-maximal $G_g$-gauged supergravities to type IIB or 11D supergravities. Using tools of exceptional field theory and generalised geometry, we show that the internal manifold admits a $G_g$-action, and that consistency of the uplift is equivalent to solving a simpler PDE on the quotient $M_{\text{int}}/G_g$. As an application, we classify all possible uplifts of pure half-maximal four-dimensional $\textrm{SO}(4)$-gauged supergravity to type IIB and we recover consistent truncations around any of the D'Hoker-Estes-Gutperle solutions \cite{DHoker:2007hhe}.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Guarino, C

    A. Guarino, C. Sterckx and M. Trigiante,Consistent N=4, D=4 truncation of type IIB supergravity on S1×S5,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 046019, [2410.23149]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    D’Hoker, J

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and M. Gutperle,Exact half-BPS Type IIB interface solutions. II. Flux solutions and multi-Janus,JHEP06(2007) 022, [0705.0024]. 38

    arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Bobev, F

    N. Bobev, F. F. Gautason and J. van Muiden,The conformal manifold of S-folds in string theory,JHEP03(2024) 167, [2312.13370]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Coleman,Aspects of symmetry, vol

    S. Coleman,Aspects of symmetry, vol. Chapter 6, Appendix 4. Cambridge University Press, 1985

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Cremmer, B

    E. Cremmer, B. Julia, H. Lu and C. N. Pope,Dualization of dualities. 1.,Nucl. Phys. B523(1998) 73–144, [hep-th/9710119]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz,Spontaneous Breaking of Supersymmetry Through Dimensional Reduction,Phys. Lett. B82(1979) 60–64

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz,How to Get Masses from Extra Dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B153(1979) 61–88

    1979

  8. [8]

    Coimbra, C

    A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram,Supergravity as Generalised Geometry I: Type II Theories,JHEP11(2011) 091, [1107.1733]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Coimbra, C

    A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram,Supergravity as Generalised Geometry II:E d(d)×R+ and M theory,JHEP03(2014) 019, [1212.1586]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hohm and H

    O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,Exceptional Field Theory I:E 6(6) covariant Form of M-Theory and Type IIB,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 066016, [1312.0614]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hohm and H

    O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,Exceptional field theory. II. E 7(7),Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 066017, [1312.4542]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hohm and H

    O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,Exceptional field theory. III. E 8(8),Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 066002, [1406.3348]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aldazabal, D

    G. Aldazabal, D. Marques and C. Nunez,Double Field Theory: A Pedagogical Review, Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 163001, [1305.1907]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Baguet, O

    A. Baguet, O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,E 6(6) Exceptional Field Theory: Review and Embedding of Type IIB,PoSCORFU2014(2015) 133, [1506.01065]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. S. Berman and C. D. A. Blair,The Geometry, Branes and Applications of Exceptional Field Theory,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2030014, [2006.09777]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sterckx,Modave lecture notes: Introduction to Exceptional Field Theory,PoS Modave2023(2025) 004, [2410.19600]

    C. Sterckx,Modave lecture notes: Introduction to Exceptional Field Theory,PoS Modave2023(2025) 004, [2410.19600]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Samtleben,Exceptional field theories,2503.16947

    H. Samtleben,Exceptional field theories,2503.16947

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    K. Lee, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram,Spheres, generalised parallelisability and consistent truncations,Fortsch. Phys.65(2017) 1700048, [1401.3360]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    de Wit and H

    B. de Wit and H. Nicolai,The Consistency of the S**7 Truncation in D=11 Supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B281(1987) 211–240

    1987

  12. [20]

    Varela,CompleteD=11embedding of SO(8) supergravity,Phys

    O. Varela,CompleteD=11embedding of SO(8) supergravity,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 045010, [1512.04943]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hohm and H

    O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,Consistent Kaluza-Klein Truncations via Exceptional Field Theory,JHEP01(2015) 131, [1410.8145]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Baguet, O

    A. Baguet, O. Hohm and H. Samtleben,Consistent Type IIB Reductions to Maximal 5D Supergravity,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 065004, [1506.01385]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Inverso, H

    G. Inverso, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante,Type II supergravity origin of dyonic gaugings,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 066020, [1612.05123]. 39

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Malek and H

    E. Malek and H. Samtleben,Dualising consistent IIA/IIB truncations,JHEP12(2015) 029, [1510.03433]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Malek and H

    E. Malek and H. Samtleben,Ten-dimensional origin of Minkowski vacua inN=8 supergravity,Phys. Lett. B776(2018) 64–71, [1710.02163]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Guarino, D

    A. Guarino, D. L. Jafferis and O. Varela,String Theory Origin of Dyonic N=8 Supergravity and Its Chern-Simons Duals,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 091601, [1504.08009]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Guarino and O

    A. Guarino and O. Varela,ConsistentN=8truncation of massive IIA on S 6,JHEP 12(2015) 020, [1509.02526]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ciceri, A

    F. Ciceri, A. Guarino and G. Inverso,The exceptional story of massive IIA supergravity,JHEP08(2016) 154, [1604.08602]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cassani, O

    D. Cassani, O. de Felice, M. Petrini, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram, Exceptional generalised geometry for massive IIA and consistent reductions,JHEP08 (2016) 074, [1605.00563]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C. Eloy, G. Larios and H. Samtleben,Triality and the consistent reductions on AdS 3 × S3,JHEP01(2022) 055, [2111.01167]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. Eloy, M. Galli and E. Malek,Adding fluxes to consistent truncations: IIB supergravity on AdS3×S 3×S 3×S 1,JHEP11(2023) 049, [2306.12487]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cassani, G

    D. Cassani, G. Josse, M. Petrini and D. Waldram,Systematics of consistent truncations from generalised geometry,JHEP11(2019) 017, [1907.06730]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cassani, G

    D. Cassani, G. Dall’Agata and A. F. Faedo,Type IIB supergravity on squashed Sasaki-Einstein manifolds,JHEP05(2010) 094, [1003.4283]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. P. Gauntlett and O. Varela,Universal Kaluza-Klein reductions of type IIB to N=4 supergravity in five dimensions,JHEP06(2010) 081, [1003.5642]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. T. Liu, P. Szepietowski and Z. Zhao,Consistent massive truncations of IIB supergravity on Sasaki-Einstein manifolds,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 124028, [1003.5374]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Skenderis, M

    K. Skenderis, M. Taylor and D. Tsimpis,A Consistent truncation of IIB supergravity on manifolds admitting a Sasaki-Einstein structure,JHEP06(2010) 025, [1003.5657]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez,Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16(2001) 822–855, [hep-th/0007018]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K. C. Matthew Cheung, J. P. Gauntlett and C. Rosen,Consistent KK truncations for M5-branes wrapped on Riemann surfaces,Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) 225003, [1906.08900]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cassani, G

    D. Cassani, G. Josse, M. Petrini and D. Waldram,N= 2 consistent truncations from wrapped M5-branes,JHEP02(2021) 232, [2011.04775]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Josse, E

    G. Josse, E. Malek, M. Petrini and D. Waldram,The higher-dimensional origin of five-dimensionalN= 2 gauged supergravities,JHEP06(2022) 003, [2112.03931]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hassler and Y

    F. Hassler and Y. Sakatani,Hierarchy of curvatures in exceptional geometry,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 106002, [2311.12095]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hassler and Y

    F. Hassler and Y. Sakatani,Consistent truncation and generalized duality based on exceptional generalized cosets,2510.12799. 40

  35. [43]

    J. P. Gauntlett and O. Varela,Consistent Kaluza-Klein reductions for general supersymmetric AdS solutions,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 126007, [0707.2315]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Inverso,Generalised Scherk-Schwarz reductions from gauged supergravity,JHEP12 (2017) 124, [1708.02589]

    G. Inverso,Generalised Scherk-Schwarz reductions from gauged supergravity,JHEP12 (2017) 124, [1708.02589]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Inverso and D

    G. Inverso and D. Rovere,How to uplift D = 3 maximal supergravities,JHEP02 (2025) 130, [2410.14520]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Group actions on manifolds

    E. Meinrenken, “Group actions on manifolds.” https://www.math.toronto.edu/mein/teaching/LectureNotes/action.pdf, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    Coimbra, C

    A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram,E d(d)×R+ generalised geometry, connections and M theory,JHEP02(2014) 054, [1112.3989]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sezgin,Survey of supergravities,2312.06754

    E. Sezgin,Survey of supergravities,2312.06754

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    de Wit, H

    B. de Wit, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante,On Lagrangians and gaugings of maximal supergravities,Nucl. Phys. B655(2003) 93–126, [hep-th/0212239]

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    de Wit and H

    B. de Wit and H. Samtleben,Gauged maximal supergravities and hierarchies of nonAbelian vector-tensor systems,Fortsch. Phys.53(2005) 442–449, [hep-th/0501243]

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    de Wit, H

    B. de Wit, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante,Magnetic charges in local field theory, JHEP09(2005) 016, [hep-th/0507289]

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    de Wit and H

    B. de Wit and H. Nicolai,N=8 Supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B208(1982) 323

    1982

  45. [53]

    Schon and M

    J. Schon and M. Weidner,Gauged N=4 supergravities,JHEP05(2006) 034, [hep-th/0602024]

    2006 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dall’Agata, N

    G. Dall’Agata, N. Liatsos, R. Noris and M. Trigiante,Gauged D = 4N= 4 supergravity,JHEP09(2023) 071, [2305.04015]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Louis, P

    J. Louis, P. Smyth and H. Triendl,Supersymmetric Vacua in N=2 Supergravity,JHEP 08(2012) 039, [1204.3893]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Malek,Half-Maximal Supersymmetry from Exceptional Field Theory,Fortsch

    E. Malek,Half-Maximal Supersymmetry from Exceptional Field Theory,Fortsch. Phys. 65(2017) 1700061, [1707.00714]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Assel, C

    B. Assel, C. Bachas, J. Estes and J. Gomis,Holographic Duals of D=3 N=4 Superconformal Field Theories,JHEP08(2011) 087, [1106.4253]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bergshoeff, I

    E. Bergshoeff, I. G. Koh and E. Sezgin,Coupling of Yang-Mills to N=4, D=4 Supergravity,Phys. Lett. B155(1985) 71

    1985

  51. [59]

    Fr´ e, A

    P. Fr´ e, A. Giambrone, D. Ruggeri, M. Trigiante and P. Vaˇ sko,Gauged N=3, D=4 supergravity: A new web of marginally connected vacua,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 066012, [2206.09971]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bossard, F

    G. Bossard, F. Ciceri, G. Inverso, A. Kleinschmidt and H. Samtleben,E 9 exceptional field theory. Part I. The potential,JHEP03(2019) 089, [1811.04088]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bossard, F

    G. Bossard, F. Ciceri, G. Inverso, A. Kleinschmidt and H. Samtleben,E 9 exceptional field theory. Part II. The complete dynamics,JHEP05(2021) 107, [2103.12118]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    de Wit and H

    B. de Wit and H. Samtleben,The End of the p-form hierarchy,JHEP08(2008) 015, [0805.4767]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Greitz, P

    J. Greitz, P. Howe and J. Palmkvist,The tensor hierarchy simplified,Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 087001, [1308.4972]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kalkman,BRST model for equivariant cohomology and representatives for the equivariant Thom class,Commun

    J. Kalkman,BRST model for equivariant cohomology and representatives for the equivariant Thom class,Commun. Math. Phys.153(1993) 447–463. 41

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.