Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Higher co-dimension de Sitter branes

T0 review · 3 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 A new no-go theorem argues that thin co-dimension-two branes cannot support de Sitter vacua, while higher co-dimension branes need negative-tension sources.

desk verdict Clear extension of Maldacena-Nuñez to higher-codimension branes, but the main theorem is conditional on a scalar regularity assumption that is mislabeled as WLOG, and the contradiction with [40] depends on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19515 v1 pith:MZQ7VZ3A submitted 2025-06-24 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

Florian Niedermann , Antonio Padilla This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph MSC 83E1583F05 PACS 04.50.-h
keywords deSittervacuahigher-codimensionbranesno-gotheoremthin-branelimitnegativebranetensionsupergravitycompactificationbrane-localizedenergy-momentuminternalspacecurvature
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

This paper extends a classical supergravity no-go theorem to braneworlds with two or more extra dimensions. It claims that, once the brane is treated as a genuine thin defect, the brane-localized contributions to the on-brane curvature vanish for co-dimension two, so the usual compactification conditions cannot produce a de Sitter vacuum on the brane. For co-dimension three and higher, a positive-curvature brane is possible only if the effective brane tension is negative. If correct, this rules out a broad class of higher-dimensional braneworld constructions of accelerating universes and explains why recent de Sitter proposals in six-dimensional supergravity plateau to zero curvature as the regulator is removed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the integrated curvature constraint obtained from the trace of the Einstein equations, $\bar R\,J(M_{\mathrm{tot}})=K(M_{\mathrm{out}})+\sum_i K(M_i)$, where $J$ is a weighted internal volume and $K$ the integral of $\tau$ weighted by $e^{d\phi}$. The no-go follows from estimating $K(M_i)$ in a small ball around each brane: energy-momentum conservation removes the angular pressure from the integrand, leaving two integrals $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$; with the near-brane power-law forms $A\approx A_0^{(\epsilon)}r^\alpha$ and $\phi\approx\phi_0^{(\epsilon)}+\phi_1^{(\epsilon)}r^\beta$ ($\alpha,\beta>0$, $A_0^{(\epsilon)}\epsilon^{\alpha-1}$ finite, $\phi_1^{(\epsilon)}\epsilon^\beta\to0$), $\Delta_1\to0$ and $\Delta_2$ either diverges or vanishes as $\epsilon\to0^+$. Discarding the divergent branch as unphysical leaves a contribution proportional to $(n-2)$ times the effective brane stress-energy trace, which is exactly zero at $n=2$.

What would settle it

Search for an explicit thin co-dimension-two brane solution in a compact internal space with $\tau\le0$ away from the source, conserved non-sign-flipping localized energy-momentum, and strictly positive on-brane curvature after the regulator is removed; the no-go theorem predicts no such solution exists. The paper's own estimates identify the vanishing of $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ as the precise point where any attempted counterexample must fail, so a numerical scan of regulated six-dimensional supergravity solutions would be a direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that under four assumptions—compact internal space, bulk sources with $\tau \le 0$ away from branes, finite physical on-brane curvature, and genuine higher-co-dimension sources whose regulator can be removed—the integrated trace of the Einstein equations forces the near-brane contribution $K(M_i)$ to vanish for $n=2$ and to equal $\frac{e^{d\phi_0}}{D-2}(n-2)$ times the effective brane energy-momentum trace for $n\ge 3$. Hence a co-dimension-two brane cannot supply the positive source term needed for $\bar R>0$, while a higher-co-dimension brane can only do so with a negative effective tension. Applied to a six-dimensional chiral supergravity model, the argument reproduces and sharpens earlier findings: the angular pressure that would support a de Sitter brane vanishes in the thin-brane limit, making the on-brane curvature vanish as well.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that a genuine thin brane has power-law near-brane geometry and that its localized energy density keeps the same sign; if a real source behaved differently near the brane, the contributions that the proof forces to vanish could instead survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Co-dimension-two braneworlds with thin, genuinely localized sources cannot generate de Sitter curvature from brane-localized energy-momentum; any positive curvature would have to come from subleading effects that vanish as the regulator is removed.
  • For co-dimension three or higher in a compact internal space, a positive on-brane curvature requires a negative effective brane tension, pointing toward orientifold-like sources rather than ordinary positive-tension branes.
  • The argument settles the debate over the angular pressure in six-dimensional supergravity in favour of vanishing pressure in the thin-brane limit, so the on-brane curvature there is zero.
  • If the regulator is kept finite, the brane acquires finite thickness and the sign of $\Delta_2$ can flip, opening a genuine loophole: finite-thickness or induced-gravity effects might support de Sitter, but the curvature then depends on the UV scale.
  • In the thin-brane limit, the only remaining path to de Sitter is to violate one of the stated assumptions, such as allowing $\tau>0$ in the bulk or a non-compact internal space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same estimates suggest that thin co-dimension-two de Sitter constructions must break either compactness of the internal space or the $\tau\le0$ bulk condition; both directions are concrete places to look for a counter-model.
  • Beyond the paper, the vanishing of $\Delta_1$ was shown for non-sign-flipping regulated sources, so a systematic search for sign-flipping or oscillating localized energy densities would probe the boundary of the theorem.
  • Beyond the paper, finite-thickness effects acting through induced gravity mimic negative tension for positive curvature; a natural next step is to test whether such configurations avoid the ghost instabilities the paper notes are often present.
  • Beyond the paper, the same curvature constraint could serve as a diagnostic for other compactification schemes: any candidate higher-dimensional de Sitter vacuum must have a near-brane region whose $\Delta_2$ contribution survives with the correct sign, which is a checkable condition in explicit metrics.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Maldacena-Nuñez no-go theorem to braneworld setups with co-dimension n >= 2. The authors derive an integrated constraint on the external-space Ricci scalar by combining the trace of the Einstein equations with energy-momentum conservation in a regulated neighbourhood of the brane. They argue that the near-brane contributions either vanish or diverge in the thin-brane limit: for n = 2 the remaining brane contribution vanishes, ruling out de Sitter vacua, while for n >= 3 a positive contribution requires negative effective tension. The general argument is then applied to a six-dimensional supergravity model recently claimed to support de Sitter branes [40], and the paper concludes that the on-brane curvature and the angular pressure p_b^(epsilon) vanish in the regulated limit, contradicting [40].

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a useful and reasonably general extension of the Maldacena-Nuñez argument to higher co-dimension brane sources, and it sharpens the debate about whether codimension-two brane constructions can yield de Sitter space. The derivation is analytic, self-contained, and does not rely on fitting parameters or on the authors' earlier work as an input. The authors also make a concrete, falsifiable claim about a specific six-dimensional model, which is valuable even if the final verdict on that model remains contested. However, the force of the result depends on a regularity condition that is advertised as a gauge choice but is in fact a substantive assumption, and one step in the proof is only established for a restricted class of regulated sources. With those issues repaired or made explicit, the paper would be a solid contribution to the no-go literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, text after Eq. (25), and footnote 7] The claim that the condition phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0 can be imposed 'without loss of generality' via the shift symmetry phi -> phi + c is incorrect. The combination phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta = phi(epsilon) - phi(0) is invariant under a constant shift, because both phi(epsilon) and phi(0) are shifted by the same constant. The shift freedom only changes phi_0^(epsilon), the value at r = 0; it cannot change the difference phi(epsilon) - phi(0). Therefore the vanishing of phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta is not a gauge choice but an additional regularity assumption. Footnote 7 states that the case phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> const can be accommodated by a shift of phi_0; this is the reverse of the truth, since a shift of phi_0 leaves phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta untouched. This matters because the smallness of the weighting function in Eq. (25), and hence the proof that Delta_1 -> 0, depends precisely on phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0. The no-go theorem is therefore conditional on an assumption that is stronger than the paper claims.
  2. [Section II, footnote 2 and Eqs. (22)-(26)] The proof that Delta_1 -> 0 is incomplete for general regulated sources. Footnote 2 proves the claim only when the regulated T^mu_mu does not change sign on 0 <= r <= epsilon; the general case is asserted as 'generic'. A nonzero limiting value of Delta_1 would produce a finite contribution to K(M_i) in Eq. (22), and for n = 2 this is exactly the kind of contribution that could support positive on-brane curvature in Eq. (14). Since the co-dimension-two no-go rests on all near-brane contributions vanishing, this step is load-bearing. The authors should either provide a proof for sign-changing T^mu_mu under the stated regularity assumptions, or explicitly include a non-sign-flipping condition (or an equivalent bound on the weighted integral) among the theorem's assumptions.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (44), (51), and (53)] The derivation that p_b^(epsilon) -> 0, and hence that the on-brane curvature vanishes in the thin-brane limit, is circular in its present form. Equation (53) gives phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta = [alpha/(4 beta)] (kappa^2/(2 pi)) p_b^(epsilon) / a_0. Thus the assumed regularity condition phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0 is equivalent, through the matching conditions, to p_b^(epsilon) -> 0. The text after Eq. (53) says that finiteness of phi(0) implies phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0 and then infers p_b^(epsilon) -> 0; this is the same 'without loss of generality' claim identified above, and it does not follow from the shift symmetry. Consequently, the argument does not rule out the scenario of [40], in which p_b^(epsilon) tends to a finite nonzero value; it only shows that such a scenario violates the assumed regularity condition. The authors should either prove the regularity condition from the bulk equations and junction conditions for the class of sources under consideration, or clearly state it as an assumption and soften the claims made against [40].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (31)] In the n = 2, alpha = 1 case, the first and last terms in the expression for W(epsilon) are of the form 0/0 because their denominators are alpha(n-1)-1 and alpha(n-3)+1, respectively. The statement that these terms 'vanish identically' is therefore imprecise; the intended statement is that the limit alpha -> 1 gives zero after evaluating the ratios, or that a direct n = 2 calculation gives a vanishing contribution. This is a local technical point and should be clarified by a limiting argument.
  2. [Section III, around Eq. (33)] The symbol phi is used both for the warp factor in the metric ansatz and for the dilaton in the action (33). If these are the same field, this should be stated explicitly with the field redefinition or ansatz that identifies them; if they are different fields, distinct symbols should be used to avoid confusion.
  3. [General] The abstract says the co-dimension-two result rules out 'stable de Sitter solutions', but the theorem concerns static maximally symmetric solutions; stability is not analysed in the paper. The word 'stable' should be removed or the scope should be stated as existence of de Sitter vacua rather than stability.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (18)-(22)] The effective energy-momentum tensor T^eff_A^B in Eq. (18) includes the angular volume Omega_{n-1}, while in Eq. (22) the first term is written as (n-2) T^eff_mu_mu and the Delta_1, Delta_2 terms are multiplied by Omega_{n-1}. This is consistent, but the notation is easy to misread; a brief reminder of the normalisation of T^eff would help.
  5. [General] The spelling of 'co-dimension' versus 'codimension' is inconsistent throughout the paper. The authors should choose one form and use it uniformly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go theorem is derived self-contained from stated assumptions; self-citations are only comparative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. It starts from the Einstein equations and energy conservation, integrates over a compact internal space to obtain Eq. (14), introduces a power-law near-brane ansatz for A(r) and phi(r), and then estimates the regulated brane contributions Delta_1 and Delta_2, concluding that in the thin-brane limit these contributions either vanish or diverge. This is a genuine derivation from stated assumptions; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to explain. The application to the six-dimensional model again proceeds through explicit junction conditions and algebraic elimination, reproducing Eqs. (44) and (51) as cross-checks against earlier literature rather than importing the conclusion. The self-citations ([44], [45], [46], [38], [65], [66]) are used for regularization conventions, comparison of matching conditions, numerical examples, and discussion of induced-gravity loopholes; none of them supplies the load-bearing no-go premise. The most delicate step is the claim in footnote 7 that the shift symmetry phi -> phi + c makes phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0 'without loss of generality.' That particular inference is mathematically questionable because phi_1 epsilon^beta = phi(epsilon) - phi(0) is invariant under a constant shift. However, this is a validity or assumption-support issue, not circularity: the vanishing of phi_1 epsilon^beta is an additional regularity assumption used as an input, not a conclusion derived from the no-go result itself. The same applies to the general theorem's stated condition phi_1^(epsilon) epsilon^beta -> 0. Since the paper is self-contained against independent equations and the questionable step is an unproven regularity condition rather than a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs, the circularity score is 0.

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

No fitted parameters appear in the derivation; the near-brane exponents alpha and beta are unconstrained regularity assumptions rather than quantities fitted to data. No new particles, fields, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The analysis is purely within standard GR and a known 6D supergravity EFT.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Einstein equations with standard energy-momentum conservation (Eq. (20))
    The derivation uses trace-reversed Einstein equations (4) and the conservation equation (20) as the dynamical framework.
  • domain assumption tau <= 0 away from brane sources
    Assumed after Eq. (15), motivated by supergravity/bulk matter; ensures K(Mout) <= 0 in the integrated curvature equation.
  • domain assumption Internal space is compact with no overall boundary
    Assumed before Eq. (10); needed for the boundary term to drop in the integration by parts leading to Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption Near-brane power-law behavior A ~ A0 r^alpha and phi ~ phi0 + phi1 r^beta with alpha, beta > 0
    Introduced around Eqs. (16) and (25) to characterize genuine codimension-n defects; the limiting conditions A0 ϵ^{alpha-1} finite and phi1 ϵ^beta -> 0 are used to show Delta1, Delta2 vanish.
  • domain assumption Zero-width delta-function-like brane sources
    The theorem applies to genuine codimension-n defects with no finite width, as stated in the conclusions; the finite-thickness case is explicitly left as a loophole.
  • domain assumption Maximally symmetric external space ansatz (Eq. (1))
    The metric ansatz assumes a warped product with the external metric being maximally symmetric, which is appropriate for a de Sitter vacuum but restricts the class of configurations considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher co-dimension de Sitter branes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZQ7VZ3A

@misc{pith2026250619515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher co-dimension de Sitter branes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZQ7VZ3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19515}
}
read the original abstract

We extend the arguments of Maldacena and N\'u\~nez to include higher co-dimension brane setups and derive a new no-go theorem. Specifically, we show that under reasonable assumptions on the energy-momentum conservation and the bulk curvature, co-dimension-two branes fail to support stable de Sitter solutions. For co-dimensions higher than two embedded in a compact internal space, we show that negative tension sources would be required. This result places strong constraints on the viability of higher-dimensional braneworld models as a means to obtain de Sitter space within string theory.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Bernardo, B

    H. Bernardo, B. Bose, G. Franzmann, S. Hagstotz, Y. He, A. Litsa, and F. Niedermann (Foundational Aspects of Dark Energy (FADE)), Modified Gravity Approaches to the Cosmological Constant Problem, Universe 9, 63 (2023), arXiv:2210.06810 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    N”) and south pole (“S

    We then see that ∂Mout =− X i ∂Mi. (11) Since ¯RJ(Mout)− Z ∂Mout dSn−1na ˆ∇aedϕ = K(Mout),(12) ¯RJ(Mi)− Z ∂Mi dSn−1na ˆ∇aedϕ = K(Mi), (13) we infer that ¯R " J(Mout) + X i J(Mi) # =K(Mout) + X i K(Mi), (14) or equivalently ¯RJ(Mtot) =K(Mout) + X i K(Mi). (15) Since Mtot is compact, it is clear that J(Mtot) > 0 and finite. 1 Like Maldacena and N´ u˜ nez [4...

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. 7 We can exclude the case where ϕ(ϵ) 1 ϵβ→ const, as this can be accommodated by a trivial shift of ϕ(ϵ) 0

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Su- pernovae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  5. [4]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Observa- tional evidence from supernovae for an accelerating uni- verse and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201. 8

    arXiv 1998

  6. [5]

    J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theo- rem, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 822 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0007018

    arXiv 2001

  7. [6]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa, De Sit- ter Space and the Swampland, (2018), arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan, Bounds on Slow Roll and the de Sitter Swampland, JHEP 11, 075, arXiv:1807.05193 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland, Phys. Lett. B 788, 180 (2019), arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan, and M. Zaid Zaz, Bounds on Slow Roll at the Boundary of the Landscape, JHEP 03, 029, arXiv:1810.09406 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cicoli, S

    M. Cicoli, S. De Alwis, A. Maharana, F. Muia, and F. Quevedo, De Sitter vs Quintessence in String The- ory, Fortsch. Phys.67, 1800079 (2019), arXiv:1808.08967 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hebecker, T

    A. Hebecker, T. Skrzypek, and M. Wittner, The F -term Problem and other Challenges of Stringy Quintessence (2019), arXiv:1909.08625 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Valeixo Bento, D

    B. Valeixo Bento, D. Chakraborty, S. L. Parameswaran, and I. Zavala, Dark Energy in String Theory, PoS CORFU2019, 123 (2020), arXiv:2005.10168 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla, and F. G. Pedro, Quintessence and the Swampland: The Parametrically Controlled Regime of Moduli Space, Fortsch. Phys. 70, 2200009 (2022), arXiv:2112.10779 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla, and F. G. Pedro, Quintessence and the Swampland: The Numerically Controlled Regime of Moduli Space, Fortsch. Phys. 70, 2200008 (2022), arXiv:2112.10783 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Hebecker, S

    A. Hebecker, S. Schreyer, and V. Venken, No asymptotic acceleration without higher-dimensional de Sitter vacua, JHEP 11, 173, arXiv:2306.17213 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cicoli, F

    M. Cicoli, F. Cunillera, A. Padilla, and F. G. Pedro, From inflation to quintessence: a history of the universe in string theory, JHEP 10, 141, arXiv:2407.03405 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, De Sitter vacua in string theory, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0301240

    2003 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon, and F. Quevedo, Systematics of moduli stabilisation in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications, JHEP 03, 007, arXiv:hep-th/0502058

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Banks, M

    T. Banks, M. Dine, and E. Gorbatov, Is there a string theory landscape?, JHEP 08, 058, arXiv:hep-th/0309170

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet, What if string theory has no de Sitter vacua?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27, 1830007 (2018), arXiv:1804.01120 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Hohm and B

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, Non-perturbative de Sit- ter vacua via α′ corrections, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1943002 (2019), arXiv:1905.06583 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Hohm and B

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, Duality invariant cosmology to all orders in α’, Phys. Rev. D 100, 126011 (2019), arXiv:1905.06963 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bernardo, R

    H. Bernardo, R. Brandenberger, and G. Franzmann, O(d,d ) covariant string cosmology to all orders in α′, JHEP 02, 178, arXiv:1911.00088 [hep-th]

    1911 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bernardo and G

    H. Bernardo and G. Franzmann,α′-Cosmology: solutions and stability analysis, JHEP 05, 073, arXiv:2002.09856 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. A. N´ u˜ nez and F. E. Rost, New non-perturbative de Sitter vacua in α′-complete cosmology, JHEP 03, 007, arXiv:2011.10091 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Y. Liu, A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, and R. G. C. Smith, de Sitter vacua in O(d,d) invariant cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063522 (2024), arXiv:2404.15401 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kutasov, T

    D. Kutasov, T. Maxfield, I. Melnikov, and S. Sethi, Con- straining de Sitter Space in String Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 071305 (2015), arXiv:1504.00056 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Muntz, A

    B. Muntz, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saffin, Do we live on the End of the World? (2024), arXiv:2411.05912 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, S. Giri, and M. Schillo, Emergent de Sitter Cosmology from Decay- ing Anti–de Sitter Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 261301 (2018), arXiv:1807.01570 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, S. Giri, and M. Schillo, de Sitter Cosmology on an expanding bubble, JHEP 10, 164, arXiv:1907.04268 [hep-th]

    1907 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson, and S. Giri, Dark bubbles: decorating the wall, JHEP 04, 085, arXiv:2001.07433 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson, and S. Giri, Bubble needs strings, JHEP 21, 250, arXiv:2009.01597 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Navarro, Codimension two compactifications and the cosmological constant problem, JCAP 09, 004, arXiv:hep-th/0302129

    I. Navarro, Codimension two compactifications and the cosmological constant problem, JCAP 09, 004, arXiv:hep-th/0302129

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    S. M. Carroll and M. M. Guica, Sidestepping the cosmo- logical constant with football shaped extra dimensions (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0302067

    2003 arXiv

  30. [37]

    C. P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, Large Dimensions and Small Curvatures from Supersymmetric Brane Back- reaction, JHEP 04, 078, arXiv:1101.0152 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    C. P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, Technically Natu- ral Cosmological Constant From Supersymmetric 6D Brane Backreaction, Phys. Dark Univ. 2, 1 (2013), arXiv:1108.0345 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Niedermann, R

    F. Niedermann, R. Schneider, S. Hofmann, and J. Khoury, Universe as a cosmic string, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024002 (2015), arXiv:1410.0700 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. P. Burgess, F. Muia, and F. Quevedo, 4D de Sit- ter from String Theory via 6D Supergravity, (2024), arXiv:2408.03852 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. J. Steinhardt and D. Wesley, Dark Energy, Inflation and Extra Dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104026 (2009), arXiv:0811.1614 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Peloso, L

    M. Peloso, L. Sorbo, and G. Tasinato, Standard 4-D grav- ity on a brane in six dimensional flux compactifications, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104025 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603026

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. P. Burgess, D. Hoover, C. de Rham, and G. Tasinato, Effective Field Theories and Matching for Codimension-2 Branes, JHEP 03, 124, arXiv:0812.3820 [hep-th]. 9

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Niedermann and P

    F. Niedermann and P. M. Saffin, Rotating kinky braneworlds, JHEP 07, 183, arXiv:1801.09983 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    Niedermann and R

    F. Niedermann and R. Schneider, SLED Phenomenology: Curvature vs. Volume, JHEP 03, 130, arXiv:1512.03800 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  39. [48]

    J. Dai, R. G. Leigh, and J. Polchinski, New Connections Between String Theories, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 2073 (1989)

    1989

  40. [49]

    C. M. Hull, Timelike T duality, de Sitter space, large N gauge theories and topological field theory, JHEP 07, 021, arXiv:hep-th/9806146

    arXiv

  41. [50]

    Dijkgraaf, B

    R. Dijkgraaf, B. Heidenreich, P. Jefferson, and C. Vafa, Negative Branes, Supergroups and the Signature of Spacetime, JHEP 02, 050, arXiv:1603.05665 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  42. [51]

    Nishino and E

    H. Nishino and E. Sezgin, The Complete N = 2, d = 6 Supergravity With Matter and Yang-Mills Couplings, Nucl. Phys. B 278, 353 (1986)

    1986

  43. [52]

    Randjbar-Daemi, A

    S. Randjbar-Daemi, A. Salam, E. Sezgin, and J. A. Strathdee, An Anomaly Free Model in Six-Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 151, 351 (1985)

    1985

  44. [53]

    Salam and E

    A. Salam and E. Sezgin, Chiral Compactification on Minkowski x S**2 of N=2 Einstein-Maxwell Supergravity in Six-Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 147, 47 (1984)

    1984

  45. [54]

    Aghababaie, C

    Y. Aghababaie, C. P. Burgess, S. L. Parameswaran, and F. Quevedo, Towards a naturally small cosmological con- stant from branes in 6-D supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B680, 389 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0304256

    2004 arXiv

  46. [55]

    G. W. Gibbons, R. Gueven, and C. N. Pope, 3-branes and uniqueness of the Salam-Sezgin vacuum, Phys. Lett. B 595, 498 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0307238

    2004 arXiv

  47. [56]

    A. J. Tolley, C. P. Burgess, D. Hoover, and Y. Aghababaie, Bulk singularities and the effective cos- mological constant for higher co-dimension branes, JHEP 03, 091, arXiv:hep-th/0512218

    arXiv

  48. [57]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Diener, and M. Williams, The Grav- ity of Dark Vortices: Effective Field Theory for Branes and Strings Carrying Localized Flux, JHEP 11, 049, arXiv:1506.08095 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  49. [58]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Diener, and M. Williams, EFT for Vor- tices with Dilaton-dependent Localized Flux, JHEP 11, 054, arXiv:1508.00856 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  50. [59]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Diener, and M. Williams, A problem withδ-functions: stress-energy constraints on bulk-brane matching (with comments on arXiv:1508.01124), JHEP 01, 017, arXiv:1509.04201 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  51. [60]

    Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in gen- eral relativity, Nuovo Cim

    W. Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in gen- eral relativity, Nuovo Cim. B44S10, 1 (1966), [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

    1966

  52. [61]

    Bayntun, C

    A. Bayntun, C. P. Burgess, and L. van Nierop, Codimension-2 Brane-Bulk Matching: Examples from Six and Ten Dimensions, New J. Phys.12, 075015 (2010), arXiv:0912.3039 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Garfinkle and R

    D. Garfinkle and R. Gregory, Corrections to the Thin Wall Approximation in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1889 (1990)

    1990

  54. [63]

    Gregory, D

    R. Gregory, D. Haws, and D. Garfinkle, The Dynamics of Domain Walls and Strings, Phys. Rev. D 42, 343 (1990)

    1990

  55. [64]

    S. L. Dubovsky and V. A. Rubakov, Brane induced grav- ity in more than one extra dimensions: Violation of equivalence principle and ghost, Phys. Rev. D67, 104014 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212222

    2003 arXiv

  56. [65]

    S. F. Hassan, S. Hofmann, and M. von Strauss, Brane In- duced Gravity, its Ghost and the Cosmological Constant Problem, JCAP 01, 020, arXiv:1007.1263 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  57. [66]

    Berkhahn, S

    F. Berkhahn, S. Hofmann, and F. Niedermann, Brane Induced Gravity: From a No-Go to a No-Ghost Theorem, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124022 (2012), arXiv:1205.6801 [hep- th]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Eglseer, F

    L. Eglseer, F. Niedermann, and R. Schneider, Brane in- duced gravity: Ghosts and naturalness, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084029 (2015), arXiv:1506.02666 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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