Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Stringy Corrections to Heterotic SU(3)-Geometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that at second order in α′, the α′² corrections to heterotic SU(3)-geometry cancel, so the Strominger system is the full supersymmetric geometry and the Hull connection is not an instanton.

desk verdict Central cancellation α′P=O(α′^3) in §4.2.2 is not proven: the derivation is circular, and the gauge-fixing argument cannot change a tensor's leading order. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02388 v2 pith:XC5Q4SCH submitted 2025-07-03 hep-th math.DG

Jock McOrist , Sebastien Picard This is my paper
classification hep-thmath.DG MSC 53C5553C2932Q2581T30
keywords heteroticstringalpha-primecorrectionsSU(3)-structureStromingersystemNijenhuistensorconformallybalancedmetricHullconnectionBergshoeff-deRoosupersymmetryalgebra
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 sets out to determine what geometry the heterotic string's supersymmetry algebra, built by Bergshoeff–de Roo to second order in the string length parameter α′, imposes on a six-dimensional compactification with SU(3) structure. It concludes that, for families with a smooth α′→0 limit, the α′² corrections cancel: the three-form H is locked to the complex structure by H = i(∂−∂̄)ω up to O(α′³), and the holomorphic volume form and conformally balanced condition are unchanged from first order. A reader should care because this says the Strominger system, originally derived at first order, remains the complete supersymmetric geometry at second order, while the Hull connection on the tangent bundle acquires a nonzero (0,2) curvature component and therefore is not an instanton.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tensor P_mab = (1/4)$e^{{2Φ}}$(∇⁻)^q($e^{{−2Φ}}$(dH)_{qmab}), which packages the α′² correction to the gravitino variation. The argument runs through the identity T = i(∂−∂̄)ω + N + 2α′P linking the Bismut torsion to the complex structure and Nijenhuis tensor; proving N = O(α′³) and α′P = O(α′³) collapses this to the first-order Strominger relation. The dilaton Hessian, shown to be pure gauge via a diffeomorphism family, is what removes the apparent extra term in the integrability condition.

What would settle it

Compute α′P directly for any concrete family of SU(3)-structure solutions with a smooth α′→0 limit; if α′P is not O(α′³), or if H − i(∂−∂̄)ω carries a nonzero O(α′²) term, the claimed cancellation fails. Equivalently, find a supersymmetric solution with H ≠ 0 whose Hull connection has vanishing (0,2) curvature at order α′, contradicting the paper's non-instanton conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On an SU(3)-structure manifold that admits a smooth, non-degenerate limit as α′→0, the supersymmetry algebra forces the α′² corrections to drop out of the geometric torsion relations. Concretely, α′P = O(α′³), so H = i(∂−∂̄)ω + O(α′³), the norm of the holomorphic volume form satisfies log‖Ω‖_g = −2Φ + O(α′³), and the conformally balanced equation d($e^{{−2Φ}}$ω²) = O(α′³) holds. The Bianchi identity then becomes 2i∂∂̄ω − (α′/4)[tr F∧F − tr R_CH∧R_CH] + O(α′³) = 0, with a Chern curvature rather than the Hull curvature. Integrability of the supersymmetry variations yields the graviton, H-flux, and Yang-Mills equations of motion in constant dilaton gauge, and the same result is recovered independently from hermitian geometry. A sharp consequence is that the Hull connection's curvature has a nonzero (0,2) component, so it is not a holomorphic instanton unless H = 0.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the family of fields (g_{α′}, J_{α′}, Ω_{α′}, F_{α′}) has a smooth, non-degenerate limit as α′→0; if the metric collapses or degenerates, as in T²-fibered K3 solutions, the derived second-order equations and equations of motion do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supersymmetric heterotic compactifications on SU(3)-structure manifolds with a smooth large-radius limit satisfy the Strominger system at O(α′²), not a corrected system.
  • The Hull connection Θ_H is not an instanton at order α′: its curvature has a nonzero (0,2) part and a trace controlled by dH, so instanton-based searches for α′-corrected vacua miss the actual supersymmetry condition.
  • The equations of motion follow from the supersymmetry variations plus the Bianchi identity, after a constant-dilaton gauge choice, with no independent instanton hypothesis needed.
  • Geometric flows whose fixed points solve i∂∂̄ω = (α′/8)(tr R_CH∧R_CH − tr F∧F) are targeting exactly the equations that survive to second order.
  • The α′² cancellations fix the relation between the dilaton and the holomorphic volume form at this order, constraining attempts to compute α′ corrections to the heterotic moduli-space Kähler metric.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cancellation suggests that first-order heterotic compactification results, including slope-stability criteria built from [‖Ω‖_g ω²], remain valid at second order; corrections should be sought in the Bianchi identity and the connection rather than in the torsion geometry.
  • The non-instanton condition for the Hull connection may propagate to G₂ and Spin(7) compactifications, where α′ corrections could likewise modify instanton-type curvature constraints; the paper leaves this as an open question.
  • A testable extension is to compute α′P explicitly for Fu–Yau type solutions on T² fibrations over K3 in the regime where the metric degenerates; the paper predicts the second-order geometric equations fail exactly there, which would explain why such solutions evade sigma-model descriptions.
  • The pure-gauge dilaton Hessian result suggests that moduli-space metrics computed in constant dilaton gauge may already be complete at O(α′²), a point implicit in the paper's closing discussion of the moduli-space Kähler potential.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the order-α'^2 corrections to the Bergshoeff–de Roo supersymmetry algebra for heterotic compactifications on six-manifolds with SU(3) structure. Working under the assumption of a smooth nondegenerate α'→0 limit, the authors derive from the gravitino, dilatino, and gaugino variations that the compactification manifold is complex up to order α'^2, that the three-form flux satisfies H = i(∂−∂̄)ω + O(α'^3), that the conformally balanced condition d(||Ω||_g ω^2)=0 holds, and that the heterotic Bianchi identity reduces to the second-order equation 2i∂∂̄ω − (α'/4)[tr F∧F − tr R_CH∧R_CH] + O(α'^3)=0. Section 4 attempts to derive the equations of motion as an integrability condition, with an extra dilaton-Hessian term removed by a constant-dilaton gauge choice treated in §5.7. Section 5 independently shows that the truncated geometric system (conformally balanced metric, Hermitian-Yang-Mills, and the i∂∂̄ω constraint) implies the equations of motion after the same gauge fixing. The paper also identifies a nonzero (0,2) component of the Hull connection, concluding that R_H is not an instanton away from H=0.

Significance. If the central cancellation α'P=O(α'^3) is valid, the result is significant: it would show that the Strominger system, unchanged in form from first order, is the complete supersymmetric geometry through order α'^2, and that the Hull connection's failure to be an instanton is unavoidable in the presence of flux. The paper contains useful technical material: a careful translation of Bergshoeff–de Roo conventions, a self-contained appendix on Hermitian geometry, an explicit gauge-fixing argument in §5.7, and a conditional derivation of the equations of motion from the geometric system. The authors also honestly flag the limitation that T^2-fibered K3 examples are excluded by the smooth-limit assumption. However, the load-bearing cancellation is not proved as written, and the independent derivation in Section 5 is conditional on the very equations whose derivation depends on that cancellation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (4.27)–(4.31)] The proof of the key cancellation α'P=O(α'^3) is circular. Equation (4.27) is derived using (4.31), while (4.31) is justified by the phrase 'use that α'P=O(α'^3)', and (4.29) then concludes that same bound. Even setting the circularity aside, the final equality in (4.29), namely α'∂∂∂̄Φ + c.c. = O(α'^3), is not available at that point: §3.1 establishes only Φ = const + O(α'), so ∂∂∂̄Φ = O(α') and the displayed term is O(α'^2), not O(α'^3). The constant-dilaton gauge theorem of §5.7 cannot repair this, because the leading nonzero coefficient of a tensor field is invariant under a smooth family of diffeomorphisms with φ_0 = id. Since equations (1.4), (3.8), (4.33), and the resulting identification of the Strominger system at second order all depend on this cancellation, the central claim is not established as written.
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.13)–(3.14)] Equation (3.8) is derived from (3.13) by invoking α'P=O(α'^3) via (4.31). Because the proof of (4.31) itself relies on the contested cancellation, equation (3.8) is not independently supported. A non-circular derivation would need to control the α'^2 term in (3.13) directly, e.g., by keeping the α'∇_σP_μ^ρ_ρ contributions in (4.27) and showing they vanish by a separate argument.
  3. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (4.31)–(4.32)] The deduction that tr |F|^2 − tr |R_H|^2 = c_0 + O(α') with c_0 = 0 uses the claim that its gradient is O(α'), which is exactly what (4.31) is meant to prove. The integral argument in (4.32) only excludes a nonzero constant zeroth-order part; it does not exclude a nonconstant O(1) part, so it cannot serve as independent input. Thus the trace identities used in (4.27) remain unproved without an additional argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.26)] In equation (4.26), the last two terms appear identical and therefore cancel identically; presumably one index should be reordered. Since this trace computation feeds into (4.27), the intended formula should be stated correctly.
  2. [§5.1 and §5.7] The statement of Proposition 3 should make explicit that the pullback by diffeomorphisms changes the tensors but cannot alter the leading-order coefficient of α'P; hence the gauge-fixing argument in §5.7 can remove the dilaton-Hessian term in the equations of motion but cannot by itself establish the cancellation α'P=O(α'^3).
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Bergsehoeff–de Roo' in the Appendix B heading, 'Binachi' in §3.3, and 'Käher' in §5.2; these should be corrected.
  4. [§4.2.1, Eqs. (4.16)–(4.18)] The derivation of the H equation of motion in (4.18) uses the smallness of α'P through (4.20) and (4.31). This dependency should be flagged explicitly, since the present proof of those smallness statements is circular.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central cancellation α′P=O(α′3) in §4.2.2 is proved by assuming itself: (4.27) invokes (4.31), and (4.31) is derived from the conclusion of (4.29).

  1. other [Section 4.2.2, equations (4.27)–(4.31)]
    "The dilatino equation (2.34) and (4.31) implies ∇σHµρρ = 2∇σ∇µΦ + 3α′∇σPµρρ = ∇σ∇µ(2Φ + α′2/8(tr|F|2−tr|R|2)) ... Finally, we put (4.22), (4.27) and (4.28) to evaluate α′P: α′P = α′/4(∂−∂)(dH)νν = α′∂∂∂Φ + c.c. + O(α′3) = O(α′3). ... If we evaluate the trace of P and use that α′P = O(α′3) we find α′Pββmdxm = α′2/16(∂−∂)(tr|F|2−tr|RH|2) = O(α′3)."

    Equation (4.27) drops 3α′∇σPµρρ by invoking (4.31), but (4.31) is derived using 'α′P = O(α′3)', exactly the conclusion (4.29) is meant to prove. Then (4.29) concludes α′P=O(α′3) from α′∂∂∂Φ; §3.1 only gives Φ=const+O(α′), so ∂∂∂Φ=O(α′) and α′∂∂∂Φ=O(α′2), not O(α′3). No independent input gives ∂∂∂Φ=O(α′2). The §5.7 gauge fixing cannot help: α′P has vanishing zeroth-order coefficient, so its leading coefficient is invariant under α′-dependent diffeomorphisms; an O(α′2) part cannot be gauged away. Thus the central cancellation is assumed in its own proof, and (1.4), (3.8), (3.24), (3.25) inherit the gap.

full rationale

The paper's main input is the externally established Bergshoeff–de Roo algebra and Green–Schwarz Bianchi identity; using them to derive geometric equations is not circular. The independent hermitian-geometry derivation in Section 5 is a genuine consistency check rather than an input. Self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing. However, the proof of the pivotal statement α′P=O(α′3) is circular as written: (4.27) uses (4.31), and (4.31) is justified by the very cancellation being proved, while (4.29) also needs an O(α′2) dilaton statement not established. Because this cancellation underpins H=i(∂−∂bar)ω+O(α′3), the Bianchi/∂∂ω equation (3.8), the holomorphic volume form, and the conformally balanced equation, the central second-order claim is not self-contained. The paper itself honestly flags the smooth-limit assumption (§6.2) as a limitation; that is an assumption, not circularity, and the external benchmarks for the first-order Strominger system are not in question. Score reflects one load-bearing circular step, not a general defect.

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

The paper has no fitted parameters. Its central claim rests on the Bergshoeff-de Roo supersymmetry algebra, the Green-Schwarz Bianchi identity, the smooth-limit assumption, and prior gauge-fixing theorems, all of which are external inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bergshoeff-de Roo supersymmetry algebra and action at order alpha'^2 (eqs. (1.1), (1.11), (2.9)).
    The paper takes this algebra as the physical starting point; the derived geometric constraints are consequences of it.
  • domain assumption The compactification admits a smooth, non-degenerate alpha' to 0 limit.
    Used in Section 3.1 and throughout to conclude H = O(alpha'), grad Phi = O(alpha'), and later alpha' P = O(alpha'^3). It excludes degenerating torsional K3 solutions.
  • domain assumption Green-Schwarz Bianchi identity dH = alpha'/4 (tr F F - tr R_H R_H) is unmodified at this order.
    Invoked in Sections 3.3 and 4 to relate the exterior derivative of H to characteristic classes.
  • domain assumption The dilaton can be made constant up to order alpha'^2 by a diffeomorphism (Witten-Witten, Anguelova-Quigley-Sethi).
    Needed in Sections 4.3 and 5.7 to remove the hessian of the dilaton from the graviton integrability condition.
  • standard math Standard identities of hermitian complex geometry used in the appendices.
    For example the curvature exchange relation (C.10), conformally balanced identities (C.2)-(C.3), and conversion between Hull and Chern connections (C.6).
  • standard math Newlander-Nirenberg theorem and elliptic existence for the gauge-fixing vector field.
    Used in Section 3.1 to conclude J^(0) is integrable and in Section 5.7 to solve for the diffeomorphism vector field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stringy Corrections to Heterotic SU(3)-Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XC5Q4SCH

@misc{pith2026250702388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stringy Corrections to Heterotic SU(3)-Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XC5Q4SCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02388}
}
abstract

We analyse the $\alpha'^2$ corrections to the supersymmetry algebra constructed by Bergshoeff--de Roo for heterotic compactifications on SU(3) manifolds. The geometry is complex and conformally balanced. We find an integrability condition for solutions related to the graviton equation of motion together with a correction that is pure gauge. We derive the same condition independently from hermitian geometry. The curvature of the tangent bundle connection acquires a nonzero (0,2) component and thus is not an instanton, illustrating how $\alpha'$-corrections can disrupt semi-classical intuition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A family of tensors (gα‵ , Jα‵ ) over a real parameter α ‵ . The background (g0, J0) is Kähler, while α ‵ terms add non-Kähler corrections. and (X, J(0), g(0)) is a complex Kähler manifold. We will often use in the following sections a consequence of this result, which is that H = O(α ‵ ) , ∇Φ = O(α ‵ ) . To see (3.1), send α ‵ → 0 in (2.23), (2.34), (2.33), (1.2). We obtain H (0) − i(∂ − ¯∂)J (0)ω (0) − NJ (0) = 0 … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Heterotic moduli, the double extension and the alpha'^2 metric

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The heterotic moduli-space metric picks up a torsion-induced complex-structure–hermitian mixing term at order α'^2, while the Kähler potential keeps its functional form.

  2. The Aeppli Parameter for the Heterotic Moduli

    math.DG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Near a Kähler point, solutions of the 3-fold Hull–Strominger system are locally parameterized by the Aeppli cohomology class, with no auxiliary gauge connection, matching the Bott–Chern dimension.

  3. An introduction to conifold transitions

    math.DG 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Survey of conifold transitions between Calabi-Yau threefolds with a sketched differential-geometric proof of the necessity part of Friedman's smoothing criterion.

  4. Universal geometry as an organising principle for heterotic moduli

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Universal geometry is shown to be consistent with the alpha'^2-corrected heterotic supersymmetry equations when the composite Hull connection is used as the universal tangent-bundle connection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic String and Supersymmetry,

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

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Unification of Yang-Mills Theory and Supergravity in Ten-Dimensions,

    G. Chapline and N. Manton, “Unification of Yang-Mills Theory and Supergravity in Ten-Dimensions,” Phys.Lett. B120 (1983) 105–109. 50

    work page 1983

  3. [3]

    Supersymmetric Chern-Simons Terms in Ten-Dimensions,

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

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10 Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory,”Phys. Lett. B149 (1984) 117–122

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    World Sheet Supersymmetry and Anomaly Cancellation in the Heterotic String,

    C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, “World Sheet Supersymmetry and Anomaly Cancellation in the Heterotic String,”Phys. Lett. B178 (1986) 187–192

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Order alpha-prime (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,

    R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Order alpha-prime (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,”Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987) 385–419

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B291 (1987) 41–89

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    alpha’-Corrections to Heterotic Superstring Effective Action Revisited,

    W. Chemissany, M. de Roo, and S. Panda, “alpha’-Corrections to Heterotic Superstring Effective Action Revisited,”JHEP 08 (2007) 037, arXiv:0706.3636 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Compactifications of the Heterotic Superstring,

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

    1986

  2. [10]

    Superstrings with Torsion,

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

    1986

  3. [11]

    Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities and the B-field,

    J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, “Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities and the B-field,”Nucl. Phys. B874 (2013) 413–470, arXiv:1304.3137 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gauss-Bonnet supergravity in six dimensions,

    J. Novak, M. Ozkan, Y. Pang, and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, “Gauss-Bonnet supergravity in six dimensions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119 no. 11, (2017) 111602, arXiv:1706.09330 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Coimbra, R

    A. Coimbra, R. Minasian, H. Triendl and D. Waldram, JHEP11, 160 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)160 [arXiv:1407.7542 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dimensional Reduction of Superstring Models,

    E. Witten, “Dimensional Reduction of Superstring Models,”Phys.Lett. B155 (1985) 151

    1985

  7. [15]

    The Leading Quantum Corrections to Stringy Kahler Potentials,

    L. Anguelova, C. Quigley, and S. Sethi, “The Leading Quantum Corrections to Stringy Kahler Potentials,”JHEP 1010 (2010) 065, arXiv:1007.4793 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Heterotic fluxes and supersymmetry,

    I. V. Melnikov, R. Minasian, and S. Sethi, “Heterotic fluxes and supersymmetry,” JHEP 06 (2014) 174, arXiv:1403.4298 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Heterotic quantum cohomology,

    J. McOrist and E. E. Svanes, “Heterotic quantum cohomology,”JHEP 11 (2022) 096, arXiv:2110.06549 [hep-th] . 51

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The decoupling of moduli about the standard embedding,

    B. Chisamanga, J. McOrist, S. Picard, and E. E. Svanes, “The decoupling of moduli about the standard embedding,”JHEP 01 (2025) 032, arXiv:2409.04350 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The physical moduli of heterotic G2 string compactifications,

    J. McOrist, M. Sticka, and E. E. Svanes, “The physical moduli of heterotic G2 string compactifications,” JHEP 05 (2025) 219, arXiv:2409.13080 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A Heterotic Hermitian-Yang-Mills Equivalence,

    J. McOrist, S. Picard, and E. E. Svanes, “A Heterotic Hermitian-Yang-Mills Equivalence,” Commun. Math. Phys.406 no. 5, (2025) 107,arXiv:2402.10354 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The heteroticG2 moduli space metric,

    J. McOrist, M. Sticka, and E. E. Svanes, “The heteroticG2 moduli space metric,” arXiv:2502.16093 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite,

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven, and D. Zanon, “Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite,” Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 388–408

    1986

  15. [23]

    Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations,

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations,” Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 1

    1986

  16. [24]

    Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,” Nucl. Phys.B258 (1985) 46–74

    1985

  17. [25]

    Hermitian connections and Dirac operators,

    P. Gauduchon, “Hermitian connections and Dirac operators,”Bollettino della Unione Matematica Italiana-Bno. 2, (1997) 257–288

    1997

  18. [26]

    Parallel spinors and connections with skew-symmetric torsion in string theory,

    T. Friedrich and S. Ivanov, “Parallel spinors and connections with skew-symmetric torsion in string theory,”Asian J. Math6 (2002) 303–336, arXiv:math/0102142

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Infinitesimal moduli for the Strominger system and Killing spinors in generalized geometry,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez, R. Rubio, and C. Tipler, “Infinitesimal moduli for the Strominger system and Killing spinors in generalized geometry,”Math. Ann.369 no. 1-2, (2017) 539–595,arXiv:1503.07562 [math.DG]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A No go theorem for string warped compactifications,

    S. Ivanov and G. Papadopoulos, “A No go theorem for string warped compactifications,” Phys. Lett. B497 (2001) 309–316, arXiv:hep-th/0008232

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    KT and HKT geometries in strings and in black hole moduli spaces,

    G. Papadopoulos, “KT and HKT geometries in strings and in black hole moduli spaces,” in Workshop on Special Geometric Structures in String Theory. 1, 2002. arXiv:hep-th/0201111

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Holomorphic Bundles and the Moduli Space of N=1 Supersymmetric Heterotic Compactifications,

    X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes, “Holomorphic Bundles and the Moduli Space of N=1 Supersymmetric Heterotic Compactifications,”JHEP 10 (2014) 123, arXiv:1402.1725 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Local descriptions of the heterotic SU (3) moduli space,

    H. de Lazari, J. D. Lotay, H. S. Earp, and E. E. Svanes, “Local descriptions of the heterotic SU (3) moduli space,” arXiv:2409.04382 [math.DG] . 52

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Holomorphic string algebroids,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez, R. Rubio, and C. Tipler, “Holomorphic string algebroids,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc.373 no. 10, (July, 2020) 7347–7382,arXiv:1807.10329 [math.DG]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heterotic backgrounds via generalised geometry: moment maps and moduli,

    A. Ashmore, C. Strickland-Constable, D. Tennyson, and D. Waldram, “Heterotic backgrounds via generalised geometry: moment maps and moduli,”JHEP 11 (2020) 071, arXiv:1912.09981 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gauge theory for string algebroids,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez, R. Rubio, and C. Tipler, “Gauge theory for string algebroids,” J. Differential Geom.128 no. 1, (2024) 77–152,arXiv:2004.11399 [math.DG]

    2024

  27. [35]

    On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles,

    K. Uhlenbeck and S. Yau, “On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles,”Commun. Pure Appl. Math.39 no. S1, (1986) S257–S293

    1986

  28. [36]

    Anti self-dual Yang Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles.,

    S. Donaldson, “Anti self-dual Yang Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles.,”Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., III. Ser.50 (1985) 1–26

    1985

  29. [37]

    Hermitian-Yang-Mills connection on non-Kähler manifolds

    J. Li and S. T. Yau, “Hermitian-Yang-Mills connection on non-Kähler manifolds..” Mathematical aspects of string theory, Proc. Conf., San Diego/Calif. 1986, Adv. Ser. Math. Phys. 1, 560-573 (1987)., 1987

    1987

  30. [38]

    Large Radius Expansion of Superstring Compactifications,

    L. Witten and E. Witten, “Large Radius Expansion of Superstring Compactifications,” Nucl. Phys.B281 (1987) 109–126

    1987

  31. [39]

    Connections, Field Redefinitions and Heterotic Supergravity,

    X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes, “Connections, Field Redefinitions and Heterotic Supergravity,” JHEP 12 (2014) 008, arXiv:1409.3347 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Non-Kahler heterotic rotations,

    D. Martelli and J. Sparks, “Non-Kahler heterotic rotations,”Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 15 (2011) 131–174, arXiv:1010.4031 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Futaki invariants and Yau’s Conjecture on the Hull–Strominger system,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez and R. G. Molina, “Futaki invariants and Yau’s Conjecture on the Hull–Strominger system,”Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 2025 no. 822, (2025) 221–257,arXiv:2303.05274 [math.DG]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heterotic supersymmetry, anomaly cancellation and equations of motion,

    S. Ivanov, “Heterotic supersymmetry, anomaly cancellation and equations of motion,” Phys.Lett. B685 (2010) 190–196, arXiv:0908.2927 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes,

    G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, and D. Lust, “BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes,”JHEP 10 (2003) 004, arXiv:hep-th/0306088

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The existence of supersymmetric string theory with torsion,

    J. Li and S.-T. Yau, “The existence of supersymmetric string theory with torsion,” Journal of Differential Geometry70 no. 1, (2005) 143–181,arXiv:hep-th/0411136. 53

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Solutions of the Strominger system via stable bundles on Calabi-Yau threefolds,

    B. Andreas and M. Garcia-Fernandez, “Solutions of the Strominger system via stable bundles on Calabi-Yau threefolds,”Communications in Mathematical Physics315 (2012) 153–168, arXiv:1008.1018 [math.DG]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The Strominger system in the square of a Kahler class,

    T. C. Collins, S. Picard, and S.-T. Yau, “The Strominger system in the square of a Kahler class,” arXiv:2211.03784 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Anomaly, fluxes and (2,0) heterotic string compactifications,

    J. Gillard, G. Papadopoulos, and D. Tsimpis, “Anomaly, fluxes and (2,0) heterotic string compactifications,” JHEP 06 (2003) 035, arXiv:hep-th/0304126 [hep-th]

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Superstrings with intrinsic torsion,

    J. P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli, and D. Waldram, “Superstrings with intrinsic torsion,” Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 086002, arXiv:hep-th/0302158

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Small gauge transformations and universal geometry in heterotic theories,

    J. McOrist and R. Sisca, “Small gauge transformations and universal geometry in heterotic theories,” arXiv:1904.07578 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Geometric flows and Strominger systems,

    D. H. Phong, S. Picard, and X. Zhang, “Geometric flows and Strominger systems,” Math. Z.288 no. 1-2, (2018) 101–113,arXiv:1508.03315 [math.DG]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Anomaly flows,

    D. H. Phong, S. Picard, and X. Zhang, “Anomaly flows,”Comm. Anal. Geom.26 no. 4, (2018) 955–1008,arXiv:1610.02739 [math.DG]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Geometric flows and supersymmetry,

    A. Ashmore, R. Minasian, and Y. Proto, “Geometric flows and supersymmetry,” Commun. Math. Phys.405 no. 1, (2024) 16,arXiv:2302.06624 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Anomaly Flow: Shi-Type Estimates and Long-time Existence,

    C. Suan, “Anomaly Flow: Shi-Type Estimates and Long-time Existence,” arXiv:2408.15514 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    The Anomaly flow over Riemann surfaces,

    T. Fei, Z. Huang, and S. Picard, “The Anomaly flow over Riemann surfaces,”Int. Mathem. Res. Not.2021 no. 3, (Feb., 2021) 2134–2165,arXiv:1711.08186 [math.DG]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The anomaly flow and the Fu-Yau equation,

    D. H. Phong, S. Picard, and X. Zhang, “The anomaly flow and the Fu-Yau equation,” Ann. PDE4 (2018) 13, arXiv:1610.02740 [math.DG]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Pluriclosed flow and the Hull-Strominger system,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez, R. G. Molina, and J. Streets, “Pluriclosed flow and the Hull-Strominger system,” arXiv:2408.11674 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    The Theory of superstring with flux on non-Kahler manifolds and the complex Monge-Ampere equation,

    J.-X. Fu and S.-T. Yau, “The Theory of superstring with flux on non-Kahler manifolds and the complex Monge-Ampere equation,”J. Diff. Geom.78 no. 3, (2008) 369–428, arXiv:hep-th/0604063

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M theory, orientifolds and G - flux,

    K. Dasgupta, G. Rajesh, and S. Sethi, “M theory, orientifolds and G - flux,”JHEP 08 (1999) 023, arXiv:hep-th/9908088. 54

    1999 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-Kahler solutions in heterotic string theory,

    K. Becker, M. Becker, J.-X. Fu, L.-S. Tseng, and S.-T. Yau, “Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-Kahler solutions in heterotic string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B751 (2006) 108–128, arXiv:hep-th/0604137

    2006 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Torsional Heterotic Geometries,

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

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    T-dual solutions of the Hull–Strominger system on non-Kahler threefolds,

    M. Garcia-Fernandez, “T-dual solutions of the Hull–Strominger system on non-Kahler threefolds,” Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik2020 no. 766, (2020) 137–150,arXiv:1810.04740 [math.DG]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A Metric for Heterotic Moduli,

    P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, and J. McOrist, “A Metric for Heterotic Moduli,” Commun. Math. Phys.356 no. 2, (2017) 567–612,arXiv:1605.05256 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    On the Effective Field Theory of Heterotic Vacua,

    J. McOrist, “On the Effective Field Theory of Heterotic Vacua,”Lett. Math. Phys. 108 no. 4, (2018) 1031–1081,arXiv:1606.05221 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The Universal Geometry of Heterotic Vacua,

    P. Candelas, X. De La Ossa, J. McOrist, and R. Sisca, “The Universal Geometry of Heterotic Vacua,”JHEP 02 (2019) 038, arXiv:1810.00879 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The moduli of the universal geometry of heterotic moduli,

    J. McOrist, M. Sticka, and E. E. Svanes, “The moduli of the universal geometry of heterotic moduli,” arXiv:2411.05350 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    The Heterotic Superpotential and Moduli,

    X. de la Ossa, E. Hardy, and E. E. Svanes, “The Heterotic Superpotential and Moduli,” JHEP 01 (2016) 049, arXiv:1509.08724 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Finite deformations from a heterotic superpotential: holomorphic Chern–Simons and anL∞ algebra,

    A. Ashmore, X. De La Ossa, R. Minasian, C. Strickland-Constable, and E. E. Svanes, “Finite deformations from a heterotic superpotential: holomorphic Chern–Simons and anL∞ algebra,” arXiv:1806.08367 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    M-theory and Type IIA Flux Compactifications,

    J. McOrist and S. Sethi, “M-theory and Type IIA Flux Compactifications,”JHEP 12 (2012) 122, arXiv:1208.0261 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    New Examples of Flux Vacua,

    T. Maxfield, J. McOrist, D. Robbins, and S. Sethi, “New Examples of Flux Vacua,” JHEP 12 (2013) 032, arXiv:1309.2577 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Yano,Differential Geometry on Complex and Almost Complex Spaces

    K. Yano,Differential Geometry on Complex and Almost Complex Spaces. Pergamon Press, 1965. 55

    1965

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.