Warped G$_2$-throats in IIA and uplift dSillusions

Fotis Farakos; George Tringas; Thomas Van Riet

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Warped G$_2$-throats in IIA and uplift dSillusions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Anti-D2 branes in warped CGLP throats cannot uplift the classical AdS3 vacua of IIA on G2 orientifolds to dS3, because deep warping requires a large H3 flux that conflicts with the Romans-mass-induced O6 tadpole.

desk verdict A real consistency constraint for anti-D2 uplift in 3d, but the no-go is conditional on an unproven O6 topology assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21104 v1 pith:LFTEBX7Q submitted 2025-05-27 hep-th

Fotis Farakos , George Tringas , Thomas Van Riet This is my paper

classification hep-th

keywords anti-braneupliftG2orientifoldswarpedthroatsdS3vacuascaleseparationRomansmasstadpoleconstraintsIIAsupergravity

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 tests a specific route to de Sitter vacua in three dimensions: start from the classical, scale-separated AdS3 vacua of massive IIA supergravity on orientifolded G2 manifolds, which are tachyon-free, and try to lift them to metastable dS3 by placing anti-D2 branes at the bottom of a warped throat. The authors construct a local CGLP-type throat, the 3d counterpart of the Klebanov-Strassler throat, embedded in a compact G2 space, stabilise its conifold modulus with 3-form fluxes, and compute the resulting anti-brane uplift potential. Their central result is negative: the flux quantum K needed for exponential warping and the quantum M needed for supergravity control at the tip together produce a parametrically large contribution to the O2 tadpole, and the Romans mass that makes the AdS3 vacuum classical induces a local O6 tadpole that cannot be cancelled through the throat's B-cycle while keeping K large. The paper concludes that no anti-brane uplift with warped throats can be based on the classical AdS3 vacua. It then considers quantum-corrected no-scale Minkowski vacua as the 3d analogue of KKLT and finds that the consistency constraints point in opposite directions, though G2 tadpole numbers might leave more fine-tuning freedom than in four dimensions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local CGLP-type throat inside a compact barely G2 space: a warped, cone-like region that ends in a finite 4-cycle with the topology of an $S^{4}$ at the tip, supported by M units of F4 flux on the 4-cycle and K units of H3 flux on the B-cycle. The conifold modulus s controlling the 4-cycle size is stabilised by the flux superpotential at an exponentially small value, s ~ exp(-2 pi K/(M $g_s^{{3/4}}$)), which is what makes the throat deeply warped and the anti-brane tension redshifted. The argument turns on three derived constraints: the tip radius R_A ~ $M^{{3/8}}$ $g_s^{{11/32}}$, so weak-coupling control needs large M; the exponential warp factor needs K > M $g_s^{{3/4}}$, so K >> 1; and the Romans mass m induces a local O6 tadpole dF2 = m H3 + delta, forcing K back to order one unless many supersymmetry-breaking D6 branes are added.

What would settle it

Exhibit a compact G2 orientifold with a Z2-involution whose O6 plane has charge through the B-cycle equal to the Romans-mass-induced tadpole while K can be taken parametrically large and the A-cycle stays large enough for supergravity control; a concrete computation of the O6 and O2 tadpole numbers on any G2-conifold compactification would decide whether the KM contribution can be accommodated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that embedding a CGLP-type warped throat in a compact G2 orientifold and uplifting with anti-D2 branes fails for the classical AdS3 vacua. Three constraints conflict: supergravity control of the throat tip demands a large flux quantum M through equation (31); exponential warping demands K > M $g_s^{{3/4}}$, so K >> 1 through equation (32); and the Romans mass, needed for the classical AdS3 vacuum, induces a local O6 tadpole through dF2 = m H3 + delta_{O6/D6} in equation (33). Cancelling that tadpole through the B-cycle without introducing many supersymmetry-breaking D6 branes requires a Z2-involution whose O6 charge makes K order one. Therefore no anti-brane uplift with warped throats can be based on these classical vacua. If one instead starts from the classical no-scale Minkowski vacua and assumes quantum corrections generate AdS3, the paper finds that the requirements of large M for A-cycle control and brane-flux stability and large K for a small uplift drive the O2 tadpole KM to parametrically large values, whose feasibility on compact G2 spaces is unknown.

Load-bearing premise

The obstruction assumes that no compact G2 orientifold provides a single O6 plane whose charge cancels the Romans-mass-induced tadpole through the throat's B-cycle while the flux quantum K stays large; the paper expresses this as a hope and does not construct such a space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The classical AdS3 vacua of [16] cannot serve as starting points for warped-throat anti-brane uplift; the remaining routes are the no-Romans-mass quantum-corrected no-scale vacua or giving up warped throats entirely.
On the quantum-corrected no-scale route, large K and large M both push the product KM toward the topological O2 tadpole, so parametric control of the uplift depends on G2 spaces having larger available O2 tadpole numbers than Calabi-Yau threefolds.
The brane-flux stability bound N_D2/M << 1 improves at weak coupling and large bulk volume, reversing the earlier conclusion of [26] that the bound worsens there.
The throat-fitting and singular-bulk problems known from warped Calabi-Yau reductions are expected to recur for these G2 compactifications, so an uplift that solves the tadpole issues would still need to address them.

Reading between the lines

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

If the no-go is right, the decisive open problem is a topological search: find a compact G2 orientifold whose O6 charge through the B-cycle cancels the Romans-mass-induced tadpole while K stays large; the paper leaves this as a hope rather than a construction.
A concrete extension would be to compute O6 and O2 tadpole numbers on explicit G2-conifold compactifications; this would convert the paper's order-one-versus-large-K dilemma into a finite check.
The same combination of exponential warping and a Romans mass appears in any attempt to redshift a localised source inside these throats, so the obstruction is likely to extend beyond anti-D2 branes to other uplift triggers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading, but the headline no-go is not as airtight as the abstract suggests. The authors derive a new obstruction to anti-D2 uplift in 3d from the classical AdS3 vacua: the Romans mass forces dF2 = mH3 + delta_O6/D6, so large H3 flux through the B-cycle of a CGLP throat requires either a large O6 charge on that cycle or a high number of SUSY-breaking D6 branes. Combined with the need for large M to keep the throat tip under SUGRA control and K >> M g_s^{3/4} for exponential warping, that is a genuine tension. The logic from flux quantization and tadpole cancellation is coherent, and this is the first paper to put CGLP throats into compact G2 orientifolds and compute the conifold modulus stabilization (17), the warp factor dependence (21), and the uplift term (27). That part is solid and useful.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader's stress-test lands. The claim that a single O6 plane can only cancel the H3 tadpole if K is order one is not derived; it is a topological assumption about compact G2 orientifolds that the paper does not establish. No compact G2 space with the required O6 charge is constructed, no linking number through the B-cycle is computed, and the number of O6 fixed loci under a Z2 involution is not determined. The authors themselves write "we can only hope" -- that is an admission that the global geometry is open. If an O6 with charge mK exists, or if SUSY-breaking D6s are acceptable, the obstruction weakens. So the conclusion "there is simply no anti-brane uplift" overstates what has been shown; what has been shown is a consistency constraint that may be evaded by global topology.

Minor issues: the numerical dS check in Sec. 4 uses a fitted coefficient 0.03 in (28), but the authors acknowledge this and the obstruction argument does not depend on it. The probe-brane approximation neglects anti-D2 backreaction, standard but still an assumption. Citation pattern is fine; the self-citations are relevant and they correct a typo in their earlier paper.

This paper deserves a serious referee. It is honest, technically concrete, and points at a plausible gap in a natural 3d analogue of KKLT. The referee should push for either a concrete compact G2 orientifold with the required O6 charge or a softened statement of the no-go. I would bring it to the reading group and cite it.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the possibility of uplifting classical scale-separated AdS3 vacua of massive IIA on G2 orientifolds to metastable dS3 vacua by placing anti-D2 branes at the tip of warped CGLP-type throats embedded in compact G2 spaces. The authors derive the stabilization of the conifold modulus (eq. 17), the warping dependence (eq. 21), the anti-D2 uplift potential (eqs. 24-27), and a numerical condition (eq. 28) for shallow metastable dS extrema. Section 5 develops the central obstruction: combining the need for large M at weak coupling (eq. 31), exponential warping requiring K > M g_s^{3/4} (eq. 32), and the Romans-mass-induced local O6 tadpole dF2 = mH3 + delta_{O6/D6} (eq. 33), the authors conclude that no anti-brane uplift can be based on the classical AdS3 vacua. They then consider an alternative path using quantum corrections to no-scale Minkowski vacua and find that constraints from eqs. (31)-(32) remain, pushing toward parametrically large O2 tadpoles whose existence is uncertain.

Significance. If the central no-go in Section 5 were fully established, the paper would constitute a substantial contribution to the dS3 model-building literature: it would close off a seemingly promising route via anti-D2 branes down warped CGLP throats in massive IIA on G2 orientifolds, complementing the analogous 4d KKLT obstruction analyses. The paper also provides useful local computations of conifold modulus stabilization and warp-factor dependence, and it corrects a previously claimed open-string tachyon in [26] via a typo identified in [27]. Strengths include: the derivation of the exponential conifold modulus (17) and the warp factor (21) follows from explicit flux choices (15); eq. (28) makes the fine-tuning content of the purported dS solutions explicit; and the paper avoids overclaiming by presenting the O6 tadpole issue as a 'hope' (Section 5) rather than a proven no-go. However, as discussed in the major comments, the central claim is weakened by the fact that the O6-tadpole step (33) depends on unproven global-topological assumptions about the Z2 involution and the compact G2 orientifold.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, eq. (33)] The central no-go statement 'there is simply no anti-brane uplift with warped throats based on the classical AdS3 vacua' rests on the claim that cancellation of the Romans-mass-induced local O6 tadpole through the B-cycle forces K to be order one. This is not a derived consequence of flux quantization alone: it assumes that no compact G2 orientifold admits a Z2 involution with an O6 plane whose total charge through the B-cycle equals mK for large K. The paper provides no construction, no computation of O6 charge or linking, and its own wording 'we can only hope' explicitly marks this as an open topological question. The possibility of adding SUSY-breaking D6 branes in high numbers is dismissed without a concrete backreaction or stability argument, even though the uplift itself already breaks supersymmetry. Consequently, the headline conclusion is conditional on a global-topology assumption that the manuscript neither proves nor isolates as a conjecture.
[Section 4, eqs. (23)-(28)] The probe-brane uplift potential (27) is added directly to the two-scalar bulk potential with the implicit assumption that backreaction of the anti-D2 stack and the warped throat on the universal moduli (phi, v) is negligible. The validity of this 'probe approximation' is asserted rather than demonstrated, and no estimate of the size of backreaction corrections to eq. (28) is given. Since eq. (28) is the load-bearing fine-tuning condition for the claimed shallow metastable dS solutions, the absence of any backreaction estimate leaves the quantitative part of the uplift scenario unquantified.
[Section 3, eqs. (12)-(17)] The stabilization of the conifold modulus s and the resulting exponential suppression (17) rely on the assumption that the Romans mass m does not qualitatively affect the local throat physics. The paper states this assumption but does not verify it against the CGLP solutions with m, nor does it estimate the size of m-dependent corrections to the superpotential (16). Given that m is required to be order one for the bulk AdS3 vacuum, this is not a parametrically controlled approximation and should either be justified or flagged more prominently as an assumption.
[Section 5, eqs. (31)-(32)] The step from eq. (31) to eq. (32) assumes that the relevant warp factor is controlled solely by the exponential in (17). However, the actual warp factor at the tip given in eq. (21) also depends on the bulk volume and dilaton, which are themselves fixed by (4)-(5). The paper does not demonstrate that the combined constraints (21), (31), (32) are simultaneously satisfied in any explicit numerical region; the logic is plausible but the inequality chain should be checked with the full moduli dependence rather than with (17) alone.

minor comments (6)

[Introduction] The phrase 'dSillusions' in the title and Section 5 is informal; consider replacing it with a more standard term such as 'obstructions to de Sitter uplifts' to better match journal conventions.
[Section 2, eq. (3)] The symbols h and f are introduced as shorthand but their flux quantization and tadpole-boundedness properties (especially f = F4A versus F4B) are only discussed in words; a short table of flux quantum numbers would improve readability.
[Section 3, eq. (14)] The normalization of the superpotential (14) differs by prefactors from the universal-scalar expression (3); the relation between the 10d integral definition and the two-scalar truncation should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
[Section 4, after eq. (28)] The numerical fit '0.03' is presented without error bars or sensitivity analysis; given that the paper emphasizes fine-tuning freedom in 3d, a short paragraph showing how the dS vacuum energy (29) and masses (30) change when the coefficient is varied would strengthen the claim of 'shallow' dS solutions.
[References] Reference [27] is listed as 'Master thesis at KU Leuven' without a year or arXiv identifier; this should be completed for reproducibility.
[Section 5, discussion of D6 branes] The sentence 'Unless we want SUSY-breaking D6 branes in high numbers...' would benefit from a quantitative estimate of 'high numbers' in terms of the tadpole bound for existing G2 orientifold constructions, even if only for a toy example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central no-go follows from flux quantization and tadpole cancellation, not from fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The central claim — that anti-D2 uplift down warped throats is forbidden for the classical AdS3 vacua — is derived from three independent constraints: SUGRA control of the throat tip requires large M (eq. 31), exponential warping requires K > M g_s^{3/4} (eq. 32), and the Romans-mass-induced tadpole dF2 = m H3 + delta_{O6/D6} (eq. 33) forces K to be order one unless large numbers of SUSY-breaking D6 branes are added. None of these equations is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted parameter enters the obstruction. The coefficient 0.03 in eq. (28) is a tuning condition for the illustrative dS existence check, and the paper explicitly notes that changing it only shifts the numerical prefactor in eq. (29); the Sec. 5 no-go does not rely on that value. The self-citations to [16] and [26] supply the background AdS3 vacua and positive moduli masses; these are published derivations with stated assumptions, and they do not function as an unverified uniqueness theorem. The weakest step is the explicit topological hope that a single O6 plane can cancel the H3 tadpole through the B-cycle, which the paper flags as 'we can only hope'; this is a conditional limitation, not circular reasoning. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained given the cited AdS3 vacua, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it uses standard string-theory objects (D2-branes, O2/O6 planes, fluxes). The central dependencies are geometric and technical: the existence of compact G2 embeddings, the validity of the truncation, the probe approximation, and the tadpole counting. One explicit fitted constant (0.03) is used to make the dS example work, but the main no-go argument does not rely on it.

free parameters (1)

Numerical coefficient in uplift condition (eq. 28) = 0.03
Chosen so that the uplift term yields a shallow meta-stable dS solution in the numerical verification. The paper states (after eq. 29) that infinitesimal changes to this value alter the dS vacuum energy prefactor, so it is a fine-tuned fitting constant rather than a derived quantity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Existence of compact G2 orientifolds with barely G2-cone CGLP throats and an appropriate Z2 involution
The proof-of-principle construction in Section 3 assumes such compactifications exist, mirroring the GKP embedding of a KS throat into a CY3. References [37-39] are cited, but no explicit compact G2 metric or global model is given.
domain assumption Two-scalar truncation plus conifold modulus captures the relevant dynamics; all other moduli are stabilized and decouple from the anti-D2 brane
Section 2 states that non-universal scalars are stabilized with positive masses per [16,26], and that D2-branes down throats decouple from these bulk fields. This is asserted, not re-derived here.
domain assumption Probe approximation for the anti-D2 brane; backreaction and the Romans mass do not alter the throat or bulk stabilization qualitatively
Section 4 explicitly assumes the Romans mass does not change the CGLP picture (similar to KKLT gaugino condensation). Section 5 discusses backreaction citing [48-52], but no explicit backreaction computation is included.
domain assumption Standard flux quantization and tadpole cancellation conditions apply in the compact G2 setting
Used throughout Section 5 to derive the constraints (31)-(33), including the local O6 tadpole from dF2 = m H3 + delta_{O6/D6}.
ad hoc to paper The numerical claim of shallow meta-stable dS solutions is correct
The paper states 'We verified numerically' after eq. (27) without providing code, data, or explicit dS vacuum parameters. This is an unverified claim that supports the fine-tuning condition (28).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Warped G$_2$-throats in IIA and uplift dSillusions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFTEBX7Q

@misc{pith2026250521104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Warped G$_2$-throats in IIA and uplift dSillusions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFTEBX7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21104}
}

abstract

Flux compactifications of IIA supergravity on orientifolded G$_2$-manifolds have been argued to allow for classical Minkowski$_3$ vacua with moduli and scale-separated AdS$_3$ vacua with full moduli stabilisation. To further uplift these vacua to meta-stable dS$_3$ vacua using anti-D2 branes, warped throats are desirable. We study the flux-stabilisation of local "CGLP-type" throats in compact G$_2$ spaces, and discuss consistency constraints on anti-brane uplifting. Despite the classical AdS$_3$ vacua to be free of tachyons, we find that uplifting from anti-branes down warped throats is forbidden. If instead we rely on hypothetical AdS$_3$ vacua that arise from quantum corrections to the classical Minkowski$_3$ vacua, we find that (similarly to the 4d analogues) consistency constraints point in opposite directions. However, there is potentially an advantage over 4d when it comes to concrete fine-tuning freedom of numbers, such as tadpole constraints.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Warped G2 throats from deformed conifolds in IIA supergravity
hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

New non-singular IIA solutions with internal space (deformed conifold × S1)/Z2 provide warped G2 throats with finite 4-cycle or 3-cycle at the tip.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[26]

Similarly, at weak cou- pling brane tensions are higher and so it ensures per- turbative stability

we erroneously concluded that this dependence worsens the bound at weak coupling and large vol- ume, whereas it is the other way around; since the decay involves a spherical brane that needs to climb over a cycle, a larger bulk volume means a larger cycle and more energy cost. Similarly, at weak cou- pling brane tensions are higher and so it ensures per- ...

work page
[27]

Three- dimensional flux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds,

M. Emelin, F. Farakos, and G. Tringas, “Three- dimensional flux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 5, (2021) 456,arXiv:2103.03282 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021
[1]

no-scale

Introduction The construction of semi-realistic vacua within computable corners of string theory remains chal- lenging when we require moduli stabilisation, small- ness of the vacuum energy (akascale separation), and especially when we want the vacuum energy to be positive. For AdS vacua there are concrete can- didates for achieving moduli stabilization a...

arXiv 2025
[2]

non-universal

Classical Minkowski 3 and AdS 3 KKLT [28] suggested that meta-stable dS can be obtained from SUSY AdSwith positive masses through an uplift with a redshifted anti-brane. They further argued that the quantum corrections to the no-scale Minkowski vacua obtained from 3- form fluxes in IIB string theory [31], lead to scale- separated AdS4 vacua with all modul...

work page
[3]

What follows provides a proof of principle through an example, but our arguments for meta-stable dS3 should be independent of any details

Conifolds and throats Our uplift scenario requires the existence of lo- cal CGLP-type throats with finite 4-cycles at the tip, stabilised at exponentially small values of the conifold modulus, all inside a compact G 2-space. What follows provides a proof of principle through an example, but our arguments for meta-stable dS3 should be independent of any de...

work page
[4]

For this we need theC 3 profile on the external space, which is already given by the CGLP solution and reads [40, 41] C ext

Anti-D2 uplift Now we turn to probeD2-branes and first demon- strate they are attracted to the tip. For this we need theC 3 profile on the external space, which is already given by the CGLP solution and reads [40, 41] C ext. 3 =e 16 5 A− 1 4 ϕ0 ˜ϵ3 .(22) The D2-brane action on the CGLP background then becomes: SD2/D2 =−µ 2e3A− 1 4 ϕ Z 3 p −˜g3 ±µ 2 Z 3 C3...

work page
[5]

dSillusions Since our background has fluxes that carry D2 charge, there is an instability towards brane-flux an- nihilation [33]. Remarkably such brane flux anni- hilations can occur at the perturbative level and to prevent this we requireND2/Mto be small enough, of the orders of a few percentages [42, 43], a require- ment that can overshoot tadpole bound...

work page
[6]

no-scale

Discussion Inanearlierpaper[26]weobservedthattheclassi- cal AdS3 solutions with scale separation and moduli stabilisation of [16] are potentially promising step- ping stones for uplifting to de Sitter vacua because there are no tachyons in the AdS3 vacua. The main obstacles in concrete models was found to be the lack of fine-tuning the amount of uplift en...

work page

Show all 65 references

[7]

Weakly CoupleddeSitter Vacuawith Fluxes and the Swampland,

D. Junghans, “Weakly CoupleddeSitter Vacuawith Fluxes and the Swampland,”JHEP03(2019) 150, arXiv:1811.06990 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[8]

Scaling limits of dS vacua and the swampland,

A. Banlaki, A. Chowdhury, C. Roupec, and T. Wrase, “Scaling limits of dS vacua and the swampland,”JHEP03(2019) 065, arXiv:1811.07880 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[9]

Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,

T. Coudarchet, “Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory,” Phys. Rept.1064(2024) 1–28,arXiv:2311.12105 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Scale separation from O-planes,

G. Tringas and T. Wrase, “Scale separation from O-planes,”arXiv:2504.15436 [hep-th]
[11]

Scale separation, rolling solutions and entropy bounds,

D. Andriot, N. Cribiori, and T. Van Riet, “Scale separation, rolling solutions and entropy bounds,” arXiv:2504.08634 [hep-th]

arXiv
[12]

What if string theory has no de Sitter vacua?,

U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet, “What if string theory has no de Sitter vacua?,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. 6 D27no. 12, (2018) 1830007,arXiv:1804.01120 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[13]

De Sitter vs Quintessence in String Theory,

M. Cicoli, S. De Alwis, A. Maharana, F. Muia, and F. Quevedo, “De Sitter vs Quintessence in String Theory,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 1-2, (2019) 1800079, arXiv:1808.08967 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Beginners lec- tures on flux compactifications and related Swamp- land topics,

T. Van Riet and G. Zoccarato, “Beginners lec- tures on flux compactifications and related Swamp- land topics,”Phys. Rept.1049(2024) 1–51, arXiv:2305.01722 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Smeared versus localised sources in flux compact- ifications,

J. Blaback, U. H. Danielsson, D. Junghans, T. Van Riet, T. Wrase, and M. Zagermann, “Smeared versus localised sources in flux compact- ifications,”JHEP12(2010) 043,arXiv:1009.1877 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[16]

No-scale and scale-separated flux vacua from IIA on G2 ori- entifolds,

F. Farakos, G. Tringas, and T. Van Riet, “No-scale and scale-separated flux vacua from IIA on G2 ori- entifolds,”Eur. Phys. J. C80no. 7, (2020) 659, arXiv:2005.05246 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[17]

Distance andde SitterConjecturesontheSwampland,

H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, “Distance andde SitterConjecturesontheSwampland,”Phys. Lett. B788(2019) 180–184,arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[18]

The Asymptotic dS Swampland Conjecture - a Simplified Derivation and a Potential Loophole,

A. Hebecker and T. Wrase, “The Asymptotic dS Swampland Conjecture - a Simplified Derivation and a Potential Loophole,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 1- 2, (2019) 1800097,arXiv:1810.08182 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[19]

A note on obstinate tachyons in classical dS solutions,

U. H. Danielsson, G. Shiu, T. Van Riet, and T. Wrase, “A note on obstinate tachyons in classical dS solutions,”JHEP03(2013) 138, arXiv:1212.5178 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[20]

Tachyonic de Sitter Solutions of 10d Type II Supergravities,

D. Andriot, “Tachyonic de Sitter Solutions of 10d Type II Supergravities,”Fortsch. Phys.69no. 7, (2021) 2100063,arXiv:2101.06251 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[21]

The String landscape and the swamp- land,

C. Vafa, “The String landscape and the swamp- land,”arXiv:hep-th/0509212

arXiv
[22]

The Swampland: Introduction and Re- view,

E. Palti, “The Swampland: Introduction and Re- view,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 6, (2019) 1900037, arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Type IIA moduli stabilization,

O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru, and W. Tay- lor, “Type IIA moduli stabilization,”JHEP07 (2005) 066,arXiv:hep-th/0505160

2005 arXiv
[24]

Integer conformal dimensions for type IIa flux vacua,

F. Apers, J. P. Conlon, S. Ning, and F. Rev- ello, “Integer conformal dimensions for type IIa flux vacua,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 10, (2022) 106029, arXiv:2202.09330 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Scale-Separated AdS3 Vacua from G2-Orientifolds Using Bispinors,

V. Van Hemelryck, “Scale-Separated AdS3 Vacua from G2-Orientifolds Using Bispinors,”Fortsch. Phys.70no. 12, (2022) 2200128,arXiv:2207.14311 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[28]

On/off scale separation,

F. Farakos, M. Morittu, and G. Tringas, “On/off scale separation,”JHEP10(2023) 067,arXiv:2304.14372 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Type II orientifold flux vacua in 3D,

A. Arboleya, A. Guarino, and M. Morittu, “Type II orientifold flux vacua in 3D,”JHEP12(2024) 087, arXiv:2408.01403 [hep-th]

2024
[30]

Supersymmetric scale-separated AdS 3 vacua of type IIB,

V. Van Hemelryck, “Supersymmetric scale-separated AdS 3 vacua of type IIB,” arXiv:2502.04791 [hep-th]
[31]

Integer dual dimen- sions in scale-separated AdS3 from massive IIA,

F. Farakos and G. Tringas, “Integer dual dimen- sions in scale-separated AdS3 from massive IIA,” arXiv:2502.08215 [hep-th]

arXiv
[32]

Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and chi SB resolution of naked singularities,

I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, “Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and chi SB resolution of naked singularities,”JHEP08 (2000) 052,arXiv:hep-th/0007191

2000 arXiv
[33]

Micromanaging de Sitter holography,

X. Dong, B. Horn, E. Silverstein, and G. Tor- roba, “Micromanaging de Sitter holography,”Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 245020,arXiv:1005.5403 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[34]

Classi- cal de Sitter solutions in three dimensions without tachyons?,

F. Farakos, G. Tringas, and T. Van Riet, “Classi- cal de Sitter solutions in three dimensions without tachyons?,”Eur. Phys. J. C80no. 10, (2020) 947, arXiv:2007.12084 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Master thesis at KU Leuven,

C. Van der Sypt, “Master thesis at KU Leuven,”
[36]

De Sitter vacua in string theory,

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,”Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 046005,arXiv:hep-th/0301240

2003 arXiv
[37]

Gaugino condensation and small uplifts in KKLT,

F. Carta, J. Moritz, and A. Westphal, “Gaugino condensation and small uplifts in KKLT,”JHEP08 (2019) 141,arXiv:1902.01412 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Control issues of KKLT,

X. Gao, A. Hebecker, and D. Junghans, “Control issues of KKLT,”Fortsch. Phys.68(2020) 2000089, arXiv:2009.03914 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Hierarchies from fluxes in string compact- ifications,

S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, and J. Polchin- ski, “Hierarchies from fluxes in string compact- ifications,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 106006, arXiv:hep-th/0105097

2002 arXiv
[40]

Supersymmetric nonsingular fractional D-2 branes and NS NS 2 branes,

M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, “Supersymmetric nonsingular fractional D-2 branes and NS NS 2 branes,”Nucl. Phys. B606(2001) 18–44,arXiv:hep-th/0101096

2001 arXiv
[41]

Brane / flux annihilation and the string dual of a non- supersymmetric field theory,

S. Kachru, J. Pearson, and H. L. Verlinde, “Brane / flux annihilation and the string dual of a non- supersymmetric field theory,”JHEP06(2002) 021, arXiv:hep-th/0112197

2002 arXiv
[42]

A New fractional D2-brane, G(2) holonomy and T duality,

M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, J. T. Liu, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, “A New fractional D2-brane, G(2) holonomy and T duality,”Class. Quant. Grav.19 (2002) 5163–5172,arXiv:hep-th/0106162

2002 arXiv
[43]

M theory conifolds,

M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, “M theory conifolds,”Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2002) 121602,arXiv:hep-th/0112098

2002 arXiv
[44]

A G(2) unification of the deformed and re- solved conifolds,

M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, “A G(2) unification of the deformed and re- solved conifolds,”Phys. Lett. B534(2002) 172–180, arXiv:hep-th/0112138

2002 arXiv
[45]

New G2-conifolds in M-theory and their field theory interpretation,

B. S. Acharya, L. Foscolo, M. Najjar, and E. E. Svanes, “New G2-conifolds in M-theory and their field theory interpretation,”JHEP05(2021) 250, arXiv:2011.06998 [hep-th]. 7

2021 arXiv
[46]

Currently, there is good evidence to show that lethal backreaction is absent [48–52]

does not create a too large localH3-flux den- sity, since otherwise perturbative brane-flux decay still happens [47]. Currently, there is good evidence to show that lethal backreaction is absent [48–52]. Goldstino condensation is also another threatening effect for uplifts whi...
[47]

Su- perpotentials and membrane instantons,

J. A. Harvey and G. W. Moore, “Su- perpotentials and membrane instantons,” arXiv:hep-th/9907026

arXiv
[48]

M theory on manifolds of G(2) holonomy and type IIA orientifolds,

S. Kachru and J. McGreevy, “M theory on manifolds of G(2) holonomy and type IIA orientifolds,”JHEP 06(2001) 027,arXiv:hep-th/0103223

2001 arXiv
[49]

String tensions and three- dimensional confining gauge theories,

C. P. Herzog, “String tensions and three- dimensional confining gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 065009,arXiv:hep-th/0205064

2002 arXiv
[50]

The many faces of brane-flux annihilation,

F. F. Gautason, B. Truijen, and T. Van Riet, “The many faces of brane-flux annihilation,”JHEP10 (2015) 152,arXiv:1505.00159 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[51]

M-Branes and Metastable States,

I. R. Klebanov and S. S. Pufu, “M-Branes and Metastable States,”JHEP08(2011) 035, arXiv:1006.3587 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[52]

Uplift- ing Runaways,

I. Bena, E. Dudas, M. Graña, and S. Lüst, “Uplift- ing Runaways,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 1-2, (2019) 1800100,arXiv:1809.06861 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[53]

The tadpole problem,

I. Bena, J. Blåbäck, M. Graña, and S. Lüst, “The tadpole problem,”JHEP11(2021) 223, arXiv:2010.10519 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Assessing a candidate IIA dual to metastable supersymmetry- breaking,

G. Giecold, E. Goi, and F. Orsi, “Assessing a candidate IIA dual to metastable supersymmetry- breaking,”JHEP02(2012) 019,arXiv:1108.1789 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[55]

Fatal attraction: more on decaying anti-branes,

U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet, “Fatal attraction: more on decaying anti-branes,”JHEP03(2015) 087,arXiv:1410.8476 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[56]

Remarks on brane and antibrane dy- namics,

B. Michel, E. Mintun, J. Polchinski, A. Puhm, and P. Saad, “Remarks on brane and antibrane dy- namics,”JHEP09(2015) 021,arXiv:1412.5702 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[57]

Observations on fluxes near anti- branes,

D. Cohen-Maldonado, J. Diaz, T. van Riet, and B. Vercnocke, “Observations on fluxes near anti- branes,”JHEP01(2016) 126,arXiv:1507.01022 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[58]

Polarised antibranes from Smarr relations,

D. Cohen-Maldonado, J. Diaz, and F. F. Gautason, “Polarised antibranes from Smarr relations,”JHEP 05(2016) 175,arXiv:1603.05678 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[59]

Anti-brane singularities as red her- rings,

J. Blaback, F. F. Gautason, A. Ruiperez, and T. Van Riet, “Anti-brane singularities as red her- rings,”JHEP12(2019) 125,arXiv:1907.05295 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[60]

Meta-stable non-extremal anti- branes,

J. Armas, N. Nguyen, V. Niarchos, N. A. Obers, and T. Van Riet, “Meta-stable non-extremal anti- branes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122no. 18, (2019) 181601, arXiv:1812.01067 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[61]

Goldstino condensa- tion at large N,

F. Farakos and M. Morittu, “Goldstino condensa- tion at large N,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 2, (2023) 166,arXiv:2211.12527 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[62]

Effective Theory of Warped Compactifications and the Implications for KKLT,

S. Lüst and L. Randall, “Effective Theory of Warped Compactifications and the Implications for KKLT,”Fortsch. Phys.70no. 7-8, (2022) 2200103, arXiv:2206.04708 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[63]

Systematics of moduli stabilisa- tion in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications,

V. Balasubramanian, P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon, and F. Quevedo, “Systematics of moduli stabilisa- tion in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications,”JHEP 03(2005) 007,arXiv:hep-th/0502058

2005 arXiv
[64]

dS Supergravity from 10d,

R. Kallosh and T. Wrase, “dS Supergravity from 10d,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 1-2, (2019) 1800071, arXiv:1808.09427 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[65]

Uplifting Anti-D6-brane,

N. Cribiori, R. Kallosh, C. Roupec, and T. Wrase, “Uplifting Anti-D6-brane,”JHEP12(2019) 171, arXiv:1909.08629 [hep-th]. 8

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Similarly, at weak cou- pling brane tensions are higher and so it ensures per- turbative stability

we erroneously concluded that this dependence worsens the bound at weak coupling and large vol- ume, whereas it is the other way around; since the decay involves a spherical brane that needs to climb over a cycle, a larger bulk volume means a larger cycle and more energy cost. Similarly, at weak cou- pling brane tensions are higher and so it ensures per- ...

work page

[2] [27]

Three- dimensional flux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds,

M. Emelin, F. Farakos, and G. Tringas, “Three- dimensional flux vacua from IIB on co-calibrated G2 orientifolds,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 5, (2021) 456,arXiv:2103.03282 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021

[3] [1]

no-scale

Introduction The construction of semi-realistic vacua within computable corners of string theory remains chal- lenging when we require moduli stabilisation, small- ness of the vacuum energy (akascale separation), and especially when we want the vacuum energy to be positive. For AdS vacua there are concrete can- didates for achieving moduli stabilization a...

arXiv 2025

[4] [2]

non-universal

Classical Minkowski 3 and AdS 3 KKLT [28] suggested that meta-stable dS can be obtained from SUSY AdSwith positive masses through an uplift with a redshifted anti-brane. They further argued that the quantum corrections to the no-scale Minkowski vacua obtained from 3- form fluxes in IIB string theory [31], lead to scale- separated AdS4 vacua with all modul...

work page

[5] [3]

What follows provides a proof of principle through an example, but our arguments for meta-stable dS3 should be independent of any details

Conifolds and throats Our uplift scenario requires the existence of lo- cal CGLP-type throats with finite 4-cycles at the tip, stabilised at exponentially small values of the conifold modulus, all inside a compact G 2-space. What follows provides a proof of principle through an example, but our arguments for meta-stable dS3 should be independent of any de...

work page

[6] [4]

For this we need theC 3 profile on the external space, which is already given by the CGLP solution and reads [40, 41] C ext

Anti-D2 uplift Now we turn to probeD2-branes and first demon- strate they are attracted to the tip. For this we need theC 3 profile on the external space, which is already given by the CGLP solution and reads [40, 41] C ext. 3 =e 16 5 A− 1 4 ϕ0 ˜ϵ3 .(22) The D2-brane action on the CGLP background then becomes: SD2/D2 =−µ 2e3A− 1 4 ϕ Z 3 p −˜g3 ±µ 2 Z 3 C3...

work page

[7] [5]

dSillusions Since our background has fluxes that carry D2 charge, there is an instability towards brane-flux an- nihilation [33]. Remarkably such brane flux anni- hilations can occur at the perturbative level and to prevent this we requireND2/Mto be small enough, of the orders of a few percentages [42, 43], a require- ment that can overshoot tadpole bound...

work page

[8] [6]

no-scale

Discussion Inanearlierpaper[26]weobservedthattheclassi- cal AdS3 solutions with scale separation and moduli stabilisation of [16] are potentially promising step- ping stones for uplifting to de Sitter vacua because there are no tachyons in the AdS3 vacua. The main obstacles in concrete models was found to be the lack of fine-tuning the amount of uplift en...

work page