Green, M. B., Schwarz, J. H., and Witten, E., Superstring Theory, vol.1,2, Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J., String Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Zwiebach, B., A First Course in String Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Becker, K., Becker, M., and Schwarz, J. H., String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiritsis, E., String Theory in a Nutshell, vol. 21. Princeton University Press, 2019.Google Scholar

Ibáñez, L. and Uranga, A., String Theory and Particle Physics: An Introduction to String Phenomenology. Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Blumenhagen, R., Lüst, D., and Theisen, S., Basic Concepts of String Theory. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.Google Scholar

West, P., Introduction to Strings and Branes. Cambridge University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schomerus, V., A Primer on String Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Graña, M. and Triendl, H., String Theory Compactifications. Springer, 2017.Google Scholar

Polyakov, M., “Gauge fields and strings,” in Contemporary Concepts in Physics, vol. 3. Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987.Google Scholar

Kaluza, T., “Zum unitätsproblem der physik,” International Journal of Modern Physics 1921 (1921), 1803.08616.Google Scholar

Klein, O., “Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale relativitätstheorie,” Zeitschrift für Physik 37 (1926), no. 12, 895–906.Google Scholar

Plebanski, J. F., “On the separation of Einsteinian substructures,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (1977) 2511–2520.Google Scholar

Capovilla, R., Dell, J., Jacobson, T., and Mason, L., “Self-dual 2-forms and gravity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 8 (1991) 41–57.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. W., “Aspects of supergravity theories,” Lectures at San Feliu de Guixols, Spain, June 1984.Google Scholar

de Wit, B., Smit, D. J., and Hari Dass, N. D., “Residual supersymmetry of compactified d = 10 supergravity,” Nuclear Physics B283 (1987) 165.Google Scholar

Maldacena, J. M. and Núñez, C., “Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no-go theorem,” International Journal of Modern Physics A16 (2001) 822–855, hep-th/0007018.Google Scholar

Hawking, S. and Ellis, G., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar

Wald, R. M., General Relativity. University of Chicago Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Dine, M. and Seiberg, N., “Is the superstring weakly coupled?,” Physics Letters 162B (1985) 299–302.Google Scholar

Kachru, S., Kallosh, R., Linde, A., and Trivedi, S. P., “De Sitter vacua in string theory,” Physical Review D68 (2003) 046005, hep-th/0301240.Google Scholar

Susskind, L., “The anthropic landscape of string theory,” (2003), hep-th/ 0302219.Google Scholar

Vafa, C., “The string landscape and the swampland,” (2005), hep-th/ 0509212.Google Scholar

Goroff, M. H. and Sagnotti, A., “The ultraviolet behavior of Einstein gravity,” Nuclear Physics B266 (1986) 709–736.Google Scholar

Sen, A. and Zwiebach, B., “A proof of local background independence of classical closed string field theory,” Nuclear Physics B414 (1994) 649–714, hep-th/9307088.Google Scholar

Ketov, S. V., Quantum Nonlinear Sigma Models: From Quantum Field Theory to Supersymmetry, Conformal Field Theory, Black Holes and Strings. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar

Lindström, U.,Roček, M., von Unge, R., and Zabzine, M., “Generalized Kaehler manifolds and off-shell supersymmetry,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 269 (2007) 833–849, hep-th/0512164.Google Scholar

Berkovits, N., “Super-Poincaré covariant quantization of the superstring,” Journal of High Energy Physics 04 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkovits, N., “ICTP lectures on covariant quantization of the superstring,” ICTP Lecture Notes Series 13 (2003) 57–107, hep-th/0209059.Google Scholar

Gross, D. J., Harvey, J. A., Martinec, E. J., and Rohm, R., “The heterotic string,” Physical Review Letters 54 (1985) 502–505.Google Scholar

Dall’Agata, G., Inverso, G., and Trigiante, M., “Evidence for a family of SO(8) gauged supergravity theories,” Physical Review Letters 109 (2012) 201301, 1209.0760.Google Scholar

Schwarz, J. H., “Superstring theory,” Physics Reports 89 (1982) 223–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grisaru, M. T., van de Ven, A. E. M., and Zanon, D., “Four loop beta function for the N = 1 and N = 2 supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in two dimensions,” Physics Letters B173 (1986) 423–428.Google Scholar

Duff, M. J., Liu, J. T., and Minasian, R., “Eleven-dimensional origin of string-string duality: a one loop test,” Nuclear Physics B452 (1995) 261–282, hep-th/9506126.Google Scholar

Freed, D., Harvey, J. A., Minasian, R., and Moore, G. W., “Gravitational anomaly cancellation for M theory five-branes,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (1998) 601–618, hep-th/9803205.Google Scholar

Liu, J. T. and Minasian, R., “Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities and the B-field,” Nuclear Physics B874 (2013) 413–470, 1304.3137.Google Scholar

Peeters, K., Vanhove, P., and Westerberg, A., “Supersymmetric higher derivative actions in ten-dimensions and eleven-dimensions, the associated superalgebras and their formulation in superspace,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001) 843–890, hep-th/0010167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Policastro, G. and Tsimpis, D., “R⁴, purified,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 (2006) 4753–4780, hep-th/0603165.Google Scholar

Romans, L. J., “Massive N=2a supergravity in ten dimensions,” Physics Letters B169 (1986) 374.Google Scholar

Howe, P. S., Lambert, N., and West, P. C., “A new massive type IIA supergravity from compactification,” Physics Letters B 416 (1998) 303–308, hep-th/9707139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsimpis, D., “Massive IIA supergravities,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2005) 057, hep-th/0508214.Google Scholar

Stückelberg, E., “Die wechselwirkungskräfte in der elektrodynamik und in der feldtheorie der kräfte,” Helvetica physica acta 11 (1938) 225.Google Scholar

Nahm, W., “Supersymmetries and their representations,” Nuclear Physics B135 (1978) 149.Google Scholar

Green, M. B. and Schwarz, J. H., “Extended supergravity in ten-dimensions,” Physics Letters 122B (1983) 143–147.Google Scholar

Schwarz, J. H. and West, P. C., “Symmetries and transformations of chiral N = 2 D = 10 supergravity,” Physics Letters 126B (1983) 301–304.Google Scholar

Green, M. B. and Schwarz, J. H., “Anomaly cancellation in supersymmetric D=10 gauge theory and superstring theory,” Physics Letters 149B (1984) 117–122.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Covariant action for type IIB supergravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (2016) 017, 1511.08220.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Self-dual forms: action, Hamiltonian and compactification,” Journal of Physics A53 (2020), no. 8, 084002, 1903.12196.Google Scholar

Green, M. B. and Gutperle, M., “Effects of D instantons,” Nuclear Physics B498 (1997) 195–227, hep-th/9701093.Google Scholar

Dickey, L. A., Soliton Equations and Hamiltonian Systems. World Scientific, 2003.Google Scholar

Seiberg, N. and Witten, E., “Electric–magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N = 2 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory,” Nuclear Physics B426 (1994) 19–52, hep-th/9407087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, S., Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Marino, M., Instantons and Large N: An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Methods in Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar

Kleinert, H., Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets. World Scientific, 2009.Google Scholar

Dorey, N., Hollowood, T. J., Khoze, V. V., and Mattis, M. P., “The calculus of many instantons,” Physics Reports 371 (2002) 231–459, hep-th/0206063.Google Scholar

Nekrasov, N. A., “Seiberg–Witten prepotential from instanton counting,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 7 (2003), no. 5, 831–864, hep-th/0206161.Google Scholar

Lichnerowicz, A., Problèmes globaux en mécanique relativiste, vol. 833. Hermann & cie, 1939.Google Scholar

Choquet-Bruhat, Y., Introduction to General Relativity, Black Holes, and Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J., “Dirichlet–Branes and Ramond–Ramond charges,” Physical Review Letters 75 (1995) 4724–4727, hep-th/9510017.Google Scholar

Bergshoeff, E. and De Roo, M., “D-branes and T-duality,” Physics Letters B380 (1996) 265–272, hep-th/9603123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Hull, C. M., and Townsend, P. K., “D-brane Wess–Zumino actions, T-duality and the cosmological constant,” Physics Letters B382 (1996) 65–72, hep-th/9604119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A., “NonBPS states and Branes in string theory,” in Supersymmetry in the Theories of Fields, Strings and Branes. Proceedings, Advanced School, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, July 26–31, 1999, pp. 187–234. 1999. hep-th/ 9904207. [,45(1999)].Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Tachyon condensation on the brane anti-brane system,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (1998) 012, hep-th/9805170.Google Scholar

Sen, A. and Zwiebach, B., “Tachyon condensation in string field theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2000) 002, hep-th/9912249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Witten, E., “D-branes and K-theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 12 (1998) 019, hep-th/9810188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Minasian, R. and Moore, G. W., “K-theory and Ramond–Ramond charge,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (1997) 002, hep-th/9710230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aharony, O., Gubser, S. S., Maldacena, J. M., Ooguri, H., and Oz, Y., “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Physics Reports 323 (2000) 183–386, hep-th/9905111.Google Scholar

Ortín, T., Gravity and Strings. Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. W., Horowitz, G. T., and Townsend, P. K., “Higher dimensional resolution of dilatonic black hole singularities,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 12 (1995) 297–318, hep-th/9410073.Google Scholar

Cremmer, E., Julia, B., and Scherk, J., “Supergravity theory in 11 dimensions,” Physics Letters B76 (1978) 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Witten, E., “String theory dynamics in various dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B443 (1995) 85–126, hep-th/9503124.Google Scholar

Bergshoeff, E., Sezgin, E., and Townsend, P., “Supermembranes and eleven-dimensional supergravity,” Physics Letters B189 (1987) 75–78.Google Scholar

Bagger, J. and Lambert, N., “Modeling multiple M2’s,” Physical Review D75 (2007) 045020, hep-th/0611108.Google Scholar

Bagger, J. and Lambert, N., “Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry of multiple M2-Branes,” Physical Review D77 (2008) 065008, 0711.0955.Google Scholar

Gustavsson, A., “Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes,” Nuclear Physics B 811 (2009) 66–76 0709.1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aharony, O., Bergman, O., Jafferis, D. L., and Maldacena, J., “N = 6 superconformal Chern–Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2008) 091, 0806.1218.Google Scholar

Pasti, P., Sorokin, D. P., and Tonin, M., “Covariant action for a D = 11 five-brane with the chiral field,” Physics Letters B398 (1997) 41–46, hep-th/ 9701037.Google Scholar

Harvey, J. A., Minasian, R., and Moore, G. W., “Nonabelian tensor multiplet anomalies,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (1998) 004, hep-th/ 9808060.Google Scholar

Henningson, M. and Skenderis, K., “The holographic Weyl anomaly,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (1998) 023, hep-th/9806087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Intriligator, K. A., “Anomaly matching and a Hopf–Wess–Zumino term in 6d, N = (2, 0) field theories,” Nuclear Physics B581 (2000) 257–273, hep-th/ 0001205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maxfield, T. and Sethi, S., “The conformal anomaly of M5-Branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 06 (2012) 075, 1204.2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Córdova, C., Dumitrescu, T. T., and Yin, X., “Higher derivative terms, toroidal compactification, and Weyl anomalies in six-dimensional (2, 0) theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2019) 128, 1505.03850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beem, C., Lemos, M., Rastelli, L., and van Rees, B. C., “The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap,” Physical Review D93 (2016), no. 2, 025016, 1507.05637.Google Scholar

Lambert, N., Papageorgakis, C., and Schmidt-Sommerfeld, M., “Deconstructing (2,0) proposals,” Physical Review D88 (2013), no. 2, 026007, 1212.3337.Google Scholar

Saemann, C. and Schmidt, L., “Towards an M5-Brane model I: a 6d superconformal field theory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 59 (2018), no. 4, 043502, 1712.06623.Google Scholar

Aharony, O., Jafferis, D., Tomasiello, A., and Zaffaroni, A., “Massive type IIA string theory cannot be strongly coupled,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1011 (2010) 047, 1007.2451.Google Scholar

Bergshoeff, E., Lozano, Y., and Ortín, T., “Massive branes,” Nuclear Physics B518 (1998) 363–423, hep-th/9712115.Google Scholar

Sagnotti, A. and Tomaras, T. N., “Properties of eleven-dimensional supergravity,” 1982.Google Scholar

Bautier, K., Deser, S., Henneaux, M., and Seminara, D., “No cosmological D = 11 supergravity,” Physics Letters B406 (1997) 49–53, hep-th/ 9704131.Google Scholar

Deser, S., “Uniqueness of D = 11 supergravity,” 1997, hep-th/9712064.Google Scholar

Tumanov, A. G. and West, P., “E₁₁, Romans theory and higher level duality relations,” International Journal of Modern Physics A32 (2017), no. 05, 1750023, 1611.03369.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M., “Massive string theories from M-theory and F-theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (1998) 027, hep-th/9811021.Google Scholar

Chaemjumrus, N. and Hull, C. M., “Degenerations of K3, orientifolds and exotic Branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2019) 198, 1907.04040.Google Scholar

Guarino, A., Jafferis, D. L., and Varela, O., “String theory origin of dyonic N = 8 supergravity and its Chern–Simons duals,” Physical Review Letters 115 (2015), no. 9, 091601, 1504.08009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jafferis, D. L. and Pufu, S. S., “Exact results for five-dimensional superconformal field theories with gravity duals,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2014) 032, 1207.4359.Google Scholar

Cremonesi, S. and Tomasiello, A., “6d holographic anomaly match as a continuum limit,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2016) 031, 1512.02225.Google Scholar

Buscher, T. H., “A symmetry of the string background field equations,” Physics Letters B194 (1987) 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hori, K. and Vafa, C., “Mirror symmetry,” 2000, hep-th/0002222.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M., “Gravitational duality, branes and charges,” Nuclear Physics B509 (1998) 216–251, hep-th/9705162.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “Bound states of strings and p-branes,” Nuclear Physics B460 (1996) 335–350, hep-th/9510135.Google Scholar

Montonen, C. and Olive, D. I., “Magnetic Monopoles as Gauge Particles?” Physics Letters B72 (1977) 117.Google Scholar

Schwarz, J. H., “An SL(2, Z) multiplet of type IIB superstrings,” Physics Letters B360 (1995) 13–18, hep-th/9508143. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B364,252(1995)].Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S., “Some relationships between dualities in string theory,” Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements 46 (1996) 30–38, hep-th/ 9508154.Google Scholar

Sagnotti, A., “Open strings and their symmetry groups,” in NATO Advanced Summer Institute on Nonperturbative Quantum Field Theory (Cargese Summer Institute) Cargese, France, July 16–30, 1987, pp. 521–528. 1987. hep-th/0208020.Google Scholar

Horava, P., “Strings on world sheet orbifolds,” Nuclear Physics B327 (1989) 461–484.Google Scholar

Dai, J., Leigh, R. G., and Polchinski, J., “New connections between string theories,” Modern Physics Letters A4 (1989) 2073–2083.Google Scholar

Angelantonj, C. and Sagnotti, A., “Open strings,” Physics Reports 371 (2002) 1–150, hep-th/0204089.Google Scholar

Dabholkar, A., “Lectures on orientifolds and duality,” in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology. Proceedings, Summer School, Trieste, Italy, June 2–July 4, 1997, pp. 128–191. 1997. hep-th/9804208.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “Toroidal compactification without vector structure,” Journal of High Energy Physics 02 (1998) 006, hep-th/9712028.Google Scholar

Bergman, O., Gimon, E. G., and Sugimoto, S., “Orientifolds, RR torsion, and K theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2001) 047, hep-th/0103183.Google Scholar

Horava, P. and Witten, E., “Heterotic and type I string dynamics from eleven dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B460 (1996) 506–524, hep-th/9510209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polchinski, J. and Witten, E., “Evidence for heterotic – type I string duality,” Nuclear Physics B460 (1996) 525–540, hep-th/9510169.Google Scholar

Narain, K. S., “New heterotic string theories in uncompactified dimensions < 10,” Physics Letters 169B (1986) 41–46.Google Scholar

Narain, K. S., Sarmadi, M. H., and Witten, E., “A note on toroidal compactification of heterotic string theory,” Nuclear Physics B279 (1987) 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawson, H. and Michelsohn, M., Spin Geometry, vol. 38. Princeton University Press 1989.Google Scholar

Bilal, A., Derendinger, J.-P., and Sfetsos, K., “(Weak) G₂ holonomy from selfduality, flux and supersymmetry,” Nuclear Physics B628 (2002) 112–132, hep-th/0111274.Google Scholar

Cappell, S., DeTurck, D., Gluck, H., and Miller, E. Y., “Cohomology of harmonic forms on riemannian manifolds with boundary,” in Forum Mathematicum, vol. 18, pp. 923–931. 2006.Google Scholar

Griffiths, P. and Harris, J., Principles of Algebraic Geometry. Wiley-Interscience [John Wiley & Sons], 1978.Google Scholar

Wall, C. T. C., “Classification problems in differential topology. V,” Inventiones Mathematicae 1 (1966), no. 4, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giveon, A., Rabinovici, E., and Veneziano, G., “Duality in string background space,” Nuclear Physics B322 (1989) 167–184.Google Scholar

Meissner, K. A. and Veneziano, G., “Symmetries of cosmological superstring vacua,” Physics Letters B267 (1991) 33–36.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “O(d) × O(d) symmetry of the space of cosmological solutions in string theory, scale factor duality and two-dimensional black holes,” Physics Letters B271 (1991) 295–300.Google Scholar

Giveon, A. and Rocek, M., “Generalized duality in curved string backgrounds,” Nuclear Physics B380 (1992) 128–146, hep-th/9112070.Google Scholar

Giveon, A., Porrati, M., and Rabinovici, E., “Target space duality in string theory,” Physics Reports 244 (1994) 77–202, hep-th/9401139.Google Scholar

Hassan, S., “Supersymmetry and the systematics of T-duality rotations in type II superstring theories,” Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements 102 (2001) 77–82, hep-th/0103149.Google Scholar

Fidanza, S., Minasian, R., and Tomasiello, A., “Mirror symmetric SU(3)-structure manifolds with NS fluxes,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 254 (2005) 401–423, hep-th/0311122.Google Scholar

Tong, D., “NS5-branes, T-duality and world sheet instantons,” Journal of High Energy Physics 0207 (2002) 013, hep-th/0204186.Google Scholar

Bouwknegt, P., Evslin, J., and Mathai, V., “On the topology and H flux of T dual manifolds,” Physical Review Letters 92 (2004) 181601, hep-th/0312052.Google Scholar

Kachru, S., Schulz, M. B., Tripathy, P. K., and Trivedi, S. P., “New supersymmetric string compactifications,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2003) 061, hep-th/0211182.Google Scholar

Shelton, J., Taylor, W., and Wecht, B., “Nongeometric flux compactifications,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2005) 085, hep-th/0508133.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M., “A geometry for non-geometric string backgrounds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2005) 065, hep-th/0406102.Google Scholar

Atiyah, M. F. and Singer, I. M., “The index of elliptic operators on compact manifolds,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 69 (1963), no. 3, 422–433.Google Scholar

Alvarez-Gaumé, L. and Witten, E., “Gravitational anomalies,” Nuclear Physics B234 (1984) 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kosmann, Y., “Dérivées de Lie des spineurs,” Annali di matematica pura ed applicata 91 (1971), no. 1, 317–395.Google Scholar

Ziller, W., “Homogeneous Einstein metrics on spheres and projective spaces,” Mathematische Annalen D72 (1982) 351–358.Google Scholar

Magnin, L., “Sur les algèbres de Lie nilpotentes de dimension ≤ 7,” Journal of Geometry and Physics 3 (1986), no. 1, 119–144.Google Scholar

Morozov, V. V., “Classification of nilpotent Lie algebras of sixth order,” Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Matematika (1958), no. 4, 161–171.Google Scholar

Cavalcanti, G. R. and Gualtieri, M., “Generalized complex structures on nilmanifolds,” Journal of Symplectic Geometry 2 (2004), no. 3, 393–410. math/0404451 (2004).Google Scholar

Graña, M., Minasian, R., Petrini, M., and Tomasiello, A., “A scan for new N = 1 vacua on twisted tori,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2007) 031, hep-th/0609124.Google Scholar

Auslander, L., “An exposition of the structure of solvmanifolds. Part I: Algebraic theory,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 79 (1973), no. 2, 227–261.Google Scholar

Saito, M., “Sous-groups discrets des groups résolubles,” American Journal of Mathematics 83 (1961), no. 2, 369–392.Google Scholar

Bock, C., “On low-dimensional solvmanifolds,” Asian Journal of Mathematics 20 (2016), no. 2, 199–262, 0903.2926.Google Scholar

Andriot, D., Goi, E., Minasian, R., and Petrini, M., “Supersymmetry breaking branes on solvmanifolds and de Sitter vacua in string theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2011) 028. 1003.3774.Google Scholar

Weinberg, S., Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity. Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar

Marsden, J. and Weinstein, A., “Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry,” Reports on Mathematical Physics 5 (1974), no. 1, 121–130.Google Scholar

Gray, A. and Hervella, L., “The sixteen classes of almost Hermitian manifolds and their linear invariant,” Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata (IV) 123 (1980) 35.Google Scholar

Chiossi, S. and Salamon, S., “The intrinsic torsion of SU(3) and G₂ structures,” International Conference on Differential Geometry held in honor of the 60th Birthday of A.M. Naveira. math/0202282.Google Scholar

Fernàndez, M. and Gray, A., “Riemannian manifolds with structure group g₂,” Annali di matematica pura ed applicate 132 (1982), no. 1, 19–45.Google Scholar

Berger, M., “Les espaces symétriques noncompacts,” Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure 74 (1957) 85–177.Google Scholar

Chi, Q.-S., Merkulov, S. A., and Schwachhöfer, L. J., “On the existence of infinite series of exotic holonomies,” Inventiones mathematicae 126 (1996), no. 2, 391–411.Google Scholar

Bryant, R., “Recent advances in the theory of holonomy,” Asterisquesociete Mathematique de France 266 (2000) 351–374, hep-th/0202208.Google Scholar

Hartshorne, R., Algebraic Geometry, vol. 52. Springer, 2013.Google Scholar

Harris, J., Algebraic Geometry: A First Course, vol. 133. Springer, 2013.Google Scholar

Olver, F. W., NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Arnold, S. Gusein-Zade, and Varchenko, A., Singularities of Differentiable Maps, vol.2.Birkhäuser Boston, 2012.Google Scholar

Arnold, V. I., Goryunov, V. V., Lyashko, O., and Vasilev, V., Singularity Theory I, vol. 6. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.Google Scholar

Mumford, D., Fogarty, J., and Kirwan, F., Geometric Invariant Theory, vol. 34. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar

Thomas, R. P., “Notes on GIT and symplectic reduction for bundles and varieties,” Surveys in Differential Geometry 10 (2005), no. 1, 221273, math/0512411.Google Scholar

Dolgachev, I., Lectures on Invariant Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gompf, R. E., “A new construction of symplectic manifolds,” Annals of Mathematics (1995) 527–595.Google Scholar

Candelas, P., Dale, A. M., Lutken, C. A., and Schimmrigk, R., “Complete intersection Calabi–Yau manifolds,” Nuclear Physics B298 (1988) 493.Google Scholar

Candelas, P., Lynker, M., and Schimmrigk, R., “Calabi–Yau manifolds in weighted P⁴,” Nuclear Physics B341 (1990) 383–402.Google Scholar

Kreuzer, M. and Skarke, H., “Complete classification of reflexive polyhedra in four dimensions,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 4 (2002) 1209–1230, hep-th/0002240.Google Scholar

He, Y.-H., “Calabi–Yau spaces in the string landscape,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics, Oxford University Press, 2020 2006.16623.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. B., Apruzzi, F., Gao, X., Gray, J., and Lee, S.-J., “A new construction of Calabi–Yau manifolds: generalized CICYs,” Nuclear Physics B906 (2016) 441–496, 1507.03235.Google Scholar

Greene, B. R., Morrison, D. R., and Strominger, A., “Black hole condensation and the unification of string vacua,” Nuclear Physics B451 (1995) 109–120, hep-th/9504145.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S., “K3 surfaces and string duality,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96), World Scientific, pp. 421–540. 1996. hep-th/9611137.Google Scholar

Kachru, S., Tripathy, A., and Zimet, M., “K3 metrics from little string theory,” 2018. 1810.10540.Google Scholar

Kachru, S., Tripathy, A., and Zimet, M., “K3 metrics,” 2020. 2006.02435.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. W. and Hawking, S. W., “Gravitational multi-instantons,” Physics Letters 78B (1978) 430.Google Scholar

Katmadas, S. and Tomasiello, A., “Gauged supergravities from M-theory reductions,” Journal of High Energy Physics 04 (2018) 048, 1712.06608.Google Scholar

Franchetti, G., “Harmonic forms on ALF gravitational instantons,” Journal of High Energy Physics 12 (2014) 075, 1410.2864.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M. and Townsend, P. K., “Unity of superstring dualities,” Nuclear Physics B438 (1995) 109–137, hep-th/9410167.Google Scholar

Atiyah, M. and Hitchin, N. J., “Low-energy scattering of nonabelian monopoles,” Physics Letters A107 (1985) 21–25.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. and Manton, N., “Classical and quantum dynamics of BPS monopoles,” Nuclear Physics B274 (1986) 183.Google Scholar

Hanany, A. and Pioline, B., “(Anti-)instantons and the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold,” Journal of High Energy Physics 0007 (2000) 001, hep-th/0005160.Google Scholar

Fujiki, A., “On primitive symplectic compact Kahler V-manifolds of dimension four,” Progress in Mathematics, Birkhauser 39 (1983) 71–125.Google Scholar

Mukai, S., “Symplectic structure of the moduli space of sheaves on an abelian or K3 surface,” Inventiones mathematicae 77 (1984), no. 1, 101–116.Google Scholar

Beauville, A., “Variétés Kähleriennes dont la première classe de Chern est nulle,” Journal of Differential Geometry 18 (1983), no. 4, 755–782 (1984).Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Gibbons, G. W., Papadopoulos, G., and Townsend, P. K., “Hyper-Kähler manifolds and multiply intersecting branes,” Nuclear Physics B500 (1997) 133–162, hep-th/9702202.Google Scholar

Bielawski, R. and Dancer, A., “The geometry and topology of toric hyper-Kähler manifolds,” Communications in Analysis and Geometry 8 (2000) 727–759.Google Scholar

Hitchin, N. J., “Kählerian twistor spaces,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 3 (1981), no. 1, 133–150.Google Scholar

Boyer, C. and Galicki, K., Sasakian Geometry. Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Bryant, R. L. and Salamon, S. M., “On the construction of some complete metrics with exceptional holonomy,” Duke Mathematical Journal 58 (1989), no. 3, 829–850.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. W., Page, D. N., and Pope, C. N., “Einstein metrics on S³, R³ and R⁴ bundles,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 127 (1990) 529.Google Scholar

Foscolo, L., Haskins, M., and Nordstörm, J., “Complete non-compact G₂-manifolds from asymptotically conical Calabi–Yau 3-folds,” 2019. 1709.04904Google Scholar

Joyce, D. D., Compact Manifolds with Special Holonomy. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2000.Google Scholar

Joyce, D. and Karigiannis, S., “A new construction of compact torsion-free G₂-manifolds by gluing families of Eguchi–Hanson spaces,” Journal of Differential Geometry 117 (2021) 255–343.Google Scholar

Kovalev, A., “Twisted connected sums and special Riemannian holonomy,” Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 565 (2003) 125–160 math/ 0012189.Google Scholar

Corti, A., Haskins, M., Nordström, J., and Pacini, T., “G₂-manifolds and associative submanifolds via semi-Fano 3-folds,” Duke Mathematical Journal 164 (2015), no. 10, 1971–2092, 1207.4470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bär, C., “Real Killing spinors and holonomy,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 154 (1993), no. 3, 509–521.Google Scholar

J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, M., Hackett-Jones, E., and Moutsopoulos, G., “The Killing superalgebra of ten-dimensional supergravity backgrounds,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 24 (2007) 3291–3308, hep-th/0703192.Google Scholar

de Medeiros, P., Figueroa-O’Farrill, J., and Santi, A., “Killing superalgebras for Lorentzian four-manifolds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 06 (2016) 106, 1605.00881.Google Scholar

Lu, H., Pope, C. N., and Rahmfeld, J., “A construction of Killing spinors on Sⁿ,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 40 (1999) 4518–4526, hep-th/9805151.Google Scholar

Yau, S. S.-T., “Kohn–Rossi cohomology and its application to the complex Plateau problem. I,” Annals of Mathematics (2) 113 (1981) 67–110.Google Scholar

Tian, G. and Yau, S.-T., “Kähler–Einstein Metrics on Complex Surfaces With c₁ > 0 ,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 112 (1987) 175–203.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “Search for a Realistic Kaluza–Klein Theory,” Nuclear Physics B186 (1981) 412.Google Scholar

Castellani, L., D’Auria, R., and Fre, P., “SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) from D = 11 supergravity,” Nuclear Physics B239 (1984) 610–652.Google Scholar

Castellani, L. and Romans, L. J., “N = 3 and N = 1 supersymmetry in a new class of solutions for d = 11 supergravity,” Nuclear Physics B238 (1984) 683.Google Scholar

D’Auria, R., Fre, P., and van Nieuwenhuizen, P., “N = 2 matter coupled supergravity from compactification on a coset G/H possessing an additional Killing vector,” Physics Letters 136B (1984) 347–353.Google Scholar

Castellani, L., Romans, L. J., and Warner, N. P., “A classification of compactifying solutions for d = 11 supergravity,” Nuclear Physics B241 (1984) 429–462.Google Scholar

Tian, G., “On Kähler–Einstein metrics on certain Kähler manifolds with c₁ (m) > 0,” Inventiones mathematicae 89 (1987), no. 2, 225–246.Google Scholar

Nadel, A. M., “Multiplier ideal sheaves and existence of Kähler–Einstein metrics of positive scalar curvature,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86 (1989), no. 19, 7299–7300.Google Scholar

Futaki, A., Ono, H., and Wang, G., “Transverse Kahler geometry of Sasaki manifolds and toric Sasaki–Einstein manifolds,” Journal of Differential Geometry 83 (2009) 585–636, math/0607586.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Martelli, D., Sparks, J., and Waldram, D., “Sasaki–Einstein metrics on S² × S³,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 8 (2004) 711–734, hep-th/0403002.Google Scholar

Martelli, D. and Sparks, J., “Toric geometry, Sasaki–Einstein manifolds and a new infinite class of AdS/CFT duals,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 262 (2006) 51–89, hep-th/0411238.Google Scholar

Conti, D., “Cohomogeneity one Einstein–Sasaki 5-manifolds,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 274 (2007), no. 3, 751–774.Google Scholar

Cvetic, M., Lu, H., Page, D. N., and Pope, C. N., “New Einstein–Sasaki spaces in five and higher dimensions,” Physical Review Letters 95 (2005) 071101, hep-th/0504225.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Martelli, D., Sparks, J. F., and Waldram, D., “A new infinite class of Sasaki–Einstein manifolds,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 8 (2006) 987–1000, hep-th/0403038.Google Scholar

Martelli, D. and Sparks, J., “Notes on toric Sasaki–Einstein seven-manifolds and AdS₄/CFT₃,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (2008) 016, 0808.0904.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Martelli, D., Sparks, J., and Waldram, D., “Supersymmetric AdS backgrounds in string and M-theory,” IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics 8 (2005) 217–252 hep-th/0411194.Google Scholar

Chen, W., Lu, H., Pope, C. N., and Vazquez-Poritz, J. F., “A note on Einstein– Sasaki metrics in d ≥ 7,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 (2005) 3421– 3430, hep-th/0411218.Google Scholar

Tomasiello, A. and Zaffaroni, A., “Parameter spaces of massive IIA solutions,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1104 (2011) 067, 1010.4648.Google Scholar

Martelli, D., Sparks, J., and Yau, S.-T., “The geometric dual of a-maximisation for toric Sasaki–Einstein manifolds,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 268 (2006) 39–65, hep-th/0503183.Google Scholar

Martelli, D., Sparks, J., and Yau, S.-T., “Sasaki–Einstein manifolds and volume minimisation,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 280 (2008) 611–673, hep-th/0603021.Google Scholar

Sparks, J., “Sasaki–Einstein manifolds,” Surveys in Differential Geometry 16 (2011) 265–324, 1004.2461.Google Scholar

Yau, S., “Open problems in geometry,” in Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 54, pp. 1–28. 1993.Google Scholar

Tian, G., “Kähler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature,” Inventiones mathematicae 130 (1997), no. 1, 1–37.Google Scholar

Chen, X.-X., Donaldson, S., and Sun, S., “Kähler–Einstein metrics and stability,” International Mathematics Research Notices 8 (2014) 2119–2125, 1210.7494.Google Scholar

Collins, T. C. and Székelyhidi, G., “Sasaki–Einstein metrics and K-stability,” Geometry & Topology 23 (2019) 1339–1413, 1512.07213.Google Scholar

Ilten, N. and Süß, H., “K-stability for Fano manifolds with torus action of complexity one,” Duke Mathematical Journal 166 (2017), no. 1, 177–204, 1507.04442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koerber, P., Lüst, D., and Tsimpis, D., “Type IIA AdS₄ compactifications on cosets, interpolations and domain walls,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (2008) 017, 0804.0614.Google Scholar

Foscolo, L. and Haskins, M., “New G₂ holonomy cones and exotic nearly Kaehler structures on the 6-sphere and the product of a pair of 3-spheres,” Annals of Mathematics 185 (2017) 59–130, 1501.07838.Google Scholar

Gaiotto, D. and Tomasiello, A., “Perturbing gauge/gravity duals by a Romans mass,” Journal of High Energy Physics 01 (2010) p. 015. 0904.3959.Google Scholar

Kovalev, A., “Asymptotically cylindrical manifolds with holonomy spin(7).I,” 1309.5027 (2013).Google Scholar

Braun, A. P. and Schäfer-Nameki, S., “Spin(7)-manifolds as generalized connected sums and 3d N = 1 theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics 06 (2018) 103, 1803.10755.Google Scholar

Friedrich, T., Kath, I., Moroianu, A., and Semmelmann, U., “On nearly parallel”G₂”-structures,” Journal of Geometry and Physics 23 (1997), no. 3–4, 259–286.Google Scholar

Randall, L. and Sundrum, R., “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Physical Review Letters 83 (1999) 3370–3373, hep-ph/ 9905221.Google Scholar

Randall, L. and Sundrum, R., “An alternative to compactification,” Physical Review Letters 83 (1999) 4690–4693, hep-th/9906064.Google Scholar

ÓColgáin, E., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., Vázquez-Poritz, J. F., Yavartanoo, H., and Zhang, Z., “Warped Ricci-flat reductions,” Physical Review D90 (2014), no. 4, 045013, 1406.6354.Google Scholar

Douglas, M. R., “Effective potential and warp factor dynamics,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2010) 071, 0911.3378.Google Scholar

Chavel, I., Eigenvalues in Riemannian Geometry. Academic Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Li, P. and Yau, S. T., “Estimates of eigenvalues of a compact Riemannian manifold,” in Geometry of the Laplace operator (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1979), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, XXXVI, pp. 205–239. American Mathematical Society, 1980.Google Scholar

Hinterbichler, K., Levin, J., and Zukowski, C., “Kaluza–Klein towers on general manifolds,” Physical Review D89 (2014), no. 8, 086007, 1310.6353.Google Scholar

Duff, M. J., Ferrara, S., Pope, C. N., and Stelle, K. S., “Massive Kaluza–Klein modes and effective theories of superstring moduli,” Nuclear Physics B333 (1990) 783.Google Scholar

Gabella, M., Martelli, D., Passias, A., and Sparks, J., “N = 2 supersymmetric AdS₄ solutions of M-theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 325 (2014) 487–525, 1207.3082.Google Scholar

Couzens, C., Lawrie, C., Martelli, D., Schafer-Nameki, S., and Wong, J.-M., “F-theory and AdS₃/CFT₂,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (2017) 043, 1705.04679.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J. B., and Papadopoulos, G., “On supersymmetric anti-de-Sitter, de-Sitter and Minkowski flux backgrounds,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 35 (2018), no. 6, 065016, 1607.00191.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Mac Conamhna, O. A., Mateos, T., and Waldram, D., “AdS spacetimes from wrapped M5 branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 0611 (2006) 053, hep-th/0605146.Google Scholar

Pilch, K., van Nieuwenhuizen, P., and Sohnius, M. F., “De Sitter superalgebras and supergravity,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 98 (1985) 105.Google Scholar

Lukierski, J. and Nowicki, A., “All possible de Sitter superalgebras and the presence of ghosts,” Physical Letters, 151B (1985) 382–386.Google Scholar

Candelas, P., Horowitz, G. T., Strominger, A., and Witten, E., “Vacuum configurations for superstrings,” Nuclear Physics B258 (1985) 46–74.Google Scholar

Donaldson, S. K., “Anti self-dual Yang–Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 3 (1985), no. 1, 1–26.Google Scholar

Uhlenbeck, K. and Yau, S.-T., “On the existence of Hermitian-Yang–Mills connections in stable vector bundles,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 39 (1986), no. S1, S257–S293.Google Scholar

Duff, M. J., Nilsson, B. E. W., and Pope, C. N., “Kaluza–Klein supergravity,” Physics Reports 130 (1986) 1–142.Google Scholar

Denef, F., “Les Houches lectures on constructing string vacua,” Les Houches 87 (2008) 483–610, 0803.1194.Google Scholar

Douglas, M. R. and Kachru, S., “Flux compactification,” Reviews of Modern Physics 79 (2007) 733–796, hep-th/0610102.Google Scholar

Silverstein, E., “Simple de Sitter solutions,” Physical Review D77 (2008) 106006, 0712.1196.Google Scholar

Dong, X., Horn, B., Silverstein, E., and Torroba, G., “Micromanaging de Sitter holography,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 (2010) 245020, 1005.5403.Google Scholar

Hertzberg, M. P., Kachru, S., Taylor, W., and Tegmark, M., “Inflationary constraints on type IIA string theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 12 (2007) 095. 0711.2512.Google Scholar

Flauger, R., Paban, S., Robbins, D., and Wrase, T., “Searching for slow-roll moduli inflation in massive type IIA supergravity with metric fluxes,” Physical Review D79 (2009) 086011, 0812.3886.Google Scholar

DeWolfe, O., Giryavets, A., Kachru, S., and Taylor, W., “Type IIA moduli stabilization,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (2005) 066, hep-th/ 0505160.Google Scholar

Gautason, F. F., Schillo, M., Van Riet, T., and Williams, M., “Remarks on scale separation in flux vacua,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2016) 061, 1512.00457.Google Scholar

D’Auria, R., Ferrara, S., Trigiante, M., and Vaula, S., “Gauging the Heisenberg algebra of special quaternionic manifolds,” Physics Letters B610 (2005) 147–151, hep-th/0410290.Google Scholar

Graña, M., Louis, J., and Waldram, D., “Hitchin functionals in N = 2 supergravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics 01 (2006) 008, hep-th/0505264.Google Scholar

Wess, J. and Bagger, J., Superspace and Supergravity, Princeton University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Freedman, D. Z. and Van Proeyen, A., Supergravity. Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Volkov, D. V. and Akulov, V. P., “Is the neutrino a Goldstone particle?” Physics Letters 46B (1973) 109–110.Google Scholar

Ivanov, E. A. and Kapustnikov, A. A., “General relationship between linear and nonlinear realizations of supersymmetry,” Journal of Physics A11 (1978) 2375–2384.Google Scholar

Rocek, M., “Linearizing the Volkov–Akulov model,” Physical Review Letters 41 (1978) 451–453.Google Scholar

Casalbuoni, R., De Curtis, S., Dominici, D., Feruglio, F., and Gatto, R., “Non-linear realization of supersymmetry algebra from supersymmetric constraint,” Physics Letters B220 (1989) 569–575.Google Scholar

Komargodski, Z. and Seiberg, N., “From linear SUSY to constrained super-fields,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (2009) 066, 0907.2441.Google Scholar

Ferrara, S., Kallosh, R., and Van Proeyen, A., “On the supersymmetric completion of R + R² gravity and cosmology,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (2013) 134, 1309.4052.Google Scholar

Antoniadis, I., Dudas, E., Ferrara, S., and Sagnotti, A., “The Volkov–Akulov– Starobinsky supergravity,” Physics Letters B733 (2014) 32–35, 1403.3269.Google Scholar

Bergshoeff, E. A., Freedman, D. Z., Kallosh, R., and Van Proeyen, A., “Pure de Sitter Supergravity,” Physical Review D92 (2015), no. 8, 085040, 1507.08264.Google Scholar

Hasegawa, F. and Yamada, Y., “Component action of nilpotent multiplet coupled to matter in 4 dimensional N = 1 supergravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2015) 106, 1507.08619.Google Scholar

Craps, B., Roose, F., Troost, W., and Van Proeyen, A., “What is special Kähler geometry?,” Nuclear Physics B503 (1997) 565–613, hep-th/9703082.Google Scholar

Andrianopoli, L., Bertolini, M., Ceresole, A., D’Auria, R., Ferrara, S., Fré, P., and Magri, T., “N = 2 supergravity and N = 2 super-Yang–Mills theory on general scalar manifolds: symplectic covariance, gaugings and the momentum map,” Journal of Geometry and Physics 23 (1997) 111–189, hep-th/ 9605032.Google Scholar

Freed, D. S., “Special Kähler manifolds,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 203 (May 1999) 3152.Google Scholar

Dall’Agata, G., D’Auria, R., Sommovigo, L., and Vaulà, S., “D = 4, N = 2 gauged supergravity in the presence of tensor multiplets,” Nuclear Physics B682 (2004) 243–264, hep-th/0312210.Google Scholar

de Wit, B., Samtleben, H., and Trigiante, M., “On Lagrangians and gaugings of maximal supergravities,” Nuclear Physics B655 (2003) 93–126, hep-th/0212239.Google Scholar

de Wit, B., Samtleben, H., and Trigiante, M., “Magnetic charges in local field theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (2005) 016, hep-th/0507289.Google Scholar

Samtleben, H., “Lectures on gauged supergravity and flux compactifications,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 25 (2008) 214002, 0808.4076.Google Scholar

Trigiante, M., “Gauged supergravities,” Physics Reports 680 (2017) 1–175, 1609.09745.Google Scholar

Louis, J., Smyth, P., and Triendl, H., “Spontaneous N = 2 to N = 2 supersymmetry breaking in supergravity and type II string theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 02 (2010) 103, 0911.5077.Google Scholar

Cecotti, S., Girardello, L., and Porrati, M., “Two into one won’t go,” Physics Letters 145B (1984) 61–64.Google Scholar

Cassani, D. and Bilal, A., “Effective actions and N = 1 vacuum conditions from SU(3) × SU(3) compactifications,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (2007) 076, 0707.3125.Google Scholar

Stephani, H., Kramer, D., MacCallum, M., Hoenselaers, C., and Herlt, E., Exact Solutions of Einsteins Field Equations. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gillard, J., Gran, U., and Papadopoulos, G., “The spinorial geometry of supersymmetric backgrounds,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 (2005) 1033– 1076, hep-th/0410155.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., and Papadopoulos, G., “Classification, geometry and applications of supersymmetric backgrounds,” Physics Reports 794 (2019) 1–87, 1808.07879.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. and Hull, C., “A Bogomolny bound for general relativity and solitons in N = 2 supergravity,” Physics Letters B109 (1982) 190.Google Scholar

Tod, K., “All metrics admitting supercovariantly constant spinors,” Physics Letters B121 (1983) 241–244.Google Scholar

Caldarelli, M. M. and Klemm, D., “Supersymmetry of anti-de Sitter black holes,” Nuclear Physics B545 (1999) 434–460, hep-th/9808097.Google Scholar

Cacciatori, S. L., Klemm, D., Mansi, D. S., and Zorzan, E., “All timelike supersymmetric solutions of N = 2, D = 4 gauged supergravity coupled to abelian vector multiplets,” Journal of High Energy Physics 0805 (2008) 097, 0804.0009.Google Scholar

Meessen, P. and Ortín, T., “Supersymmetric solutions to gauged N = 2 d = 4 sugra: the full timelike shebang,” Nuclear Physics B863 (2012) 65–89, 1204.0493.Google Scholar

Rosa, D. and Tomasiello, A., “Pure spinor equations to lift gauged supergravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1401 (2014) 176, 1305.5255.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., and Papadopoulos, G., “Geometry of all supersymmetric four-dimensional N = 1 supergravity backgrounds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 06 (2008) 102, 0802.1779.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Gutowski, J. B., Hull, C. M., Pakis, S., and Reall, H. S., “All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in five dimensions,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (2003) 4587–4634, hep-th/0209114.Google Scholar

Gutowski, J. B., Martelli, D., and Reall, H. S., “All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in six dimensions,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (2003) 5049–5078, hep-th/0306235.Google Scholar

Figueroa-O’Farrill, J. M. and Papadopoulos, G., “Maximally supersymmetric solutions of ten-dimensional and eleven-dimensional supergravities,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2003) 048, hep-th/0211089.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., Papadopoulos, G., and Roest, D., “N = 31 is not IIB,” Journal of High Energy Physics 02 (2007) 044, hep-th/0606049.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., Papadopoulos, G., and Roest, D., “N=31, D=11,” Journal of High Energy Physics 02 (2007) 043, hep-th/0610331.Google Scholar

Bandos, I. A., de Azcarraga, J. A., and Varela, O., “On the absence of BPS preonic solutions in IIA and IIB supergravities,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (2006) 009, hep-th/0607060.Google Scholar

Figueroa-O’Farrill, J. and Hustler, N., “The homogeneity theorem for supergravity backgrounds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2012) 014, 1208.0553.Google Scholar

Gutowski, J. and Papadopoulos, G., “Index theory and dynamical symmetry enhancement of M-horizons,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2013) 088, 1303.0869.Google Scholar

Cecotti, S., Ferrara, S., and Girardello, L., “Geometry of type II superstrings and the moduli of superconformal field theories,” International Journal of Modern Physics A4 (1989) 2475.Google Scholar

Ferrara, S. and Sabharwal, S., “Quaternionic manifolds for type II superstring vacua of Calabi–Yau spaces,” Nuclear Physics B332 (1990) 317–332.Google Scholar

Bodner, M., Cadavid, A. C., and Ferrara, S., “(2, 2) vacuum configurations for type IIA superstrings: N = 2 supergravity Lagrangians and algebraic geometry,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 8 (1991) 789–808.Google Scholar

Louis, J. and Micu, A., “Type II theories compactified on Calabi–Yau threefolds in the presence of background fluxes,” Nuclear Physics B635 (2002) 395–431, hep-th/0202168.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “New issues in manifolds of SU(3) holonomy,” Nuclear Physics B268 (1986) 79.Google Scholar

Strominger, A., “Massless black holes and conifolds in string theory,” Nuclear Physics B451 (1995) 96–108, hep-th/9504090.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. and Strominger, A., “New vacua for type II string theory,” Physics Letters B388 (1996) 736–742, hep-th/9510227.Google Scholar

Chuang, W.-Y., Kachru, S., and Tomasiello, A., “Complex/symplectic mirrors,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 274 (2007) 775–794, hep-th/0510042.Google Scholar

Nemeschansky, D. and Sen, A., “Conformal invariance of supersymmetric σ models on Calabi–Yau manifolds,” Physics Letters B178 (1986) 365–369.Google Scholar

Lerche, W., Vafa, C., and Warner, N. P., “Chiral rings in N = 2 superconformal theories,” Nuclear Physics B324 (1989) 427–474.Google Scholar

Vafa, C. and Warner, N. P., “Catastrophes and the classification of conformal theories,” Physics Letters B218 (1989) 51–58.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “Phases of N = 2 theories in two dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B403 (1993) 159–222, hep-th/9301042.Google Scholar

Kapustin, A. and Tomasiello, A., “The general (2, 2) gauged sigma model with three-form flux,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (2007) 053, hep-th/0610210.Google Scholar

Gates, S. J., Grisaru, M. T., Rocek, M., and Siegel, W., “Superspace or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry,” Frontiers of Physics 58 (1983) 1–548, hep-th/0108200.Google Scholar

Dixon, L. J., “Some world sheet properties of superstring compactifications, on orbifolds and otherwise,” in Proceedings, Summer Workshop in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology: Superstrings, Unified Theories and Cosmology: Trieste, Italy, June 29–August 7, 1987. World Scientific, pp. 67–26, 1987.Google Scholar

Hori, K., Thomas, R., Katz, S., et al., Mirror Symmetry, vol. 1. American Mathematical Society, 2003.Google Scholar

Greene, B. R., “String theory on Calabi–Yau manifolds,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96), World Scientific, 1997. hep-th/9702155.Google Scholar

Greene, B. R. and Plesser, M., “Duality in Calabi–Yau moduli space,” Nuclear Physics B338 (1990) 15–37.Google Scholar

Candelas, P., De La Ossa, X. C., Green, P. S., and Parkes, L., “A pair of Calabi– Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,” Nuclear Physics B359 (1991) 21–74.Google Scholar

Morrison, D. R., “Picard–Fuchs equations and mirror maps for hypersurfaces,” hep-th/9111025. [AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics 9,185(1998)].Google Scholar

Harris, J., “Galois groups of enumerative problems,” Duke Mathematical Journal 46 (1979), no. 4, 685–724.Google Scholar

Givental, A. B., “Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants,” International Mathematics Research Notices 1996 (1996), no. 13, 613, alg-geom/9603021.Google Scholar

Lian, B. H., Liu, K., and Yau, S.-T., “Mirror principle I,” Asian Journal of Mathematics 1 (1997), no. 4, 729763.Google Scholar

Jockers, H., Kumar, V., Lapan, J. M., Morrison, D. R., and Romo, M., “Two-sphere partition functions and Gromov–Witten invariants,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 325 (2014) 1139–1170, 1208.6244.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D. and Teitelboim, C., “Neutralization of the cosmological constant by membrane creation,” Nuclear Physics B297 (1988) 787–836.Google Scholar

Michelson, J., “Compactifications of type IIB strings to four dimensions with nontrivial classical potential,” Nuclear Physics B495 (1997) 127–148, hep-th/9610151.Google Scholar

D’Auria, R., Ferrara, S., and Fre, P., “Special and quaternionic isometries: general couplings in N = 2 supergravity and the scalar potential,” Nuclear Physics B359 (1991) 705–740.Google Scholar

Martucci, L., Rosseel, J., Van den Bleeken, D., and Van Proeyen, A., “Dirac actions for D-branes on backgrounds with fluxes,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 (2005) 2745–2764, hep-th/0504041.Google Scholar

Papadopoulos, G. and Townsend, P. K., “Intersecting M-branes,” Physics Letters B380 (1996) 273–279, hep-th/9603087.Google Scholar

Tseytlin, A. A., “Harmonic superpositions of M-branes,” Nuclear Physics B475 (1996) 149–163, hep-th/9604035.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Kastor, D. A., and Traschen, J. H., “Overlapping branes in M theory,” Nuclear Physics B478 (1996) 544–560, hep-th/9604179.Google Scholar

Itzhaki, N., Tseytlin, A. A., and Yankielowicz, S., “Supergravity solutions for branes localized within branes,” Physics Letters B432 (1998) 298–304, hep-th/9803103.Google Scholar

Youm, D., “Partially localized intersecting BPS branes,” Nuclear Physics B556 (1999) 222–246, hep-th/9902208.Google Scholar

Imamura, Y., “1/4 BPS solutions in massive IIA supergravity,” Progress of Theoretical Physics 106 (2001) 653–670, hep-th/0105263.Google Scholar

Behrndt, K., Bergshoeff, E., and Janssen, B., “Intersecting D-branes in ten dimensions and six dimensions,” Physical Review D55 (1997) 3785–3792, hep-th/9604168.Google Scholar

Janssen, B., Meessen, P., and Ortín, T., “The D8-brane tied up: string and brane solutions in massive type IIA supergravity,” Physics Letters B453 (1999) 229– 236, hep-th/9901078.Google Scholar

Bershadsky, M., Vafa, C., and Sadov, V., “D-branes and topological field theories,” Nuclear Physics B463 (1996) 420–434, hep-th/9511222.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “Topological quantum field theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 117 (1988) 353.Google Scholar

Festuccia, G. and Seiberg, N., “Rigid supersymmetric theories in curved superspace,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1106 (2011) 114, 1105.0689.Google Scholar

Dumitrescu, T. T., Festuccia, G., and Seiberg, N., “Exploring curved super-space,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1208 (2012) 141, 1205.1115.Google Scholar

Klare, C., Tomasiello, A., and Zaffaroni, A., “Supersymmetry on curved spaces and holography,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1208 (2012) 061, 1205.1062.Google Scholar

Cassani, D., Klare, C., Martelli, D., Tomasiello, A., and Zaffaroni, A., “Supersymmetry in Lorentzian curved spaces and holography,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 327 (2014) 577–602, 1207.2181.Google Scholar

Triendl, H., “Supersymmetric branes on curved spaces and fluxes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 11 (2015) 025, 1509.02926.Google Scholar

McLean, R. C., “Deformations of calibrated submanifolds,” Communications in Analysis and Geometry 6 (1998), no. 4, 705–747.Google Scholar

Mariño, M., Minasian, R., Moore, G. W., and Strominger, A., “Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric “p”-branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 01 (2000) 005, hep-th/9911206.Google Scholar

Witten, E., “BPS bound states of D0–D6 and D0–D8 systems in a b field,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (April 2002) 012012.Google Scholar

Harvey, J. A. and Moore, G. W., “On the algebras of BPS states,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 197 (1998) 489–519, hep-th/9609017.Google Scholar

Hitchin, N. J., “The self-duality equations on a Riemann surface,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 3 (1987), no. 1, 59–126.Google Scholar

Douglas, M. R., Fiol, B., and Romelsberger, C., “Stability and BPS branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 09 (2005) 006, hep-th/0002037.Google Scholar

Douglas, M. R., “D-branes, categories and N = 1 supersymmetry,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 42 (2001) 2818–2843, hep-th/0011017.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S. and Douglas, M. R., “D-brane stability and monodromy,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2002) 031, hep-th/0110071.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S., “D-branes on Calabi–Yau manifolds,” in Progress in String Theory. Proceedings, Summer School, TASI 2003, Boulder, USA, June 2–27, 2003, pp. 1–152, World Scientific, 2004. hep-th/0403166.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P., Bridgeland, T., Craw, A., et al., Dirichlet Branes and Mirror Symmetry, vol. 4. American Mathematical Society, 2009.Google Scholar

Witten, E. and Olive, D. I., “Supersymmetry algebras that include topological charges,” Physics Letters 78B (1978) 97–101.Google Scholar

Cheung, Y.-K. E. and Yin, Z., “Anomalies, branes, and currents,” Nuclear Physics B517 (1998) 69–91, hep-th/9710206.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Harvey, J. A., and Moore, G. W., “I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on D-branes,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 14 (1997) 47–52, hep-th/9605033.Google Scholar

Recknagel, A. and Schomerus, V., “D-branes in Gepner models,” Nuclear Physics B531 (1998) 185–225, hep-th/9712186.Google Scholar

Sharpe, E. R., “D-branes, derived categories, and Grothendieck groups,” Nuclear Physics B561 (1999) 433–450, hep-th/9902116.Google Scholar

King, A. D., “Moduli of representations of finite dimensional algebras,” Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 45 (1994), no. 4, 515–530.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S. and Lawrence, A. E., “Derived categories and zero-brane stability,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (2001) 004, hep-th/0104147.Google Scholar

Denef, F., “Supergravity flows and D-brane stability,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (2000) 050, hep-th/0005049.Google Scholar

Lawlor, G., “The angle criterion,” Inventiones mathematicae 95 (1989), no. 2, 437–446.Google Scholar

Joyce, D., “On counting special Lagrangian homology three spheres,” Contemporary Mathematics 314 (2002) 125–151, hep-th/9907013.Google Scholar

Fukaya, K., “Morse homotopy, A_∞ category and Floer homologies,” in Proceeding of GARC Workshop on Geometry and Topology, Seoul National University 1993.Google Scholar

Fukaya, K., Oh, Y.-G., Ohta, H., and Ono, K., Lagrangian Intersection Floer Theory: Anomaly and Obstruction, Part II, vol. 2. American Mathematical Society, 2010.Google Scholar

Berkooz, M., Douglas, M. R., and Leigh, R. G., “Branes intersecting at angles,” Nuclear Physics B480 (1996) 265–278, hep-th/9606139.Google Scholar

Kachru, S. and McGreevy, J., “Supersymmetric three cycles and supersymmetry breaking,” Physical Review D61 (2000) 026001, hep-th/9908135.Google Scholar

Strominger, A., Yau, S.-T., and Zaslow, E., “Mirror symmetry is T-duality,” Nuclear Physics B479 (1996) 243–259, hep-th/9606040.Google Scholar

Gross, M., “Topological mirror symmetry,” Inventiones mathematicae 144 (1999), no. 1, 75–137. math/9909015.Google Scholar

Morrison, D. R., “On the structure of supersymmetric T³ fibrations,” in Tropical Geometry and Mirror Symmetry, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 527, American Mathematical Society, 2010, pp. 91–112.Google Scholar

Strominger, A., “Superstrings with torsion,” Nuclear Physics B274 (1986) 253.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M., “Superstring compactifications with torsion and space-time super-symmetry,” in First Torino Meeting on Superunification and Extra Dimensions Turin, Italy, September 22–28, 1985, pp. 347–375. 1986.Google Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Martelli, D., and Waldram, D., “Superstrings with intrinsic torsion,” Physical Review D69 (2004) 086002, hep-th/0302158.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Duality and orbifolds,” Nuclear Physics B474 (1996) 361–378, hep-th/9604070.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Stable nonBPS bound states of BPS D-branes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (1998) 010, hep-th/9805019.Google Scholar

Goldstein, E. and Prokushkin, S., “Geometric model for complex non-Kaehler manifolds with SU(3) structure,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 251 (2004) 65–78, hep-th/0212307.Google Scholar

Fu, J.-X. and Yau, S.-T., “The theory of superstring with flux on non-Kaehler manifolds and the complex Mongempère equation,” Journal of Differential Geometry 78 (2009). 369–428 hep-th/0604063.Google Scholar

Becker, K., Becker, M., Fu, J.-X., Tseng, L.-S., and Yau, S.-T., “Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-Kaehler solutions in heterotic string theory,” Nuclear Physics B751 (2006) 108–128, hep-th/0604137.Google Scholar

Garcia-Fernandez, M., “T-dual solutions of the Hull–Strominger system on non-Kähler threefolds,” Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 766 (2020) 137–150.Google Scholar

Fino, A., Grantcharov, G., and Vezzoni, L., “Solutions to the Hull–Strominger system with torus symmetry,” 2019, 1901.10322.Google Scholar

Rocek, M., Schoutens, K., and Sevrin, A., “Off-shell WZW models in extended superspace,” Physics Letters B265 (1991) 303–306.Google Scholar

Gates, J., Hull, S. J., C. M., and Roček, M., “Twisted multiplets and new supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models,” Nuclear Physics B248 (1984) 157.Google Scholar

Rocek, M. and Verlinde, E. P., “Duality, quotients, and currents,” Nuclear Physics B373 (1992) 630–646, hep-th/9110053.Google Scholar

Buscher, T., Lindström, U., and Rocek, M., “New supersymmetric σ models with Wess–Zumino terms,” Physics Letters B202 (1988) 94–98.Google Scholar

Vafa, C., “Evidence for F-theory,” Nuclear Physics B469 (1996) 403–418, hep-th/9602022.Google Scholar

Morrison, D. R. and Vafa, C., “Compactifications of F theory on Calabi–Yau threefolds. 1,” Nuclear Physics B473 (1996) 74–92, hep-th/9602114.Google Scholar

Morrison, D. R. and Vafa, C., “Compactifications of F theory on Calabi–Yau threefolds. 2,” Nuclear Physics B476 (1996) 437–469, hep-th/9603161.Google Scholar

Weigand, T., “F-theory,” PoS TASI2017 (2018) 016, 1806.01854.Google Scholar

Greene, B. R., Shapere, A. D., Vafa, C., and Yau, S.-T., “Stringy cosmic strings and noncompact Calabi–Yau manifolds,” Nuclear Physics B337 (1990) 1–36.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “F-theory and orientifolds,” Nuclear Physics B475 (1996) 562–578, hep-th/9605150.Google Scholar

Sen, A., “Orientifold limit of F theory vacua,” Physical Review D55 (1997) R7345–R7349, hep-th/9702165.Google Scholar

Collinucci, A., Denef, F., and Esole, M., “D-brane deconstructions in IIB orientifolds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 02 (2009) 005, 0805.1573.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. and Silverstein, E., “Dual purpose landscaping tools: small extra dimensions in AdS/CFT,” in Strings, Gauge Fields, and the Geometry Behind: The Legacy of Maximilian Kreuzer, A. Rebhan, L. Katzarkov, J. Knapp, R. Rashkov, and E. Scheidegger, eds., pp. 365–390. 2009. 0908.0756.Google Scholar

Aharony, O., Fayyazuddin, A., and Maldacena, J. M., “The large N limit of N = 2, N = 1 field theories from three-branes in F theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (1998) 013, hep-th/9806159.Google Scholar

García-Etxebarría, I. and Regalado, D., “N = 3 four dimensional field theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics 03 (2016) 083, 1512.06434.Google Scholar

Haghighat, B., Murthy, S., Vafa, C., and Vandoren, S., “F-theory, spinning black holes and multi-string branches,” Journal of High Energy Physics 01 (2016) 009, 1509.00455.Google Scholar

Kodaira, K., “On compact analytic surfaces: II,” Annals of Mathematics (1963) 563–626.Google Scholar

Néron, A., “Modèles minimaux des variétés abéliennes sur les corps locaux et globaux,” Publications Mathématiques de l’Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques 21 (1964), no. 1, 5–125.Google Scholar

Barth, W., Peters, C., and Van de Ven, A., Compact Complex Surfaces, vol.2. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar

de Boer, J., Dijkgraaf, R., Hori, K., et al., “Triples, fluxes, and strings,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 4 (2002) 995–1186, hep-th/0103170.Google Scholar

Bhardwaj, L., Morrison, D. R., Tachikawa, Y., and Tomasiello, A., “The frozen phase of F-theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 08 (2018) 138, 1805.09070.Google Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R. and Zwiebach, B., “Exceptional groups from open strings,” Nuclear Physics B518 (1998) 151–172, hep-th/9709013.Google Scholar

Bershadsky, M., Intriligator, K. A., Kachru, S., Morrison, D. R., Sadov, V., and Vafa, C., “Geometric singularities and enhanced gauge symmetries,” Nuclear Physics B481 (1996) 215–252, hep-th/9605200.Google Scholar

Katz, S. H. and Vafa, C., “Matter from geometry,” Nuclear Physics B497 (1997) 146–154, hep-th/9606086.Google Scholar

Grassi, A. and Morrison, D. R., “Anomalies and the Euler characteristic of elliptic Calabi–Yau threefolds,” Communications in Number Theory and Physics 6 (2012) 51–127, 1109.0042.Google Scholar

Bertolini, M., Merkx, P. R., and Morrison, D. R., “On the global symmetries of 6D superconformal field theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (2016) 005, 1510.08056.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S. and Morrison, D. R., “Point-like instantons on K3 orbifolds,” Nuclear Physics B503 (1997) 533–564, hep-th/9705104.Google Scholar

Del Zotto, M., Heckman, J. J., Tomasiello, A., and Vafa, C., “6D conformal matter,” Journal of High Energy Physics 1502 (2015) 054, 1407.6359.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J., Morrison, D. R., and Vafa, C., “On the classification of 6D SCFTs and generalized ADE orbifolds,” Journal of High Energy Physics 05 (2014) 028, 1312.5746.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J., Morrison, D. R., Rudelius, T., and Vafa, C., “Atomic classification of 6D SCFTs,” Fortschritte der Physik 63 (2015) 468–530, 1502.05405.Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J. and Rudelius, T., “Top down approach to 6D SCFTs,” Journal of Physics A52 (2019), no. 9, 093001, 1805.06467.Google Scholar

Townsend, P. K., “String – membrane duality in seven dimensions,” Physics Letters B354 (1995) 247–255, hep-th/9504095.Google Scholar

Romans, L. J., “The F(4) gauged supergravity in six dimensions,” Nuclear Physics B269 (1986) 691.Google Scholar

D’Auria, R., Ferrara, S., and Vaula, S., “Matter coupled F(4) supergravity and the AdS₆/CFT₅ correspondence,” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2000) 013, hep-th/0006107.Google Scholar

Becker, K. and Becker, M., “M-theory on eight-manifolds,” Nuclear Physics B477 (1996) 155–167, hep-th/9605053.Google Scholar