MPP-2017-2

Higher derivatives in Type II and M-theory
on Calabi-Yau threefolds
Thomas W. Grimm 1,2 , Kilian Mayer 1 and Matthias Weissenbacher 3
1

Institute for Theoretical Physics andCenter for Extreme Matter and Emergent Phenomena,
Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands
2

Max-Planck-Institut für Physik,Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany
3

Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo,
Kashiwa-no-ha 5-1-5, 277-8583, Japan
Abstract

The four- and five-dimensional effective actions of Calabi-Yau threefold compactifications are derived with a focus on terms involving up to four space-time derivatives. The
starting points for these reductions are the ten- and eleven-dimensional supergravity actions supplemented with the known eight-derivative corrections that have been inferredfrom Type II string amplitudes. The corrected background solutions are determined
and the fluctuations of the Kähler structure of the compact space and the form-fieldbackground are discussed. It is concluded that the two-derivative effective actions forthese fluctuations only takes the expected supergravity form if certain additional ten- andeleven-dimensional higher-derivative terms for the form-fields are included. The main results on the four-derivative terms include a detailed treatment of higher-derivative gravity
coupled to Kähler structure deformations. This is supplemented by a derivation of thevector sector in reductions to five dimensions. While the general result is only given as
an expansion in the fluctuations, a complete treatment of the one-Kähler modulus caseis presented for both Type II theories and M-theory.
February, 2017t.w.grimm@uu.nl k.mayer@uu.nl matthias.weissenbacher@ipmu.jp

Contents
1 Introduction and Summary

2

2 Higher derivatives and circle reduction

5

2.1

Ten-dimensional Type IIA supergravity action at eight derivatives . . . .

5

2.2

Corrected Y3 background solution at order α03 in Type IIA . . . . . . . .

7

2.3

Eleven-dimensional supergravity action at eight derivatives . . . . . . . .

9

2.4

Corrected Y3 background solution at order `6M in M-theory . . . . . . . .

10

2.5

Comments on M-theory - Type IIA duality on Calabi-Yau backgrounds ateight derivative level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

3 M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds

14

3.1

N = 2 supergravity in five dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

3.2

The two derivative effective action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.3

Four derivative terms of the Kähler moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

3.4

Four derivative terms of the five-dimensional vectors . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

4 Type IIA supergravity on Calabi-Yau threefolds

24

4.1

The two derivative effective action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.2

Four derivative terms of the Kähler moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

4.3

Type IIB supergravity on Calabi-Yau threefolds at four-derivatives . . . .

29

5 Threefold reduction up to four derivatives - the one modulus case

31

5.1

M-theory one modulus reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

5.2

Type IIA one modulus reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

5.3

Type IIB one modulus reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

5.4

Comments on the N = 1 orientifold truncation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

A Definitions and conventions

40

B Eight derivative terms in ten and eleven dimensions

42

B.1 Eight derivative terms in ten dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

B.2 Eight derivative terms in eleven dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

1

1

Introduction and Summary

Compactifications of Type II string theories and M-theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds areinteresting from various interrelated perspectives reaching from phenomenologically motivated model building to purely mathematical studies of quantum geometry. In particular, reductions on Calabi-Yau threefolds have been studied over several decades leading to intriguing discoveries such as mirror symmetry. Compactifications of Type IIA
and Type IIB string theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds result in four-dimensional effective
theories that admit N = 2 supersymmetry [1], or sixteen preserved four-dimensional
supercharges. Similarly the compactifications of M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds leadto five-dimensional supersymmetric theories that preserve sixteen supercharges or fivedimensional N = 2. Four-dimensional N = 1 supersymmetric effective theories are
obtained from Calabi-Yau threefold compactifications including D-branes and orientifold
planes [3, 4]. So far, however, the effective actions arising in Calabi-Yau threefold compactifications are only fully understood at the two-derivative level. In this work we aim to
go beyond this and systematically include terms up to four derivatives into the effective
action.
Our starting point for the compactifications are the ten- or eleven-dimensional low
energy effective action of of Type II string theory or M-theory. At the two derivative
level these are the well-known ten-dimensional Type IIA and Type IIB supergravity
actions with N = 2 supersymmetry, and the unique eleven-dimensional supergravity
theory with N = 1 supersymmetry. The Type II supergravity actions are modified by
two types of stringy. First, there are α0 -corrections imprinted in higher derivative terms.
Second, the worldsheet genus expansion in gs leading to higher dimensional operatorsin the effective theory depending on higher orders of the dilaton. Using perturbative
string theory these corrections can be computed by explicitly evaluation string scattering
amplitudes. While this can be notoriously difficult, various corrections are known in theliterature. For example, it is well established that the R4 -terms in Type II theories atorder α03 are the complete set of purely gravitational eight-derivative terms [5,33,10,8,9].
Additionally, there are higher derivative terms in ten dimensions involving the NS-NS
two-form B2 [7, 14]. It was conjectured in [14] that the B2 completion of the R4 -terms
can almost be completely captured by introducing a connection with torsion, where
H3 = dB2 acquires the role of the torsion. A strategy to extract corrections to theeleven-dimensional supergravity action is to up-lift the Type IIA corrections computed
by string amplitudes. From the known Type IIA terms one can thus infer R4 -terms [11,13]
and terms involving the M-theory three-form C3 . It is eminent that the only expansion
parameter in eleven dimensions is the eleven-dimensional Planck length.
Obtaining effective actions in four and five dimensions taking into account higher
derivative corrections in ten or eleven dimensions is an important yet challenging task.
Since the first corrections at order α03 involve terms quartic in the Riemann tensor, thederivation of the effective couplings of the geometric moduli constitutes a computationallychallenging task. Furthermore, although the R4 -couplings in ten and eleven dimensions

2

are well established, less is known about the completion of the action at eight derivative
level for the full NS-NS and R-R sector. Important partial results can be found, for example, in [15, 16, 14, 17], but it is desirable to obtain a complete action via, for example,
supersymmetric completion or comparison with scattering amplitudes. Another important challenge is the construction of general higher derivative supergravity theories invarious dimensions independent of their string theory origins. While many standard formulations of supergravity at two derivatives are well established, there exist only partial
results beyond the two derivative truncation. In the considered string compactifications
a general higher derivative supergravity action would not only allow us to check consistency with the expected preserved supersymmetry, but also suggest a clear systematics
to determine physical couplings in terms of geometric data of the compactification space.
Higher derivative corrections in string theory and M-theory have led to interesting modifications of the low energy dynamics and phenomenological models obtainedin compactifications. In the following we will only give a very incomplete list of past
applications for which higher derivative corrections play a prominent role. It is wellknown that higher derivative corrections give rise to corrections of the Kähler potential of N = 2 compactifications involving characteristic classes of the compactification
Calabi-Yau threefold [19,18]. It was later argued in [20,21] that some of these corrections
survive the truncation to N = 1 supergravity in compactifications including fluxes andan orientifold projection. Although obtaining a general higher derivative theory in fivedimensions is not yet available, an off-shell completion of R2 -terms in five-dimensional
N = 2 supergravity and its on shell version for pure supergravity is known [22]. These
results were used to study the effect of higher derivative corrections on AdS black holes aswell as gauge theories using holographic anomaly matching [23]. Four derivative N = 1
and N = 2 supergravity theories in four spacetime dimensions are still poorly understood. Recently, progress towards classifying four derivative superspace operators in thecontext of N = 1 supergravity was made in [24]. This interest arose from the observationthat higher derivative terms in Type IIB orientifolds might stabilze Kähler moduli [25].
Let us emphazise out that a first complete treatment of the kinetic terms for the Kähler
deformations originating from R4 -terms in eleven dimensions was presented in [26–28],
where M-theory was compactified to three dimensions on a Calabi-Yau fourfold.
Our goal in this work is to study various compactifications of M-theory and Type II
string theories on Calabi-Yau threefolds taking into account the known eight derivative
terms. We review the considered known and conjectured terms in the ten and elevendimensional action contributing at order α03 . This will allow us to solve the equations of
motion determining background solutions possessing a compact, six-dimensional manifold
which is topologically a Calabi-Yau threefold. We find that the modified solution in TypeIIA involves a non-trivial background of the dilaton given by the Euler density in six
dimensions on the lowest order Calabi-Yau geometry. Furthermore, the metric receives acorrection leading to a deviation from Ricci flatness, which, however, does not alter thecohomology class of the curvature two-form. We then briefly comment on the relation
between M-theory and Type IIA at order α03 and explain why adding a certain term in3

eleven dimensions is necessary.
The main part of this work is devoted to a detailed discussion of the dimensional reduction of M-theory and Type II on Y3 including infinitesimal deformations of the Kähler
structure. In the M-theory reduction we also present results on the five-dimensional
two- and four-derivative effective action also including vectors arsing from the M-theory
three-form, while in Type II theories we comment on including the dilaton and modes
from the NS-NS two-from. We first derive the five-dimensional two-derivative effective
action and show that eleven-dimensional eight-derivative terms only lead to a modification of the scalar field corresponding to the overall classical volume of Y3 in accordancewith [12]. Furthermore, we then derive the five-dimensional four-derivative terms originating from the eleven-dimensional eight-derivative terms. Increasing computational
complexity forces us to restrict to terms quadratic in the fluctuation. The main couplings at four-derivative level are found to be divisor integrals of the second Chern class(0)of Y3 and two new tensorial structures Zi̄kl̄ , Xai̄, see (3.27) and (3.40), involving one
and two Riemann tensors on Y3 . However, the physical significance of the latter two
remains unclear, since there might exist a field redefinition ambiguity in the description of higher derivative theories. We also preform the dimensional reduction of TypeII ten-dimensional effective actions with a focus the deformations of the Kähler structure and scalars ba arising from the zero mode expansion of the NS-NS two-form. The
two-derivative four-dimensional effective action for the Kähler structure deformations
contains the well known shift with the Euler characteristic of Y3 [?]. In Type IIA reductions we then use the fact that the Kähler structure deformations and the scalars
from the NS-NS two-form combine into the complexified Kähler moduli in N = 2 vector
multiplets. In order to obtain their kinetic terms from a N = 2 prepotential [19], we
find that a string tree-level structure for the kinetic terms of the scalars ba is missing.
This forces us to add a minimal novel set of H3 -terms in ten dimensions. In other words,
we use four-dimensional supersymmetry constraints to suggest missing higher-derivative
terms in the ten-dimensional action.
In the last part of this work we exploit the fact that for the case of one modulus
u all computations can be performed exactly. We derive all four derivative couplings
stemming from the R4 -terms in M-theory and both Type II theories. Furthermore, we
discuss the possibility of higher derivative field redefinitions. This allows us to show that
there exists a field basis in which the four derivative effective actions can be chosen to
only consist of the Gauss-Bonnet term and a four derivative interaction (∂u)4 . We alsocomment on the orientifold truncation of this N = 2 result to a minimal supersymmetricsetting in four dimensions. After truncation we aim to make contact to the proposalof [25] to stabilize moduli using higher derivative terms. Our reduction clarifies the
structure of the terms (∂u)4 , but we point out some caveats in reading off the coefficient
functions. Unfortunately, our findings cannot settle the phenomenological relevance of
higher derivative terms for moduli stabilization and a direct derivation of the scalarpotential remains crucial.

42Higher derivatives and circle reduction

The purpose of this section is to collect and state the bosonic actions of N = 1 supergravity in eleven and the N = (1, 1) Type IIA supergravity action in ten dimensions including
known and conjectured eight derivative corrections stemming from the α0 expansion of
the sigma-model worldsheet action of the underlying string theory. Note that due tothe lack of a microscopic formulation of M-theory, all known corrections are indirectly
obtained by lifting ten-dimensional correction of Type IIA to eleven dimensions. At theclassical level, i.e. at lowest order in α0 , this duality is simply given by a circle reduction.
Once higher derivative terms are taken into account it has to be refined and corrected.
This correction turns out to be crucial as we will argue in the following and is indeed
necessary for compatibility with supersymmetry in lower dimensions.
The specific types of higher derivative terms we consider are the well known eight
derivative terms quartic in the Riemann tensor [7–13] and a set of terms conjecturedin [14, 29] quadratic in the NS-NS three-form field strength on the Type IIA side, whichlift to eight derivative terms of the four-form field strength in the M-theory picture.
In this section we first collect the various pieces contributing to the actions in ten
and eleven dimensions. We explain which terms are well established and which ones
are conjectured. In the following we argue, that a certain term in the action has to be
added in eleven dimensions to take into account the deviation of the dilaton from being
constant in the backgrounds we are considering. Thus, the additional term can be seen
as a necessity to account for the absence of the dilaton in M-theory.

2.1

Ten-dimensional Type IIA supergravity action at eight derivatives

In the following we will use a tilde to denote a field or operator in ten dimensions andcapital letters at the beginning of the alphabet for tensor indices in ten dimensions.
The bosonic field content of ten-dimensional Type IIA supergravity is given by the tendimensional metric g̃AB , the dilaton in ten dimensions φ̃ and the two-form B̃2 all of which
descend as massless modes from the NS-NS sector of the RNS superstring. Those terms
are augmented by further fields from the R-R sector which however do not play a role in
the following. We will therefore restrict ourselves completely to the NS-NS fields.
The part of the N = (1, 1) low energy effective action of the Type IIA superstring weare considering takes the schematic form
loop
class
SIIA = SIIA
+ αSR̃tree+ αSH̃ 2 ,4 + αS 4
R̃(2.1)

where we already introduced the expansion parameter
α=

α03
.
3 · 2115(2.2)

The classical action at lowest order in the parameter α has for the NS-NS fields the form
Z


1
class
2
e−2φ̃ R̃ ∗˜ 1 + 4dφ̃ ∧ ∗˜ dφ̃ − H̃3 ∧ ∗˜ H̃3 ,2κ10 SIIA =
(2.3)
2
M10
where M10 is the spacetime manifold, R̃ is the Ricci scalar in ten spacetime dimensionsand H̃3 = dB̃2 is the field strength of the NS-NS two-form. The gravitational couplingin ten dimensions, denoted by κ10 is related to the slope parameter α0 by the relation
2κ210 = (2π)7 α04 .

(2.4)

At eight derivatives the action gets supplemented by additional terms quartic in the
Riemann tensor at both tree-level and one-loop in the string coupling gs . Those piecesof the action take the schematic form [30]
Z


1
2
tree
e−2φ̃ t̃8 t̃8 + 10 10 R̃4 ∗˜ 1 ,2κ10 SR̃4 = ζ(3)
(2.5)
8
M10
Z


1
π2
loop
2
2κ10 SR̃4 =t̃8 t̃8 − 10 10 R̃4 ∗˜ 1.
(2.6)
3 M10
8
For the detailed form of these terms and the definition of the tensor t8 in ten and elevendimensions we refer the reader to appendix B. Note that the relative sign flip of the oneloop contribution compared to the tree-level piece is characteristic for Type IIA and does
not appear in Type IIB. Additionally, there is an an eight derivative coupling involving
the NS-NS two-form B̃2 and four Riemann tensors, which will however not play a role in
the Type IIA discussion. Its M-theory counterpart will be taken into account when thefour derivative couplings in five dimensions are computed.
It is furthermore conjectured in [14], that the completion of the eight derivative termswith respect to the NS-NS two-form is almost completely captured by introducing aconnection with torsion. The claim is then, that higher derivative terms involving B̃2 canbe obtained from the R̃4 terms by computing the latter with respect to the aforementioned
torsionful connection. We will not collect all the structures emerging from this procedurebut outline the strategy how to get the eight derivative terms we need for our discussion.
Both the tree-level and one-loop contributions to the R̃4 action can be expressed interms of the two ’superinvariants’


1
(2.7)
J0 = t̃8 t̃8 + 10 10 R̃4 ,8
1
J1 = t̃8 t̃8 R̃4 − t̃8 10 B̃2 R̃4(2.8)
4
such that the R̃4 -terms readZ

2κ210 SR̃tree
4 = ζ(3)π2κ210 SR̃loop=4e−2φ̃ J0 ∗˜1(2.9)(2J1 − J0 ) ∗˜ 1.

(2.10)

M10

2 Z

3

M10

6

The last term in (2.8) corresponds to the eight derivative coupling involving B̃2 which we
do not consider in the Type IIA context and is therefore also ignored in (2.10). The B̃2field completion at eight derivatives is according to [14] then given by the replacements
J0 → J0 (Ω+ ) + ∆J0 (Ω+ , H̃3 ) =11= t̃8 t̃8 + 10 10 R̃4 (Ω+ ) + 10 10 H̃32 R̃3 (Ω+ )
8
3


1
J1 → J1 (Ω+ ) = t̃8 t̃8 R̃4 (Ω+ ) − 10 t̃8 B̃2 R̃4 (Ω+ ) + R̃4 (Ω− ) ,8(2.11)(2.12)

where the Riemann tensor with respect to the connection with torsion Ω± is given incomponents by
R̃(Ω± )A1 A2

B1 B2

˜ [A H̃3A ] B1 B2 + 1 H̃3[A B1 B3 H̃3A ]B B2 .
= R̃A1 A2 B1 B2 ± ∇
1
2
1
2
3
2

(2.13)For the detailed structure of the coupling 10 10 H̃32 R̃3 we again refer the reader to appendix B. The terms generated by this replacement up to quadratic order in the NS-NS
three-form field strength are denoted by SH̃ 2 in (2.1).
However, as we will explain in section 4, the replacements (2.11) and (2.12) are notconsistent with the correction to the four dimensional prepotential. We therefore propose
a corrected replacement given by
J0 → J0 (Ω+ ) + ∆J0 (Ω+ , H̃3 ) + δJ
1
J1 → J1 (Ω+ ) + δJ ,
where
2
Z
δJ = −2t̃8 t̃8 H̃32 R̃3 ∗˜ 1

(2.14)

M10

and the explicit index expression of (2.14) is given byt̃8 t̃8 H̃32 R̃3 = t̃8A1 ···A2 t̃8 B1 ···B8 H̃3 A1 A2 C H̃3B1 B2 C R̃B3 B4A3 A4 · · · R̃B7 B8A7 A8 .

(2.15)

Notice, that the structure of the modified replacement (2.14) is such that the tree-levelterms get modified, whereas the one-loop terms remain untouched. Furthermore, notethat the index contraction of (2.15) is such that it cannot be obtained via the metricreplacement (2.13) applied to the R4 -terms.

2.2

Corrected Y3 background solution at order α03 in Type IIA

In the classical, i.e. lowest order in α0 case, a solution of the equations of motion with acomplex three-dimensional compact internal space preserving N = 2 supersymmetry issimply given by a product manifold M10 = M1,3 × Y3 , a constant dilaton and no fluxes.
Here M1,3 is four-dimensional Minkowski space and Y3 is a Calabi-Yau manifold. Due to7the eight derivative couplings at order α03 we need to look for corrected solutions to thecorrected equations of motion which reduce to the classical Y3 solution at lowest order inthe expansion parameter α introduced in (2.2). We therefore take
 m n
(1)
(0)
dy dy
(2.16)+ αgmnhds̃2 i = ηµν dxµ dxν + gmn
hφ̃i = φ0 + αhφ(1) (y)ihH̃3 i = 0
as our ansatz for solving the corrected equations of motion. In the ansatz (2.16) ηµν(0)is the lowest order Calabi-Yau metricdenotes the four-dimensional Minkowski metric, gmn
and φ0 is a constant. The goal is now to fix the correction to the dilaton hφ(1) i as well
(1)
. Note that in this section we work entirely with realas the correction to the metric gmn
indices m, n = 1, ..., 6.
Varying the corrected action (2.1) with respect to the fields and evaluating the resulting equations of motion on the ansatz (2.16) yields the following equations:• external Einstein equation.
0 = g (0)

mn

(0) n
R(1) mn + 4∇(0)hφ(1) (y)in ∇(2.17)• internal Einstein equations.
1 (0) (0) kl (1)
(1)
(0)
(0) k
(0)
(1)
0 = Rmn− gmn
g
R kl − 2gmn∇(0)hφ(1) (y)i + 2∇(0)(2.18)
m ∇n hφ (y)i
k ∇
2


π2
r
s
(0) (0)(0)+ 768 (2π)3 ζ(3) + e2φ0 J (0)m J (0)n ∇(0)r ∇s (∗6 c3 ) .
3
(0)
(1)
In (2.17) and (2.18) we have employed the definition Rmn (g (0) + αg (1) ) ≡ Rmn+ αRmnand furthermore used the complex structure J (0)mn , the Hodge star ∗(0)
6 and the third(0)
Chern class c3 all of which are evaluated on the zeroth order Calabi-Yau background.
The equation of motion for the NS-NS two-form is trivially satisfied and the equation of
motion of the dilaton coincides with the external Einstein equation in the string frame.
Compatibility of the external and internal Einstein equation is achieved by taking thetrace of the internal Einstein equation and comparing it to the external Einstein equation,
which in turn fixes the correction of the dilaton toπ 2 2φ0  (0) (0)(1)
3∗ 6 c3 .
(2.19)hφ (y)i = 384 (2π) ζ(3) + e
3Plugging (2.19) again into the internal Einstein equation results in (0) (0)π 2 2φ0  (0) (0)rs(0)∇m ∇n + J (0)m J (0)n ∇(0)
∗ 6 c3 .
(2.20)
R mn = −768 (2π) ζ(3) + e
r ∇s
3
(0)
Going to complex indices in (2.20) shows that Ri̄(1) ∼ ∂i ∂¯̄ (∗(0)
6 c3 ) which in turn has
a solution g (1) ∼ ∂i ∂¯̄ f (y) for some specific function f which depends on the compact
3

(1)



i̄

8

manifold and serves of as a Kähler potential. The holomorphic and antiholomorphic
indices can take the values i = 1, 2, 3 and ̄ = 1̄, 2̄, 3̄. The precise form of f can becomputed explicitly, which we will only do for the case of M-theory in section 2.4 since
the procedure is the same and the precise form of f is of no physical importance, as themetric correction turns out to completely decouple from low energy dynamics.

2.3

Eleven-dimensional supergravity action at eight derivatives

The higher derivative corrections obtained for the Type IIA superstring can then be liftedto eleven dimensions by moving to the strong coupling limit which corresponds to Mtheory. Regarding notation we will use hats to indicate that a certain object is definedin eleven dimensions and eleven-dimensional indices M, N, ... from the middle of thealphabet. The lowest order action we are considering is the action of eleven-dimensional
N = 1 supergravity which was first constructed in [31]. Its bosonic part is given by
Z
1
1
1
class
SM = 2R̂ ∗ˆ 1 − Ĝ4 ∧ ∗ˆ Ĝ4 − Ĉ3 ∧ Ĝ4 ∧ Ĝ4 .
(2.21)
2κ11 M112
6
The dynamical degrees of freedom are the eleven-dimensional metric ĝM N and the Mtheory three-form Ĉ3 with its field strength Ĝ4 = dĈ3 . We introduce similarly to theType IIA action the expansion parameterα̂ =(4πκ211 )2/3,
(2π)4 32 213(2.22)

where κ11 is related to the eleven-dimensional Planck length `M as κ211 = 12 (2π)8 `9M suchthat α̂ ∝ `6M . The eight derivative action of M-theory up to terms quadratic in Ĝ4 takes
the following schematic form [14]class
SM = SM+ α̂SR̂4 + α̂SĈ X̂8 + α̂SĜ2 R̂3 + α̂S(∇ˆ Ĝ)2 R̂2 .

(2.23)Let us proceed by stating the pieces contributing to the eight derivative action (2.23).
The most prominent part is the well known R̂4 combination which is
Z


1
1
SR̂4 = 2t̂8 t̂8 − 11 11 R̂4 ∗ˆ 1
(2.24)
2κ11 M1124
and gets supplemented by an R̂4 coupling to the M-theory three-form Ĉ3 via an eight-form
curvature polynomial X̂8 , namelyZ
32 213SĈ X̂8 = − 2Ĉ3 ∧ X̂8 .
(2.25)
2κ11 M11
The sector involving the four-form field strength Ĝ4 is obtained by lifting the conjectured
terms, which we recalled in section 2.1, to eleven dimensions [14]. The terms we are9considering are the ones quadratic in Ĝ4 and their corresponding actions in (2.23) are
Z


1
1
SĜ2 R̂3 = − 2t̂8 t̂8 + 11 11 Ĝ24 R̂3 ∗ˆ 1,(2.26)
2κ11 M1196
Z
1
ˆ Ĝ4 )2 R̂2 ∗ˆ 1 .
(2.27)ŝ18 (∇
S(∇ˆ Ĝ)2 R̂2 = 2
2κ11 M11
For the detailed structure of all the terms in (2.23) we once again refer the reader toappendix B. Note however that the new tensorial structure ŝ18 is not fully known but
contains six unfixed coefficients ai [32, 33]. The reason for this ambiguity is that theanalysis carried out in [32] is sensitive only to terms which do not vanish at the level ofthe four point function. There are however six independent combinations of contractions
which require a five point function analysis to fix their corresponding coefficient in theeffective action.
We will however argue in section 2.5 that we need to add another term to the effective
action in eleven dimensions to ensure M-theory - Type IIA duality for the backgrounds
we are considering.

2.4

Corrected Y3 background solution at order `6M in M-theory

We now apply a similar strategy as in section 2.2 for the case of Type IIA and determine
a background solution of M-theory at eight derivatives. This solution should again havethe property that it reduces to the classical direct product solution of five-dimensional= M1,4 × Y3 as α̂ → 0
Minkowski spacetime and a compact Calabi-Yau threefold Mclass11
considered in [2]. This problem was already solved in the case of a three-dimensional
Minkowski spacetime and a complex four-dimensional compact internal space, which is
at lowest order a Calabi-Yau fourfold [26, 34], a Spin(7) holonomy manifold [35] or aninternal manifold with G2 holonomy [36].
The ansatz for the fourfold solution in [26] involves a warp factor, fluxes and an
overall Weyl rescaling. The necessity for warping and fluxes can be traced back to thefact, that the eight-form curvature polynomial X̂8 does not vanish on the internal CalabiYau manifold and one therefore has to take into account fluxes in order to ensure, that
the Ĉ3 equation of motion is satisfied. In our case the situation is different, since theeight-form X̂8 trivially vanishes on the Calabi-Yau threefold Y3 . Thus the modified ansatz
for the background solution can be taken to have the following form

(1) m
(0)
(1)
hdŝ2 i = eα̂hΦ (y )i ηµν dxµ dxν + (gmn
+ α̂gmn) dy m dy n ,(2.28)hĜ4 i = 0.
The variation of the quantum corrected action (2.23) then gives rise to the following(1)
conditions on the corrections hΦ(1) (y m )i and gmn(y m ):

10• external Einstein equation.
(1)
(0)
(1)
g (0)mn Rmn− 9g (0)mn ∇(0)m ∇n hΦ i = 0(2.29)• internal Einstein equation.
1 (0) (0)kl (1) 9
9 (0)
(1)
0 = Rmn− gmn
g Rkl − ∇m ∇n hΦ(1) i + gmn∇k ∇k hΦ(1) i222(2.30)(0)(0)l (0)kJn ∇l ∇k (∗(0)+ 768(2π)3 Jm
6 c3 ) .

In order to fix the global Weyl factor hΦ(1) i one again takes the trace over the internal(1))
Einstein equation and eliminates all expressions involving Rmn by making use of theexternal Einstein equation resulting inhΦ(1) i = −512(0)(2π)3 ∗(0)
6 c3 ,
3 (0) (0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(0)l (0)kRmn= −768(2π)3 ∇(0)
∗ 6 c3 .
m ∇n + Jm Jn ∇l ∇k(2.31)(2.32)

It is important to notice that the correction to the internal Ricci tensor is governed by
an expression which is twice a covariant derivative of the Hodge dual of the third Chern(0)
into a part which is constantclass. The strategy to solve this equation is to split ∗(0)
6 c3
on the internal space and therefore drops out of the equation of motion and a part which
varies non trivially over Y3 . To make this separation one uses the fact that the third† (0)Chern class satisfies dc(0)3 = 0 but d c3 6= 0 and can therefore be expanded as
(0)
¯
c(0)
3 = ΠH c3 + i∂ ∂ξ

(2.33)¯
by applying the ∂ ∂-Lemma,
where ΠH c(0) is the harmonic part of c(0)3 which is unique by
virtue of the Hodge decomposition theorem and ξ is a (2,2)-form satisfying ∂ † ξ = ∂¯† ξ = 0.
The unspecified (2,2)- form clearly parametrizes the non-harmonicity of the third Chernclass. Since ΠH c(0)3 is harmonic by definition and [∆d , ∗6 ] = 0 it follows immediately that(0)
the scalar function h(y m ) ≡ ∗(0)
6 ΠH c3 is constant on the compact Y3 and can therefore
be ignored in the equation of motion. Furthermore, using that on a Kähler manifold theLaplacian satisfies∆d = 2∆∂ = 2∆∂¯
(2.34)
one shows that

1 (0) (0) (0)¯i ∗(0)∗6 (J ∧ ξ) ,(2.35)
6 ∂ ∂ξ = − ∆2(0)kwhere J (0) is the Kähler form of Y3 and ∆(0) = ∇(0)is the Laplace - Beltrami operator.
k ∇Having determined the non-trivial part of the correction to the internal Ricci tensor theequation determining g (1) reads
 (0) (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)k
(1)
(0)
(0)k
(0)r (0)s+ Jm
Jn ∇(0)∗6 (J ∧ ξ) (2.36)
Rmn= 384(2π)3 ∇(0)m ∇n ∇k ∇r ∇s ∇k ∇11

whose solution can be checked to be(0)k (0)l(0)(1)
Jn ∇k ∇l + ∇m ∇n ∗(0)∧ ξ) .
gmn= −768(2π)3 Jm
6 (J(2.37)

We again observe in (2.37), that the correction to the metric is twice the derivative ofa scalar function. We once more want to stress, that one of the key ingredients for thederivation of consistent two-derivative effective actions from dimensional reduction is theinterplay between higher derivative corrections and the fully backreacted backgroundsolution, as we will see in section 3.

2.5

Comments on M-theory - Type IIA duality on Calabi-Yau
backgrounds at eight derivative level

In the following we will argue that we need to include another piece in the elevendimensional action in order to obtain after compactification an action in five dimensions
which is consistent with N = 2 supergravity. The reason for the necessity of such a termis the fact, that for the background solutions we are considering a non-trivial correctionof the ten-dimensional dilaton occurs, see (2.19). The additional part of the action thencompensates for the absence of the dilaton in eleven dimensions. For the discussion inthis section we will closely follow [36] and extend it by including the M-theory three-form.
The additional piece of the eight derivative action at order α̂ we need isZ∆SM = 256
Ẑ Ĝ4 ∧ ∗ˆ Ĝ4 ,(2.38)
M11

where Ẑ is the generalization of the six-dimensional Euler density to eleven dimensions
1
R̂M1 M2 M3 M4 R̂M3 M4 M5 M6 R̂M5 M6 M1 M2 − 2R̂M1M2 M3M4 R̂M2M5 M4M6 R̂M5M1 M6M2 .
12(2.39)
We will now argue that the corrected dilaton in ten dimensions can not be identified
with the overall Weyl factor (2.31) but requires the inclusion of (2.38). This indicatesthat the M-theory - Type IIA duality at eight derivatives has to be modified and thus
deviates from the simple S 1 reduction of the classical case. As we showed in section
2.4 the corrected background solution in M-theory requires a Weyl factor (2.31) whereas
the Type IIA equations of motion can be solved without the latter. We therefore moveto a frame in eleven dimensions which leads to the same Einstein equations for the
backgrounds we are considering. This is achieved by the redefinition
Ẑ =

512

ĝM N → e− 3 α̂Ẑ ĝM N ,(2.40)

such that the classical action picks up two additional terms from this field redefinition
Z
2
class
2
class
2κ11 SM → 2κ11 SM −768 α̂Ẑ R̂ ∗ˆ 1 − 128α̂ Ẑ Ĝ4 ∧ ∗ˆ Ĝ4 .
(2.41)
M11

12

It is now easy to check, that that the equations of motion for an ansatz involving fivedimensional Minkowski spacetime and a compact complex dimension three internal spacein this frame can be solved by a direct product
hdŝ2 i = ηµν dxµ dxν + 2 gi̄(0) + α̂gi̄(1) dzdz̄ ̄ ,(2.42)hĜ4 i = 0 ,(2.43)

where gi̄(1) is simply (2.37) in complex indices. The additional term in (2.41) represent
terms which become backreaction effects in the frame, where the Weyl factor has to
be included. The expectation is therefore, that with the choice M10 = M1,3 × Y3 thecircle reduction of (2.41) is equivalent to the classical Type IIA action up to a possible
field redefinition of the dilaton. This redefinition of the dilaton is expected, since thebackground solution of Type IIA includes a non-constant dilaton (2.19). Concretely, we
will consider an eleven-dimensional ansatz of the form2

4

dŝ2 = e− 3 φ̃ g̃AB dxA dxB + e 3 φ̃ dy 2 ,(2.44)

Ĝ4 = H̃3 ∧ dy ,(2.45)

with the circle coordinate y ∼ y + 1 and the ten-dimensional metric g̃AB given by (2.42)
with three-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. We will furthermore keep terms linear in
the dilaton, since those are not expected to occur at higher derivative level in the string
frame and should therefore be captured by a field redefinition. The reduced action (2.41)
including linear dilaton terms and the correction ∆SM then reads
Z


1
2
(10)
2κ11 S =e−2φ̃ R̃ ∗˜ 1 + 4dφ̃ ∧ ∗˜ dφ̃ − H̃3 ∧ ∗˜ H̃3(2.46)
2
M10Z
˜ φ̃ ∗˜ 1 − 128α̂ Z̃ H̃3 ∧ ∗˜ H̃3 + ∆SM . (2.47)−768α̂ Z̃ R̃ ∗˜ 1 + 3072α̂ Z̃ 
M10

We then notice that we can recover the classical Type IIA action if we perform a redefinition of the dilaton according to
φ → φ − 384α̂ Z̃

(2.48)and if we identify ∆SM with the expression (2.38). Consequently, the additional partof the eleven-dimensional action (2.38) captures a part of the effect which the correcteddilaton has on the low energy effective action. We stress that this analysis relies on the
background geometry stated in this section explicitly. It is therefore expected, that thegeneral analysis requires more complicated structures. However, the analysis of [36] forthe case, where the internal space is a G2 manifold, shows the same properties with thequantity Ẑ playing a major role. From now on we will consider the action (2.38) as apart of the full eleven-dimensional action (2.23).

13

3

M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds

We study the dimensional reduction of M-theory on the background solution found insection 2.4 preserving N = 2 supersymmetry in five dimensions. We perturb the background solution and derive the two derivative effective action as well as four derivative
operators quadratic in the lower dimensional fields.

3.1

N = 2 supergravity in five dimensions

For later reference the basic ingredients of five-dimensional N = 2 ungauged supergravity
are collected. In the dimensional reduction of M-theory we focus entirely on the massless
sector. For this reason, the relevant massless multiplets are given in Table 3.1. Note thatmultipletbosonic field content# of multiplets

gravity multiplet

metric gµν , graviphoton A0µ1

tensor multiplet

tensor Bµν , real scalar φnT

vector multiplet

vector Aaµ , real scalar ΦanV

hypermultiplet

four real scalars q u=1,··· ,4nH

Table 3.1: multiplets of five-dimensional N = 2 supergravity and their field content
the entire tensor multiplet can be dualized into a vector multiplet since in five dimensions
a two form B is dual to a vector. Let us now turn to the geometry of the scalar fieldspace in the various multiplets. Since the main focus will lie on the vector- and gravity
multiplet, we will only briefly discuss the hypermultiplet sector. The scalar field space
Mscalar is locally given as the direct product [37, 38]
Mscalar = Mreal sp. × Mquat. Käh. ,(3.1)

where Mquat. Käh. is a quaternionic Kähler manifold parametrized by the hypermultiplet
scalars. The vector multiplet scalar geometry is encoded in a real very special manifold
Mreal sp. whose whole information is captured by a cubic potential. This sector is highly
restrictive and allows for precise tests of higher derivative couplings based on supersymmetry. The vectormultiplet scalar geometry is describe by the (nV + 1) very special
coordinates La , where a = 0, ..., nV exceeds the number counting the actual vector multiplet scalars by one. However in the end, the scalars La parametrize only nV degrees
of freedom. This can be understood in a geometric way as follows. The scalar sector of
the vectormultiplet can be interpreted as a nV dimensional submanifold embedded in an
ambient (nV + 1)−dimensional manifold with coordinates La . The hypersurface spanned

14

by the vectormultiplet scalars is defined by a cubic polynomial, which in general takes
the form
1
N (L) = Cabc La Lb Lc ,(3.2)
3!
where Cabc is a constant and symmetric tensor. The hypersurface constraint which has
to be satisfied by the very special coordinates La is then simply given by
N (L) =

1
Cabc La Lb Lc = 1.
3!

(3.3)

The canonical N = 2 supergravity action in the bosonic sector can then be written
as [39, 38]
Z
1
1
(5)
Scan. =
R ? 1 − Gab dLa ∧ ? dLb − huv dq u ∧ ? dq v
(3.4)
2
M5 2
1
1
− Gab F a ∧ ? F b − Cabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c .
2
6
The notation indicates that the vector in the gravity multiplet A0 was included in acollective notation such that the index a = 0, ..., nV . The hypermultiplet metric huv does
not play a role in the following and will therefore not be treated. The restrictive natureof N = 2 supergravity in five dimensions does not only follow from the constraint (3.3)
which has to be satisfied by the physical scalar fields. The metric for the vector multiplet
scalars furthermore follows from the cubic polynomial N by taking derivatives
11
1= − Nab + Na Nb,
Gab = − ∂La ∂Lb log N
2
2
2
N =1
N =1

(3.5)

where the notation Na ≡ ∂La N was introduced. Thus, the geometry of the vectormultiplet space is fully determined by the cubic potential N .

3.2

The two derivative effective action

The first step in our analysis will be the derivation of the two derivative effective action
for the gravity- and vectormultiplet fields as well as a hypermultiplet scalar, which in theclassical case is the volume modulus of Y3 . To perform the dimensional reduction of Mtheory we perturb the background solution found in section 2.4. A crucial observation is
the fact, that the correction to the Calabi-Yau metric gi̄(1) drops out of the final expression,
since it can be written as twice the derivative of a scalar function and therefore only
contributes as a total derivative. So effectively the dimensional reduction of (2.23) is
performed on the metric background i ̄ (0)2
α̂Φ(1)µνadŝ = egµν dx dx + gi̄ − iδv ωa i̄ dz dz̄ ,(3.6)
Φ(1) = −5121(2π)3 ∗6 c3 = hΦ(1) i + h∂a Φ(2) iδv a + h∂a ∂b Φ(1) iδv a δv b + O(δv 3 ),3
215

where the deformations of the Kähler class of Y3 parametrized by δv a are expanded in
1,1
a real basis ωa ∈ H∂1,1
as¯ (Y3 ), a = 1, ..., hδgi̄ = −iδv a ωai̄ ,(3.7)

and we have introduced the notation ∂a ≡ ∂δva . In the M-theory three-form zero-mode
expansion we only keep terms contributing to the vector and gravity multiplet in fivedimensions. More precisely, we only take into account modes giving rise to vectors Aa in
five dimensions. The expansion is thusĈ3 = Aa ∧ ωa ,(3.8)

Ĝ4 = dĈ3 = F a ∧ ωa ,i.e. along the H∂1,1¯ (Y3 ) cohomology. In principle, the massless modes in the effective
theory do not have to coincide with the ones from the classical reduction. The reason forthis is the fact, that the linearized equations of motion, which are solved by the masslessmodes, can receive non-trivial corrections. Along the lines of [27], using the fact thatthe massless deformations of the corrected background in the compactification ansatz
should preserve the Kähler condition as well as the Bianchi identity for the four-form
field strength in the absence of M5-branes, it is possible to show on general grounds thatthe possible corrections to the massless fields at most contribute as total derivatives tothe effective action and therefore decouple. Thus, we will ignore those corrections in thefollowing and treat the perturbations as the ones of the classical M-theory reduction on
a Calabi-Yau threefold. We will proceed by recording the results of the contributions of
the classical and the eight derivative action to the kinetic terms separately. Finally wewill consider all contributions at quadratic order without any five-dimensional derivative,
i.e. terms contributing to a scalar potential.
Classical action.
First let us perform the dimensional reduction of the classical Einstein-Hilbert termon the perturbed and α0 -corrected background (3.6). Focusing on terms carrying two
derivatives in five dimensions up to second order in the fluctuations we obtainZ
ZR̂ ∗ˆ 1=
VM − 768 (2π)3 α̂ χ(Y3 ) R ? 1
(3.9)
M11

kin.

M5

Z

Z 

1
+
dδv ∧ ? dδv
ωa i̄ ωb ̄i − ωa i i ωb j j ∗(0)
6 1
Y3 2
M5
Z
1

−
768 α̂ Rab + Tab dδv a ∧ ? dδv b ,
2
M5
a

b

16

where we made use of the shorthand notation
Z h

i
1
j
̄i
a
i
a
b
i
1 − iδv ωa i +VM =ωa i̄ ωb − ωa i ωb j δv δv ∗(0)
6 1,
2
Y3
Z
3
Rab = (2π)ωa i̄ ωb ̄i c(0)3 ,(3.10)(3.11)Y3

Tab = (2π)

3Zωa i i ωb j j c(0)3 ,(3.12)

Y3

which we will use extensively throughout this work. From the classical action we furthermore pick up a correction to the kinetic terms of the vectors and a Chern-Simons termin five dimensions
Z
Z
Z
1
1
1 a
b
− Ĝ ∧ ∗ˆ Ĝ4 − Ĉ3 ∧ Ĝ4 ∧ Ĝ4
F ∧ ?Fωa i̄ ωb ̄i ∗(0)
=
6 1
2
6
2
kin.+C.S.
M11
Y3
M5
Z
−
128 α̂ Rab F a ∧ ? F b
M5

Z1
Kabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c ,(3.13)
6
M5
R
where we introduced the triple intersection numbers Kabc = Y3 ωa ∧ ωb ∧ ωc on Y3 , whichappear as the coefficients of the Chern-Simons term. We furthermore record the reductionof (2.38) yieldingZ+∆SM kin = −256 α̂ Rab F a ∧ ? F b .

(3.14)

M5

Eight derivative action.
We obtain further contributions to the kinetic terms of the five-dimensional theory by
reducing the eight derivative terms in the action (2.23) on the lowest order Calabi-Yau
background. The R4 -terms (2.24) lead to a correction to the kinetic term of the Kählerclass deformations and a correction to the Ricci scalarZ22κ11 SR̂4 kin. =768 (2π)3 χ(Y3 ) R ? 1 + 384 Rab dδv a ∧ ? dδv b ,(3.15)
M5

and from (2.26) and (2.27) we obtain the corrections to the kinetic terms of the vectors
Z
2
384 Rab F a ∧ ? F b .
(3.16)
2κ11 SĜ2 R̂3 + S(∇ˆ Ĝ)2 R2 kin. =M5

Note that in order to obtain the result (3.16) we had to fix a1 = a2 in ŝ18 . This is necessary to arrive at an expression, which is solely built of internal space Riemann tensors
and harmonic (1,1)-forms without explicit derivatives after applying internal space total
derivative identities. Then the final result can be shown to be independent of the unfixedcoefficients an by applying Schouten identites. Before putting the results obtained in this17

section together to obtain the five-dimensional two derivative effective action we briefly
comment on the scalar potential.
Scalar potential.
Let us consider the higher curvature terms proportional to R̂4 once again. The dimensional reduction of those, focusing on the zero external derivative contributions givesZZ
̄i (0)(0)23ab2κ11 SR̂4 sc. p. = −768(2π)δv δv ? 1∇k ∇k (∗(0)(3.17)
6 c3 ) ωa i̄ ωb ∗6 1 .
M5Y3This indeed looks like a mass term arising for the fluctuations δv a . Another potential
source for a scalar potential is the classical Einstein-Hilbert action, since it is possible
to pick up a mass term if one performs the dimensional reduction on the α̂-correctedbackground solution (3.6). The reduced Einstein-Hilbert term then readsZZZ
̄i (0)(0)
3 2abR̂ ∗ˆ 1
= 768(2π) αδv δv ? 1∇k ∇k (∗(0)(3.18)
6 c3 ) ωa i̄ ωb ∗6 1 ,M11sc. p.

M5

Y3

which is exactly the contribution needed to cancel the one coming from the higher curvature terms (3.17). From the reduction results (3.17) and (3.18) it is also possible to seethat their contribution entirely stems from the non-harmonicity of the third Chern class¯ Moreover this cancellation shows that taking into account the backreacgiven by i∂ ∂ξ.
tion and expanding the perturbations around a consistent background solution is crucial
for the five-dimensional effective action. Note that this cancellation is already expectedfrom a previous analysis on a fourfold in [28].
We are now in a position to collect the various pieces (3.9), (3.13), (3.14), (3.15),(3.16) and merge them into the five-dimensional two derivative effective action
Z
Z
Z 

1
2
(5)
a
b
(3.19)
2κ11 S =VM R ? 1 +dδv ∧ ? dδvωai̄ ωb ̄i − ωai i ωbj j ∗(0)
6 1
M5
M5
Y3 2
Z
Z
Z
1
a
b
a
b
−
768 α̂ Tab dδv ∧ ? dδv −F ∧ ?Fωa ∧ ? ωb
2 M5
M5
Y3
Z
1
Kabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c .
−M5 6Note that all terms involving the coupling Rab in (3.19) canceled. Those cancellations
are in fact crucial for compatibility with N = 2 supergravity in five dimensions, as thecoupling Rab is not proportional to the Euler characteristic χ(Y3 ), since the non-harmonicpart of the third Chern class prevents us from performing an integral split. The surviving
coupling Tab however satisfies
Tab = −(2π)3

χ(Y3 ) (0) (0)K K ,V (0) a b

(3.20)

since the traces of the harmonic (1,1)-forms are constant. The quantity V (0) in (3.20)(0)denotes the volume of the zeroth order Calabi-Yau manifold and Ka(0) , Kab
are contractions
18

of the intersection numbers with the Kähler moduli evaluated in the background, whose
precise form can be found in appendix A. In the following we will denote quantities
evaluated in the background with a zero superscript. We now perform a Weyl rescaling−2/3of (3.19) according to gµν → VM gµν and the uplift from infinitesimal Kähler classdeformations to finite fields v a leading to the action in Einstein frame
Z h

1
5
2
(5)
R?1+
2κ11 S =Kab −Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b
(3.21)
2V
3V
M5

1
1
1
+
Ka Kb F a ∧ ? F b − Kabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c
1 Kab −2V6
2V 3i
χ(Y3 )+ 768(2π)3 α̂
Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b .
3VIn (3.21) we used the definition of the Calabi-Yau volume V = 3!1 Kabc v a v b v c . We will
now make contact with N = 2 supergravity outlined in section 3.1. It is already clear
from (3.4) that we make the identification Cabc = Kabc , since there is no correction to theChern-Simons term in five dimensions, leading to the cubic constraint
1
N (L) = Kabc La Lb Lc ,(3.22)
3!
which the physical scalars in the vectormultiplet La have to obey. This constraint is1
obviously solved by La = V − 3 v a which is equivalent to the classical case. Due to therelation (3.5) this data is enough to completely fix the geometry on the vectormultiplet
and shows, that there are no quantum corrections present in this sector. The correction∼ χ(Y3 ) in (3.21) must therefore be the one of a hypermultiplet. Using the explicit formof the physical scalars La one can show that (3.21) is equivalent to
Z
1
1
1
1
2
(5)
R ? 1 − Gab (L) dLa ∧ ? dLb − Gab (L) F a ∧ ? F b − d log V ∧ ? d log V
κ11 S =
2
2
4
M5 2
Z
1
χ(Y3 )
d log V ∧ ? d log V − Kabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c ,(3.23)+
384 α̂
V
6
M5
where we used the metric Gab derived from the cubic potential (3.22) given by1
1
1
Gab = − ∂a ∂b log N (L)= − Kabc Lc + Kacd Kbef Lc Ld Le Lf .
(3.24)
2
2
8
N =1Classically one identifies one of the hypermultiplet scalars D with D = − 12 log V [38],whereas when taking quantum corrections into account we find the corrected hypermultiplet scalar
1
D = − log V + 768 α̂ χ(Y3 ) ,(3.25)
2such that the final action is
Z
1
1
1
2
(5)
κ11 S =
R ? 1 − Gab (L) dLa ∧ ? dLb − Gab (L) F a ∧ ? F b − dD ∧ ? dD
2
2
M5 2
Z
1
Kabc Aa ∧ F b ∧ F c .
(3.26)−
M5 6
19

We have thus shown that our dimensional reduction of M-theory at two derivative levelis compatible with N = 2 supergravity. The metric of the vectormultiplet coincides withthe one of the classical reduction, such that the only net effect at two derivatives is acorrected field identification of one hypermultiplet scalar. This can in turn be interpreted
as a renormalization of the volume of Y3 at order α̂, see (3.25).

3.3

Four derivative terms of the Kähler moduli

We now aim to include four derivative terms in the effective action including at most two
fluctuations δv a . Obviously this truncation misses e.g. the four derivative interaction of
the form (∂v a )4 since this would require at least an analysis up to order δv 4 , which is
however technically very involved. In this section we therefore consider the background
perturbations (3.7) up to second order. We now introduce the coupling capturing thefour derivative terms we find for the Kähler deformations as well as most of the four
derivative terms of the vectors in five dimensions derived in section 3.4. It is a nontopological, co-closed (2,2)-form Z whose components are given by
Zi̄kl̄ = εi̄i1 ̄1 i2 j̄2 εkl̄k1 l̄1 k2 l̄2 R̄1 i1 l̄1 k1 R̄2 i2 l̄2 k2(3.27)

Zi̄k k = −2i(2π)2 (∗6 c2 )i̄ ,(3.28)

Zl l k k = 2(2π)2 ∗6 (c2 ∧ J) ,(3.29)

Zi̄k k ωa ̄i = 2i(2π)2 ∗6 (c2 ∧ ωa ) .

(3.30)

satisfying the relations

This object was already recognized to play a role in the context of N = 2 four derivative
couplings arising from string compactifications in [29, 40]. The four derivative couplings
from the R̂4 terms we find by reducing them in a straightforward way to five dimensions
are then
Z
Z
 2

2
2
µν
2κ11 SR̂4 four der. =192(2π) R ? 1 − 4Rµν R ? 1 − 16 Tr R ∧ ? R
c(0)
2 ∧J
M5

Z
−
M5

Y3



(0)
96 ZabR dδv a ∧ ? dδv b − 4Rµν ∂µ δv a ∂ν δv b ? 1 + 2(δv a ) (δv b ) ? 1 ,(3.31)

where we performed external spacetime integrations by parts and defined  ≡ ∇µ ∇µ .
Additionally, we introduced the five-dimensional curvature two-form Rµν satisfying

20Rµνρσ Rµνρσ ? 1 = −8 Tr R ∧ ? R and the shorthand notationZ
Zab =Zi̄kl̄ ωa j̄i ωb l̄k ∗6 1 ,(3.32)Y3
2

Z

Za = (2π)

c2 ∧ ω a ,Y32Z
c2 ∧ J ,Z = (2π)Y3which we will use frequently in the following2 . Note that the Kähler form in (3.31)
coupling to the second Chern class of Y3 is with respect to the fluctuated metric J =J (0) + δv a ωa and the second order fluctuations of the terms built of two Riemann tensors
in five dimensions cancel in a non-trivial way.
In the following we will discuss the Riemann squared terms in (3.31) when moving to
the five-dimensional Einstein frame. Note that the second line in (3.31) is already second
order in the fluctuations δv a such that the Weyl rescaling simply leads to an overallfactor proportional to the zeroth order Calabi-Yau volume V (0) . The terms involving
two five-dimensional Riemann tensors however come with at most linear terms in δv a
and get therefore a less trivial modification from the Weyl rescaling considering terms
up to O(δv 2 ). The explicit form of the action after the Weyl rescaling in terms of
the fluctuations is very involved and we will not display it here. Since we are in theend interested in the corresponding action of the finite fields we will give an action,
which precisely reproduces the Weyl rescaled action when expanding it in infinitesimalfluctuations. We therefore introduce the scalar
1u = log V with V = Kabc v a v b v c .
(3.33)
3!
The Riemann squared action in Einstein frame then reads
Zhi2
Einst.
−u/32µν
2κ11 SR2 =192 α̂ Ze
R ? 1 − 4 Rµν R ? 1 − 16 Tr R ∧ ? R(3.34)M5Z+

h1α̂ Z e−u/3 1536 R (u) ? 1 − 1536 Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1 − 512 R du ∧ ? duM5 3i
+ 256 Rµν ∂µ u ∂ν u ? 1 + 1024 (u)2 ? 1 ,where we now have the moduli dependent couplingZa2
Z ≡ Z(v ) = (2π)
c2 ∧ J , with

J = v a ωa .

(3.35)Y3

The uplift of the terms in the second line in (3.31) is however not obvious, due to the(0)
non-topological nature of the coupling Zab. The naive guess would be to to promote(0)a
Zab → Zab ≡ Zab (v ) to its moduli dependent counterpart and to lift δv a → v a . A higher
order analysis in the fluctuations δv a might provide further evidence for this claim.
2

Note that we always denote evaluation on the background with a zero superscript.

21

3.4

Four derivative terms of the five-dimensional vectors

Before we continue with the results of the four derivative terms involving five-dimensional
vectors, or rather two powers of their field strength to be more precise, let is note that
it is well known that there is also a five-dimensional gauge-gravitational Chern-Simons
term present [12, 41, 38]. This contribution to the five-dimensional effective action arises
upon dimensional reduction of (2.25) and is in our conventions
Z(3.36)SĈ X̂8 = 768
Za(0) Aa ∧ Tr R ∧ R.
M5

It was worked out in [22] that the coefficients of this gauge-gravitational Chern-Simons
term and the coefficient of the Rµνρσ Rµνρσ term in (3.31) are related by supersymmetry
and matches our computation. This known fact serves as a crosscheck at this point.
We proceed by dimensionally reducing the action
SĜ4 = SĜ2 R̂2 + S(∇ˆ Ĝ)2 R̂2(3.37)

keeping terms containing four derivatives in M5 and up two two five-dimensional fieldstrengths F a = dAa . We will keep the coefficients an completely generic, however keeping
in mind that the discussion of the two derivative action forced us to impose a1 = a2 .
The part of the five-dimensional effective action containing the Ricci scalar and two
field strengths of the vectors is
Z(0)
2
2κ11 SĜ4 R F a ∧?F b = −96
ZabRFa ∧ ?Fb
(3.38)
M5

and the terms involving the five-dimensional Ricci tensor reduce toZ(0)22κ11 SĜ4 Rµν F a F b = 192
ZabRµν F a ρµ F b ρν ? 1.

(3.39)

M5

The treatment of the terms containing one five-dimensional Riemann tensor fully contracted on two field strength tensors F a is however more complicated. In addition tointernal space total derivative identities we made use of the first Bianchi identity for the(0)
dz i ∧ dz̄ ̄ whose
five-dimensional Riemann tensor and introduced a new object Xa(0) = Xai̄
components are given by
(0)
(0)
Xai̄
= Ri̄kω l̄k .
(3.40)
l̄ a
It is interesting to note, that with this new building block the reduction can be performed
without having to fix any of the parameters an . We will therefore give the general result,however keeping in mind that a1 = a2 . We then obtain the following additional couplingof the vectors to the five-dimensional Riemann tensor
Z2Rµνρσ F aµν F bρσ ? 1(3.41)
2κ11 SĜ4 Rµνρσ F a F b =
M5

×

Z h

(0) k
f1(α) Xa(0)i̄ Xb(0) ̄i + f2(α) Zi̄kωa ̄n ωb n i + f3(α) Z (0)kk l l ωa i̄ ωb ̄i

Y3
(α)

(0) k

̄i

l

(α)

+ f4 Zi̄k ωa ωb l + f5 Z
22(0) k l

k l

i

j

(α)

(0)

̄i

ωa i ωb j + f6 Zi̄kl̄ ωa ωb

l̄k

i

∗(0)
6 1.

The coefficients fi(α) , i = 1, ..., 6 depend on the unfixed an from the definition of thetensor ŝ18 and are given by the linear relations
f1(α) = −96a1 + 24a2 − 36a3 − 24a4 + 4a5 − 2a6 ,(3.42)

f2(α) = −192a1 + 72a2 − 66a3 − 48a4 + 6a5 − 4a6 ,
f3(α) = 48 + 96a1 − 24a2 + 36a3 + 24a4 − 4a5 + 2a6 ,
f4(α) = 96a1 − 24a2 + 36a3 + 24a4 − 4a5 + 2a6 ,
f5(α) = −48a1 + 12a2 − 18a3 − 12a4 + 2a5 − a6 ,
f6(α) = −48 + 48a1 − 36a2 + 12a3 + 12a4 + a6 .
Observe that we have f1(α) = −f4(α) = 2f5(α) . The last contribution we are lacking is
the structure with the schematic form ∇F a ∇F b . The reduction reveals, that there are
two different structures present, which are however related o each other by exploiting
the Bianchi identity of the vectors Aa given by dF a = 0. In components this meansa= 0 giving us the identity3∇[ρ Fµν]
3∇µ F aνρ ∇[µ F b νρ] = 0⇒∇ν F a µρ ∇ρ F b

µν

1
νρ
= ∇µ F a νρ ∇µ F b ,2(3.43)

which allows us to to eliminate one of the two structures. The resulting piece in thefive-dimensional Lagrangian is thenZ22κ11 SG4 ∇F a ∇F b =∇µ F aρσ ∇µ F b ρσ ? 1(3.44)
M5

×

Z h

(0) k
ωa ̄l ωb l i + f3(β) Z (0)kk l l ωa i̄ ωb j̄i
f1(β) Xa(0)i̄ Xb(0) ̄i + f2(β) Zi̄k

Y3

i
(0) k
(0)
̄i l̄k+ f4(β) Zi̄kωa ̄i ωb l l + f5(β) Z (0)kk l l ωa i i ωb j j + f6(β) Zi̄k
ω
ω
∗(0)
6 1
b
l̄ a
and its corresponding coefficients in terms of the an are
f1(β) = −48a1 − 24a3 − 12a4 + 4a5 ,(3.45)

f2(β) = −72a1 + 24a2 − 24a3 − 12a4 ,f3(β) = 24a1 + 12a3 + 6a4 ,f4(β) = 24a1 + 12a3 ,f5(β) = 12a1 + 6a3 ,f6(β) = −12 + 24a1 − 24a2 + 6a3 + 6a4 ,where we again find a linear relation among the coefficients f4(β) = 2f5(β) . We can now
put the results together and use the identities (3.28)-(3.30) to obtain the four derivative
23

acion of the vectors quadratic in F a
Z


ρ
(5)
2
2κ11 SF =ζab 192 Rµν F a ρµ F b ν ? 1 − 96 R F a ∧ ?F b

(3.46)

M5

Z
+

R

µνρσ

F aµν F bρσ ? 1

Z

M5

h
(0)
(α) (0)̄ki (0)(2π)2 − f˜1(α) Xa(0) ∧ ∗(0)
6 Xb − 2if2 c2 i̄ ωa ωb k ∗6 1

Y3
(0)
+ 2if4(α) ωb l l c(0)+ 2f3(α) ωb i̄ ωb i̄ c(0)2 ∧J2 ∧ ωa

(α)

i

j

(0)

+ 2f5 ωb i ωb j c2 ∧ J
Z+∇µ F aρσ ∇µ F b ρσ ? 1
M5

Z

(0)

i
(α)
(0)
̄i l̄k (0)˜+ f6 Zi̄kl̄ ωa ωb ∗6 1h(0)(β) (0)̄ki (0)(2π)2 − f˜1(β) Xa(0) ∧ ∗(0)
6 Xb − 2if2 c2 i̄ ωa ωb k ∗6 1

Y3
(0)
+ 2if4(β) ωb l l c(0)+ 2f3(β) ωa i̄ ωb ̄i c(0)2 ∧ ωa2 ∧Ji(0)
˜(β) Z (0) ω ̄i ω l̄k ∗(0) 1 .
+ 2f5(β) ωb i i ωb j j c(0)
∧
J
+
f
2
6
6
b
i̄kl̄ a
We furthermore introduced f˜1(α,β) = (2π)−2 f1(α,β) . A general four derivative N = 2
supergravity theory combined with taking into account the possibility to perform higher
derivative field redefinitions could in principle, if available, be used to constrain or evencompletely fix the coefficients an .

4

Type IIA supergravity on Calabi-Yau threefolds

In this section we derive the four dimensional two derivative effective action of Type
IIA supergravity including both tree-level and one-loop eight derivative terms in ten
dimensions. We stress that higher derivative terms of the ten-dimensional dilaton andthe RR-fields are not known and therefore not taken into account. We therefore focus on
the R4 terms in ten dimensions and and the conjectured H̃3 completion of the one-loop
Type IIA terms from [14]. Since those conjectured terms are based on introducing aconnection with torsion, upon which the superinvariants J0,1 are evaluated, we assume
for this section that the tree-level terms are completed in the same fashion. We alreadysaw in the context of the M-theory Y3 reduction, that the one-loop terms are compatible
with N = 2 supegravity in five dimensions. One consistency check of our computations
will be, that we obtain the correction to the prepotential, from which the metric of thecomplexified Kähler moduli ta = ba + iv a derives, which takes the form
ζ(3)
1
ζ(3)
a b c
χ(Y
)
=
χ(Y3 ) + ... ,
(4.1)
K
t
t
t
−
i
f (t) = fclass (t) − i3abc2(2π)33!
2(2π)3where the ellipses denote terms ∼ kab ta tb + ca ta , which however do not contribute to theKähler potential, as well as non-perturbative contributions stemming from worldsheet
instantons. This correction is well known [12, 19, 42], we however show a first derivation
which is solely based on a dimensional reduction of Type IIA supergravity.
24

4.1

The two derivative effective action

The purpose of this section is to dimensionally reduce the ten-dimensional Type IIA
supergravity action including the eight derivative corrections introduced in section 2.1 tofour dimensions. We are considering the modified Y3 solution (2.16) including deformations of the Kähler class parametrized by the fluctuations δv a as before and in addition
scalars ba from the zero-mode expansion of the NS-NS two-form
B̃2 = ba ωa(4.2)

in harmonic (1, 1)-forms. Our focus will lie on the kinetic terms of those scalar modes,
since they combine into the complexified Kähler moduli ta = ba +iv a and the geometry on
the space of those is specified by a prepotential f (ta ). We will split again the reduction
into two separate parts: the reduction of the classical Type IIA action on the correctedbackground (2.16) and the reduction of the eight derivative terms in ten dimensions on
the lowest order Calabi-Yau background.
Classical action.
The classical action gives rise to the following contribution to the kinetic terms in four
dimensions
Z


2
class
VM − 1536 (2π)3 α χ(Y3 ) (`0 + `1 ) R ? 1(4.3)
2κ10 SIIA kin. =
M4

Z
+

e
M4

−2φ0

Z 

1
dδv ∧ ?dδv
ωa i̄ ωb ̄i − ωa i i ωb j j ∗(0)
6 1
Y3 2
a

b

Z


1
768 α (`0 + `1 ) Tab + Rab dδv a ∧ ? dδv b2M4ZZ
1 −2φ0 aabedb ∧ ? dbb
ωa i̄ ωb ̄i ∗(0)+
6 1 − 384 α (`0 + `1 ) Rab db ∧ ? db ,
2
Y3
M4

−

where we defined the constants−2φ0`0 = ζ(3)e

,

π2
`1 =
3

(4.4)

and made use of the definition (3.10).
Eight derivative action.
The reduction of the eight derivative terms in ten dimensions yields the action
Z

loop
2
tree
−768 (2π)2 (`0 − `1 ) χ(Y3 ) R ? 1
2κ10 SR̃4 + SR̃4 + SH̃ 2 kin. =M4Z+

384 (`0 + `1 ) Rab dba ∧ ? dbb

M4

Z
+
M4

25

384 (`0 + `1 ) Rab dδv a ∧ ? dδv b ,(4.5)

which again has the property that, combining it with the reduction from the classicalaction (4.3), all couplings involving Rab cancel, such that the four-dimensional action
is independent of it. Summing up the two pieces (4.3) and (4.5) of the action in four
dimensions leads to
Z


1
1
(0)
2
(4)
− (0) Ka(0) Kb(0) dba ∧ ?dbb
2κ10 S =VIIA R ? 1 + e−2φ0 Kab
(4.6)
2
V
M4
Z

1 −2φ0  (0)1+
Kab + (0) Ka(0) Kb(0) dδv a ∧ ?dδv b
e
V
M4 2
Z
χ(Y3 )+
768 (2π)3 (`0 + `1 ) (0) 2 Ka(0) Kb(0) dδv a ∧ ?dδv b .
VM4
We furthermore introduced the notation for the prefactor of the four-dimensional Ricci
scalar
(4.7)
VIIA = VM e−2φ0 − 1536 (2π)3 α `0 χ(Y3 ) ,−1which can be removed by a Weyl rescaling of the metric gµν → VIIAgµν . Performing thisarescaling as well as the uplift from infinitesimal to finite fields v leads to the effective
action in Einstein frame3

S (4) = Sα(4)00 + α0 Sα(4)03 ,(4.8)

where we have restored the explicit α0 -dependence by using (2.2). We split the action(4.8) into a classical and quantum (tree-level and one-loop) corrected part which are
explicitly given by
Z

1 
1
(4)
2
(4.9)
Kab − Ka Kb dba ∧ ? dbb
2κ10 Sα00 =
R?1+
2V
V
M4
Z

1 1
1
+
Kab − Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv bV
M4 V 2andχ(Y3 ) ζ(3) π 3 
1
a
b
K
−
K
K
ab
a b db ∧ ? db
2
V
V
M4
Z

χ(Y3 ) ζ(3) π 3 
4Kab − Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b
+
V2
V
M4
Z
χ(Y3 ) π 5 2φ0+e Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b .
3
3V
M4

2κ210 Sα(4)03 =Z(4.10)Let us now comment on the origin of the various corrections. It is evident in (4.6) thatthe corrections to the kinetic term of the scalars ba cancel and can thus only come fromthe Weyl rescaling. This in turn implies, that the correction is at tree-level in gs , since
the contributions to the Ricci scalar for the one-loop terms precisely cancel. This in turn26

can be traced back to the fact, that the R4 terms in Type IIA suffer from a relative sign
flip when comparing tree-level to one-loop. The Kähler moduli receive both tree-leveland one-loop corrections. The one-loop corrections are marked in (4.10) with a factor
proportional to the dilaton vev.
Now let us discuss the possible corrections of the vectormultiplets containing thecomplexified Kähler moduli ta . The vectormultiplet metric can not depend on a scalar
in a hypermultiplet, in particular the dilaton, which identifies the term ∼ e2φ0 in (4.10)
as a correction to a hypermultiplet. It is furthermore well known, that the prepotential
in Type IIA obtains a tree-level (in gs ) correction of the prepotential according tof (t) =

1
Kabc ta tb tc − i a χ(Y3 ) ,3!

a ∈ R.

(4.11)

The constant a is already completely fixed from the terms ∼ Kab in (4.10), while terms∼ Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b can in principle be absorbed in the definition of a hypermultiplet
scalar. One can then compute the metric following from the prepotential (4.11) andcompare the coefficient with the one of the ∼ Kab terms in (4.10) which leads to
a = 4 α03 π 3 ζ(3).

(4.12)√
Choosing units as `s = 2π α0 = 1 one obtains the desired result for the prepotential
correction
1
ζ(3)f (t) = Kabc ta tb tc − iχ(Y3 ) .
(4.13)
3!
2(2π)3Note however, that a correction ∼ Ka Kb dba ∧ ? dbb cannot be absorbed in the definitionof a hypermultiplet scalar φ4 with e.g. a contribution φ4 = φ̃ + Ka ba + ... , thus spoilingthe shift symmetry of ba . In order to match also the ba sector with the metric derived
from (4.13) we therefore need the additional contribution
Z
ζ(3)
(4)
χ(Y3 ) V −3 Ka Kb dba ∧ ? dbb(4.14)∆Sb = −
38(2π)
M4from the reduction of the tree-level eight derivative terms including H̃3 . This missing
structure strongly indicates, that the logic of obtaining the B̃2 field completion of the eight
derivative terms employed in [14] cannot be applied to the tree-level terms. However, if
one considers the modified replacement (2.14) the new structure t˜8 t̃8 H̃32 R̃3 gives precisely
the lacking contribution (4.14).

4.2

Four derivative terms of the Kähler moduli

We proceed by determining the four derivative terms of Type IIA supergravity in a similar
way to section 3.3. Due to the lack of a complete eight derivative action of the dilaton
in ten dimensions we do not take into account the latter. We thus consider the action
loop
tree
SRIIA
˜4 = SR̃4 + SR̃4 ,27(4.15)

since the classical action does not lead to any four derivative coupling in five dimensions.
However, let us add two comments on the impact of the classical action on the four
derivative couplings. After the reduction, the four derivative terms at O(α03 ) are notin Einstein frame. Performing a Weyl rescaling of the Einstein-Hilbert term after the
reduction given by ∼ e−2φ VR one obtains the Einstein frame four derivative couplings.
Notice that any O(α03 ) contribution to the Ricci scalar does not alter the form of thefour derivative terms at O(α03 ).
Tree-level terms.
The tree-level terms give rise to the four derivative couplingsZ
2 −1 tree
768 Za(0) R (δv a ) − 2Rµν ∇µ ∇ν δv a ? 1
2κ10 `0 SR̃4 four der. =
M4

Z

2

+



768 (2π) Rµν R

µν

− 4R

2



Z
?1

M4

Z
+
M4

Z
+
M4

c(0)
2 ∧J

(4.16)Y3(0)
96 ZabR dδv a ∧ ? dδv b − 4 Rµν ∂µ δv a ∂ν δv b ? 1
(0)
192 Zab(δv a )(δv b ) ? 1 − 2∇µ ∇ν δv a ∇µ ∇ν δv b ? 1 ,where J = J (0) +δv a ωa . Notice that the terms in the first line in (4.16) coupling to divisor
integrals of the second Chern class vanish up to derivative terms of the dilaton by virtue ofthe contracted second Bianchi identity. Performing the Weyl rescaling gµν → e2φ V −1 gµν
one obtains the effective action in Einstein frame. Due to the appearance of the R2
terms in four dimensions the Weyl rescaling is rather involved. We therefore refrain fromspelling out the effective action in terms of fluctuations but rather give an action in termsof the fields after the uplift, which precisely reproduces the action obtained in terms of
the fluctuations δv a . By defining Gµν = Rµν − 41 Rgµν , in close analogy to the Einsteintensor3 one findsZih2 −1 tree2κ10 `0 SR̃4 four der. =768 α Gµν G µν Z + V2 Ka Z Gµν ∇ν ∇µ v a ? 1
M4

Z
−

768 α



192 α



384 α



M4

Z
+
M4

Z
−
M4

Z
+

1
Z − V2 Kab Z + V12 Ka Kb Z
2 ab

Zab − V12 Ka Kb Z

Zab − V22Gµν ∇µ v a ∇ν v b(v a ) (v b ) ? 1

Ka Kb Z ∇µ ∇ν v a ∇µ ∇ν v b ? 1
768 α Za R (v a ) − 2Rµν ∇µ ∇ν v a ? 1 .

M4
3





The Einstein tensor is given by Gµν = Rµν − 21 Rgµν .

28(4.17)

The last line in (4.17) involving the coupling to the divisor integrals of the second Chernclass again vanishes up to dilaton terms upon integrating by parts. We once more stress,(0)that the trivial uplift Zab→ Zab is not necessarily the complete answer and the role the(0)tensor Zi̄kl̄ plays both from a mathematical and a physical point of view is not clear.
One-loop terms.
The one-loop terms in ten dimensions give rise to the four derivative termsZ
2 −1 loop
768 Za(0) 2Rµν ∇µ ∇ν δv a − R (δv a ) ? 1
2κ10 `1 SR̃4 four der. =
M4

Z



192 (2π) 2Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 4Rµν Rµν + R2 ? 1
2

+

Z

M4

Z
−
M4

c(0)
2 ∧J

Y3


(0)
96 ZabR dδv a ∧ ? dδv b − 4 Rµν ∂µ δv a ∂ν δv b ? 1
+ 2(δv a )(δv b ) .

(4.18)In the following we will again consider the Weyl rescaling of the squared Riemann termsin (4.18). To do this we redefine the metric as gµν → e2φ V −1 gµν leading to a canonicallynormalized Einstein-Hilbert term. Performing the rescaling and the uplift to finite fields
one obtainsZhi
2 −1 loop2κ10 `1 SR̃4 four der. =384 Z Rµνρσ Rµνρσ + V1 R Ka (v a ) − 2 Gµν G µν ? 1
M4

Z

i
h
384 Zab Gµν + V1 Z R Kab gµν − 2V3 2 Z R Ka Kb gµν ∇µ v a ∇ν v b ? 1

+

M4

Z
−

h
i
192 Zab − V32 Z Ka Kb (v a ) (v b ) ? 1 .

(4.19)

M4

4.3

Type IIB supergravity on Calabi-Yau threefolds at fourderivatives

In this section we summarize the four derivative couplings involving Kähler moduli derived in [40] via the same logic as in the previous section but starting from type IIB
supergravity in ten dimensions. The intention is to present a complete discussion in thiswork. The two derivative discussion of type IIB supergravity at order α03 was recently
revisited in [21] for generic h1,1 , and reproduces the well known Euler-characteristic correction to the Kähler potential [20]. This discussion involves the parametrisation of thehigher-derivative dilaton action and is thus beyond the treatment in this work. However,let us note that the complete axio-dilaton dependence of the R4 -terms in type IIB is
known to be
Z


1
IIB
SR̃4 = 2
E(τ, τ̄ )3/2 t̃8 t̃8 + 81 10 10 R̃4 ∗˜1 ,(4.20)
4κ1029

where E(τ, τ̄ )3/2 is the SL(2, Z)-invariant Eisenstein series given by
3/2

X

E(τ, τ̄ )3/2 =(m,n)6=(0,0)τ2,|m + n τ |3

(4.21)

with τ = C̃0 + ie−φ̃ := τ1 + iτ2 the axio-dilaton. When performing the large τ2 limit,
corresponding to the small string coupling limit (4.21) becomes
3/2

E(τ, τ̄ )3/2 = 2ζ(3) τ2

2

−1/2

+ 2π3 τ2

+ O(e−2πτ2 ) .

(4.22)In the following discussion, we will use this approximation in (4.20) and only consider
the leading order gs contribution, given by
Z

3
1
IIB
SR̃4 = 2(4.23)e− 2 φ̃ t̃8 t̃8 + 18 10 10 R̃4 ∗˜1 .
2κ10
The four-derivative corrections arising from the ten-dimensional R4 -terms result inZZ
2 −1 IIB
2 − 23 φ̃µν
22κ10 `0 SR̃4 four der. = 192 (2π) e
4 Rµν R − R ? 1c(0)(4.24)
2 ∧J
M4

Z

Y3

3

(0)
e− 2 φ̃ Zab

+ 192

h

M4

Z
+ 192

e

− 32 φ̃

M4

(0)

i

− 2Rµν + 21 Rgµν ∇µ δv a ∇ν δv b ? 1

h

a

b

a

µ

ν

Zab (δv ) (δv ) − 2∇µ ∇ν δv ∇ ∇ δv

b

i

? 1,

where we once again have J = J (0) +δv a ωa and we have dropped the tilde on φ̃ to indicatethat it is now a four-dimensional field. The final result is derived by combing the Weyl
rescaling of the reduction of tyhe classical Einstein-Hilbert action, with the uplift of the
reduction result (4.24). The action one obtains is thenZ
2 −1 (4)1
1 1
2κ10 `0 Skin =R + V 2 Kab − V Ka Kb dv a ∧ ? dv b
M4

Z+

− 32 φ̃h3



768 α e
M4

Z
−
M4

Z
+
M4

Z
−
M4

768 α e− 2 φ̃

Gµν G

µν

Z + V2 Ka Z Gµν ∇ν ∇µ v a1
Z − V2 Kab Z + V12 Ka Kb Z
2 ab



i

?1

Gµν ∇µ v a ∇ν v b3
192 α e− 2 φ̃ Zab − V12 Ka Kb Z (v a ) (v b ) ? 13
384 α e− 2 φ̃ Zab − V22 Ka Kb Z ∇µ ∇ν v a ∇µ ∇ν v b ? 1 .

(4.25)As expected, since the tree-level R4 -terms of both Type IIA and Type IIB have the samestructure, the results of the dimensional reduction coincide, see (4.17) and (4.25). On the30other hand, compared to the one-loop R4 -terms in Type IIB, the corresponding one-loop
R4 -terms in Type IIA suffer from a relative sign flip between the two basic structures
given by t̃8 t̃8 R̃4 and 10 10 R̃4 . The two main differences between one-loop contribution
2
term
to the four dimensional action at four derivatives are: the appearance of a Rµνρσ
in Type IIA, whereas this term is not present in the case of Type IIB and the lack of aterm with the structure ∇µ ∇ν v a ∇µ ∇ν v b in the case of Type IIA compared to Type IIB.
Both cases can be traced back to the different sign structures of the one-loop terms inten dimensions leading to non-trivial cancellations.

5

Threefold reduction up to four derivatives - theone modulus caseIn the following we simplify the discussion and assume that the background geometries
under consideration have only one modulus. The advantage of the simplified discussion is,that all computations can be done exactly yet leading to non-trivial results. We consider
the R4 -terms in M-theory and both Type II theories, where for the latter we consider
tree-level and one-loop terms.

5.1

M-theory one modulus reduction

In this section we comment on the M-theory compactification on a Calabi-Yau threefold
including higher derivative terms for the case of a single (volume) modulus. We only
consider the gravitational terms in eleven dimensions in the following discussion. The
compactification ansatz for the metric is then given by(1)
dŝ211 = eα̂Φ gµν dxµ dxν + 2eu/3 gi̄(0) dz i dz̄ ̄ ,(5.1)
Φ(1) = −512(0)(2π)3 ∗(0)
6 c3 ,
3(5.2)

where in (5.1) the Weyl factor Φ(1) is computed using the metric gi̄ = eu/3 gi̄(0) . The metricgi̄ is furthermore normalized to unit volume, such that the relation
Z
Z
Z
p
6 √
u
∗6 1 =d y g=ed6 y g (0) = eu
(5.3)
Y3

Y3

Y3

holds. Note that the scalar field u(x) is related to the volume modulus by u(x) = log V(x).
As a first step we dimensionally reduce the action on the background (5.1) including theR4 -terms in eleven dimensions up to four external spacetime derivatives. One obtains in

31

five dimensions the following action
Z
5
2
(5)
eu R ? 1 + eu du ∧ ? du + 768(2π)3 α̂χ(Y3 )du ∧ ? du2κ11 S =
6
M5
Z


+
α̂ Z (0) eu/3 384 Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 768 Rµν Rµν + 192R2 ? 1

(5.4)

M5

Z
+

α̂ Z

(0)

α̂ Z

(0)

e

u/3

M5

Z
+
M5



256 µν
R ∂µ u ∂ν u ? 1 + 512Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1
3− 256R (u) ? 1 − 64R du ∧ ? du

e

u/3




128
80
128
2
4
(u) ? 1 +(u) du ∧ ? du + (∂u) ? 1 .
3
99Note that the quantity Z (0) is computed using the metric gi̄(0) which is normalized to unit
volume. We furthermore made use of the schematic notation (∂u)4 ≡ ∂µ u ∂ µ u ∂ν u ∂ ν u.
For a canonical normalization of the five-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term we performa Weyl rescalinggµν → eσ gµν ,

(5.5)

2
σ = − u,3which results in the action
Z
1
2
(5)
2κ11 S =R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du + 768(2π)3 α̂χ(Y3 )e−u du ∧ ? du
2
M5
Z


+
α̂ Z (0) 384 Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 768 Rµν Rµν + 192R2 ? 1

(5.6)

M5



368
1280
4
2
+
α̂ Z
384 (u) ? 1 −(u) du ∧ ? du +(∂u) ? 1
3
3
M5


Z
448
(0)
R du ∧ ? du+α̂ Z
256R (u) ? 1 −
3
M5
Z

(0)

in Einstein frame, where we have furthermore performed integrations by parts. It isclear, that higher derivative actions of the form (5.6) suffer from ambiguities due to thepossibility of performing higher derivative field redefinitions and integrations by parts.
Nevertheless, we will propose new field variables such that the action (5.6) takes a rather
simple form. If one redefines the five-dimensional metric gµν and the scalars u as
(0)
(0)
(0)
gµν → gµν + a(M)(u) gµν + a(M)(∂u)2 gµν + a(M)
R gµν
1 αZ
2 α̂ Z3 α̂ Z

(5.7)

(0)
(0)
(0)
+ a(M)
Rµν + a(M)∂µ u ∂ν u + a(M)∇µ ∇ν u ,4 α̂ Z5 α̂ Z
6 αZ

(0)
(0)
(0)
u → u + a(M)(u) + a(M)(∂u)2 + a(M)R,
7 α̂ Z8 α̂ Z9 α̂ Z

32(5.8)

where the nine coefficients a(M)take the values
i
512
a(M)
1 = − 3

320
a(M)
2 = 9

a(M)
3 = −128a(M)
4 = 768a(M)
5 = 384

a(M)
6 = 0

a(M)
7 = −384

896
a(M)
8 = 3

a(M)
9 = 0,

the five-dimensional action boils down to
Z
1
2
(5)
R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du + 768(2π)3 α̂χ(Y3 )e−u du ∧ ? du2κ11 S =
2
M5
Z


+
384 α̂ Z (0) Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 4 Rµν Rµν + R2 ? 1(5.9)(5.10)

M5Z+

192 α̂ Z (0) (∂u)4 ? 1.

M5

The only four derivative couplings in (5.10) surviving this field redefinition are the squared
Riemann terms in the Gauss-Bonnet combination and the (∂u)4 interaction which leads
to a particularly simple form of the effective action. Effectively, one obtains a masslessscalar field u coupled to Gauss-Bonnet (super-)gravity4 and a (∂u)4 like interaction term.
The four derivative terms couple to the theory by means of the divisor integral
Z
Z
(0)
(0)
(0)
Z =
c2 ∧ J =c(0)(5.11)
2 ,Y3

Dwhere D ≡ [J]PD is the divisor Poincare dual to J. At this stage the coupling Z (0) is
independent of the modulus u = log V, since it is computed using the metric gi̄ . The
modulus dependent coupling Z
Z
Z
u/3
(0)
Z=
c2 ∧ J = ec(0)= eu/3 Z (0) ,(5.12)
2 ∧J
Y3

Y3

where the quantities c2 and J are now associated to the metric gi̄ = eu/3 gi̄(0) , can now
be implemented in (5.10) in a straightforward way using (5.12).

5.2Type IIA one modulus reduction

Now we turn to the discussion of the one-modulus case in Type IIA. We therefore consider
in a similar fashion as in the M-theory context shown above the ansatz for the metricds̃210 = gµν dxµ dxν + 2eu/3 gi̄(0) dz i dz̄ ̄ ,φ̃ = φ0 + α hφ(1) i ,4once its supersymmetric completion is taken into account33(5.13)(5.14)

where we again compute hφ(1) i given in (2.16) using the metric gi̄ = eu/3 gi̄(0) . Performing the dimensional reduction of the Type IIA action including tree-level and one-loop
corrections results in a four-dimensional effective action of the form
(4)
S (4) = S2(4)der. + α SR(4)2 + α SRu+ α Su(4) .

(5.15)The various contributions to (5.15) are the two derivative action S2(4)der. 5 , the piece
containing the quadratic Riemann tensor terms SR(4)2 , the part of the action containing(4)
the mixed Riemann tensor and u terms SRu
and finally the contribution where all four
derivatives act on the u scalars, denoted by Su(4) . The various pieces areZ −2φ0 u5(4)2
e − 1536 α (2π)3 χ(Y3 ) `0 R ? 1 + e−2φ0 eu du ∧ ? due2κ10 S2 der. =6M4
+ 768 α (`0 + `1 ) χ(Y3 ) (2π)3 du ∧ ? du ,(5.16)
2κ210 SR(4)2 =Z



Z 384 `1 Rµνρσ Rµνρσ + (`0 − `1 ) Rµν Rµν − 192 (`0 − `1 ) R2 ? 1 ,M4(5.17)(4)
2κ210 SRu=

2κ210 Su(4) =

Z

h 256
Z −
(`0 − `1 ) Rµν ∂µ u ∂ν u ? 1 − 512 (`0 − `1 ) Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u3M4i
+ 256 (`0 − `1 ) R (u) ? 1 + 64 (`0 − `1 ) R du ∧ ? du ,(5.18)

Z

h

Z −
M4

128
128
(`0 − `1 ) (u)2 ? 1 −(`0 − `1 ) (u) du ∧ ? du
3
9

256
80
(`0 + `1 ) (∂u)4 ? 1 +`0 ∂ µ u ∇µ ∇ν u ∂ ν u ? 1
9
9
i
256
+
`0 ∇µ ∇ν u ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1 ,(5.19)
3
where we made use of the shorthand notation (4.4) and (5.12). A Weyl rescaling accordingto−1gµν → e−2φ0 eu − 1536 α (2π)3 χ(Y3 )`0gµν(5.20)+

transforms the action (5.15) into the four dimesnional Einstein frame action
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
SIIA
= Sclass+ α `0 Stree+ α `1 Sloop,(5.21)(4)(4)
where we split the action (5.21) in a classical piece Sclass, a tree-level (in gs ) part Stree(4)
and a one-loop correction Sloop. Using external space total derivative identities on canshow that the relations
Z
Z
h1
i
√
√
1
u/3
µ
ν
4
d x −g e ∇ u ∇µ ∇ν u ∇ u = −d4 x −g eu/3 (∂u)4 + (u) (∂u)2
2 M4
3
M4
(5.22)

5

including the corrections at O(α03 )34

as well as
Z
Z
√
4
u/3
µ ν
d x −g e ∇µ ∇ν u ∇ ∇ u =h√1
d4 x −g eu/3 (u)2 + (u) (∂u)2
2
M4

M4

+

i
1
(∂u)4 − Rµν ∂µ u ∂ν u
18

hold. The constituents of (5.21) can then be shown to take the form
Z
2
(4)
2
R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du ,2κ10 Sclass =
3
M4
(4)
=
2κ210 StreeZ(5.23)(5.24)



Z 768 Rµν Rµν − 192 R2 ? 1 − 2560 (2π)3 χ(Y3 ) e2φ0 e−u du ∧ ? du

M4

Z
Z

+

h 6592
9

M4

Z
Z

+

h 2048
9

M4

i
2048
4
(u) ? 1 − 128 (u) du ∧ ? du +(∂u) ? 1
81
2

Rµν ∂µ u ∂ν u ? 1 + 1024 Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1i− 128 R (u) ? 1 − 128 R du ∧ ? du ,(4)2κ210 Sloop=

Z(5.25)

hi
Z 384 Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 768 Rµν Rµν + 192 R2 ? 1

M4

Z
+

768 (2π)3 e2φ0 χ(Y3 ) e−u du ∧ ? du

M4

Z

i
4928
6016
4
(u) du ∧ ? du +(∂u ) ? 1+
Z 448(u) ? 1 −
9
27
M4
Z
h
+
Z − 256 Rµν ∂µ u∂ν u ? 1 + 512 Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1
h

2

M4

i
+ 128 R (u) ? 1 − 256 R du ∧ ? du .

(5.26)

Similar to the M-theory discussion in section 5.1 we can again consider higher derivative
field redefinitions. The general ansatz for those redefinitions reads(0) u/3(0) u/3(0) u/3gµν → gµν + a(A)e (u) gµν + a(A)e (∂u)2 gµν + a(M)e R gµν
1 αZ2 α̂ Z3 α̂ Z(5.27)(0) u/3(0) u/3(0) u/3+ a(A)
e Rµν + a(A)e ∂µ u ∂ν u + a(A)e ∇µ ∇ν u ,4 α̂ Z5 α̂ Z6 αZ(0) u/3(0) u/3(0) u/3u → u + a(A)e (u) + a(A)e (∂u)2 + a(A)e R.
7 α̂ Z8 α̂ Z9 α̂ Z(5.28)

The coefficients a(A)can then have tree-level and one-loop contributions proportional to
i
−2φ0
2
ζ(3)e
and π /3 respectively which we again choose in a way, such that the action
35

takes a particularly simple form. The factors multiplying these tree-level and one-loop
coefficients in the various parameters a(A)≡ αi `0 + βi `1 are listed in Table 5.1.
i
i=1

i=2

i=3

i=4

i=5

i=6

i=7

i=8

i=9

αi

−384

2048
9

−192

768

512
9

1024

− 3184
3

−96

0

βi

−384

1280
3

−192

768

− 256
3

512

−592

928
3

0

Table 5.1: Our choice of the coefficients in the field redefinitions.
The various pieces in the four-dimensional action we obtain after those redefinitions are
then
Z
2
(4)
2
2κ10 Sclass =R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du ,(5.29)
3
M4
Z
5632
(4)
2
2κ10 Stree = −Z (∂u)4 ? 1,
(5.30)
2560 (2π)3 χ(Y3 ) e2φ0 e−u du ∧ ? du +
81
M4
Z
h
i
(4)
2
2κ10 Sloop =384 Z Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 4 Rµν Rµν + R2 ? 1(5.31)
M4Z+

768 (2π)3 e2φ0 χ(Y3 ) e−u du ∧ ? du −

M4

5.3

3008
Z (∂u)4 ? 1 .
27Type IIB one modulus reduction

We finally aim to include the eight derivative R4 -terms for the case of one modulus
in Type IIB. We will take into account the classical Einstein-Hilbert action, which isincluded in Type IIB supergravity, as well as the tree-level and one-loop R4 -correctionsin ten dimensions. Since the higher derivative terms of the dilaton and the NS-NS twoform are not known in Type IIB, we do not include them as dynamical fields. The action
we are considering thus takes the formIIB
S IIB = Sclass+ α SR̃IIB
4 ,(5.32)

with the classical action
IIB
Sclass=ZR̃ ∗˜ 1 −M10

1dτ ∧ ∗˜ dτ̄ + ... .
2τ22(5.33)and the leading order R4 -action defined in (4.20). The ellipses in (5.33) stand for the
NS-NS two-form and the R-R fields which we do not display here. The ansatz for theten-dimensional fields is the background solution found in [21]


2
αΦ(1)
µ
ν
u/3 (0)i̄ds̃ = egµν dx dx + 2e gi̄ dz dz̄
(5.34)(0)Φ(1) = −192 (2π)3 Y (∗(0)
6 c3 )

φ̃ = φ0 + O(α) ,36where we have defined

π 2 φ0 /2e.
(5.35)
3
As in the M-theory and Type IIA reduction, we introduced the modulus u, such thatthe internal Calabi-Yau metric gi̄(0) is normalized to unit volume and the overall Weyl
factor Φ(1) is again computed using gi̄ = eu/3 gi̄(0) . There is furthermore a correction to
the dilaton φ̃(1) ∼ ∗6 c3 , which however only contributes at O(α2 ) to the action and cantherefore be ignored.
Y ≡ ζ(3) e−3φ0 /2 +The results of the dimensional reduction are very similar to the tree-level terms ofType IIA presented in section 5.2. We therefore refrain from giving the results before
the Weyl rescaling and simply state the result in Einstein frame. The four dimension
effective action is then
Z
2
(4)
2
2κ10 SIIB =R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du − 2560 (2π)3 α χ(Y3 ) Y e−u du ∧ ? du(5.36)
3M4Z
+α Z Y 768 Rµν Rµν − 192 R2 ? 1
M4

Z
+

αZ Y

M4

h 20489Rµν ∂µ u ∂ν u ? 1 + 1024 Rµν ∇µ ∇ν u ? 1i− 128 R (u) ? 1 − 128 R du ∧ ? du
Z
+
M4

αZ Y

h 65929(u)2 ? 1 − 128 (u) du ∧ ? du +i2048(∂u)4 ? 1 .
81

We can furthermore use the field redefinitions (5.27) and (5.28) and the coefficients inthe first column of Table 5.1 to simplify (5.36). Note that we also have to replace
ζ(3) e−2φ0 → Y . This finally leads to the action
Z
2
(4)
2
R ? 1 − du ∧ ? du − 2560 (2π)3 α χ(Y3 ) Y e−u du ∧ ? du2κ10 SIIB =
3
M4
Z
5632
Z Y (∂u)4 ? 1 .
(5.37)−
α81
M4Note that compared to (5.15) the couplings in the action (5.36) involve different powersof the dilaton vev φ0 . This is due to the fact, that we started on the one hand in theten-dimensional string frame for Type IIA, whereas on the other hand our starting point
for Type IIB was already the Einstein frame in ten dimensions. We can obtain the same
powers of the dilaton as in (5.15) if we perform the shift u → u − 32 φ0 .

5.4

Comments on the N = 1 orientifold truncation

In this final subsection we will discuss the orientifold truncation of the N = 2 compactification performed in the previous subsection. The resulting theory is expected to be a37

N = 1 supergravity theory and we will focus on the subsector of the theory involving
the Kähler structure deformations. In addition to this restricted focus we will not try
to complete the compactification to a fully consistent N = 1 setup. In fact, the presence of orientifold planes would require a more complete treatment involving D-branes,
which themselves eventually contribute higher-derivative terms to the four-dimensional
theory. With these caveats in mind we can nevertheless try to push our N = 2 results
and comment on the recent proposal of [25] to stabilize moduli. This procedure of direct
truncation from N = 2 to N = 1 has been used before in the determination of corrections
to the N = 1 Kähler potential in [20, 21].
In the N = 1 settings one faces similar difficulties as for in the discussion of the N = 2
Calabi-Yau threefold compactifications of the previous sections. In particular, a general
N = 1 four derivative on-shell action to which one can compare the effective action after
performing a reduction is currently not available. There are, however, partial results
extracted by expanding certain four derivative terms in superspace [43]. Therefore, it is
tempting to compare the N = 1 truncated one modulus reduction of section 5.3 to theaction of [43] as suggested in [25]. We will therefore briefly review the required results.
The main idea is to take into account a four derivative N = 1 Lagrangian and infer fromthe four derivative coupling a corresponding scalar potential. The relevant four derivative
Lagrangian is [43, 25]
Lbos.
√= 12 R − Gi̄ (A, Ā) ∂µ Ai ∂ µ Ā̄ − 2eK T l̄i k̄ Dk W Dl̄ W ∂µ Ai ∂ µ Ā̄−g

(5.38)+ Tij k̄l̄ ∂µ Ai ∂ µ Aj ∂ν Āk̄ ∂ ν Āl̄ − V (A, Ā) .
In (5.38) Ai are complex scalars in chiral multiplets, W is the holomorphic superpotential, Tij k̄l̄ is the coupling tensor for the four derivative interaction and Dj is theKähler covariant derivative. Additionally, the Kähler metric Gi̄ is given in terms of aKähler potential Gi̄ = ∂i ∂̄ K(A, Ā). The scalar potential in (5.38) consists of two terms
V (A, Ā) = V(0) + V(1) , whereV(0) = eK Gi̄ Di W D̄ W − 3|W |2 ,V(1) = −e2K T ı̄̄kl Dı̄ W D̄ W Dk W Dl W .

(5.39)In a simplified setup with only a single Kähler modulus sitting in a chiral multiplet after
the N = 1 truncation we have to compare (5.38) with the reduction result (5.37).
In order to perform the suggested comparison we first have to determine the correct
N = 1 coordinates. It is well-known [44,20,45] that at leading order one has to introduce
2complex fields A ≡ ρ + i e 3 u , where ρ is the appropriately re-scaled scalar arising fromthe R-R four-form and we recall u = log V is the logarithm of the Einstein-frame volume
of Y3 as seen in (5.3). Taking into account the O(α03 ) corrections at the two-derivative
level they potentially correct the N = 1 coordinates. However, it was argued in [20, 21]that the above A and the complex dilaton-axion τ = C0 + ie−φ are still the correct N = 1
38

coordinates. In the following we will freeze τ and only consider the dynamics of the fieldA.
In order to match the action (5.38) with the reduction result (5.37) we now have toassume, that the complexified coordinates A, especially the scalars ρ, arrange themselvesin way, such that only the contribution (∂A)2 (∂ Ā)2 enters the four dimensional action.
Comparing the action in the correct field variables with (5.38) leads to 6
Z
3/2
11 (2π)2
TAAĀĀ = −Imτ
c2 ∧ J .
(5.40)
192 V 4
Y3
This fixes, at least under the stated assumptions, the numerical factor discussed in [25].
Let us stress two points. First, we have used a non-trivial coordinate redefinition to
obtain (5.37) and it would be desirable to study its significance in this N = 1 truncatedscenario. Second, it would be desirable to compute the terms involving ρ in order tojustify the crucial assumption about the dependence on the complex moduli A. In thiscomputation one would have to use the same non-trivial coordinate redefinition, which
would provide a non-trivial check.
Let us close this section by some further comments. So far we have failed to generalize
the derivation of Tij k̄l̄ or other couplings for the kinetic terms of v i for more than one
modulus, since the computational complexity increases significantly. Also the derivationof the actual scalar potential seems currently difficult, since many of the required higherderivative terms in ten dimensions are not known. While (5.40) seems to suggest that apotential V(1) given in (5.38) is induced if a non-trivial superpotential is included, we are
not able to give any further evidence for that. It has been shown, for example, in [46]that it can happen in string reductions that the potential vanishes if one finds otherstructures for the kinetic terms not appearing in (5.38). It would be desirable to explore
this further.

6√
In this expression we have set 2π α0 = 1.

39

A

Definitions and conventions

The metric signature of the ten and eleven-dimensional spacetime is (−, +, . . . , +). Ourconventions for the totally antisymmetric tensor in Lorentzian signature in an orthonormal frame are 012...9(10) = 0123(4) = +1. The epsilon tensor in d dimensions then satisfies
R1 ···Rp N1 ...Nd−p R1 ...Rp M1 ...Md−p = (−1)s (d − p)!p!δ N1 [M1 . . . δ Nd−p Md−p ] ,(A.1)

where s = 0 if the metric has Euclidean signature and s = 1 for a Lorentzian metric.
We adopt the following conventions for the Christoffel symbols and Riemann tensor
1
ΓR M N = g RS (∂M gN S + ∂N gM S − ∂S gM N ) ,2

RM N = RR M RN ,RM N RS = ∂R ΓM SN − ∂S ΓM RN + ΓM RT ΓT SN − ΓM ST ΓT RN ,R = RM N g M N ,(A.2)

with equivalent definitions on the internal and external spaces. Written in components,
the first and second Bianchi identity are
RO P M N + RO M N P + RO N P M = 0∇L RO P M N + ∇M RO P N L + ∇N RO P LM = 0 .

(A.3)

Differential p-forms are expanded in a basis of differential one-forms asΛ=1
ΛM1 ...Mp dxM1 ∧ . . . ∧ dxMp .
p!

(A.4)

The wedge product between a p-form Λ(p) and a q-form Λ(q) is given by(Λ(p) ∧ Λ(q) )M1 ...Mp+q =(p + q)! (p)(q)Λ[M1 ...Mp ΛM1 ...Mq ] .
p!q!

(A.5)

Furthermore, the exterior derivative on a p-form Λ reads(dΛ)N M1 ...Mp = (p + 1)∂[N ΛM1 ...Mp ] ,(A.6)

while the Hodge star of p-form Λ in d real coordinates is given by(∗d Λ)N1 ...Nd−p =1 M1 ...MpΛM1 ...Mp N1 ...Nd−p .
p!

(A.7)

Λ(1) ∧ ∗Λ(2) =1 (1)ΛΛ(2)M1 ...Mp ∗ 1
p! M1 ...Mp(A.8)

Moreover, the identity

holds for two arbitrary p-forms Λ(1) and Λ(2) .
40

Let us specify in more detail our conventions regarding complex coordinates in theinternal space. For a complex Hermitian manifold M with complex dimension n thecomplex coordinates z 1 , . . . , z n and the underlying real coordinates ξ 1 , . . . , ξ 2n are related
by


1 1
1 2n−11n
22n(z , ..., z ) = √ (ξ + iξ ), . . . , √ (ξ+ iξ ) .
(A.9)
2
2
Using these conventions one finds√

gdξ 1 ∧ ... ∧ dξ 2n =

√

g(−1)

(n−1)n2

in dz 1 ∧ ... ∧ dz n ∧ dz̄ 1 ∧ ... ∧ dz̄ n =with g the determinant of the metric in real coordinates andKähler form is given by
J = igi̄ dz i ∧ dz̄ ̄ .

1 n
J ,
n!

(A.10)√
det gmn = det gij̄ . The(A.11)

Let ωp,q be a (p, q)-form, then its Hodge dual is the (n − q, n − p) formn(n−1)(−1) 2 in (−1)pnm ...m∗ωp,q =
ωm ...m n̄ ...n̄  1 p r̄1 ...r̄n−pp!q!(n − p)!(n − q)! 1 p 1 q
n̄ ...n̄q

× 1

s1 ...sn−q

dz s1 ∧ · · · ∧ dz sn−q ∧ dz̄ r̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dz̄ r̄n−p.

(A.12)

Finally, let us record our conventions regarding Chern forms. To begin with, we define
the curvature two-form for Hermitian manifolds to be
Ri j = Rijkl̄ dz k ∧ dz̄ l̄(A.13)

and we set
Tr R =

Rm mrs̄ dz r ∧ dz̄ s̄ ,Tr R2 =

Rm nrs̄ Rn mr1 s̄1 dz r ∧ dz̄ s̄ ∧ dz r1 ∧ dz̄ s̄1 ,Tr R3 =

Rm nrs̄ Rn n1 r1 s̄1 Rn1 mr2 s̄2 dz r ∧ dz̄ s̄ ∧ dz r1 ∧ dz̄ s̄1 ∧ dz r2 ∧ dz̄ s̄2 .

(A.14)The Chern forms can then be expressed in terms of the curvature two-form as
c0 = 1 ,i
Tr R ,
2π

1 1
2
2
c2 =
Tr
R
−
(Tr
R)
,
(2π)2 2c1 =(A.15)

1
1 1
1 i
c3 = c1 ∧ c2 +c1 ∧ Tr R2 −Tr R3 ,
23(2π) 3(2π)3 3


1 4
6 2
8i
1 1
2
3
2 2
4
c4 =
c1 −
c
∧
Tr
R
−
c
∧
Tr
R
+
(Tr
R
)
−
2Tr
R
.
1
1
24
(2π)2
(2π)3
(2π)4 841

The Chern forms of an n-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold Yn reduce toc3 (Yn≥3 ) = −


1 i
1 1
Tr R3 and c4 (Yn≥4 ) =(Tr R2 )2 − 2Tr R4 .
34(2π) 3(2π) 8

We furthermore introduce the intersection numbers Kabc asZ
ωa ∧ ωb ∧ ωc ,Kabc = Da · Db · Dc =(A.16)(A.17)

Y3

where Da = [ωa ]PD are divisors Poincare dual to the harmonic (1,1)-forms ωa . Contractions of the intersection numbers with Kähler moduli v a , such as the four-cycle volumes
Ka are defined as
1
Ka = Kabc v b v c
2(A.18)

Kab = Kabc v c .
(0)
The corresponding quantities on the backgroud Calabi-Yau are denoted by Kab, Ka(0) aredefined in an analogous way.

B

Eight derivative terms in ten and eleven dimensions

B.1

Eight derivative terms in ten dimensions

Here we collect the explicit forms of the eight derivative terms relevant for the discussion
in the main part. The relevant structures containing four Riemann tensors are the familiart̃8 t̃8 R̃4 and 10 10 R̃4 combinations. Their explicit form in terms of ten-dimensional indicesist̃8 t̃8 R̃4 = t̃A1 ···A8 t̃B1 ···B8 R̃B1 B2 A1 A2 · · · R̃B7 B8 A7 A8
10 10 R̃4 = 10C1 C2 A1 ···A8 10 C1 C2 B1 ···B8 R̃B1 B2 A1 A2 · · · R̃B7 B8 A7 A8 ,

(B.1)
(B.2)

where 10 is the ten-dimensional curved spacetime Levi-Civita tensor and the tensor t̃8
has the explicit representation in terms of the metric tensor
1hA1 ···A8− 2 g̃ A1 A3 g̃ A2 A4 g̃ A5 A7 g̃ A6 A8 + g̃ A1 A5 g̃ A2 A6 g̃ A3 A7 g̃ A4 A8 + g̃ A1 A7 g̃ A2 A8 g̃ A3 A5 g̃ A4 A6
t̃8
=
16

+ 8 g̃ A2 A3 g̃ A4 A5 g̃ A6 A7 g̃ A8 A1 + g̃ A2 A5 g̃ A6 A3 g̃ A4 A7 g̃ A8 A1 + g̃ A2 A5 g̃ A6 A7 g̃ A8 A3 g̃ A4 A1i− (A1 ↔ A2 ) − (A3 ↔ A4 ) − (A5 ↔ A6 ) − (A7 ↔ A8 ) .
(B.3)
The B̃2 completion is then obtained by introducing the connection with torsion as outlined in section 2.11Ω± Aαβ = ΩAαβ ± H̃3A αβ ,
(B.4)
2
42

where ΩA αβ are the components of the so(1, 9) - valued connection one-form corresponding to the Levi-Civita connection. In this notation α, β are flat tangent space indicesof M10 . The structure 10 10 H̃32 R̃3 which enters the replacement in section 2.1 has thecomponent form
0 ···B810 10 H̃32 R̃3 (Ω± ) = 10 C1 A0 ···A8 C1B
H̃3 A1 A2 B0 H̃3B1 B2 A0
10× R̃(Ω+ )

B.2

A3 A4

(B.5)

A7 A8
B7 B8 .
B3 B4 · · · R̃(Ω+ )Eight derivative terms in eleven dimensions

The classical eleven-dimensional supergravity action gets corrected by different contributions which should be discussed in the following. The most prominent higher curvatureterm in M-theory is the sector containing four Riemann tensors. Those involve twodifferent structures namely
Z


1
1
4
SR = 2(B.6)
t̂8 t̂8 − 11 11 R̂4 ∗ˆ1.
2κ11 M1124
In (B.6) the two quantities t̂8 t̂8 R̂4 and 11 11 R̂4 have the index representationt̂8 t̂8 R̂4 = t8 M1 ···M8 t8 N1 ···N8 R̂N1 N2 M1 M2 · · · R̂N7 N8 M7 M8(B.7)

11 11 R̂4 = 11 R1 R2 R3 M1 ···M8 11 R1 R2 R3 N1 ···N8 R̂N1 N2 M1 M2 · · · R̂N7 N8 M7 M8 .

(B.8)

The tensor t̂8 is defined in a completely analogous way as in (B.3). Those R4 - terms arefurthermore supplemented by another term quartic in the Riemann tensor. This term
however also comprises a three form Ĉ3 . This piece of the higher derivative action thenhas the form
Z
32 213Ĉ3 ∧ X̂8
(B.9)
SC3 X8 = − 22κ11 M11
where eight form X̂8 is defined as

2 
1
1
4
2
X̂8 =
Tr R̂ −
Tr R̂
192
4

(B.10)

which is in terms of the (real) curvature two form
1
R̂M N = R̂M N N1 N2 dxN1 ∧ dxN2 .
2(B.11)In addition to those quartic Riemann tensor terms it was conjectured in [14] that thecomplete Ĝ4 dependence at O(Ĝ24 ) is captured by introducing
1 ···M8t̂8N1 ···N8 Ĝ4 N1 M1 R1 R2 Ĝ4 N2 M2 R1 R2 R̂N3 N4 M3 M4 · · · R̂N7 N8 M7 M8t̂8 t̂8 Ĝ24 R̂3 =t̂M
8

(B.12)

11 11 Ĝ24 R3 =11 RM1 ···M10 11 RN1 ···N10 Ĝ4 N1 N2 M1 M2 Ĝ4 N3 N4 M3 M4 R̂N5 N6 M5 M6 · · · R̂N9 N10 M9 M10 .
(B.13)
43

The last eleven-dimensional eight derivative contribution involves the tensor ŝ18 parametrizedby six unknown coefficients an ∈ R. We then have the additional coupling of the form
ˆ Ĝ4 )2 R̂2 = ŝ18 N1 ···N18 R̂ˆˆŝ18 (∇
N1 ···N4 R̂N5 ···N8 ∇N9 Ĝ4N10 ···N13 ∇N14 Ĝ4N15 ···N18
=A+

6
X

an Z n ,(B.14)

n=1

where the quantities A, Zn are defined by
A = −24B5 − 48B8 − 24B10 − 6B12 − 12B13 + 12B14 + 8B16 − 4B20 + B22 + 4B23 + B24
Z1 = 48B1 + 48B2 − 48B3 + 36B4 + 96B6 + 48B7 − 48B8 + 96B10 + 12B12 + 24B13
Z2 = −48B1 − 48B2 − 24B4 − 24B5 + 48B6 − 48B8 − 24B9 − 72B10 − 24B13 + 24B14− B22 + 4B23
Z3 = 12B1 + 12B2 − 24B3 + 9B4 + 48B6 + 24B7 − 24B8 + 24B10 + 6B12 + 6B13 + 4B15
− 4B17 + 3B19 + 2B21
Z4 = 12B1 + 12B2 − 12B3 + 9B4 + 24B6 + 12B7 − 12B8 + 24B10 + 3B12 + 6B13
+ 4B15 − 4B17 + 2B20
Z5 = 4B3 − 8B6 − 4B7 + 4B8 − B12 − 2B14 + 4B18
Z6 = B4 + 2B11 .

(B.15)

ˆ Ĝ4 )2 R̂2 given in ( B.16).
The elements Bi form a basis of the terms with the structure (∇B1 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N8 ∇N5 GN1 N7 N8 N9 ∇N3 GN2 N4 N6 N9

B2 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N8 ∇N5 GN1 N3 N7 N9 ∇N8 GN2 N4 N6 N9

B3 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N8 ∇N5 GN1 N3 N7 N9 ∇N6 GN2 N4 N8 N9

B4 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N8 ∇N9 GN3 N4 N7 N8 ∇N6 GN9 N1 N2 N5

B5 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N1 GN2 N3 N8 N9 ∇N5 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B6 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N1 GN2 N5 N8 N9 ∇N3 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B7 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N1 GN2 N5 N8 N9 ∇N7 GN3 N6 N8 N9

B8 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N1 GN3 N5 N8 N9 ∇N2 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B9 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N1 GN3 N5 N8 N9 ∇N6 GN2 N7 N8 N9

B10 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N9 GN3 N5 N7 N8 ∇N9 GN1 N2 N6 N8

B11 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N8 GN1 N2 N6 N9 ∇N9 GN3 N5 N7 N8

B12 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N7 N4 ∇N3 GN5 N6 N8 N9 ∇N7 GN2 N1 N8 N9

B13 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N9 GN2 N6 N7 N8 ∇N9 GN4 N5 N7 N8

B14 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N9 GN2 N4 N7 N8 ∇N5 GN4 N7 N8 N9

B15 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N2 GN6 N7 N8 N9 ∇N5 GN4 N7 N8 N9

B16 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N2 GN4 N7 N8 N9 ∇N5 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B17 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N2 GN5 N7 N8 N9 ∇N4 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B18 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N6 N3 ∇N9 GN5 N6 N7 N8 ∇N4 GN2 N7 N8 N9

B19 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N3 N4 ∇N9 GN1 N5 N7 N8 ∇N9 GN2 N6 N7 N8

B20 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N3 N4 ∇N1 GN5 N7 N8 N9 ∇N2 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B21 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N6 N3 N4 ∇N1 GN5 N7 N8 N9 ∇N6 GN2 N7 N8 N9

B22 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N3 N4 ∇N2 GN6 N7 N8 N9 ∇N5 GN6 N7 N8 N9

B23 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN5 N1 N3 N4 ∇N9 GN2 N6 N7 N8 ∇N9 GN5 N6 N7 N8

B24 = RN1 N2 N3 N4 RN1 N2 N3 N4 ∇N5 GN6 N7 N8 ∇N6 GN5 N7 N8 N9(B.16)

44

References[1] R. Blumenhagen, D. Lst, and S. Theisen, Basic concepts of string theory.
Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
[2] A. C. Cadavid, A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria, and S. Ferrara, “Eleven-dimensional
supergravity compactified on Calabi-Yau threefolds,” Phys. Lett. B357 (1995)
76–80, hep-th/9506144.
[3] L. E. Ibanez and A. M. Uranga, String theory and particle physics: An
introduction to string phenomenology. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[4] R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lust, and S. Stieberger, “Four-dimensional String
Compactifications with D-Branes, Orientifolds and Fluxes,” Phys. Rept. 445(2007) 1–193, hep-th/0610327.
[5] D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations,”
Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 1.
[6] A. Rajaraman, “On a supersymmetric completion of the R**4 term in type IIB
supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 125008, hep-th/0505155.
[7] M. J. Duff, J. T. Liu, and R. Minasian, “Eleven-dimensional origin of string-string
duality: A One loop test,” Nucl. Phys. B452 (1995) 261–282, hep-th/9506126.
[8] M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “D instantons, strings and M theory,” Phys. Lett.
B408 (1997) 122–134, hep-th/9704145.
[9] M. B. Green, M. Gutperle, and P. Vanhove, “One loop in eleven-dimensions,”
Phys. Lett. B409 (1997) 177–184, hep-th/9706175.
[10] E. Kiritsis and B. Pioline, “On R**4 threshold corrections in IIb string theory and(p, q) string instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B508 (1997) 509–534, hep-th/9707018.
[11] J. G. Russo and A. A. Tseytlin, “One loop four graviton amplitude in
eleven-dimensional supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B508 (1997) 245–259,
hep-th/9707134.
[12] I. Antoniadis, S. Ferrara, R. Minasian, and K. S. Narain, “R**4 couplings in M
and type II theories on Calabi-Yau spaces,” Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997) 571–588,
hep-th/9707013.
[13] A. A. Tseytlin, “R**4 terms in 11 dimensions and conformal anomaly of (2,0)
theory,” Nucl. Phys. B584 (2000) 233–250, hep-th/0005072.
[14] J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, “Higher-derivative couplings in string theory: dualities
and the B-field,” Nucl. Phys. B874 (2013) 413–470, 1304.3137.

45[15] M. F. Paulos, “Higher derivative terms including the Ramond-Ramond five-form,”
JHEP 10 (2008) 047, 0804.0763.
[16] G. Policastro and D. Tsimpis, “A Note on the quartic effective action of type IIB
superstring,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 125001, 0812.3138.
[17] R. Minasian, T. G. Pugh, and R. Savelli, “F-theory at order α03 ,” JHEP 10 (2015)
050, 1506.06756.
[18] I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K. S. Narain, and T. R. Taylor, “Topological amplitudes instring theory,” Nucl. Phys. B413 (1994) 162–184, hep-th/9307158.
[19] P. Candelas, X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green, and L. Parkes, “A Pair of Calabi-Yau
manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,” Nucl. Phys. B359 (1991)
21–74.
[20] K. Becker, M. Becker, M. Haack, and J. Louis, “Supersymmetry breaking andalpha-prime corrections to flux induced potentials,” JHEP 06 (2002) 060,
hep-th/0204254.
[21] F. Bonetti and M. Weissenbacher, “The Euler characteristic correction to theKaehler potential - revisited,” 1608.01300.
[22] K. Hanaki, K. Ohashi, and Y. Tachikawa, “Supersymmetric Completion of an
R**2 term in Five-dimensional Supergravity,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 117 (2007) 533,
hep-th/0611329.
[23] S. Cremonini, K. Hanaki, J. T. Liu, and P. Szepietowski, “Black holes infive-dimensional gauged supergravity with higher derivatives,” JHEP 12 (2009)
045, 0812.3572.
[24] D. Ciupke, “Scalar Potential from Higher Derivative N = 1 Superspace,”
1605.00651.
[25] D. Ciupke, J. Louis, and A. Westphal, “Higher-Derivative Supergravity andModuli Stabilization,” JHEP 10 (2015) 094, 1505.03092.
[26] T. W. Grimm, T. G. Pugh, and M. Weissenbacher, “On M-theory fourfold vacua
with higher curvature terms,” Phys. Lett. B743 (2015) 284–289, 1408.5136.
[27] T. W. Grimm, T. G. Pugh, and M. Weissenbacher, “The effective action of warped
M-theory reductions with higher derivative terms part I,” JHEP 01 (2016) 142,
1412.5073.
[28] T. W. Grimm, T. G. Pugh, and M. Weissenbacher, “The effective action of warped
M-theory reductions with higher-derivative terms - Part II,” JHEP 12 (2015) 117,
1507.00343.

46

[29] S. Katmadas and R. Minasian, “N = 2 higher-derivative couplings from strings,”
JHEP 02 (2014) 093, 1311.4797.
[30] S. Gukov and M. Haack, “IIA string theory on Calabi-Yau fourfolds withbackground fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B639 (2002) 95–128, hep-th/0203267.
[31] E. Cremmer, B. Julia, and J. Scherk, “Supergravity Theory in
Eleven-Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409–412.
[32] K. Peeters, J. Plefka, and S. Stern, “Higher-derivative gauge field terms in the
M-theory action,” JHEP 08 (2005) 095, hep-th/0507178.
[33] D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic
String,” Nucl. Phys. B291 (1987) 41–89.
[34] K. Becker and M. Becker, “Supersymmetry breaking, M theory and fluxes,” JHEP
07 (2001) 038, hep-th/0107044.
[35] H. Lu, C. N. Pope, K. S. Stelle, and P. K. Townsend, “String and M-theory
deformations of manifolds with special holonomy,” JHEP 07 (2005) 075,
hep-th/0410176.
[36] H. Lu, C. N. Pope, K. S. Stelle, and P. K. Townsend, “Supersymmetricdeformations of G(2) manifolds from higher order corrections to string and M
theory,” JHEP 10 (2004) 019, hep-th/0312002.
[37] A. Ceresole and G. Dall’Agata, “General matter coupled N=2, D = 5 gauged
supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B585 (2000) 143–170, hep-th/0004111.
[38] F. Bonetti and T. W. Grimm, “Six-dimensional (1,0) effective action of F-theory
via M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds,” JHEP 05 (2012) 019, 1112.1082.
[39] E. Bergshoeff, S. Cucu, T. de Wit, J. Gheerardyn, S. Vandoren, andA. Van Proeyen, “N = 2 supergravity in five-dimensions revisited,” Class. Quant.
Grav. 21 (2004) 3015–3042, hep-th/0403045. [Class. Quant. Grav.23,7149(2006)].
[40] M. Weissenbacher, “On four-derivative terms in IIB Calabi-Yau orientifold
reductions,” 1607.03913.
[41] S. Ferrara, R. R. Khuri, and R. Minasian, “M theory on a Calabi-Yau manifold,”
Phys. Lett. B375 (1996) 81–88, hep-th/9602102.
[42] M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven, and D. Zanon, “Two-Dimensional
Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite,”
Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 388–408.
[43] M. Koehn, J.-L. Lehners, and B. A. Ovrut, “Higher-Derivative Chiral Superfield
Actions Coupled to N=1 Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 085019,
1207.3798.
47[44] S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, and J. Polchinski, “Hierarchies from fluxes in string
compactifications,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 106006, hep-th/0105097.
[45] T. W. Grimm and J. Louis, “The Effective action of N = 1 Calabi-Yauorientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B699 (2004) 387–426, hep-th/0403067.
[46] S. Bielleman, L. E. Ibanez, F. G. Pedro, I. Valenzuela, and C. Wieck, “The DBI
Action, Higher-derivative Supergravity, and Flattening Inflaton Potentials,” JHEP
05 (2016) 095, 1602.00699.

48