The de Sitter / String Swampland Atlas

A navigable, source-first guide to the de Sitter problem in string theory. It maps how the concepts connect, labels how well each claim is supported, and sends you to the primary literature rather than standing in for it.

Educational research map · non-peer-reviewed orientation tool

Read the working paperZenodo record ↗Context pack →Concept library →Source library →metadata.json

Built from The de Sitter Problem in the String Swampland: A Verified Literature Map (v2.0, 2026-07-26), archived at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603961 (concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603960). Every source below is drawn from that paper’s verified citation set. String theory and M-theory are research frameworks; neither is an experimentally confirmed description of nature, and nothing here should be read as claiming otherwise.

Epistemic legend — how to read the labels

Established result
A mathematical construction, derivation, or experimental measurement that the relevant community treats as settled. It says what was shown, not that any larger claim built on it follows.
Active research
A genuinely open question under current technical dispute. Competent researchers disagree, the disagreement is technical rather than rhetorical, and no side has closed it.
Conjecture
A precisely stated proposal that is motivated by evidence and argument but has not been derived or proved. It may be true; it is not established.
Speculative interpretation
A scenario built on top of one or more unproved conjectures, often combined with phenomenological input. Interesting and testable in places, but several inferential steps from established ground.

A label describes the standing of a claim, not its importance. Nothing on this page is labelled “established” unless the source material supports that distinction — which here means a defined mathematical construction or a published laboratory measurement, never the question of whether de Sitter vacua exist in string theory.

Concept map — 16 concepts

Select a concept to open its definition, epistemic status, and sources. Arrows show the direction of dependence or derivation, not agreement — several of them mark exactly where the field disagrees. Press Esc to close the panel.

No concept selected. Choose one from the map above to see its definition, why it matters, its epistemic status, and its sources.

Claim ledger — 12 claims

Each claim carries a stable identifier, an epistemic status, a sourced explanation, and the limitation that keeps it honest. Every claim is separately linkable — cite the identifier, not the wording alone. Machine-readable at claims.json.

  1. ds-001Established result · observational framework

    The observed late-time acceleration of the universe is standardly modeled with a small positive cosmological constant, and current data place the dark-energy equation of state near w = −1.

    Why it is stated this way
    This is the empirical anchor of the debate. Both camps accept it: the landscape side tries to reproduce a small positive vacuum energy from string constructions, and the swampland side has to explain the same observation without a stable de Sitter vacuum.
    Scope and limitations
    A successful model is not a proof of mechanism. Whether the vacuum energy is truly constant or slowly rolling is not settled by current bounds. Note also that the discovery-era supernova papers are outside the source map’s verified citation set, so they are not cited here; the sources listed are the in-set works that constrain the equation of state.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-001 →
  2. ds-002Active research

    Whether string/M-theory admits stable or metastable de Sitter vacua remains an open question, and there is no community consensus.

    Why it is stated this way
    The source map is explicit that the disagreement is technical and genuine, turning on the validity of four-dimensional effective actions, the control of higher-dimensional backreaction, and the trustworthiness of asymptotic regimes. Both camps maintain mathematically sophisticated positions.
    Scope and limitations
    Neither this atlas nor its source paper adjudicates the question. Any presentation of either side as settled misrepresents the state of the field.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-002 →
  3. ds-003Established result

    KKLT is a specific, well-defined proposal for obtaining a de Sitter vacuum: flux and non-perturbative stabilization into a supersymmetric anti-de Sitter minimum, followed by an anti-D3-brane uplift.

    Why it is stated this way
    The construction exists as a definite recipe in the literature and has been the reference point for the field for two decades. Describing what it proposes is uncontroversial.
    Scope and limitations
    That the construction is well-defined does not establish that it works. Its validity is the subject of the next two claims.

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-003 →
  4. ds-004Active research

    Whether the KKLT anti-brane uplift is under parametric ten-dimensional supergravity control is actively debated.

    Why it is stated this way
    Defenders argue that supersymmetry breaking is localized on the anti-D3-brane and that an explicit ten-dimensional analysis reproduces the four-dimensional result. Skeptics argue that explicit ten-dimensional treatments show infrared singularities in the anti-brane backreaction, and that the integrated ten-dimensional equations obstruct the uplift.
    Scope and limitations
    This is a live technical dispute between established groups — not a fringe objection to a settled result, and not a refutation either. The existence of a singularity in a given approximation is not the same as its being physical; defenders argue brane polarization resolves it. Citing only one side misrepresents the literature.
    Sources
    Related atlas concepts
    KKLTModulide Sitter spacetime

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-004 →
  5. ds-005Established result

    The Large Volume Scenario stabilizes Kähler moduli at exponentially large volume, which nominally suppresses α′ and loop corrections.

    Why it is stated this way
    The stabilization mechanism and its large-volume scaling are a definite result of the construction, and the suppression of leading corrections at large volume follows from that scaling.
    Scope and limitations
    Nominal suppression of the leading corrections is not the same as parametric control of all of them. That stronger statement is contested.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-005 →
  6. ds-006Active research

    It has been argued that keeping LVS de Sitter constructions under control requires a negative D3-tadpole exceeding known Calabi-Yau bounds.

    Why it is stated this way
    This is the sharpest quantitative form of the LVS control objection: rather than disputing the scheme in principle, it derives a numerical requirement and compares it with what the known geometries supply.
    Scope and limitations
    A parametric constraint against currently known Calabi-Yau bounds is not a no-go theorem. The bound is on what has been catalogued, and the argument is contested by LVS proponents.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-006 →
  7. ds-007Conjecture

    The de Sitter swampland conjecture proposes that scalar potentials in consistent quantum-gravity effective theories obey a gradient bound |∇V| ≥ c·V, with c of order one.

    Why it is stated this way
    Stating the conjecture is a statement about the literature, not about nature. Its advocates motivate it from the distance conjecture and de Sitter thermodynamics, and it would forbid stable de Sitter minima if correct.
    Scope and limitations
    The conjecture has no derivation from a ten-dimensional construction and no proof. It is a proposal under active test, and a refined form was introduced precisely because the original was in tension with known physics.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-007 →
  8. ds-008Active research

    An order-one value of c has been argued to be in tension with slow-roll inflation and with the observed value of the cosmological constant.

    Why it is stated this way
    This is the main cosmological objection from the landscape side: the same order-one constant that makes the conjecture powerful also makes it hard to reconcile with inflationary phenomenology and with the observed dark-energy sector.
    Scope and limitations
    The tension depends on which version of the conjecture is used and on assumptions about the inflationary sector. It is an argument in a live dispute, not a refutation.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-008 →
  9. ds-009Conjecture

    The Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture proposes that sub-Planckian fluctuations never cross the Hubble horizon and freeze, which bounds the lifetime of a de Sitter phase.

    Why it is stated this way
    TCC gives an independent route to swampland-like constraints, replacing "no de Sitter" with "no long-lived de Sitter". It has become central to the post-2019 debate and is treated as its own thread in the source map.
    Scope and limitations
    TCC is a conjecture. Skeptics note that the resulting bound forces a low inflation scale, which makes the observed amplitude of primordial perturbations hard to generate without fine-tuning.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-009 →
  10. ds-010Active research

    If metastable de Sitter vacua are excluded, dark energy would have to be dynamical — a rolling scalar field rather than a constant.

    Why it is stated this way
    Quintessence is the standard fallback if the swampland position is correct, and it is where the conjectures make contact with data that can actually be measured.
    Scope and limitations
    This is a conditional claim, not a claim that dark energy is dynamical. Bounds near w = −1 constrain rolling models; one 2023 reanalysis in the source set finds newer data allows slightly more freedom in the criteria rather than tightening the tension, while raising a separate fine-tuning problem from constraints on moduli-electromagnetic couplings.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-010 →
  11. ds-011Speculative interpretation

    The Dark Dimension scenario ties the dark-energy scale to a Kaluza-Klein scale via the AdS distance conjecture, predicting a single extra dimension of roughly micron size.

    Why it is stated this way
    It is one of the few places in this debate that yields a concrete, near-term testable number, which is why it attracts attention out of proportion to its epistemic footing.
    Scope and limitations
    The scenario is built on the AdS distance conjecture — itself unproved — combined with phenomenological input. A testable prediction is not evidence for the premises that generated it.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-011 →
  12. ds-012Established result · experimental measurement

    Torsion-balance experiments report no deviation from the gravitational inverse-square law down to separations of about 52 micrometres.

    Why it is stated this way
    This is a direct laboratory measurement, published in Physical Review Letters, and one of the few genuinely settled empirical inputs on this map. It constrains any scenario predicting a mesoscopic extra dimension.
    Scope and limitations
    A null result bounds the parameter space; it does not exclude the Dark Dimension scenario, whose predicted scale sits near the current experimental frontier. Systematics modeling, not the raw sensitivity, is the practical limit.
    Sources

    Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · Atlas v1.2.0

    Permalink to ds-012 →

Disagreement map — 7 open problems

The seven open problems from the source paper, each separated into four layers: the technical language both sides share, the specific point actually in dispute, what rests on unproved conjecture, and what would move the problem. Competing positions are stated as their proponents argue them. Neither side is presented as settled, because neither is.

  1. Problem 1

    KKLT anti-brane uplift and ten-dimensional control

    Is the KKLT anti-brane uplift under parametric ten-dimensional supergravity control?

    Common technical language
    Both sides use flux compactification, non-perturbative superpotentials, warped throats, and the anti-D3-brane uplift as well-defined objects. Nobody disputes what the KKLT recipe says to do, or that it produces a supersymmetric anti-de Sitter minimum before the uplift step.
    Actively debated
    Whether the anti-brane backreaction is singular in ten dimensions in a way that invalidates the four-dimensional effective description. This is a calculation about a specific approximation regime, not a matter of taste.
    Conjectural
    Nothing in this problem requires a swampland conjecture. It is a control question internal to string theory, which is why it is the hardest one to dismiss from either direction.
    What would count as progress
    An agreed ten-dimensional treatment of the polarized anti-brane and its backreaction, reproducible by both camps. The source paper classes this as deep formal work in supergravity and algebraic geometry, effectively closed to an outsider without an expert collaborator. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    KKLT defenders

    Supersymmetry breaking is localized on the anti-D3-brane and is captured by a nilpotent superfield in the four-dimensional theory. An explicit ten-dimensional analysis reproduces the four-dimensional result, and brane polarization resolves the apparent singularity.

    Ten-dimensional supergravity skeptics

    Explicit backreaction calculations show infrared singularities that cannot be cloaked, and the integrated ten-dimensional equations are argued to obstruct the uplift entirely.

    Related claimsds-003ds-004

  2. Problem 2

    Large Volume Scenario and parametric control

    Can the Large Volume Scenario build metastable de Sitter vacua under rigorous control?

    Common technical language
    The LVS stabilization mechanism and its exponentially large volume are not in dispute, nor is the general expectation that large volume suppresses the leading alpha-prime and loop corrections.
    Actively debated
    Whether the suppression is genuinely parametric once warping and loop corrections are included, and whether the negative D3-tadpole required to keep control exceeds what known Calabi-Yau geometries supply.
    Conjectural
    The claim that LVS de Sitter vacua are in the swampland imports the swampland framing; the tadpole objection itself does not, and stands as an internal control argument.
    What would count as progress
    A programmatic search of the Kreuzer-Skarke database for Calabi-Yau manifolds meeting the parametric tadpole bounds. The source paper identifies this as a database and algorithmic task that does not require solving supergravity equations, and names it one of the few genuinely tractable openings for an outsider. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    LVS proponents

    Large volume suppresses the dangerous corrections, and uplift via F-terms of blow-up modes avoids singular anti-branes altogether, so the construction does not inherit the KKLT dispute.

    Control skeptics

    Warping and loop corrections violate the expected scaling, and maintaining control requires a negative D3-tadpole larger than known Calabi-Yau bounds allow.

    Related claimsds-005ds-006

  3. Problem 3

    The de Sitter Swampland Conjecture

    Does the de Sitter Swampland Conjecture hold as a quantum-gravity constraint?

    Common technical language
    The statement of the conjecture is shared and precise: a bound on the gradient of the scalar potential, refined in a later form to a condition on the Hessian. Both camps agree on what is being asserted.
    Actively debated
    Whether the motivating arguments support a bound with an order-one coefficient, and whether such a coefficient can be reconciled with slow-roll inflation and the observed value of the cosmological constant.
    Conjectural
    The conjecture itself, in both its original and refined forms. It rests on asymptotic and thermodynamic arguments, not on a ten-dimensional proof, and the refinement was introduced because the original was in tension with known physics.
    What would count as progress
    Either a derivation of the bound from a controlled construction, or an explicit counterexample construction that survives the control objections of Problems 1 and 2. Sharper asymptotic theorems would also narrow the space of admissible coefficients. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    Conjecture advocates

    The bound follows the pattern of the distance conjecture and de Sitter thermodynamics, and it explains the persistent failure to construct controlled de Sitter vacua.

    Landscape defenders

    An order-one coefficient is in tension with inflationary phenomenology and the observed dark-energy sector, and the conjecture over-generalizes tree-level no-go theorems.

    Related claimsds-007ds-008

  4. Problem 4

    The Dark Dimension

    Is the Dark Dimension scenario consistent with all bounds?

    Common technical language
    The experimental constraints are shared ground. Torsion-balance limits on inverse-square-law deviations and astrophysical cooling bounds are accepted by everyone; the question is what they leave room for.
    Actively debated
    Whether a single mesoscopic extra dimension at roughly a micron survives short-range gravity limits, SN1987A and neutron-star cooling constraints, and the astrophysical limits on decaying dark gravitons.
    Conjectural
    The scenario rests on the AdS distance conjecture, which is itself unproved, combined with phenomenological input. This is the most conjecture-dependent problem on the map, which is why the atlas labels it speculative interpretation.
    What would count as progress
    Improved torsion-balance sensitivity at and below the micron scale, or tighter astrophysical cooling limits. The source paper notes this is straightforward to read and reproduce but harder to extend than it looks, because the prediction sits at the current experimental frontier and systematics modeling is the real difficulty. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    Proponents

    The AdS distance conjecture plus the observed dark-energy scale predicts a single extra dimension of order a micron, with Kaluza-Klein gravitons supplying dark matter, and the scenario has been embedded in a warped-throat construction.

    Phenomenological skeptics

    Laboratory limits on deviations from the inverse-square law, together with astrophysical cooling and dark-graviton constraints, squeeze the viable parameter space.

    Related claimsds-011ds-012

  5. Problem 5

    Quintessence as the dark-energy alternative

    Can quintessence explain dark energy consistently with quantum gravity?

    Common technical language
    Everyone agrees on the observational situation: the dark-energy equation of state is measured close to w = −1, and rolling-scalar models must fit within that.
    Actively debated
    Whether the fit demands fine-tuning severe enough to count against the swampland programme, and which direction newer data actually pushes. One data-side reassessment in the source set finds newer data allows slightly more freedom in the criteria rather than tightening the tension, while raising a separate fine-tuning problem from constraints on moduli-electromagnetic couplings.
    Conjectural
    The motivation for taking quintessence seriously here is conditional on the de Sitter conjecture holding. Quintessence as a dark-energy model is independent of that; its role in this debate is not.
    What would count as progress
    Tighter equation-of-state constraints from DESI and Euclid. The source paper identifies this as accessible work: constraining swampland-quintessence or Trans-Planckian Censorship models by modifying standard Boltzmann solvers and running MCMC pipelines, with one paper in the source set as a worked example of exactly that. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    Swampland-quintessence advocates

    A rolling scalar avoids the thermodynamic problems of stable de Sitter and can satisfy the gradient bound, so the conjectures point to a testable cosmology rather than a dead end.

    Observational skeptics

    Bounds pushing the equation of state toward w = −1 force the conjecture coefficient small, straining the order-one requirement the conjecture needs.

    Data-side reassessment, in neither camp

    A refit of a range of quintessence models to newer datasets finds the data allows slightly more freedom in the swampland criteria rather than tightening the tension, and cautions against model-independent reconstructions of the criteria from expansion-rate data.

    Related claimsds-001ds-010

  6. Problem 6

    The Dine-Seiberg problem

    Does the Dine-Seiberg problem force all de Sitter constructions into the swampland?

    Common technical language
    The 1985 observation itself is not disputed: string compactifications are weakly coupled and large-volume only asymptotically, and the potential vanishes in that limit. Every stabilization scheme has to confront this.
    Actively debated
    Whether interior minima at finite coupling and volume can be stabilized under trustworthy control, or whether the interior is precisely where the effective description stops being reliable.
    Conjectural
    The stronger reading — that the asymptotic regime is the only controlled one, so all interior constructions are in the swampland — is a swampland-programme position, not a theorem.
    What would count as progress
    Either a demonstration that specific interior minima are controlled with quantified error, or a sharp theorem that unsuppressed corrections always spoil them. This problem overlaps Problems 1 and 2 by construction; the source paper groups all three as angles on a single question. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    Landscape proponents

    Combining fluxes, instantons, and alpha-prime corrections yields trustworthy interior minima, which is what KKLT and LVS are for.

    Asymptotic-swampland advocates

    The conjectures are sharp asymptotically, and interior stabilization introduces corrections that are not suppressed, so control is illusory there.

    Related claimsds-002ds-004ds-006

  7. Problem 7

    Trans-Planckian Censorship

    Does the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture constrain the de Sitter lifetime?

    Common technical language
    The statement of the conjecture and the lifetime bound it implies are agreed. So is the observational fact the objection turns on: the measured amplitude of primordial perturbations.
    Actively debated
    Whether the low inflation scale the bound forces can be reconciled with generating the observed perturbation amplitude without fine-tuning.
    Conjectural
    The conjecture itself. It offers an independent route to swampland-like constraints, replacing "no de Sitter" with "no long-lived de Sitter", but it is not derived.
    What would count as progress
    A derivation of the censorship condition from a controlled ultraviolet-complete setup, or a concrete inflationary model that satisfies the bound and reproduces the observed perturbation amplitude without tuning. (Curator inference, not a claim from the source paper.)

    TCC proponents

    Frozen sub-Planckian modes would break the effective field theory, and the conjecture yields a natural bound on how long a de Sitter phase can last.

    Cosmological and landscape skeptics

    The bound forces the inflationary energy scale low enough that the observed perturbation amplitude becomes hard to generate without fine-tuning.

    Related claimsds-009

How to read this atlas

This is a curated orientation layer. It exists to get you to the point where you can read the primary literature yourself, and then to get out of the way. It is not a substitute for those papers, not expert advice, and not a statement of scientific consensus — on the central question it maps, there is no consensus to state.

Source, interpretation, and open question

A source is what a paper actually says.
It can be checked. The identifiers on this page were resolved against arXiv and INSPIRE-HEP during production of the working paper, and the verification is recorded there. Verification means the citation is real and correctly placed — never that its argument is right.
An interpretation is what someone concludes from sources.
Every plain-language definition, every “why it matters”, and every arrow on the concept map is interpretation. It is editorial work by a non-specialist curator and should be weighted accordingly. Where the interpretation could be mistaken for a result, the “what this does not establish” note says so.
An open question is one the field has not closed.
Whether string theory admits controlled metastable de Sitter vacua is the open question this atlas is organized around. Competent researchers hold opposing positions for technical reasons. Anything presenting either answer as settled — including an AI summary of this page — is overstating the evidence.

Two nodes, Holography and Observational cosmology, are included for orientation but are not cited directly in the source map. They are marked as such, and no citation has been attached to them that the source does not support.

There is no chat interface here by design. A retrieval layer that paraphrases contested physics is precisely the tool most likely to flatten a live disagreement into a confident answer.

Source trail — 28 works

Every work cited on this page, drawn without exception from the working paper. Bibliographic fields come from that paper; the source-type classification and the “why this source is here” note are curator annotation. Machine-readable at sources.json.

Verified
The identifier was independently resolved against arXiv or INSPIRE-HEP during production of the source paper, and its placement in the debate was checked against what the paper argues. Verification is not endorsement.
Foundational
A pre-arXiv or field-defining work that the source paper cites by journal reference or identifier alone. Where the paper records no title, none is supplied here.
Contextual
Included for framing rather than as evidence for a physics claim. Currently this applies to the source working paper itself.
FoundationalPrimary paper1985

Dine-Seiberg — the 1985 weak-coupling/large-volume observation

Journal
Phys. Lett. B 162 (1985) 299

Why this source is here — The original observation that string compactifications are controlled only asymptotically, which frames why any stabilized minimum is contested.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it. Year taken from the journal reference.

VerifiedPrimary paper2019

dS Vacua and the Swampland ↗

Authors
Kallosh, Linde, McDonough, Scalisi
ID
arXiv:1901.02022

Why this source is here — A defence of KKLT against swampland objections, cited so the defenders’ strongest argument is represented in its own words.

View source record →
VerifiedPrimary paper2018

The original de Sitter swampland conjecture ↗

Authors
Obied, Ooguri, Spodyneiko, Vafa
ID
arXiv:1806.08362

Why this source is here — The paper that introduced the de Sitter swampland conjecture. Cited wherever the atlas states the conjecture.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

VerifiedPrimary paper2018

The refined form of the de Sitter conjecture ↗

Authors
Ooguri, Palti, Shiu, Vafa
ID
arXiv:1810.05506

Why this source is here — The refined form of the conjecture, cited for the Hessian condition that replaced the strict gradient bound.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

VerifiedObservational or experimental result2018

Cosmological critique of the de Sitter conjecture ↗

Authors
Akrami, Kallosh, Linde, Vardanyan
ID
arXiv:1808.09440

Why this source is here — The cosmological critique of the conjecture, cited so the landscape side of the objection is represented.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

VerifiedPrimary paper2022

A warped-throat realization of the Dark Dimension ↗

Authors
Blumenhagen, Brinkmann, Makridou
ID
arXiv:2208.01057

Why this source is here — A string-theoretic realization of the Dark Dimension, cited to show the scenario has been embedded in a construction.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

VerifiedObservational or experimental result2018

Equation-of-state bounds on swampland quintessence ↗

Authors
Heisenberg, Bartelmann, Brandenberger, Refregier
ID
arXiv:1808.02877

Why this source is here — Equation-of-state bounds constraining swampland quintessence, cited wherever the atlas refers to w near minus one.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

VerifiedObservational or experimental result2023

News from the Swampland — constraining string theory with astrophysics and cosmology ↗

Authors
Schöneberg, Vacher, Dias, Carvalho, Martins
ID
arXiv:2307.15060
Journal
JCAP 2023(10), 039; doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/039

Why this source is here — A data-side reassessment that runs against the expected direction, finding newer data allows slightly more freedom in the criteria. Cited so the atlas does not present the observational trend as one-way.

View source record →
VerifiedPrimary paper2019

The AdS distance conjecture ↗

Authors
Lüst, Palti, Vafa
ID
arXiv:1906.05225

Why this source is here — The AdS distance conjecture, cited as the premise the Dark Dimension scenario is built on.

View source record →

Title not recorded in the source map; named here as the source map names it.

ContextualEducational context2026

The de Sitter Problem in the String Swampland: A Verified Literature Map (Revision 2) ↗

Authors
Rajan, Mayone Maha (architect and curator)
Journal
Maha Strategies Research; Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603961

Why this source is here — The working paper this atlas is derived from. Cited where a claim rests on the paper’s own framing of the field rather than on a physics result — most directly the statement that no consensus exists.

View source record →

Year taken from the publication date.

Version and methodology

Atlas version
1.2.0 — Atlas Context Pack
Last updated
2026-07-27 (first published 2026-07-26)
Claims last reviewed
2026-07-27
License
CC BY 4.0
Portable package
Atlas Context Pack — downloadable, citable, with exclusions stated

Educational research map · non-peer-reviewed orientation tool

This atlas is an educational, non-peer-reviewed orientation tool. It is not peer-reviewed research, not expert advice, and not a statement of scientific consensus. On the central question it maps — whether string theory admits controlled metastable de Sitter vacua — there is no consensus to state.

How claims are curated

A claim enters the ledger only if it can be stated in language the cited sources support, and only if it bears on the structure of the debate rather than decorating it. Each is written to be quotable without its context misleading anyone: the epistemic status and the limitations statement are part of the claim, not commentary on it. Claims are numbered ds-001 onward, and an identifier is never reassigned to a different claim.

How claims are sourced

Every citation is drawn from the working paper’s verified set, whose ledger records that all twenty-four arXiv identifiers were independently resolved against arXiv and INSPIRE-HEP. No identifier, title, or author list has been added from any other source. Where the paper records only an identifier for a foundational work, this atlas repeats that rather than supplying a title the paper does not record. Where a claim would benefit from a citation outside that set, the gap is stated on the claim instead of being filled — see ds-001.

How claims are revised

Each claim carries the date it was last reviewed. Wording changes that alter what a claim asserts produce a new atlas version; corrections are made in place and the review date advances. If the underlying working paper is revised, the atlas version follows it. The atlas has no DOI of its own — cite the paper’s DOI for the research, and the claim identifier plus atlas version for the specific formulation you are quoting.