A research-based professional article, updated 7 August 2026. Citation style: APA 7th edition.
Abstract
String theory promises a quantum framework in which matter, forces, and gravity arise from a common microscopic structure. Its principal obstacle is no longer merely writing consistent equations; it is determining which of an enormous number of mathematically permitted solutions could describe our universe. Calabi–Yau manifolds sit at the center of this problem. Their topology, complex structure, Kähler geometry, bundles, branes, and fluxes help determine the fields and interactions of the resulting lower-dimensional theory. Yet even sharply delimited construction classes contain hundreds of millions of combinatorial starting points and vastly more triangulations, geometric phases, bundles, and flux assignments. The resulting “landscape” cannot be exhaustively searched by conventional symbolic and numerical methods.
Artificial intelligence is beginning to change the character of this research. Supervised models classify topological invariants; graph neural networks learn triangulation structure; reinforcement learning and genetic algorithms search sparse model-building spaces; conditional generative models target rare flux vacua; and physics-informed neural networks approximate Ricci-flat metrics and quantities closer to observable particle physics, including normalized Yukawa couplings. This article traces the historical path from dual-resonance models to Calabi–Yau compactification, explains the landscape and swampland problems, evaluates representative AI applications, and develops a research agenda for trustworthy AI-assisted string phenomenology. Its central argument is deliberately measured: AI has not selected the vacuum of our universe or made string theory experimentally verified. It has, however, created a new computational layer between abstract geometry and low-energy physics—one capable of turning previously inaccessible calculations into testable, auditable, and sometimes interpretable scientific workflows.
Keywords: string theory; Calabi–Yau manifold; compactification; string landscape; swampland; machine learning; graph neural network; symbolic computation; flux vacuum; string phenomenology
1. Introduction: From a Theory of Everything to a Search Problem
The most consequential questions in fundamental physics often appear in pairs. General relativity explains gravity as the geometry of spacetime, while quantum field theory explains particles and three nongravitational forces with extraordinary precision. Each framework is successful within its domain, but their direct combination fails at sufficiently high energies: treating Einstein gravity as an ordinary quantum field theory produces ultraviolet divergences requiring an unlimited tower of counterterms. Near spacetime singularities, inside black holes, and around the Planck scale, the separation between quantum matter and classical geometry becomes untenable.
String theory addresses this tension by replacing point particles with extended one-dimensional objects. Their vibrational modes include matter-like states, gauge bosons, and—crucially—a massless spin-two excitation with the interactions expected of a graviton. The extended nature of the string softens short-distance behavior, while supersymmetry and higher-dimensional consistency tightly constrain the theory. But this apparent unification comes with a price. Superstring theory is naturally formulated in ten spacetime dimensions, so six spatial dimensions must be hidden or otherwise rendered inaccessible at observed energies. The shape of those dimensions is not inert scaffolding. It acts more like a microscopic instrument: its cycles, curvature, singularities, bundles, branes, and fluxes determine which fields can exist, their symmetries, and how they interact.
Calabi–Yau threefolds became the canonical six-real-dimensional compact spaces because they can preserve a controlled amount of supersymmetry in four dimensions. They translate central physical questions into geometry. How many chiral families appear? Which gauge group survives? Are there Higgs multiplets or fractionally charged exotics? Can moduli be stabilized? What are the Yukawa couplings? In a compactification, these questions are encoded in topological invariants, cohomology groups, intersection numbers, differential equations, and quantized fluxes.
The problem is scale. There are 7,890 standard complete-intersection Calabi–Yau (CICY) configuration matrices, while the Kreuzer–Skarke classification contains 473,800,776 four-dimensional reflexive polytopes and 30,108 distinct Hodge-number pairs (Kreuzer & Skarke, 2000). Each polytope may admit many fine, regular, star triangulations, and different triangulations may be redundant, birationally related, or physically distinct after additional data are specified. Fluxes then multiply the possibilities. The famous figure (10^{500}) is best understood as an order-of-magnitude emblem for a huge flux-vacuum discretuum, not as a census of Calabi–Yau manifolds. In a particular F-theory estimate, one elliptically fibered fourfold was argued to support on the order of (10^{272,000}) flux vacua (Taylor & Wang, 2015). These figures count different objects under different assumptions, but they convey the same computational reality: brute-force enumeration cannot be the sole strategy.
This is where AI becomes scientifically interesting. The relevant question is not whether a neural network can imitate a table of known invariants. It is whether a hybrid system—combining exact geometry, symbolic algebra, numerical analysis, physical constraints, uncertainty quantification, and learned search—can discover structure in a space too large for direct exploration. The purpose of this article is to explain how that program emerged, what has already been achieved, where claims must be qualified, and what would be required for AI-assisted landscape mapping to produce credible physical insight.
2. Historical Context: Why Geometry Entered Quantum Gravity
2.1 From hadronic amplitudes to quantum strings
The story began far from quantum gravity. Veneziano’s crossing-symmetric amplitude was introduced in 1968 to model hadronic scattering and Regge behavior (Veneziano, 1968). Subsequent work revealed that the underlying mathematics described the vibrations of a relativistic string. Quantum consistency required additional dimensions, and the original bosonic theory contained both an unwanted tachyon and a massless spin-two state. The latter, initially an inconvenience for a strong-interaction model, became decisive: a consistent interacting massless spin-two particle reproduces gravity at low energy.
Worldsheet supersymmetry led to superstring theories without the bosonic tachyon and with spacetime fermions. By the early 1980s, several formulations—Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, and later the two heterotic theories—were known. The 1984 Green–Schwarz anomaly-cancellation mechanism showed that ten-dimensional superstrings could be quantum mechanically consistent for special gauge groups (Green & Schwarz, 1984). The heterotic (SO(32)) and (E_8\times E_8) strings, constructed by combining left- and right-moving sectors in different ways, made contact with grand-unified model building (Gross et al., 1985).
String theory therefore changed status. It was no longer simply a model of hadrons; it was a candidate framework for quantum gravity and gauge unification. Yet a ten-dimensional consistent theory was not a four-dimensional model of nature. Compactification became the bridge.
2.2 Compactification and the demand for preserved supersymmetry
Kaluza and Klein had already shown that a compact extra dimension could make gravity in higher dimensions resemble gravity plus electromagnetism in lower dimensions. String compactification generalizes this logic. One assumes, at least approximately, a spacetime of the form
[
\mathcal{M}{10}\simeq \mathcal{M}{3,1}\times X_6,
]
where (\mathcal{M}_{3,1}) is four-dimensional spacetime and (X_6) is a compact six-dimensional internal space. The Kaluza–Klein modes associated with variation along (X_6) become heavy when the compactification scale is sufficiently small, leaving a lower-energy four-dimensional effective theory.
The geometry cannot be arbitrary. If one seeks four-dimensional (\mathcal{N}=1) supersymmetry—the minimal amount compatible with chiral matter—then in the simplest unwarped heterotic construction the internal manifold should admit a covariantly constant spinor. A compact Kähler threefold with (SU(3)) holonomy supplies precisely this structure. It has vanishing first Chern class and admits a Ricci-flat Kähler metric. Such spaces are known as Calabi–Yau threefolds.
The name joins two mathematical achievements. Eugenio Calabi conjectured conditions under which a compact Kähler manifold admits a Kähler metric with prescribed Ricci curvature. Shing-Tung Yau proved the relevant existence and uniqueness theorem in the 1970s (Yau, 1978). For a compact Kähler manifold with (c_1(X)=0), each Kähler class contains a unique Ricci-flat Kähler metric. The theorem guarantees that the desired metric exists, but it generally does not give a closed-form expression. That distinction—existence without explicit construction—later became a prime opening for numerical and machine-learning methods.
2.3 The 1985 Calabi–Yau compactification breakthrough
Candelas, Horowitz, Strominger, and Witten (1985) made Calabi–Yau spaces central to particle physics by showing how ten-dimensional (E_8\times E_8) heterotic string theory could be compactified on a Calabi–Yau threefold while retaining four-dimensional (\mathcal{N}=1) supersymmetry. In the standard embedding, part of the gauge connection is identified with the spin connection. The visible (E_8) is then broken to (E_6), and topological data determine the net chiral spectrum. In the simplest version, the net number of generations is related to half the Euler characteristic, (N_{\text{gen}}=|\chi(X)|/2), subject to the assumptions of that embedding.
This result established a geometry-to-physics dictionary. Hodge numbers (h^{1,1}) and (h^{2,1}) count classes of Kähler and complex-structure deformations in common settings. The Euler characteristic of a Calabi–Yau threefold satisfies
[
\chi(X)=2\big(h^{1,1}-h^{2,1}\big).
]
Vector-bundle cohomology controls matter multiplets. Triple intersection numbers enter volumes, gauge kinetic functions, and couplings. Discrete symmetries and the fundamental group can permit Wilson lines that break a grand-unified group to the Standard Model gauge group. The low-energy theory is not determined by topology alone, but topology supplies the first layer of the calculation.
2.4 Classification, mirror symmetry, dualities, and the second superstring revolution
The late 1980s and early 1990s brought explicit databases and powerful structural insights. The CICY program encoded complete intersections in products of projective spaces as integer configuration matrices and produced 7,890 configurations. This was an early example of “big data” in geometry: a machine-readable collection constructed before contemporary data science existed.
Mirror symmetry then revealed that pairs of topologically distinct Calabi–Yau manifolds could yield equivalent physics, exchanging complex-structure and Kähler data so that
[
h^{1,1}(X)=h^{2,1}(X^\vee),\qquad h^{2,1}(X)=h^{1,1}(X^\vee).
]
The duality enabled difficult enumerative-geometry calculations and showed that a list of manifolds is not the same thing as a list of inequivalent physical theories (Candelas et al., 1991). Geometric transitions connected apparently different compactifications. D-branes expanded the available model-building ingredients and gave nonperturbative meaning to gauge sectors and charged matter.
In 1995, Witten argued that the five consistent superstring theories are limits of a deeper network of dualities, with eleven-dimensional supergravity emerging from strongly coupled Type IIA theory (Witten, 1995). This “second superstring revolution” reframed the multiplicity of formulations as complementary descriptions of an underlying M-theory. Maldacena’s AdS/CFT proposal later supplied a nonperturbative definition of string theory in certain asymptotically anti-de Sitter backgrounds and transformed the study of quantum gravity (Maldacena, 1998).
These breakthroughs did not remove vacuum multiplicity. They made it more intelligible. Distinct geometries could be dual, connected, or different phases of a larger moduli space; fluxes could generate potentials; and branes could engineer gauge theories. The question evolved from “Can string theory produce four-dimensional physics?” to “How is the physically relevant region selected from its solution space?”
3. The Quantum Landscape: What Is Being Counted?
3.1 Geometry is the beginning, not the vacuum
A Calabi–Yau manifold is not by itself a complete string vacuum. Depending on the string formulation, a compactification may also require a holomorphic vector bundle or coherent sheaf, D-brane configuration, orientifold action, quantized background fluxes, and nonperturbative effects. The construction must satisfy anomaly cancellation, flux quantization, tadpole cancellation, supersymmetry or controlled supersymmetry breaking, and equations of motion. Scalar fields describing sizes and shapes—moduli—must be stabilized or otherwise made compatible with observation.
The physical map is therefore layered:
| Mathematical or string datum | Representative low-energy consequence |
|---|---|
| (h^{1,1}), (h^{2,1}), and other cohomology data | Numbers of moduli and candidate multiplets |
| Intersection form and Chern classes | Volumes, kinetic terms, anomaly conditions, and couplings |
| Fundamental group and discrete symmetries | Wilson-line breaking and selection rules |
| Vector bundle, sheaf, or brane data | Gauge group, chiral matter, and Higgs/exotic content |
| Quantized fluxes | Superpotential, moduli stabilization, vacuum energy, and supersymmetry breaking |
| Ricci-flat metric and harmonic representatives | Normalized kinetic terms, masses, Yukawa couplings, and Kaluza–Klein spectra |
Two manifolds with identical Hodge numbers can have different intersection forms and Chern data. The same manifold can support many bundles, brane configurations, and flux choices. Conversely, dualities may identify descriptions that look different. Any claimed landscape count must therefore specify its unit of counting: polytopes, triangulations, diffeomorphism classes, effective field theories, flux assignments, metastable vacua, or observationally distinct predictions.
3.2 The size hierarchy: from 7,890 to (10^{272,000})
The CICY list is large but manageable. The Kreuzer–Skarke dataset is qualitatively different: 473,800,776 reflexive four-polytopes encode toric ambient spaces for Calabi–Yau hypersurfaces (Kreuzer & Skarke, 2000). These polytopes yield 30,108 Hodge pairs, but neither polytopes nor triangulations correspond one-to-one with topologically distinct threefolds. Fine, regular, star triangulations resolve the ambient toric geometry; multiple triangulations can describe different Kähler phases of the same threefold or redundant presentations.
Demirtas, McAllister, and Rios-Tascon (2020) proved an upper bound of roughly (10^{428}) on topologically inequivalent Calabi–Yau hypersurfaces arising from the Kreuzer–Skarke list, even though the corresponding bound on triangulations is much larger. A 2026 preprint further tightens the diffeomorphism-class upper bound to approximately (10^{296}), illustrating how rapidly the combinatorial picture continues to evolve (MacFadden et al., 2026). At low (h^{1,1}), exact counting is becoming possible: Gendler et al. (2023) reported 4, 27, 183, 1,184, and 8,036 topological equivalence classes for (h^{1,1}=1,2,3,4,) and (5), respectively, within the relevant hypersurface construction.
Flux choices generate a different explosion. Bousso and Polchinski (2000) showed how many quantized four-form fluxes can produce a dense discretuum of vacuum energies. Flux compactifications later made estimates near (10^{500}) widely discussed, although the result depends on the geometry, tadpole bounds, approximations, and the definition of a vacuum. Taylor and Wang’s (2015) (\mathcal{O}(10^{272,000})) estimate concerns flux choices on a particular F-theory fourfold and should not be conflated with the number of Calabi–Yau threefolds.
The lesson is not that one exponent has replaced another. It is that landscape size is stratified. Geometry, resolution, bundle or brane data, fluxes, and moduli solutions each introduce a combinatorial layer. Traditional exact methods remain indispensable for certification, but they cannot be applied indiscriminately to every candidate.
3.3 Why finding Standard-Model-like physics is hard
A promising compactification must pass a sequence of increasingly expensive filters. At minimum, a realistic model seeks the Standard Model gauge group (SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)), three chiral generations, an acceptable Higgs sector, no unobserved chiral exotics, viable anomaly cancellation, and mechanisms for neutrino masses and proton stability. It must then address moduli stabilization, supersymmetry breaking or its absence at accessible energies, the cosmological constant, flavor hierarchies, and cosmological history.
Topological filters are comparatively cheap; physical normalization is not. Cohomology can count candidate zero modes, but physical masses and couplings require kinetic terms. Those depend on the metric and harmonic representatives. Yau’s theorem does not hand researchers a formula for that metric. Even before phenomenology, triangulations, Gröbner bases, sheaf cohomology, period integrals, and nonlinear partial differential equations can become computational bottlenecks.
Rare-target search makes the problem worse. A viable solution may occupy a tiny fraction of a high-dimensional discrete space. Uniform random sampling then wastes most computation on obvious failures. Markov-chain methods can mix slowly between disconnected or weakly connected regions. Hand-designed heuristics inherit human biases toward familiar, low-Hodge-number, or computationally convenient geometries.
3.4 The swampland as a second classification problem
The landscape consists of low-energy effective theories believed to arise from consistent quantum gravity. The “swampland” is the larger set of apparently consistent effective field theories that cannot be completed into quantum gravity (Vafa, 2005). Swampland conjectures attempt to identify structural boundaries without constructing every ultraviolet completion.
Prominent examples include the Weak Gravity Conjecture, which in a basic form requires a sufficiently light charged state so that extremal charged black holes can decay (Arkani-Hamed et al., 2007); the Distance Conjecture, which predicts an infinite tower of increasingly light states at infinite distance in moduli space (Ooguri & Vafa, 2007); and de Sitter conjectures that constrain positive scalar potentials (Obied et al., 2018). These proposals are not equivalent in evidential status. The Weak Gravity and Distance conjectures have substantial support across string constructions and black-hole arguments but remain conjectures. Strong de Sitter statements are particularly contested because controlled constructions and no-go claims depend sensitively on approximations, corrections, and stability criteria.
For AI, the swampland creates both an opportunity and a warning. A learned classifier might identify empirical regularities separating known string constructions from synthetic effective theories. But if the training set covers only a narrow construction class, it may learn the conventions of the database rather than a universal principle of quantum gravity. Swampland learning therefore demands out-of-distribution testing, interpretable features, and analytic follow-up. Accuracy alone cannot turn a pattern into a theorem.
4. How AI Maps Calabi–Yau Geometry
4.1 Machine learning for classification and regression
Many Calabi–Yau constructions have naturally tensorial encodings. A CICY is represented by a sparse matrix of nonnegative integers describing multidegrees of defining polynomials. A reflexive polytope can be represented by lattice points, vertices, faces, or invariant coordinates. A triangulation can be encoded through simplices, height vectors, secondary-cone data, or restrictions to two-faces. These are suitable inputs for neural networks, support-vector machines, tree ensembles, and equivariant architectures.
The first wave of studies treated known datasets as controlled laboratories and articulated machine learning as a framework for “deep data dives” and conjecture generation in the landscape (Carifio et al., 2017). If a model could infer Hodge numbers, favorability, discrete symmetries, or cohomology from defining data, then it might later prioritize expensive calculations in unknown regions. Erbin and Finotello (2021) obtained 97% accuracy for (h^{1,1}) using 30% of a CICY dataset for training and 99% using 70%; (h^{2,1}) remained substantially harder, reaching about 50% in their setup. This asymmetry is scientifically informative: a network’s performance reflects not only architecture but also how transparently a target invariant is encoded in the input representation.
More recent work has moved beyond Hodge numbers. He, Yao, and Yau (2026) used convolutional architectures to predict divisibility invariants derived from triple intersection data, reaching about 90% accuracy in standard cross-validation. These invariants help distinguish topology more finely than a Hodge pair. The progression—from coarse labels to intersection structure—is essential because phenomenology depends on richer data than “how many holes” a manifold possesses.
The best use of such predictors is triage. A learned model evaluates millions of inexpensive candidates; exact algorithms then verify the small subset likely to possess a desired property. The model does not replace the definition of a Hodge number or an intersection calculation. It reallocates exact computation toward high-value regions.
4.2 Graph methods: learning relations rather than flat arrays
Calabi–Yau data are relational. A polytope is a network of lattice points, faces, and incidence relations. A triangulation is a collection of simplices glued along shared faces. Toric divisors intersect according to combinatorial rules. Geometric transitions connect different phases. Flattening these objects into fixed-size arrays can destroy permutation symmetry and locality.
Graph methods preserve this structure. Nodes can represent lattice points, simplices, divisors, or vacua; edges can encode incidence, adjacency, intersection, a bistellar flip, or a geometric transition. Message-passing graph neural networks then aggregate local information while sharing parameters across variable-sized objects. Equivariant models can respect lattice or permutation symmetries, reducing the burden of learning physically irrelevant coordinate choices.
A notable 2026 preprint introduced dualGNN, an autoregressive message-passing model operating on a generalized dual graph of triangulations, with signed circuits as edge labels (MacFadden, 2026). The model sampled fine, regular triangulations and generalized to unseen polygons. In string-theory applications it sampled Calabi–Yau threefolds at (h^{1,1}=86) and produced results consistent with uniformity at (h^{1,1}=128), well beyond earlier learned sampling regimes. Because the work was still a preprint as of August 2026, its claims require continued independent validation, but it demonstrates why graph representation is more than a fashionable architecture: triangulation is intrinsically a graph-structured generative process.
Graph theory also supports non-neural analysis. Cole and Shiu (2019) used topological data analysis and persistent homology to characterize structure in ensembles of flux vacua. Rather than reducing a point cloud to means and variances, persistent homology tracks connected components, loops, and higher-dimensional features across distance scales. This can reveal clustering, voids, or sampling biases—features relevant to whether a scan has found a physical concentration or merely followed an algorithmic artifact.
4.3 Symbolic computation and neuro-symbolic acceleration
The geometry-to-physics pipeline is built on exact algebra. Researchers compute Stanley–Reisner ideals, intersection rings, Chern classes, line-bundle cohomology, periods, and solutions of polynomial systems. Packages such as PALP, SageMath, Mathematica, Macaulay2, Singular, cohomCalg, and CYTools encode decades of mathematical knowledge. CYTools, for example, was designed to triangulate reflexive polytopes and compute topological data even in high-Hodge-number regions of the Kreuzer–Skarke list (Demirtas et al., 2022).
AI is most credible when coupled to this symbolic layer. One pattern is learned algorithm selection: the system predicts which exact strategy, monomial order, triangulation move, or simplification is likely to minimize cost. Peifer, Stillman, and Halpern-Leistner (2020) used reinforcement learning for S-pair selection in Buchberger’s algorithm, outperforming standard selection strategies in some polynomial distributions. Although this work was not limited to Calabi–Yau problems, Gröbner bases are central to computational algebraic geometry, so the method is directly relevant.
Another pattern is formula discovery. Klaewer and Schlechter (2019) found that naïvely predicting line-bundle cohomology was inadequate in general, but unsupervised learning exposed piecewise-polynomial phases. The result could be converted into analytic formulae rather than left as a black-box approximation. Similarly, decision trees can generate human-readable conditions that geometers attempt to prove. This is the ideal neuro-symbolic loop: learn a pattern, express it symbolically, verify it exactly, and then add the verified result to the computational toolkit.
4.4 Data-driven search: from scanning to inverse design
Classification asks, “What property does this candidate have?” Landscape exploration often needs the inverse question: “Which candidate will have the property we want?” Genetic algorithms, reinforcement learning, Bayesian optimization, and conditional generative models are suited to this inverse-design problem.
In genetic search, each candidate is encoded as a chromosome, a fitness function scores physical desirability, and mutation and crossover explore nonlocal regions. Cole, Schachner, and Shiu (2019) applied genetic algorithms to Type IIB flux vacua on a symmetric six-torus and near a conifold region of a Calabi–Yau hypersurface. Their algorithms located vacua with targeted properties more effectively than comparison searches and exposed population structures that can themselves suggest hidden organization.
Reinforcement learning treats model building as a sequence of decisions. An agent modifies bundle data, receives rewards for satisfying topological and physical constraints, and learns a policy. Constantin et al. (2022) applied this approach to heterotic (SO(10)) grand-unified models with monad bundles. On two selected Calabi–Yau manifolds, trained policies produced phenomenologically promising states in nearly all episodes and yielded hundreds of new candidate models. This does not mean that nearly every string vacuum is realistic; it means that, after training in a carefully defined environment, the policy learned to navigate a sparse constrained subspace far more efficiently than uninformed sampling.
The newest step is conditional generation. Krippendorf and Liu (2026) trained conditional variational autoencoders to generate Type IIB flux configurations with target values of quantities such as the flux superpotential while incorporating tadpole constraints in the objective. In conifold and symmetric-torus experiments, the method achieved an approximately (10^3) speedup over Metropolis sampling in narrow target ranges and generated distinct configurations beyond its training set. Because this study was published in Journal of High Energy Physics, it represents a particularly significant transition from proof-of-concept classification to peer-reviewed inverse landscape search. A complementary peer-reviewed study used a Bayesian flow network for discrete flux vectors and a transformer for conditional sampling, further demonstrating that modern generative architectures can search for Type IIB vacua with specified properties (Walden & Larfors, 2026).
4.5 Numerical metrics: learning the shape, not merely the topology
Topology determines which fields may occur, but normalized physical quantities require geometry. A Ricci-flat metric (g) on a Calabi–Yau manifold satisfies a nonlinear system equivalent, in an appropriate formulation, to a complex Monge–Ampère equation. Traditional numerical schemes based on balanced metrics, energy functionals, and finite-dimensional approximations are powerful but computationally demanding.
Neural approaches parameterize a metric, Kähler potential, or related tensor field and minimize a loss encoding the governing geometry. Loss terms can penalize violation of the Monge–Ampère equation, non-Kähler behavior, disagreement across coordinate patches, incorrect Kähler class, and nonzero Ricci curvature. Holomorphic or symmetry-aware architectures build known structure into the model rather than asking a generic network to rediscover it (Ashmore et al., 2020; Douglas et al., 2022; Jejjala et al., 2022).
The cymetric package extended these ideas to complete-intersection and Kreuzer–Skarke geometries across Kähler and complex-structure moduli (Larfors et al., 2022). The later cymyc framework modeled tensor fields of arbitrary degree and moduli-space geometry with a high-performance, geometry-aware machine-learning implementation (Butbaia et al., 2025). Group-invariant models further improved data efficiency and respected discrete symmetries through fundamental-domain projections (Hendi et al., 2025).
These developments matter because the metric opens the door to Kaluza–Klein spectra, harmonic forms, moduli-space metrics, curvature corrections, and normalized couplings. The learned object is not valuable because it is a neural network. It is valuable if residuals are controlled, coordinate transitions are consistent, known limits are reproduced, and independent numerical methods agree.
4.6 What “identifying a stable vacuum” actually requires
The phrase stable vacuum compresses several tests. A candidate should be a stationary point of the relevant scalar potential; it should have no disallowed tachyonic directions; its moduli should be stabilized or phenomenologically acceptable; and its decay lifetime should exceed the required physical timescale. The compactification must also obey global constraints such as flux quantization, anomaly and tadpole cancellation. Finally, the approximations used to derive the effective potential must remain controlled: large volume, weak coupling, suppressed higher-derivative corrections, or another justified regime.
AI currently addresses fragments of this problem. A classifier can predict whether a restricted construction satisfies known consistency labels. An optimizer can locate flux assignments near extrema. A conditional generator can target a small superpotential or a tadpole-compatible region. A metric network can improve kinetic and mass calculations. None of these outputs alone certifies a metastable four-dimensional vacuum. Certification still requires solving the equations, evaluating the Hessian in the correct field-space metric, checking global consistency, and estimating corrections and decay channels.
The most defensible workflow is therefore a cascade. Learned models first rank or generate candidates; differentiable surrogates refine them; symbolic and numerical solvers establish stationarity and spectra; and exact or bounded calculations test consistency and control. In this sense, AI can identify promising stable-vacuum candidates and dramatically reduce search cost. Describing it as having already found realistic stable vacua would exceed the evidence.
5. Case Studies: From Geometric Labels to Physical Quantities
5.1 CICY inference as a benchmark for scientific generalization
CICY matrices are ideal benchmarks because their invariants are known and their representation is compact. Early random train–test splits demonstrated high interpolation accuracy, but realistic landscape use is harder: one wants to train on computationally easy, low-complexity manifolds and predict high-complexity cases. Bull et al. (2019) explicitly trained on lower (h^{1,1}) examples and tested on higher ones, showing that limited “seeding” with difficult cases could substantially improve extrapolation.
This exposes a general rule for AI in mathematical physics. Random cross-validation can overstate usefulness when near-duplicate structures populate both sets. A credible benchmark should split by complexity, topology, construction family, or symmetry orbit. It should test calibrated uncertainty and require the model to recognize when an input lies outside its competence.
5.2 F-theory gauge groups and interpretable decision rules
Wang and Zhang (2018) trained decision trees to infer non-Higgsable gauge groups on divisors in four-dimensional F-theory bases from local triple-intersection information. Depending on divisor class, they reported 85%–98% out-of-sample accuracy. More importantly, the trees generated analytic rules. The authors proved a subset and used them to construct local configurations with gauge groups including (SU(3)).
This case is a model of interpretable AI-assisted theory work. The machine did not merely label geometries; it identified concise local conditions, and human analysis converted some of those conditions into mathematical statements. The lasting scientific output is therefore not the classifier’s accuracy but the new rule set and its domain of validity.
5.3 Learning string Standard Models
Heterotic line-bundle constructions offer labeled datasets with direct phenomenological criteria. Earlier systematic searches found hundreds of models with the exact supersymmetric Standard Model matter spectrum after quotienting by discrete symmetries and introducing Wilson lines (Anderson et al., 2012). Deen et al. (2022) showed that relatively small neural networks could distinguish consistent line-bundle models with the desired gauge group and chiral asymmetry from random candidates. Autoencoders also separated the classes without direct supervision. Predicting the number of Higgs multiplets—a nontopological and more delicate property—was harder and benefited from engineered features and larger models.
The result clarifies what “estimating a low-energy spectrum” means in current practice. AI can often predict discrete spectrum-related labels from bundle and topology data. It cannot yet take an arbitrary compactification and reliably output the fully normalized Standard Model, its masses, mixings, and cosmology. Each additional step requires more geometry and stronger validation.
5.4 Precision string phenomenology and Yukawa hierarchies
The most direct bridge toward measurable particle physics is the calculation of normalized couplings. Holomorphic Yukawa couplings alone are insufficient; normalization depends on matter-field kinetic terms, which depend on the Calabi–Yau metric and harmonic representatives. Recent work compared normalized Yukawa couplings obtained through moduli-space geometry, period methods, and machine-learned Ricci-flat metrics, finding excellent agreement in selected examples (Butbaia et al., 2024).
Berglund et al. (2025) then numerically computed physical Yukawa couplings for several heterotic models in the standard embedding and found natural hierarchies. This is a genuine advance: AI-assisted metric technology contributed to quantities structurally related to quark and lepton flavor. It is not yet a unique prediction of observed masses. The studies cover specific geometries and embeddings, and the full chain from a stabilized vacuum through renormalization-group evolution to experiment remains incomplete. Nevertheless, the conceptual barrier has shifted. A calculation once blocked by the absence of explicit Ricci-flat metrics has become numerically approachable.
5.5 Generative triangulations and living datasets
Generative modeling is beginning to expand, rather than merely label, Calabi–Yau datasets. Yip et al. (2025) introduced CYTransformer to generate fine, regular, star triangulations of four-dimensional reflexive polytopes, including polytopes unseen during training. The model could retrain on its own verified output, motivating the proposed AICY platform as a continuously expanding community resource. MacFadden’s (2026) graph-based approach attacks a related problem with an architecture tailored to dual-graph structure.
These preprints point toward “living atlases” in which models propose new triangulations, exact software verifies regularity and computes invariants, deduplication identifies equivalences, and the resulting certified examples improve the next model. The essential word is certified. Unverified self-training can amplify subtle invalidity or sampling bias; exact geometric checks must remain inside the loop.
6. Connecting the Landscape to Observation
The phrase “connect abstract constructions with measurable physics” can suggest a shorter bridge than actually exists. The full sequence is long:
[
\text{compactification data}
\rightarrow \text{4D effective theory}
\rightarrow \text{vacuum selection and stabilization}
\rightarrow \text{masses and couplings}
\rightarrow \text{cosmological history}
\rightarrow \text{observables}.
]
AI can accelerate multiple arrows, but no current system controls the entire chain. A topological classifier may predict a gauge sector but not the vacuum expectation values. A metric network may calculate kinetic normalization on a chosen geometry but not explain why that geometry was selected. A flux generator may target a small superpotential but rely on an approximate effective description whose corrections must be checked.
Even so, landscape mapping can sharpen experimental questions. Compactifications motivate axion-like particles, moduli, hidden photons, dark gauge sectors, cosmic superstrings, supersymmetric spectra, and correlated coupling structures. Machine-guided scans can determine whether a proposed signature is generic, rare, or incompatible within a specified construction class. Conversely, null results can eliminate regions of model space if the mapping from microscopic data to observables is controlled.
The appropriate standard is conditional prediction: given a construction class, consistency assumptions, moduli-stabilization scenario, and measure, what distributions of observables follow? Such statements are weaker than a unique prediction but stronger than unconstrained possibility. They are testable when assumptions and uncertainties are explicit.
7. Future Implications: The Frontier of AI-Assisted String Theory
7.1 Physics-informed, equivariant, and generative architectures
Future models will increasingly encode exact symmetries and constraints. Permutation invariance, lattice transformations, patch consistency, Kählerity, flux quantization, and tadpole bounds should be architectural or algorithmic guarantees wherever possible. A model that can never generate an invalid triangulation is preferable to one that generates quickly and discards most outputs. A metric ansatz that is positive and Kähler by construction is safer than an unconstrained tensor predictor.
Generative models will move from broad sampling to multi-objective inverse design. A researcher may request a compactification with a target gauge group, three net generations, specified discrete symmetry, stabilized moduli, controlled coupling, and an axion decay constant within a chosen range. Conditional diffusion models, normalizing flows, autoregressive graph networks, and transformer policies could propose candidates, while differentiable or surrogate physics supplies gradients and exact software certifies outputs.
7.2 Active learning and uncertainty-aware computation
Landscape labels are expensive. Active learning can choose the next exact calculation to maximize information rather than filling a database uniformly. The system would seek examples near decision boundaries, in poorly sampled topological classes, or where models disagree. Multi-fidelity learning could combine cheap topological proxies, medium-cost symbolic calculations, and expensive metric solutions.
Uncertainty must be operational. Calibrated predictive distributions should decide whether a candidate is accepted, rejected, or escalated to exact computation. Ensembles, conformal prediction, Bayesian approximations, and explicit out-of-distribution detectors can help, but mathematical datasets create special hazards: symmetry-related duplicates, sharp phase boundaries, and rare equivalence classes can invalidate ordinary statistical assumptions.
7.3 Neuro-symbolic discovery and formal verification
The most scientifically productive AI may be a conjecture generator connected to proof tools. Decision trees, sparse regression, symbolic transformers, and attribution methods can extract candidate formulae from high-performing predictors. Computer algebra can test them on large exact datasets; theorem provers can formalize tractable subclaims; mathematicians can identify the missing conceptual argument.
Yang-Hui He (2024) argues that a hybrid of human expertise and AI will become integral to theoretical discovery while not replacing theorists in the foreseeable future. The Calabi–Yau program supports that view. Neural networks are strong at recognizing patterns across combinatorial data, while physicists and geometers supply definitions, invariants, equivalence relations, consistency constraints, and explanations. The partnership is asymmetric but complementary.
7.4 Differentiable simulation, high-performance computing, and shared infrastructure
Automatic differentiation already enables neural PDE solvers and differentiable observables. GPU-accelerated packages such as JAX and specialized Calabi–Yau libraries allow metric and curvature calculations to be embedded in optimization loops. Sparse tensor accelerators, distributed computing, and improved exact-arithmetic kernels will expand the range of tractable Hodge numbers and moduli dimensions.
Shared infrastructure is just as important as hardware. A trustworthy landscape platform needs versioned datasets, provenance for every invariant, canonical encodings, equivalence and duplicate metadata, reproducible training splits, exact validators, and benchmark tasks that test extrapolation. Living projects such as AICY are promising, but governance must prevent a fast-growing archive from becoming a self-referential training corpus with uncertain validity.
Quantum computing is sometimes proposed as a future accelerator, but its near-term role should not be exaggerated. Landscape problems contain hard optimization, linear-algebra, and sampling subroutines that may eventually benefit from quantum algorithms. At present, fault-tolerant resources and proven end-to-end advantages are absent. Classical geometric AI and high-performance symbolic computation remain the actionable frontier.
7.5 Interpretability, validation, and the measure problem
Interpretability is not a cosmetic requirement in fundamental physics. A highly accurate classifier may exploit the ordering of matrix rows, padding conventions, database-generation artifacts, or a hidden correlation with computational complexity. Symmetry tests, counterfactual inputs, feature ablations, and representation changes should therefore accompany headline accuracy.
Validation has at least four levels:
- Mathematical validity: Is the generated object actually a smooth Calabi–Yau construction, or does it satisfy the claimed topological property?
- Physical consistency: Are anomalies and tadpoles canceled, fluxes quantized, approximations controlled, and instabilities absent within the stated regime?
- Statistical reliability: Does the model generalize across construction families and complexity scales, and is its uncertainty calibrated?
- Phenomenological relevance: Does the effective theory survive present experimental and cosmological constraints after normalization and running?
There is also a problem AI cannot solve by scale alone: the measure problem. Counting vacua does not tell us how likely they are. Cosmological dynamics, selection effects, duality redundancies, and the choice of measure can radically alter conclusions. A generative model trained on database frequency learns the sampling distribution of that database, not necessarily a physically meaningful probability distribution. Claims about “typical string predictions” must therefore separate raw counts, algorithmic sampling weights, and proposed cosmological measures.
7.6 What experimental verification could look like
The most credible route to experiment is not for AI to announce the unique Calabi–Yau shape of nature. It is to derive robust correlations shared by broad, well-defined classes of consistent vacua. Examples might include constrained axion spectra, coupling relations in hidden sectors, upper bounds on field ranges, characteristic towers of states, or restricted patterns of supersymmetry breaking.
If a conjectured swampland constraint can be translated into a rigorous bound on inflation, dark energy, or gauge sectors, improved cosmological and particle data could test it. If precision metric calculations reveal recurring Yukawa textures across a statistically controlled family, flavor measurements could constrain that family. If AI finds that a proposed low-energy effective theory is consistently absent despite exhaustive, diversity-aware searches—and an interpretable obstruction is extracted—the negative result could motivate a new quantum-gravity principle.
None of these outcomes is guaranteed. The crucial transition will be from model discovery to obstruction discovery: not merely finding examples that work, but identifying why broad classes cannot work. Negative structure is often more universal and more experimentally useful than another isolated vacuum.
8. A Research Agenda for Trustworthy Landscape Mapping
The next stage of the field would benefit from a coordinated program with six priorities.
First, datasets should record provenance and equivalence. Every label should identify the exact algorithm, software version, assumptions, and certification status that produced it. Symmetry-related and birationally related examples should not leak across benchmark splits without explicit intent.
Second, benchmarks should emphasize extrapolation. Training on low (h^{1,1}) and testing on high (h^{1,1}), transferring between CICY and toric constructions, or testing on unseen symmetry classes is more informative than random splitting.
Third, generative systems should incorporate hard constraints. Exact validity masks, equivariant representations, symbolic post-checks, and rejection reasons should be part of the model, not an afterthought.
Fourth, learned predictions should terminate in auditable physics. Candidate compactifications must be followed through cohomology, moduli stabilization, metric approximation, spectra, couplings, and uncertainty propagation. A topological hit is the start of analysis, not its conclusion.
Fifth, interpretable discoveries should be prioritized. New formulas, provable decision rules, geometric obstructions, and certified sampling algorithms create reusable knowledge. A black box with one percentage point more benchmark accuracy may not.
Sixth, interdisciplinary teams should be designed around the full chain. Algebraic and differential geometers understand equivalence and invariants; string theorists define consistency and physical targets; computer-algebra researchers build exact engines; machine-learning researchers design representations and uncertainty methods; phenomenologists and experimentalists identify which outputs could matter. Without this collaboration, optimization risks becoming detached from either mathematics or observation.
9. Conclusion
String theory’s landscape problem emerged from success. Quantum consistency, supersymmetry, duality, branes, fluxes, and Calabi–Yau geometry produced an extraordinarily rich set of possible lower-dimensional worlds. The same richness made vacuum selection and systematic phenomenology computationally formidable. Hundreds of millions of reflexive polytopes, vast triangulation spaces, bundle and brane choices, and astronomical flux ensembles cannot be handled by naïve enumeration.
AI changes the available strategy. Classification models can infer topological and spectrum-related properties; graph methods preserve the relational structure of triangulations and transitions; neuro-symbolic systems can accelerate exact algebra and expose candidate formulae; reinforcement learning and evolutionary search can navigate sparse model-building spaces; conditional generators can solve targeted inverse problems; and physics-informed neural networks can approximate Ricci-flat metrics and normalized couplings. The trajectory from Hodge-number prediction to precision Yukawa calculations is particularly significant because it moves AI from cataloguing geometry toward evaluating physics.
The transformation should not be overstated. No AI system has identified the vacuum of our universe. The (10^{500}) landscape is not a single enumerated dataset. Swampland conjectures remain conjectural, de Sitter constructions remain debated, and high validation accuracy does not establish a theorem or a physical law. Database bias, equivalence, uncertainty, stability, and the measure problem remain fundamental obstacles.
The responsible conclusion is nevertheless ambitious. AI can become a new scientific instrument for string theory—not an oracle, but a mapper, accelerator, conjecture engine, and inverse-design partner embedded in exact mathematics. Its most valuable products may be certified geometries, interpretable constraints, reliable surrogates for expensive calculations, and obstructions that reveal previously hidden principles of quantum gravity.
The frontier now requires collaboration across geometry, physics, computer algebra, machine learning, and phenomenology. If these communities build shared datasets, symmetry-aware models, exact validation loops, and end-to-end uncertainty accounting, the quantum landscape can become less a metaphor for intractable multiplicity and more a structured domain of scientific inference. Whether that effort ultimately singles out our universe, rules out broad classes of models, or uncovers new mathematics, it will deepen our understanding of the relationship between information, geometry, and physical law.
References
Anderson, L. B., Gray, J., Lukas, A., & Palti, E. (2012). Heterotic line bundle standard models. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2012(6), 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2012)113
Arkani-Hamed, N., Motl, L., Nicolis, A., & Vafa, C. (2007). The string landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2007(6), 060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/060
Ashmore, A., He, Y.-H., & Ovrut, B. A. (2020). Machine learning Calabi–Yau metrics. Fortschritte der Physik, 68(9), 2000068. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202000068
Berglund, P., Butbaia, G., Hübsch, T., Jejjala, V., Mayorga Peña, D., Mishra, C., & Tan, J. (2025). Precision string phenomenology. Physical Review D, 111, 086007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.086007
Bousso, R., & Polchinski, J. (2000). Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2000(6), 006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/006
Bull, K., He, Y.-H., Jejjala, V., & Mishra, C. (2019). Getting CICY high. Physics Letters B, 795, 700–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.067
Butbaia, G., Mayorga Peña, D., Tan, J., Berglund, P., Hübsch, T., Jejjala, V., & Mishra, C. (2024). Physical Yukawa couplings in heterotic string compactifications. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 28(8), 2783–2822. https://doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.241119041341
Butbaia, G., Mayorga Peña, D., Tan, J., Berglund, P., Hübsch, T., Jejjala, V., & Mishra, C. (2025). cymyc: Calabi–Yau metrics, Yukawas, and curvature. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2025(3), 028. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)028
Candelas, P., de la Ossa, X. C., Green, P. S., & Parkes, L. (1991). A pair of Calabi–Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory. Nuclear Physics B, 359, 21–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90292-6
Candelas, P., Horowitz, G. T., Strominger, A., & Witten, E. (1985). Vacuum configurations for superstrings. Nuclear Physics B, 258, 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(85)90602-9
Carifio, J., Halverson, J., Krioukov, D., & Nelson, B. D. (2017). Machine learning in the string landscape. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017(9), 157. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2017)157
Cole, A., Schachner, A., & Shiu, G. (2019). Searching the landscape of flux vacua with genetic algorithms. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(11), 045. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2019)045
Cole, A., & Shiu, G. (2019). Topological data analysis for the string landscape. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(3), 054. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2019)054
Constantin, A., Harvey, T. R., & Lukas, A. (2022). Heterotic string model building with monad bundles and reinforcement learning. Fortschritte der Physik, 70(2–3), 2100186. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202100186
Deen, R., Ovrut, B. A., Purves, A., & Sethi, S. (2022). Machine learning string standard models. Physical Review D, 105, 046001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.046001
Demirtas, M., McAllister, L., & Rios-Tascon, A. (2020). Bounding the Kreuzer–Skarke landscape. Fortschritte der Physik, 68(11), 2000086. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202000086
Demirtas, M., Rios-Tascon, A., & McAllister, L. (2022). CYTools: A software package for analyzing Calabi–Yau manifolds. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03823
Douglas, M. R., Lakshminarasimhan, S., & Qi, Y. (2022). Numerical Calabi–Yau metrics from holomorphic networks. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 145, 223–252. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v145/douglas22a.html
Erbin, H., & Finotello, R. (2021). Machine learning for complete intersection Calabi–Yau manifolds: A methodological study. Physical Review D, 103, 126014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.126014
Gendler, N., MacFadden, N., McAllister, L., Moritz, J., Nally, R., Schachner, A., & Stillman, M. (2023). Counting Calabi–Yau threefolds. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06820
Green, M. B., & Schwarz, J. H. (1984). Anomaly cancellations in supersymmetric (D=10) gauge theory and superstring theory. Physics Letters B, 149, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)91565-X
Gross, D. J., Harvey, J. A., Martinec, E., & Rohm, R. (1985). Heterotic string. Physical Review Letters, 54, 502–505. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.502
He, Y.-H. (2024). AI-driven research in pure mathematics and theoretical physics. Nature Reviews Physics, 6, 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00740-1
He, Y.-H., Yao, Z.-G., & Yau, S.-T. (2026). Distinguishing Calabi–Yau topology using machine learning. Harvard Data Science Review, 8(1). https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/gp2772c2
Hendi, Y., Larfors, M., & Walden, M. (2025). Learning group invariant Calabi–Yau metrics by fundamental domain projections. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 6, 015050. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/adb4bb
Jejjala, V., Mayorga Peña, D. K., & Mishra, C. (2022). Neural network approximations for Calabi–Yau metrics. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(8), 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2022)105
Klaewer, D., & Schlechter, L. (2019). Machine learning line bundle cohomologies of hypersurfaces in toric varieties. Physics Letters B, 789, 438–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.002
Kreuzer, M., & Skarke, H. (2000). Complete classification of reflexive polyhedra in four dimensions. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 4, 1209–1230. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002240
Krippendorf, S., & Liu, Z. (2026). Solving inverse problems of Type IIB flux vacua with conditional generative models. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2026(7), 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2026)103
Larfors, M., Lukas, A., Ruehle, F., & Schneider, R. (2022). Numerical metrics for complete intersection and Kreuzer–Skarke Calabi–Yau manifolds. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3, 035014. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ac8e4e
MacFadden, N. (2026). Sampling triangulations and Calabi–Yau threefolds with autoregressive GNNs [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27770
MacFadden, N., Orevkov, S. Y., & Stepniczka, M. (2026). Further bounding the Kreuzer–Skarke landscape [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16909
Maldacena, J. (1998). The large (N) limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 2, 231–252. https://doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1
Obied, G., Ooguri, H., Spodyneiko, L., & Vafa, C. (2018). De Sitter space and the swampland [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08362
Ooguri, H., & Vafa, C. (2007). On the geometry of the string landscape and the swampland. Nuclear Physics B, 766, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.033
Peifer, D., Stillman, M., & Halpern-Leistner, D. (2020). Learning selection strategies in Buchberger’s algorithm. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 119, 7575–7585. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/peifer20a.html
Taylor, W., & Wang, Y.-N. (2015). The F-theory geometry with most flux vacua. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(12), 164. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2015)164
Vafa, C. (2005). The string landscape and the swampland [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509212
Veneziano, G. (1968). Construction of a crossing-symmetric, Regge-behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories. Il Nuovo Cimento A, 57, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02824451
Walden, M., & Larfors, M. (2026). Sampling string vacua using generative models. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 7, 015018. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ae32dc
Wang, Y.-N., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Learning non-Higgsable gauge groups in 4D F-theory. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(8), 009. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2018)009
Witten, E. (1995). String theory dynamics in various dimensions. Nuclear Physics B, 443, 85–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(95)00158-O
Yau, S.-T. (1978). On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge–Ampère equation, I. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 31, 339–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160310304
Yip, J. H. T., Arnal, C., Charton, F., & Shiu, G. (2025). Transforming Calabi–Yau constructions: Generating new Calabi–Yau manifolds with transformers [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03732