Revisiting the two formulations of Bianchi identities and their   implications on moduli stabilization
  In the context of non-geometric type II orientifold compactifications, there have been two formulations for representing the various NS-NS Bianchi-identities. In the first formulation, the standard three-form flux ($H_3$), the geometric flux ($\omega$) and the non-geometric fluxes ($Q$ and $R$) are expressed by using the real six-dimensional indices (e.g. $H_{ijk}, \omega_{ij}{}^k, Q_i{}^{jk}$ and $R^{ijk}$), and this formulation has been heavily utilized for simplifying the scalar potentials in toroidal-orientifolds. On the other hand, relevant for the studies beyond toroidal backgrounds, a second formulation is utilized in which all flux components are written in terms of various involutively even/odd $(2,1)$- and $(1,1)$-cohomologies of the complex threefold. In the lights of recent model building interests and some observations made in arXiv:0705.3410 and arXiv:0709.2186, in this article, we revisit two most commonly studied toroidal examples in detail to illustrate that the present forms of these two formulations are not completely equivalent. To demonstrate the same, we translate all the identities of the first formulation into cohomology ingredients, and after a tedious reshuffling of the subsequent constraints, interestingly we find that all the identities of the second formulation are embedded into the first formulation which has some additional constraints. In addition, we look for the possible solutions of these Bianchi identities in a detailed analysis, and we find that some solutions can reduce the size of scalar potential very significantly, and in some cases are too strong to break the no-scale structure completely. Finally, we also comment on the influence of imposing some of the solutions of Bianchi identities in studying moduli stabilization. 
Pramod Shukla
hep-th