text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This is a continuation of the previous investigations  on the question of the power of supersymmetry (SUSY) in Matrix theory for M-theory .

Since its birth, Matrix theory has enjoyed numerous successes in a variety of contexts, for which we refer the reader to an assortment of review articles . A simple yet fundamental question is “why ?” Although a number of appealing reasons were presented in the original proposal  and additional supportive arguments were subsequently supplied in , it is fair to say that the precise reason is yet to be identified.

Undoubtedly, one of the key ingredients must be the high degree of SUSY present in the theory. Besides playing the crucial role of allowing the scattering states to exist, it supports a variety of stable brane configurations expected of a proper representation of M-theory. Furthermore, evidence has been accumulating  that at least for some restricted configurations it appears to be powerful enough to control the dynamical details of the scattering. This is rather surprising since normally such a global symmetry can only give certain relations among correlation functions and cannot fix the scattering amplitudes.

Thus it is of great interest to know precisely how much is determined by SUSY. This requires investigation of the off-shell correlation functions as well, i.e. of the effective action without imposing the equations of motion. In contrast to the case with a small number of SUSY, the theory with maximal SUSY, such as Matrix theory under consideration, presents difficulties in answering to this question because the off-shell unconstrained superfield formalism is not known and one is forced to deal with the component formalism. In such non-covariant formulation, the SUSY algebra gets intimately intertwined with gauge symmetry and does not close without the aid of the equations of motion. Besides, the SUSY transformations for the effective action get non-trivial quantum corrections, which makes the analysis quite cumbersome.

Nevertheless, in previous works we have made some progress in understanding the role of SUSY for the fully off-shell effective action for the so-called the source-probe configuration, where a probe D-particle, with its position and the spin described respectively by the bosonic coordinates $`r_m(\tau )`$ and the fermionic coordinates $`\theta _\alpha (\tau )`$, interacts with a large number of source D-particles all sitting at the origin. First the precise form of the SUSY Ward identity, mixed with the gauge structure in essential ways, was derived together with closed form expressions for the quantum-corrected SUSY transformation laws . This formalism was then explicitly applied to the simplest case, namely to the 1-loop effective action at order 2 in the sense of the derivative expansion***The concept of “order” in the derivative expansion is defined, as usual, as the number of time derivatives plus half the number of fermions. For the importance of the derivative expansion scheme, see the detailed discussions presented in ., and it was found that, with the knowledge of the SUSY transformation, the SUSY Ward identity completely fixed the form of the off-shell effective action to the order investigated. This example, however, was not so significant since at this order the higher order derivatives, such as acceleration etc., that do not vanish by the equation of motion nevertheless can be eliminated by integration by parts.

The full significance of our off-shell machinery becomes apparent at order 4, where complete elimination of higher derivatives is no longer possible. Since, unlike for order 2, only a small portion of the fully off-shell 1-loop effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ was known at this order, we had to first complete its computation, including all the spin effects . This was a horrendous task, involving manipulations of hundreds of terms in the intermediate stages. However, with judicious use of $`SO(9)`$ Fierz identities, including some new ones, the result turned out to be much simpler than was expected. To check this result as well as for its own interest, we also computed the quantum-corrected SUSY transformation operator $`\delta _ϵ`$ up to the relevant order. Although their forms were embarrassingly complicated, we succeeded in verifying the Ward identity $`\delta _ϵ(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)})=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is the tree-level action.

The main purpose of the present work is to demonstrate that, conversely, given such $`\delta _ϵ`$ our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ is in fact the unique solution to the SUSY Ward identity at one-loop at order 4. We shall show this in the following way: Let us write the most general effective action up to 1-loop as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ is our previous result and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ is a possible arbitrary addition at order 4. Then, expanding $`\delta _ϵ`$ also to 1-loop as $`\delta _ϵ=\delta _ϵ^{(0)}+\delta _ϵ^{(1)}`$, the Ward identity $`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ is satisfied to the desired order if and only if $`\delta _ϵ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=0`$. Writing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$, this is equivalent to

$`\delta _ϵ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX}{d\tau }},`$ (1.1)
where $`X`$ is an arbitrary expression of order 3. What we shall do is to generate the most general expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ and $`X`$ allowed by $`SO(9)`$ and discrete CPT symmetries and demonstrate that the only solution is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}=0`$ up to a total derivative, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=0`$.

It should be emphasized that our method actually does not rely on the detailed forms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`\delta _ϵ^{(1)}`$. We may take this as a strong indication that this uniqueness property would persist to higher orders. Although restricted to the source-probe configuration, our result reveals in a clear way the unusual power of maximal supersymmetry in controlling even the off-shell structures of Matrix theory.

The organization of the rest of the article is as follows: In Sec. 2, we give a brief description of Matrix theory and its “source-probe” configuration, to be studied in this article. It includes the explanation of how supersymmetry, $`SO(9)`$ symmetry and discrete C-P-T symmetries act in this setting. The analysis of the SUSY Ward identity is performed in Sec. 3. After elucidating our strategy, we describe how to generate the most general form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ and the possible total derivative terms in its SUSY transform and reduce them by the use of various Fierz identities to truly independent structures. Using the results of these analyses, the SUSY Ward identity (1.1) is transformed into sets of linear coupled equations for the coefficients of such structures. Upon solving them we shall find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ must identically vanish, demonstrating the uniqueness of the solution of the Ward identity at 1-loop at order 4. Sec. 4 is devoted to discussion of the implication of our result and some further remarks. In the Appendix, the Fierz identities used in the main text are collected.

## 2 Preliminaries

The classical action for the $`U(N+1)`$ Matrix theory in the Euclidean formulation is given by

$`S_0`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}[D_\tau ,X^m]^2\frac{g^2}{4}([X^m,X^n])^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^T[D_\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }]\frac{g}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^T\gamma ^m[X_m,\mathrm{\Theta }]\right)},`$ (2.1)
$`D_\tau `$ $`_\tau igA.`$ (2.2)
In this expression, $`X_{ij}^m(\tau ),A_{ij}(\tau )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,ij}(\tau )`$ are the $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ hermitian matrix fields, representing the bosonic part of the D-particles, the gauge fields, and the fermionic part of the D-particles, respectively. $`D_\tau `$ is the covariant derivative, $`\gamma ^m`$ are the real symmetric $`16\times 16`$ $`SO(9)`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices, and the vector index $`m`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`9`$.

Among the number of important symmetries possessed by this action, our main focus will be the supersymmetry. It carries 16 spinorial parameters $`ϵ_\alpha `$ and transforms the basic fields as

$`\delta _ϵA`$ $`=ϵ^T\mathrm{\Theta },\delta _ϵX^m=iϵ^T\gamma ^m\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (2.3)
$`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=i\left([D_\tau ,X_m]\gamma ^m+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}[X_m,X_n]\gamma ^{mn}\right)ϵ.`$ (2.4)
Although the SUSY algebra closes only on-shell up to field-dependent gauge transformations, $`S_0`$ is invariant under (2.3) and (2.4)Strictly speaking, this symmetry is not supersymmetry since the bose and fermi dergrees of freedom do not match off-shell; it is a symmetry that becomes SUSY on-shell. Nevertheless, in this article we shall call (2.3) and (2.4) SUSY transformations, following common usage..

For the present investigation, two additional symmetries play crucial roles. One is the $`SO(9)`$ symmetry. Besides giving restrictions on the forms of various quantities, it provides highly non-trivial relations among terms involving fermions through numerous Fierz identities. The other is the discrete C-P-T symmetries inherited from the 10-dimensional super Yang-Mills theory, from which the above action can be obtained by dimensional reduction. To understand these symmetries properly, tentatively we go back to the Minkowski formulation. Since the fermions in Matrix theory are Weyl-projected (as well as Mojorana), P and T are separately violated while C and CPT symmetries remain preserved. Under the C-transformation, the Minkowski fields transform as

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^T,A_0A_0^T,X_mX_m^T,`$ (2.5)
where the superscript $`T`$ denotes the matrix-transposition. On the other hand, one finds that the CPT-transformation does not transform the fields but flips the sign of the time-derivative and effects $`ii`$ as it is anti-unitary.

Now let us give a brief description of the “source-probe” situation, on which our investigation will be focused. It is the configuration of a (probe) D-particle interacting with a large number, $`N`$, of (source) D-particles all sitting at the origin. This is expressed by the splitting

$`X^m(\tau )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}B^m(\tau )+Y^m(\tau ),`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha (\tau )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\theta ^\alpha (\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha (\tau ),`$ (2.6)
$`B^m(\tau )`$ $`=\mathrm{diag}(r^m(\tau ),\underset{N}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}}),`$ $`\theta ^\alpha (\tau )`$ $`=\mathrm{diag}(\theta ^\alpha (\tau ),\underset{N}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}}),`$ (2.7)
where $`B_m(\tau )`$ and $`\theta _\alpha (\tau )`$ are the bosonic and the fermionic backgrounds expressing the positions and the spin degrees of freedom of the D-particles respectively and $`Y_m(\tau )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\tau )`$ denote the quantum fluctuations around them. We will be interested in the fully off-shell effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[r^m,\theta _\alpha ]`$ of the probe D-particle after all the fluctuations are integrated out. In other words, we shall not impose any equations of motion for $`r_m(\tau )`$ and $`\theta _\alpha (\tau )`$, i.e. they will be arbitrary functions of $`\tau `$. At the tree level, the effective action and the SUSY transformations take the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(\frac{v^2}{2g^2}+\frac{\theta \dot{\theta }}{2g^2}\right)},`$ (2.8)
$`\delta _ϵ^{(0)}r^m`$ $`=iϵ\gamma ^m\theta ,\delta _ϵ^{(0)}\theta _\alpha =i(\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ v\hfill \end{array}ϵ)_\alpha .`$ (2.11)
Here and hereafter, the dot means differentiation with respect to the Euclidean time $`\tau `$ and we will use $`v^m`$ and $`a^m`$ to denote $`\dot{r}^m`$ and $`\ddot{r}^m`$ respectively. Contractions of the spinor indices are often suppressed, so that $`\theta \dot{\theta }`$ stands for $`\theta _\alpha \dot{\theta }_\alpha `$, etc.

For the source-probe configuration described above, the restrictions imposed on the effective action by the C and CPT symmetries, the $`SO(9)`$ symmetry and the hermiticity requirement can be worked out in the following way. Again to avoid misunderstanding we must first go back to the Minkowski formulation, in which the time $`t`$ is related to the Euclidean time $`\tau `$ by $`t=i\tau `$, and then translate the results into the Euclidean language.

1. The C-transformation only affects $`r^m`$ as $`r^mr^m`$ and dictates that the number of $`r^m`$’s must be even.
2. The $`SO(9)`$ invariance imposes two types of restrictions. First, the spinors must come in bilinears so that the spinor indices are contracted. Next, since the vector indices must also be contracted to produce $`SO(9)`$ singlets, the number of such indices must be even. This together with the C-invariance above dictates that the total number of $`\gamma ^m`$’s must be even.
3. Let $`\theta ^{(m)}`$ denote the $`m`$-th $`t`$-derivative of $`\theta `$. Then, any fermion bilinear of the form $`\theta ^{(m)}A\theta ^{(n)}`$ with $`A`$ a real matrix (such as $`\gamma ^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_k}`$) is anti-hermitian since $`(\theta ^{(m)}A\theta ^{(n)})^{}=\theta ^{(n)}A^T\theta ^{(m)}=\theta ^{(m)}A\theta ^{(n)}`$. Thus, a hermitian spinor bilinear, to be used as a building block, must be of the form $`i\theta ^{(m)}A\theta ^{(n)}`$, i.e. with an overall $`i`$.
4. Now consider the CPT transformation. On the bosonic coordinates, its only effect is to change the sign of the time derivative and hence we have $`r^mr^m`$, $`v^mv^m`$, etc. This is often referred to as “time-reversal” from the M-theory point of view. It gives the well known restriction that the number of time-derivatives in the purely bosonic terms must be even. On the other hand, due to an overall $`i`$, CPT transform of a hermitian fermion bilinear $`i\theta ^{(m)}A\theta ^{(n)}`$ acquires an extra minus sign from $`ii`$, apart from the factors of $`1`$ from the time-derivatives. This means that we can count $`\theta ^2`$ as one time-derivative as far as the CPT invariance is concerned. Combined with the requirement for the bosonic part, this amounts to a remarkably simple statement that CPT invariance is equivalent to demanding the “order”, as defined in the sense of the derivative expansion, to be even.

Going back to the Euclidean formulation by $`ti\tau `$, we can summarize the above requirements as follows:

* In constructing the effective Lagrangian, use $`i^{1+m+n}\theta ^{(m)}\gamma ^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_k}\theta ^{(n)}`$ as fermionic building block and demand that the number of $`r^m`$, the number of $`\gamma ^m`$ and the “order” be all even.

This rule will facilitate the generation of the most general effective action, to be performed in the next section.

## 3 Analysis of the SUSY Ward identity

### 3.1 Strategy

We begin the analysis of the SUSY Ward identity by explaining our strategy. As was already explained in the introduction, in terms of the unintegrated quantities the Ward identity we wish to analyze is

$`\delta _ϵ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX}{d\tau }},`$ (3.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ is the most general effective Lagrangian possible at 1-loop at order 4 and $`X`$ stands for an arbitrary expression at order 3. To solve this equation, we expand $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ and $`X`$ in powers of $`\theta `$ in the manner

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^6}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^8}^{(1)},`$ (3.2)
$`X`$ $`X_{ϵ^3\theta }+X_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}+X_{ϵ\theta ^5}+X_{ϵ\theta ^7}.`$ (3.3)
The subscripts indicate the structure of each term schematically and should be self-explanatory. Now the tree-level SUSY variation $`\delta _ϵ^{(0)}`$ consists of $`\delta _r^{(0)}`$ which acts on $`r^m`$ to add one $`\theta `$ and $`\delta _\theta ^{(0)}`$ that acts on $`\theta _\alpha `$ to remove one $`\theta `$. Thus, by substituting the expansions (3.2) and (3.3) into the equation (3.1) and collecting terms with the same number of $`\theta `$’s, the Ward identity can be split into the following five equations:

$`\delta _r^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}+\delta _\theta ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX_{ϵ^3\theta }}{d\tau }},`$ (3.4)
$`\delta _r^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}+\delta _\theta ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}}{d\tau }},`$ (3.5)
$`\delta _r^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}+\delta _\theta ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^6}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX_{ϵ\theta ^5}}{d\tau }},`$ (3.6)
$`\delta _r^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^6}^{(1)}+\delta _\theta ^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^8}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{dX_{ϵ\theta ^7}}{d\tau }},`$ (3.7)
$`\delta _r^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^8}^{(1)}=0.`$ (3.8)
Our task then is to solve each of these equations to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}^{(1)}`$. Since both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}`$’s and $`X_{ϵ^n\theta ^m}`$’s are unknown, except for restrictions imposed by $`SO(9)`$ and CPT symmetries, one might at first sight suspect that the solution would not be unique. As we shall see, this expectation will be refuted.

### 3.2 General form of the effective Lagrangian

We will generate the most general expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}^{(1)}`$’s in following steps: First, we enumerate all possible structures contributing to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}^{(1)}`$ at order 4, taking into account the symmetry requirement spelled out at the end of the previous section. Next we will eliminate all possible total derivative combinations. Finally, for terms containing 4 $`\theta `$’s or more, we apply appropriate $`SO(9)`$ Fierz identities to reduce the expressions to truly independent ones.

Let us describe this procedure for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}^{(1)}`$ more explicitly. In the following, $`A_iE_i`$ will denote arbitrary constants.

Expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}`$:

For the purely bosonic part, it is straightforward to see that there are 6 independent terms, which can be chosen to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{A_1(rv)^4}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_2(ra)^2}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_3v^2(rv)^2}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_4v^2(ra)}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_5v^4}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_6a^2}{r^5}}.`$ (3.9)
Expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}`$:

Similarly, it is not difficult to enumerate all possible terms with two $`\theta `$’s and we find the following 11 independent terms:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{B_1(\ddot{\theta }\dot{\theta })}{r^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_2(rv)^2(\dot{\theta }\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_3(ra)(\dot{\theta }\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_4v^2(\dot{\theta }\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_5r_jv_i(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B_6r_jv_i(rv)(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_7(rv)^2r_jv_i(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_8v^2r_jv_i(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B_9r_ja_i(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_{10}r_ja_i(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_{11}v_ia_j(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^7}}.`$ (3.10)
Expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}`$:

Beginning at this order with 4 $`\theta `$’s, our task becomes much more difficult. In addition to the number of allowed terms getting large, we must find judicious Fierz identities to reduce them to independent expressions. Since these identities are rather involved, we shall relegate them to Appendix. They are generated by an efficient new algorithm developed in the previous work.

After eliminating terms related by total derivatives, the ones contributing to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}`$ are found to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{(rv)^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )^2}{r^{11}}},{\displaystyle \frac{(rv)^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )^2}{r^{11}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(rv)^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^{13}}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\dot{\theta })}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^{11}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(rv)^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^{13}}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\dot{\theta })}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )^2}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )^2}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^{11}}},{\displaystyle \frac{v^2r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^{11}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2r_{i_1}r_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^{11}}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^{11}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^{11}}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{v_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}v_{i_4}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2i_4}\theta )}{r^{11}}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}v_{i_4}(\theta \gamma ^{i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_4}\theta )}{r^{11}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_4a_5a_6a_7}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6a_7i_1i_2}}{r^9}}.`$ (3.11)
There are altogether 30 terms, which are not yet all independent. We now indicate how they can be reduced to the independent ones by the use of Fierz identities.

First, several terms in the above list simply vanish due to the Fierz identities (A.1) and (A.2). Next, the last term, the only term with the $`ϵ`$-tensor, can be rewritten into an expression without it by using the identity (A.3). It becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_4a_5a_6a_7}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6a_7i_1i_2}}{r^9}}=720{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}v_{i_2}(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}}.`$ (3.12)
Similarly, we can relate various other terms by using the identities (A.4) $``$ (A.10).

After all possible such manipulations, the number of independent structures is reduced to 13 and we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^4}^{(1)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(\dot{\theta }\theta )^2}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )^2}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_3r_ir_j(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_4r_jr_k(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ik}\dot{\theta })}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_5r_jr_k(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_6r_jr_k(rv)^2(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^{13}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_7r_jr_kv^2(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8r_iv_j(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9r_jv_k(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}r_jv_k(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{11}r_jv_k(rv)(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^{11}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{12}v_jv_k(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{13}r_ir_kv_jv_l(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta )}{r^{11}}}.`$ (3.13)
Expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^6}^{(1)}`$:

Now we come to the structures with 6 $`\theta `$’s. The number of possible terms, disregarding total derivatives, turned out to be 45. As they are too space-filling to be displayed here, we shall only sketch the reduction steps.

First, a number of terms containing an $`ϵ`$-tensor can all be turned into those without one by the identities (A.11) $``$ (A.15) and (A.3). The remaining terms can then be reduced by using the identities (A.16) $``$ (A.18) as well as those already used at $`𝒪(\theta ^4)`$.

These manipulations drastically reduce the number of independent terms and we end up with the following simple expression:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^6}^{(1)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1r_jr_k(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2r_kr_l(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{jl}\theta )}{r^{11}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{D_3r_lv_k(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_4r_jr_kr_lv_m(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{lm}\theta )}{r^{13}}}.`$ (3.14)
Expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^8}^{(1)}`$:

Finally, we are left with the expression with 8 $`\theta `$’s, the maximum number allowed at order 4. Starting from 36 possible such expressions, application of appropriate Fierz identities listed in the Appendix leads to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^8}^{(1)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_1(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_2r_kr_m(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{lm}\theta )}{r^{13}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{E_3r_jr_kr_mr_n(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{lm}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ln}\theta )}{r^{15}}}.`$ (3.15)
This agrees with the result of , where the effective action without time-derivatives of $`\theta `$ was considered.

This completes the construction of the most general effective Lagrangian. We now turn to the generation of allowed expression for the quantity $`X`$ at order 3, from which we produce the total derivative term $`dX/d\tau `$ in the basic Ward identity (3.1).

### 3.3 Generation of total derivative terms

The basic steps for generating the general order 3 expressions $`X_{ϵ^m\theta ^n}`$ are quite similar to the ones for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^n}^{(1)}`$ described in the previous section. Fortunately, we can argue that of the four such $`X_{ϵ^m\theta ^n}`$’s two of them, namely $`X_{ϵ^3\theta }`$ and $`X_{ϵ\theta ^5}`$, can be set to zero.

First, consider the terms of $`𝒪(ϵ^4\theta )`$ generated on the left-hand side (LHS) of (3.4). Schematically, they can be grouped into the following 5 types:

$`Y_1[r](ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta ^{(4)}),Y_2[r,v](ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta ^{(3)}),Y_3[r,v,a](ϵ\gamma ^{}\ddot{\theta }),`$
$`Y_4[r,v,a,\dot{a}](ϵ\gamma ^{}\dot{\theta }),Y_5[r,v,a,\dot{a},\ddot{a}](ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta ),`$ (3.16)
where $`Y_1Y_5`$ are functions of $`r(\tau )`$ and its derivatives and $``$ in $`\gamma ^{}`$ stands for various sets of vector indices. Since total derivatives can be absorbed into $`dX_{ϵ^3\theta }/d\tau `$ on the right-hand side (RHS), the first 4 structures can be transformed into the last one in the list by “integration by parts”. This process is unambiguous since there is only one $`\theta `$ involved and we may simply transfer the derivatives on it to bosonic variables. Thus, Eq. (3.4) is simplified to

$`Y_5[r,v,a,\dot{a},\ddot{a}](ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{dX_{ϵ^3\theta }}{d\tau }}.`$ (3.17)
Now note that while the LHS has no derivatives of $`\theta `$, $`d/d\tau `$ on the RHS necessarily produces $`\dot{\theta }`$ for each term composing $`X_{ϵ^3\theta }`$. This is a contradiction unless $`X_{ϵ^3\theta }`$ vanishes.

Similar argument applies to $`𝒪(ϵ^2\theta ^5)`$ terms in the Ward identity (3.6). In this case, the structure of $`X_{ϵ\theta ^5}`$ is schematically

$`X_{ϵ\theta ^5}Z_1[r]ϵ\theta ^4\dot{\theta }+Z_2[r]ϵ\theta ^5\dot{r},`$ (3.18)
where $`Z_1[r]`$ and $`Z_2[r]`$ are some functions of $`r(\tau )`$. The time derivative of this expression produces either $`\ddot{r}^n`$ or $`\ddot{\theta }^\alpha `$. However, the LHS of (3.6) can be transformed by integration by parts to expressions without such double derivatives. Hence we may set $`X_{ϵ\theta ^5}=0`$.

For the remaining two entities $`X_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}`$ and $`X_{ϵ\theta ^7}`$, no such arguments apply and we must generate all possible terms which are algebraically independent.

Construction of $`X_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}`$: There are 8 possible types of structures, up to total derivatives:

$`\text{type 1}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{}\theta )\ddot{r}^n,`$
$`\text{type 2}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{}\theta )\dot{r}^n\dot{r}^m,`$
$`\text{type 3}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{}\theta )\dot{r}^n,\text{type 3}\text{}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })\dot{r}^n,`$
$`\text{type 4}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\ddot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{}\theta )r^n,\text{type 4}\text{}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\ddot{\theta }\gamma ^{}\theta )r^n,`$
$`\text{type 5}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })r^n,\text{type 5}\text{}:(ϵ\gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })r^n.`$
Structures of type 3 can be expressed in terms of those of type 3 by the use of the Fierz identities of the type $`(ϵ\gamma ^{}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })(ϵ\gamma ^{}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{}\theta )`$. Similarly, type 4 and type 5 terms can be rewritten in terms of type 4 and type 5 terms respectively. Thus we only need to consider the structures of type 1 $``$ type 5.

Possible type 1 terms are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}.`$ (3.19)
By applying the Fierz identities (A.19) $``$ (A.23), they can be reduced to 5 independent structures of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^7}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}},{\displaystyle \frac{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}.`$ (3.20)
In a similar fashion, we can write down all possible independent terms of type 2 $``$ type 5. The details are omitted.

Assembling all five types of structures, we obtain $`X_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}`$ consisting of 31 independent terms with unknown coefficients $`F_i`$:

$`X_{ϵ^2\theta ^3}={\displaystyle \frac{F_1r_{i_1}(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_2a_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_3r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_4r_{i_1}r_{i_2}a_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_5r_{i_1}(rv)^2(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2F_6r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_7v_{i_1}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_8r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^{11}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_9r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{10}r_{i_1}v_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{11}r_{i_1}v_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{i_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{i_1i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{12}r_{i_1}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{13}v_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{14}r_{i_1}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{15}r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1i_3}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{16}v_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{17}r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{18}r_{i_1}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{19}v_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{20}r_{i_1}(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{21}r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1i_3}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_2}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{22}v_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{23}r_{i_1}r_{i_2}v_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\dot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_2i_3}\theta )}{r^9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{24}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\ddot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{25}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\ddot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{26}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\ddot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{27}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\ddot{\theta })(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{28}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{29}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i_1}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{30}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{31}r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\dot{\theta })}{r^7}}.`$ (3.21)
Construction of $`X_{ϵ\theta ^6}`$: The number of possible structures is 99, which is rather non-trivial to generate. However, after proper use of Fierz identities, this gets drastically reduced to the following expression consisting of just 4 terms with arbitrary constants $`G_i`$:

$`X_{ϵ\theta ^7}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_1r_{i_1}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_2a_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_3a_4}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_4i_1}\theta )}{r^{11}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_2r_{i_1}r_{i_2}r_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_2i_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_2i_3}\theta )}{r^{13}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_3r_{i_1}r_{i_2}r_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_2a_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_3i_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i_1}\theta )}{r^{13}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_4r_{i_1}r_{i_2}r_{i_3}(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_2i_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_3i_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_3i_1}\theta )}{r^{13}}}.`$ (3.22)
This completes the construction of the most general $`X`$ at order 3.

### 3.4 Solution of the Ward identity

We are now ready to solve the Ward identities (3.4) $``$ (3.8). Although in the end we will find that all the unknown coefficients vanish, we describe the consequence of each of these equations separately.

First consider (3.4). Since $`X_{ϵ^3\theta }=0`$ as we argued, we only need to take the appropriate SUSY variations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}`$, given in (3.9) and (3.10), remove the total derivatives and set the result to zero. Collecting the structures of the same type, we get the equation

$`0=\delta _r^{(0)}_{\theta ^0}^{(1)}+\delta _\theta ^{(0)}_{\theta ^2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(14B_5+B_67B_92B_{10}\right)ir_kv_ia_j(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^{ijk}\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2A_6+2B_1\right)i\ddot{a}_i(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2A_44A_510A_65B_12B_4B_92B_{11}\right)ia_iv^2(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2A_37A_47A_5+B_62B_8\right)ir_iv^4(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2A_2+2A_45A_6+2B_5\right)ir_ia^2(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2A_3+70A_6+35B_12B_2B_6+7B_9+2B_{10}\right)ia_i(rv)^2(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12A_1+9A_3+63A_49B_62B_7\right)ir_iv^2(rv)^2(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{33iA_1r_i(rv)^4(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^{13}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{21iA_2r_i(ra)^2(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(20A_615B_1B_9\right)i\dot{a}_i(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4A_314A_4+28A_52B_2+7B_4B_6+2B_8\right)iv_iv^2(rv)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(18A_3+9B_2+9B_6+2B_7\right)iv_i(rv)^3(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4A_2+2A_4+2B_5+B_9\right)ir_i(v\dot{a})(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4A_22A_410A_65B_12B_32B_5\right)ia_i(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2B_5+B_9\right)ir_kv_i\dot{a}_j(ϵ\gamma ^{ijk}\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(14A_22A_314A_4+B_6\right)ir_iv^2(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12A_1+126A_2\right)ir_i(rv)^2(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^{11}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(28A_24A_3+14A_42B_2+7B_3+14B_5B_6\right)iv_i(rv)(ra)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4A_22A_4B_32B_5\right)iv_i(r\dot{a})(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{28iA_2r_i(rv)(r\dot{a})(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2iA_2r_i(r\ddot{a})(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4A_2+2A_48A_5B_32B_4+B_9+2B_{11}\right)iv_i(va)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^7}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(28A_24A_328A_414B_5+B_67B_92B_{10}\right)ir_i(rv)(va)(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )}{r^9}}.`$ (3.23)
This produces 23 relations for 17 unknowns, which appears to be an overdetermined system. However, the solutions do exist and we obtain the following 15 relations:

$`A_1=0,A_2=0,A_3={\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}A_4,A_6={\displaystyle \frac{A_4}{5}},`$
$`B_1={\displaystyle \frac{A_4}{5}},B_2={\displaystyle \frac{7A_4}{2}},B_3=A_4,B_4=A_4+3A_5,B_5={\displaystyle \frac{A_4}{2}},B_6=7A_4,`$
$`B_7={\displaystyle \frac{63A_4}{4}},B_8={\displaystyle \frac{7\left(A_4A_5\right)}{2}},B_9=A_4,B_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{7A_4}{2}},B_{11}=A_5.`$ (3.24)
Next we analyze the second Ward identity (3.5). Starting at this order, a large number of terms are produced after taking the relevant SUSY variations on the LHS, which are extremely difficult to fully simplify into independent structures by Fierz identities. Our strategy is to perform such simplification as much as possible and then use an explicit representation of the $`SO(9)`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices to identify the coefficients of every independent structure written in terms of the components of $`r^m`$, $`\theta ^\alpha `$ and their derivatives. In this way, the Ward identity is turned into a large set of coupled linear equations for the coefficients. Solving them with the aid of Mathematica, we found that all the coefficients involved in (3.5) vanish, namely,

$`B_i=0,(i=111),C_j=0,(j=113),F_k=0,(k=131).`$ (3.25)
Together with the previous result (3.24), this implies that $`A_i`$ must all vanish as well.

The third Ward identity (3.6) was analyzed in an entirely similar fashion. The result is that again all the relevant coefficients must vanish:

$`C_i=0,(i=113),D_j=0,(j=14).`$ (3.26)
Likewise, the 4th Ward identity (3.7) turned out to dictate

$`D_i=0,(i=14),E_j=0,(j=13),G_k=0,(k=14).`$ (3.27)
Finally, consider the last Ward identity (3.8). This is in fact the same as the relation studied in . Our result agrees with  and gave the following relations among the coefficients $`E_i`$:

$`E_1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{143}}E_3,E_2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{13}}E_3.`$ (3.28)
Since $`E_i`$’s must vanish by the previous equation, this is just a consistency check.

Putting the results of all the analyses together, we found a remarkable fact

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=0.`$ (3.29)
The precise meaning of this result is as follows: At 1-loop at order 4 in the derivative expansion, the solution to the Ward identity $`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ regarded as a functional differential equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is unique, provided that it exists. We would like to emphasize that, although we must assume the existence of the solution (which of course is guaranteed in Matrix theory), our demonstration does not make use of the explicit form of the quantum-corrected $`\delta _ϵ^{(1)}`$ nor the knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$: Only the structure of the tree-level SUSY transformation law is relevant. We shall discuss the implication of this result further in the final section.

## 4 Discussions

Since the conclusion of our present study is extremely simple and clear, we shall in the following discuss its implications and make some remarks.

The fundamental question that we have been trying to answer in the series of investigations is how much of the structures of Matrix theory is governed by its symmetries, in particular by the supersymmetry. This requires the study of off-shell effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as well, since at the quantum level the very notion of “on-shell” is defined by the full quantum-corrected equations of motion generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. What we have found in this work is that once we assume the existence of the quantum corrected SUSY transformation operator $`\delta _ϵ`$, then the SUSY Ward identity, together with $`SO(9)`$ and CPT symmetries, dictates that, as far as the structures that would appear at 1-loop at order 4 in the system described by $`r^m(\tau )`$ and $`\theta ^\alpha (\tau )`$ are concerned, fixes the off-shell effective action uniquely. The significance of our demonstration is that it does not refer to the underlying Matrix theory. This we believe is an important step in understanding the genuine power of maximal supersymmetry. As we have already mentioned in the introduction, our demonstration at order 4 is quite non-trivial since we know that from this order the real dynamics starts, namely that the S-matrix is non-trivial.

Would this property persist at higher orders? The fact that our logic was based solely on the tree-level SUSY transformation laws and that our result at order 4 is highly unlikely to be just an accident makes us feel that the answer ought to be yes. In fact we have already developed an analytic scheme by which such a proof appears feasible. The details will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

Finally, we wish to make a remark on the meaning of the real power of supersymmetry. Although we have demonstrated the uniqueness of the solution of the SUSY Ward identity, it is not enough to claim that SUSY determines the dynamics. Obviously we have not given prescriptions to compute $`\delta _ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ without referring to Matrix theory. If it is at all possible to prove such a claim, perhaps under some favorable conditions, one must study the closure property of the effective SUSY transformations, which inevitably gets intertwined with the knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself. In other words, $`\delta _ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be determined simultaneously in a self-consistent manner. Investigation of this problem is left for future study.

Acknowledgment

We thank H. Nicolai for clarifying comments. The research of Y.K. is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area #707 “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” No. 10209204 and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) No. 12440060, while that of T.M. is supported in part by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science under the Predoctoral Research Program No. 12-9617, all from the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Appendix:  List of $`SO\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{)}`$ Fierz identities

We list the $`SO(9)`$ Fierz identities used to simplify various expressions. They are presented in the order they are referred to in the text and classified by the number of uncontracted indices called “free indices”.

Identities used at $`𝒪(\theta ^4)`$:

* 0-free-index type:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )`$ $`=0,(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )=0.`$ (A.1)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )`$ $`=0,(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )=0.`$ (A.2)
* 2-free-index type with an $`ϵ`$-tensor:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2m_3}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4ijm_1m_2m_3}=720(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta ).`$ (A.3)
* Another 0-free-index type

$`(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )=6(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\dot{\theta }\theta )+2(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta ).`$ (A.4)
* 2-free-index type

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )=`$ $`2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta ),`$ (A.5)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )=`$ $`8(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )+2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i}\theta ),`$ (A.6)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )=`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )3(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i}\theta ),`$ (A.7)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2ij}\theta )=`$ $`2(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )+2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1j}\theta ),`$ (A.8)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\dot{\theta })=`$ $`16(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )+2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1j}\dot{\theta })16(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\theta )`$
$`4(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\dot{\theta }\theta )\delta _{ij}+4(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )\delta _{ij}.`$ (A.9)
* 4-free-index type:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1kl}\theta )=`$ $`2(\theta \gamma ^{il}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )2(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )3(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta )`$
$`+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1l}\theta )\delta _{ik}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )\delta _{il}`$
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1l}\theta )\delta _{jk}+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )\delta _{jl}.`$ (A.10)

Identities used at $`𝒪(\theta ^6)`$:

* 3-free-index type with an $`ϵ`$-tensor:

$`(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2m_3}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3ijkm_1m_2m_3}=36(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )+144(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )`$
$`144(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )36(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )+18(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )\delta _{ik}`$
$`18(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )\delta _{jk},`$ (A.11)
$`(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4}\theta )`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4ijkm_1m_2}=72(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )+240(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^k\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )`$
$`+48(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )48(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )72(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )`$
$`+36(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )\delta _{ik}36(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )\delta _{jk},`$ (A.12)
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2m_3}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3ijkm_1m_2m_3}=0.`$ (A.13)
* 4-free-index type with an $`ϵ`$-tensor:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3ijklm_1m_2}=`$ $`24(\theta \gamma ^{il}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )+24(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )`$
$`24(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta ).`$ (A.14)
* 5-free-index type with an $`ϵ`$-tensor:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{m_1m_2m_3}\theta )ϵ_{a_1a_2jklmm_1m_2m_3}=`$
$`12(\theta \gamma ^{lm}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ijk}\theta )+12(\theta \gamma ^{km}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ijl}\theta )12(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ijm}\theta )`$
$`12(\theta \gamma ^{jm}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ikl}\theta )+12(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ikm}\theta )12(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ilm}\theta )`$
$`12(\theta \gamma ^{im}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jkl}\theta )+12(\theta \gamma ^{il}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jkm}\theta )12(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jlm}\theta )`$
$`+12(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{klm}\theta )`$ (A.15)

* 1-free-index type:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )=0.`$ (A.16)
* 3-free-index type:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2k}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2ij}\theta )`$ $`=8(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )+8(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )+10(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^k\theta )`$
$`2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )+2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )`$
$`+2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )\delta _{ik}2(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )\delta _{jk}.`$ (A.17)
* 4-free-index type:

$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1kl}\theta )=`$ $`(\theta \gamma ^{jkl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^i\theta )+(\theta \gamma ^{ikl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^j\theta )+(\theta \gamma ^{ijl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^k\theta )`$
$`(\theta \gamma ^{ijk}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^l\theta )2(\theta \gamma ^{kl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{ik}\theta )`$
$`+(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{il}\theta )+(\theta \gamma ^{il}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{jk}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{jl}\theta )`$
$`(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{kl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jl}\theta )\delta _{ik}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1jl}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )\delta _{ik}`$
$`+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1l}\theta )\delta _{ik}+(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )\delta _{il}+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1jk}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )\delta _{il}`$
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )\delta _{il}+(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{il}\theta )\delta _{jk}+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1il}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )\delta _{jk}`$
$`(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1l}\theta )\delta _{jk}(\dot{\theta }\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )\delta _{jl}(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ik}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )\delta _{jl}`$
$`+(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )(\dot{\theta }\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )\delta _{jl}.`$ (A.18)

Identities used for total derivative terms:

* 1-free-index type:

$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )=`$ $`2(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta ),`$ (A.19)
$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2}\theta )=`$ $`+2(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta ),`$ (A.20)
$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3i}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3}\theta )=`$ $`6(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta ).`$ (A.21)
* 3-free-index type:

$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1a_2ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1a_2k}\theta )=`$ $`2(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )+10(ϵ\gamma ^k\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )+8(ϵ\gamma ^j\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )`$
$`8(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )2(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )4(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )\delta _{ik}`$
$`+4(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )\delta _{jk},`$ (A.22)
$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1k}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1ij}\theta )=`$ $`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1jk}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )+(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1ik}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )+3(ϵ\gamma ^k\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ij}\theta )`$
$`+(ϵ\gamma ^j\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ik}\theta )(ϵ\gamma ^i\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{jk}\theta )+(ϵ\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{ijk}\theta )`$
$`(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1j}\theta )\delta _{ik}+(ϵ\gamma ^{a_1}\theta )(\theta \gamma ^{a_1i}\theta )\delta _{jk}.`$ (A.23)


format: text

text:
# NUB–3216hep-th/0106244 Renormalization of Boundary Fermions and World-Volume Potentials on D-branes⋆

## 1. Introduction

Open strings end on D-branes. At low energies, their gauge degrees of freedom are described by a non-linear generalization of Maxwell’s electrodynamics – the Born-Infeld theory on the D-brane world-volume. When a number $`N`$ of D-branes occupy the same hypersurface, the gauge group gets enhanced to $`U(N)`$. The world-volume action of $`N`$ coincident D-branes is described then by a non-abelian generalization of Born-Infeld theory (NBI). In spite of many efforts to unveil the structure of NBI action, its detailed form still remains elusive .

There are several methods available for studying D-brane actions. One of the most effective ones relies on the computations of scattering amplitudes for $`U(N)`$ gauge bosons. In fact, most results and conjectures are based on the higher-derivative corrections to four-point amplitudes analyzed by Tseytlin  in order to extract all interaction terms up to the fourth order in the gauge field strength $`F`$. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to push this type of computations any further since they involve amplitudes with larger numbers of external gauge bosons, a very difficult task indeed until a good recursive technique becomes available. Another method is based on world-sheet sigma model computations. Here, the world-volume action is reconstructed from the equations of motion which are obtained by requiring conformal invariance on the world-sheet. However, these computations  appear to be quite complicated. There has not been much work done in this direction over the past few years.

The reason why the sigma model approach becomes difficult in the presence of non-abelian gauge symmetry is the non-linear (Wilson loop) coupling of the open string boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the gauge field background. For the bosonic string, the relevant part of the sigma model action for string embeddings $`X^\mu (z,\overline{z})`$ coupled to the background gauge fields $`A_\mu (X)`$ is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2zX^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(A).$$
(1.1)
The boundary coupling is given by the Wilson loop:

$$e^{S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(A)}=\text{Tr}𝒫e^{i_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau A_\mu (X)_\tau X^\mu },$$
(1.2)
where $`A_\mu (X)`$ are Hermitian matrices in the fundamental representation of the gauge group algebra and $`𝒫`$ is the path-ordering operation. Here, $`_\tau `$ denotes the tangential derivative. In the traditional sigma model approach, one splits the embeddings into classical and quantum parts, expands the gauge field background $`A_\mu (X)`$ around the classical part and integrates over the quantum string fluctuations. The classical field is treated then as a sigma model coupling and the requirement that the corresponding beta function be zero is interpreted as its equation of motion. However, this procedure involves the Wilson loop expansion and leads to complicated Feynman diagrams.

In the case of D-branes of codimension $`d>0`$, the sigma model background includes also the scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. They describe brane oscillations in the directions transverse to the rigid hypersurface. These fields are associated with the world-sheet coordinates $`X^i`$ satisfying the Dirichlet boundary conditions, $`X^i(\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$, and their boundary coupling is

$$e^{S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\varphi )}=\text{Tr}𝒫e^{i_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\tau \varphi _i(X)_rX^i},$$
(1.3)
where $`_r`$ denotes the normal derivative. The main focus of our work is the effective potential for these non-abelian scalars. In fact, the scalar lagrangian is related to the gauge lagrangian by T-duality and can be used to extract the NBI action.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we reformulate the sigma model by introducing boundary fermions that carry Chan-Paton charges at the string ends. In Section 3, we describe the one-loop computation of anomalous dimensions of these fermions and of the beta function associated to non-abelian scalar couplings. We extend our discussion to two loops for bosonic strings and superstrings in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. In particular, we derive the world-volume D-brane potentials and discuss the relation of our results to previous sigma model computations of the NBI action. In Section 6, we study the effects of background NS fluxes up to two loops in the sigma model expansion. At one loop, we recover Myers’ dielectric coupling  in both bosonic and in superstring cases. We also show that this coupling does not receive any two-loop corrections.

## 2. Sigma model with boundary fermions

It is well known that gauge degrees of freedom can be introduced in open string theory by attaching to the string boundary a set of complex Grassmann valued fields $`\lambda _a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$, in the fundamental representation of $`U(N)`$. Quantization of these fermions generates $`N`$ conserved charges attached to the string boundary and generates Chan-Paton factors. In the context of sigma model, the Wilson loop action can be rewritten  as a functional integral over the boundary fermions coupled to the string coordinates $`X^i`$ via $`N\times N`$ Hermitian, traceless111The traces describe the center of mass motion which decouples from other degrees of freedom. matrices $`\varphi _i`$:

$$e^{S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\varphi )}=\underset{\theta }{}_{\text{AP}}[d\lambda ^{}d\lambda ]e^{i\theta [\lambda ^{}\lambda (\tau =\tau _0)+\frac{N}{2}1]}e^{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau (\lambda ^{}\frac{d}{\tau }\lambda i_rX^i\lambda ^{}\varphi _i\lambda )}.$$
(2.1)
The fermions satisfy antiperiodic (AP) boundary conditions on the interval $`\tau [0,2\pi ]`$. The summation, which extends over the angles $`\theta =2\pi k/N`$ with $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$, must be included in order to project the intermediate states in the path integral on coherent states of occupation number 1. The point $`\tau _0`$ can be arbitrarily chosen on the boundary. In this work, we study the renormalization properties of the sigma model reformulated by using these boundary fermions.222See  for a partial list of references utilizing similar “auxiliary” fermions. We limit our considerations to the case of constant, spacetime-independent backgrounds $`\varphi _i`$.

We first consider quantum effects due to fluctuations of string embeddings $`X^i`$. Integration over these fluctuations leads to ultraviolet divergences. We focus on the loop corrections to the correlation functions that determine the beta function $`\beta _i(\varphi )`$. Since the classical theory is conformally invariant, we are free to work on a disk, parameterized by $`(r,\tau )`$, with the boundary at $`r=1`$. The bosonic string fluctuations couple to the boundary through their derivatives $`_rX^i`$, therefore the corresponding Feynman diagrams involve the two-point functions

$$_rX^i(\tau )_r^{}X^j(\tau ^{})_rX^i(r,\tau )_r^{}X^j(r^{},\tau ^{})|_{r=r^{}=1}=\delta ^{ij}\frac{}{r}\frac{}{r^{}}𝒟(r,\tau ;r^{},\tau ^{})|_{r=r^{}=1},$$
(2.2)
where $`𝒟`$ is the Dirichlet propagator. The r.h.s. is related to the Neumann propagator $`𝒩`$ by a T-duality relation,

$$\frac{}{r}\frac{}{r^{}}𝒟(r,\tau ;r^{},\tau ^{})|_{r=r^{}=1}=\frac{}{\tau }\frac{}{\tau ^{}}𝒩(r,\tau ;r^{},\tau ^{})|_{r=r^{}=1}=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau \tau ^{})}{2}}]}.$$
(2.3)
It is convenient to define

$$D(\tau \tau ^{})\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau \tau ^{})}{2}}]},$$
(2.4)
so that

$$_rX^i(\tau )_r^{}X^j(\tau ^{})=D(\tau \tau ^{})\delta ^{ij}.$$
(2.5)
The sigma model contains only one type of interaction,

$$S_I=i_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau _rX^i\lambda _a^{}(\varphi _i)^{ab}\lambda _b,$$
(2.6)
which is essentially a QED-like vertex with $`d`$ $`N\times N`$ coupling matrices $`\varphi _i`$.

Finally, the free AP fermionic propagator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(0)}(\tau ,\tau ^{})=\lambda _a(\tau )\lambda _b^{}(\tau ^{})=\frac{i}{2}\delta _{ab}\text{sign}(\tau \tau ^{}).$$
(2.7)
## 3. One-loop computations

Although the one loop computation is very simple, it is quite instructive to outline some details.

We begin with the one-loop correction to the fermion propagator shown on Fig.1A:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\text{sign}(\tau _i\tau _f)\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(1)}(\tau _i,\tau _f)`$ $`=`$ (3.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\varphi _i\varphi _i)_{ab}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\tau _2\text{sign}(\tau _i\tau _1)D(\tau _1\tau _2)\text{sign}(\tau _1\tau _2)\text{sign}(\tau _2\tau _f).`$
Note that the integration over the interaction points $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ extends a priori over the whole range of angles from 0 to $`2\pi `$, inside and outside the interval $`[\tau _i,\tau _f]`$, with different integration regions contributing $`𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2D(\tau _1\tau _2)`$ with $`\pm `$ signs depending on the relative position of the angles. We display the relevant signs on Fig.2A. We also show zeroes for regions that cancel as a consequence of $`\tau _1\tau _2`$ symmetry of the $`D`$-propagator. Since according to the relation (2.3), the $`D`$-propagator is a double derivative of a periodic function:

$$D(\tau \tau ^{})=\frac{^2𝒩}{\tau \tau ^{}},𝒩(\tau \tau ^{})=\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau \tau ^{})}{2}}],$$
(3.2)
the sum of contributions in each row or column of Fig.2A is zero. This fact can be used to rearrange the integration regions as shown in Fig.2B. Finally, by using the $`\tau _1\tau _2`$ symmetry one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(1)}(\tau _i\tau _f)=(\varphi _i\varphi _i)_{ab}𝒫_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2D(\tau _1\tau _2),$$
(3.3)
so the vertices become path-ordered. As a result, the perturbation theory becomes path-ordered, like in ordinary quantum mechanics. In the sigma model framework, this amounts to Chan-Paton rules for inserting the interaction vertex (2.6).

The integral (3.3) is divergent. In fact, it contains two types of singularities: linear divergence along the line $`\tau _1=\tau _2`$ and logarithmic “end-point” singularities. The linear divergence is spurious and can be avoided by a formal integration:

$$𝒫_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2D(\tau _1\tau _2)=\frac{1}{2}_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}𝑑\tau _1_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}𝑑\tau _2D(\tau _1\tau _2)=𝒩(\tau _i\tau _f)𝒩(0).$$
(3.4)
The remaining logarithmic singularity $`𝒩(0)`$ can be regulated by introducing a short-distance cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As a result, one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(1)}(\tau _i\tau _f)=\alpha ^{}(\varphi _i\varphi _i)_{ab}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau _i\tau _f)}{2}}]}\right)$$
(3.5)
The corresponding one-loop anomalous dimension matrix of boundary fermions is

$$\gamma ^{(1)}=\alpha ^{}\varphi _i\varphi _i.$$
(3.6)
The one-loop correction to the interaction term (2.6) is shown on Fig.1B. For our purposes, it is sufficient to consider the one-particle irreducible three-point function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(\tau _i,\tau ,\tau _f)`$, with the tree-level coupling $`\varphi _m`$ inserted at $`\tau [\tau _i,\tau _f]`$. By rearranging integrals in a manner similar to the fermion propagator, one can rewrite this diagram as a path-ordered integral, with the position of interaction points correlated with the order of non-abelian couplings in a way dictated by Chan-Paton rules:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(1)}(\tau _i,\tau ,\tau _f)=\varphi _i\varphi _m\varphi _i_{\tau _i}^\tau 𝑑\tau _1_\tau ^{\tau _f}𝑑\tau _2D(\tau _1\tau _2).$$
(3.7)
The regularized integral yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(1)}(\tau _i,\tau ,\tau _f)=\alpha ^{}\varphi _i\varphi _m\varphi _i\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau \tau _i)}{2}}]\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau \tau _f)}{2}}]}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau _i\tau _f)}{2}}]}\right).$$
(3.8)
After combining this result with Eq.(3.6), we find the one-loop beta function

$$\beta _m^{(1)}=\alpha ^{}[\varphi _i,[\varphi _i,\varphi _m]].$$
(3.9)
The requirement of vanishing one-loop beta function, i.e. the non-renormalization of $`\varphi `$-couplings leads to equations of motion that can be obtained by varying the well-known D-brane potential:

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _m}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\text{Tr}(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{ji})=\alpha ^{}[\varphi _i,\varphi _{im}]=0,$$
(3.10)
where

$$\varphi _{ij}[\varphi _i,\varphi _j].$$
(3.11)
## 4. Two loops in bosonic string theory

With the sigma model reformulated by using the boundary fermions, the analysis of higher loop orders becomes much simpler than in the traditional approach. All diagrams are QED-like, with path-ordered interaction vertices. In particular, the two-loop computation can be performed explicitly. There are two diagrams, shown on Fig.3, which contribute to the two-loop anomalous dimensions.

They give, respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(3A)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _j\varphi _i)_{ab}𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _4)D(\tau _2\tau _3),`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{(3B)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _i\varphi _j)_{ab}𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _3)D(\tau _2\tau _4).`$ (4.2)
The divergent parts of the above integrals can be extracted by elementary integrations:

$`𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _4)D(\tau _2\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha ^{})^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{}`$ (4.3)
$`𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _3)D(\tau _2\tau _4)`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha ^{})^2(\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{}`$ (4.4)
In the above expressions, we neglected finite terms as well as $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms with “kinematic” coefficients $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}^2[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{(\tau _i\tau _f)}{2}}]`$ which are cancelled by one-loop counterterms. The two-loop anomalous dimensions can be read out from the single $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ divergences333 As a consistency check, it is easy to verify that the coefficients of $`\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms agree with the renormalization group equations. which, together with Eq.(3.6), yield

$$\gamma =\alpha ^{}\varphi _i\varphi _i+(\alpha ^{})^2\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{ij}+O[(\alpha ^{})^3].$$
(4.5)
The two-loop beta function can be computed in a similar way. There are only two diagrams, shown on Fig.4, that contribute single logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(\tau _i,\tau ,\tau _f)`$. They yield, respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(4A)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _m\varphi _j\varphi _i𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^\tau }𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _4)D(\tau _2\tau _3),`$ (4.6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(4B)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _m\varphi _i\varphi _j𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^\tau }𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _3)D(\tau _2\tau _4).`$ (4.7)
For completeness, we list below the results of integrations:

$`𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^\tau }𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _4)D(\tau _2\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha ^{})^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{},`$ (4.8)
$`𝒫{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^\tau }𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau _3𝑑\tau _4D(\tau _1\tau _3)D(\tau _2\tau _4)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}`$ (4.9)
After combining these results with the two-loop anomalous dimension of Eq.(4.5), we obtain the following two-loop contribution to the beta function:

$$\beta _m^{(2)}=(\alpha ^{})^2[\varphi _{ij},[\varphi _{ij},\varphi _m]].$$
(4.10)
Unlike in the one-loop case, the non-renormalization condition, $`\beta _m^{(2)}=0`$, is not integrable, i.e. it cannot be obtained by varying a gauge-invariant potential. However, by using Jacobi identity, Eq.(4.10) can be rewritten as:

$$\beta _m^{(2)}=(\alpha ^{})^2\left\{\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _m}\frac{2}{3}\text{Tr}(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{jk}\varphi _{ki})+2[\varphi _{im},[\varphi _j,\varphi _{ji}]]\right\}.$$
(4.11)
Since the second term involves the one-loop beta function $`\beta _i^{(1)}`$ of Eq.(3.9), it is of higher order $`O[(\alpha ^{})^3]`$. In this way, we obtain the D-brane potential444The overall normalization is not fixed by the sigma model – it requires introducing the brane tension factor $`T_p`$.

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\text{Tr}(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{ji})+\frac{2(\alpha ^{})^2}{3}\text{Tr}(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{jk}\varphi _{ki})+O[(\alpha ^{})^3].$$
(4.12)
Higher loop computations are more difficult, mostly due to integrals associated to multiple insertions of the interaction vertices. In particular, the cutoff regularization leads to complicated integrals and should be replaced by a more efficient procedure like dimensional regularization.

The scalar potential of Eq.(4.12) is related by T-duality to the action for the gauge fields. Indeed, by replacing $`\varphi _{ij}iF_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`[\varphi _k,\varphi _{ij}]D_\rho F_{\mu \nu }`$, one obtains the gauge kinetic terms and the $`F^3`$ term . By a similar transformation on Eq.(4.10) one recovers the two-loop beta function computed previously in . More recently, Myers  proposed a complete form of the scalar potential in superstring theory, to all orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$, by relating it via T-duality to the Tseytlin’s form of NBI action . If the approach developed in this work could be extended to higher loops, it would be useful not only for computing scalar potentials but also for understanding the structure of NBI action. In the following Sections, we discuss superstrings and examine some aspects of Myers’ proposal.

## 5. Superstrings

The superstring sigma model action is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z(X^i\overline{}X^i+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^i\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi }^i+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i)+S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\varphi ),$$
(5.1)
where the world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is parameterized by $`z=re^{i\tau }`$ and $`\overline{z}=re^{i\tau }`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i`$ are the world-sheet fermions. The supersymmetrized Wilson loop corresponds to the interaction term:

$$S_I=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\tau [i_rX^i\lambda _a^{}(\varphi _i)^{ab}\lambda _b+\alpha ^{}\psi ^i\psi ^j\lambda _a^{}(\varphi _{ij})^{ab}\lambda _b],$$
(5.2)
where $`\psi ^i`$ is the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ to the boundary, subject to the Dirichlet condition,555The factors of $`\sqrt{iz}`$ are due to the $`z\tau `$ change of variables.

$$\sqrt{iz}\mathrm{\Psi }^i|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sqrt{i\overline{z}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=i\psi ^i(\tau ).$$
(5.3)
In the presence of two-form NS background field $`B_{ij}(X)`$ with non-vanishing field strength

$$H_{ijk}=_iB_{jk}+_kB_{ij}+_jB_{ki},$$
(5.4)
the sigma model contains also the interaction terms which, up to the linear order in $`B_{ij}(X)`$, take the form:666Note that as a result of analytic continuation to the Euclidean world-sheet this part of the action becomes purely imaginary.

$$S_B=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z[B_{ij}(X)X^i\overline{}X^j+i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}H_{ijk}X^i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^ki\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}H_{ijk}\overline{}X^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j\mathrm{\Psi }^k].$$
(5.5)
In superstring theory, anomalous dimensions and beta functions receive additional contributions from the world-sheet fermions. Their propagators are , respectively,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^i(z)\mathrm{\Psi }^j(w)=\frac{\delta ^{ij}}{zw},\mathrm{\Psi }^i(z)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^j(\overline{w})=\frac{i\delta ^{ij}}{1z\overline{w}}.$$
(5.6)
It is also convenient to rewrite the boundary interaction term (5.2) as a complex contour integral:

$$S_I=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑u[X^i\lambda _a^{}(\varphi _i)^{ab}\lambda _b\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j\lambda _a^{}(\varphi _{ij})^{ab}\lambda _b]c.c.$$
(5.7)
When $`B_{ij}=0`$, the world-sheet fermions first contribute at the two-loop level. The relevant diagrams are shown on Fig.5. It is easy to see that the diagram 5A cancels the $`O[(\alpha ^{})^2]`$ bosonic correction to the anomalous dimension (4.5) while the diagram 5B cancels the two-loop correction (4.10) to the beta function. As a result, the supersymmetric D-brane potential does not receive $`O[(\alpha ^{})^2]`$ corrections. This reflects the absence of $`F^3`$ terms in the supersymmetric NBI action.

## 6. NS Fluxes

As originally pointed out by Myers , and later confirmed by explicit computations of scattering amplitudes , the world-volume potentials involve also couplings of scalars to NS fluxes.777These “dielectric” couplings involve also RR fluxes which are beyond the scope of our sigma model considerations. We will first explain how these couplings emerge from the sigma model formalism.888Since we do not discuss here the derivatives of fluxes, we will consider the case of constant $`H_{ijk}`$.

Following the background field method, we introduce a harmonic background $`\stackrel{~}{X}^i`$ and expand the interaction term (5.5):

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_B=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z[\stackrel{~}{X}^iH_{ijk}(\overline{}X^jX^k)+i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\stackrel{~}{X}^iH_{ijk}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^k]c.c.+\mathrm{}$$
(6.1)
Quantum fluctuations can propagate from the interior of the disk to the boundary with the (Dirichlet) propagators

$$X^i(z)X^j(w)=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\delta ^{ij}\left\{\mathrm{ln}[(zw)(\overline{z}\overline{w})]+\mathrm{ln}[(1z\overline{w})(1\overline{z}w)]\right\}$$
(6.2)
and the fermionic propagators (5.6). Subsequently, they can couple at the boundary to the $`\lambda `$-fermions via the interaction (5.7). Furthermore, since $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is holomorphic, we can use Cauchy’s formula to express it in terms of the boundary data. After integrating over the interaction position $`z`$, we obtain the correlation functions

$`X^j(u_1)X^k(u_2)_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi }}\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑u\stackrel{~}{X}^i(u)\frac{H_{ijk}}{(u_1u_2)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_2u}{u_1u}\right)},`$ (6.3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^j(u_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^k(u_2)_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑u\stackrel{~}{X}^i(u)\frac{H_{ijk}}{u_1u_2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_2u}{u_1u}\right)},`$ (6.4)
where $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are located on the unit circle and the integrations extend over the whole circle.999More precisely, the $`u`$-circle should be considered as a limit $`r1^+`$. This will be relevant later when applying the residue theorem. These correlation functions can be inserted into the Feynman diagrams as shown on Fig.6 and generate ultraviolet divergent contributions already at one loop.

The diagram of Fig.6A generates the following interaction vertex between the boundary fermions and the background:

$$I^{(6A)}(u_i,u_f)=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{8\pi }H_{mjk}\varphi _{jk}𝑑u\stackrel{~}{X}^m(u)_{u_i}^{u_f}𝑑u_2_{u_2}^{u_f}\frac{du_1}{(u_1u_2)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_2u}{u_1u}\right)$$
(6.5)
The $`u_1`$-integral has an ultraviolet divergence at $`u_1=u_2`$ which can be regulated by a short-distance cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so that $`|u_1u_2|>\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.101010This corresponds to $`\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{(\tau _1\tau _2)}{2}]>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as previously. By integrating over $`u_1`$, we obtain

$$I^{(6A)}(u_i,u_f)=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{16\pi }H_{mjk}\varphi _{jk}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{u_i}^{u_f}𝑑u_2\frac{\stackrel{~}{X}^m(u)}{uu_2}𝑑u+\text{finite,}$$
(6.6)
which, after using the residue theorem, yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(6A)}=\frac{i\alpha ^{}}{8}H_{mjk}\varphi _{jk}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\text{finite.}$$
(6.7)
A similar analysis of diagram 6B shows that it is finite. We conclude that in the presence of a NS three-form background, the one loop beta function receives an additional contribution,

$$\beta _m^{H(1)}=\frac{i\alpha ^{}}{4}H_{mjk}\varphi _{jk},$$
(6.8)
the same for bosonic strings as for superstrings. The corresponding potential term whose variation ensures $`\beta _m=0`$ is given by

$$V_H(\varphi )=i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{6}H_{ijk}\text{Tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k).$$
(6.9)
In this way, the “dielectric” coupling  appears within the framework of sigma model in superstring theory as well in bosonic string theory.

It is quite simple to extend the above discussion to the two-loop order. The only new element is the presence of three-point vertices that couple quantum fluctuation at the boundary via the bulk interaction term (6.1). After integrating over the position $`z`$, we obtain

$`X^i(u_1)X^j(u_2)X^k(u_3)_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^{})^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ijk}}{(u_1u_2)(u_2u_3)(u_3u_1)}},`$ (6.10)
$`X^i(u_1)\mathrm{\Psi }^j(u_2)\mathrm{\Psi }^k(u_3)_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ijk}}{(u_1u_2)(u_1u_3)}}.`$ (6.11)
We will consider below the cases of bosonic string and superstring separately.

It is a matter of a straightforward but tedious analysis to show that in bosonic string theory the only non-vanishing contributions to the anomalous dimensions and to the beta function come from diagrams shown on Fig.7.

They yield

$`\gamma _H^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\alpha ^{})^2H_{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k,`$ (6.12)
$`\beta _m^{H(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\alpha ^{})^2[\varphi _{im},H_{ijk}\varphi _{jk}].`$ (6.13)
In order to read out the corresponding correction to the world-volume potential one has to combine Eq.(6.13) with the beta function of Eq.(4.11). It turns out that the additional contribution combines with the second term of Eq.(4.11) to a term of the form $`2\alpha ^{}[\varphi _{im},\beta _i^{(1)}]`$, where $`\beta _i^{(1)}`$ includes now the $`H`$-dependent one-loop correction (6.8). Since such a term is of order $`O[(\alpha ^{})^3]`$, the world-volume potential does not receive any $`H`$-dependent corrections at two loops.

In superstring theory there are extra contributions coming from diagrams 8A and 8B, see Fig.8. In fact, they cancel against diagrams 7A and 7B, respectively. Thus in the supersymmetric case, the world-volume D-brane potential is

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\text{Tr}(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{ji})+i\frac{\alpha ^{}}{6}H_{ijk}\text{Tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k)+O[(\alpha ^{})^3].$$
(6.14)
The absence of $`O[(\alpha ^{})^2]`$ corrections agrees with Myers’ proposal , as explained below.

The world-volume potential proposed by Myers  has the form111111We set the D$`p`$-brane tension $`T_p=1`$.

$$V(\varphi )=\text{STr}\sqrt{det\{\delta _j^i+2\pi \alpha ^{}i\varphi ^{ik}[G_{kj}(\varphi )+B_{kj}(\varphi )]\}}$$
(6.15)
where $`G_{kj}(\varphi )`$ and $`B_{kj}(\varphi )`$ are the transverse metric and the NS two-form, respectively, whose space-time dependence has been converted into a functional dependence on scalar matrices by means of a non-abelian Taylor expansion. In particular,

$$B_{jk}(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}[2\pi \alpha ^{}\varphi ^i_{X^i}]B_{jk}(X)|_{X^i=0}=B_{jk}(0)+2\pi \alpha ^{}\varphi ^i_iB_{jk}(0)+\mathrm{}$$
(6.16)
The symmetric trace STr prescription  applied to Eq.(6.15) amounts to formally expanding the square root of the determinant followed by taking the $`U(N)`$ trace symmetrized over all possible orderings of the $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`\varphi ^{ij}`$ matrices. Note that at the $`O(\alpha ^{})`$ order, the potential (6.15) does correctly reproduce Eq.(6.14) modulo constant factors. At the next order, the only contribution involving one derivative of $`B_{jk}`$, and hence its field strength $`H_{ijk}`$, could arise from the $`\sqrt{det}`$ term $`\varphi _{ik}\varphi _{jk}(\varphi _m_mB_{ij})`$. However, by applying the STr prescription, one finds that this term vanishes after symmetrizing over $`\varphi _{ik}`$ and $`\varphi _{jk}`$. Hence, the absence of $`O[(\alpha ^{})^2]`$ corrections to D-brane potentials lends support to the STr prescription.121212There are two types of potential terms, $`H_{ijk}`$Tr$`(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _k\varphi _m\varphi _m)`$ and $`H_{ijk}`$Tr$`(\varphi _{ij}\varphi _m\varphi _k\varphi _m)`$, allowed at that level by gauge and Lorentz invariance, so this is indeed a nontrivial check. Although many authors have previously expressed their skepticism as to the validity of this prescription at higher orders, it certainly holds up to two loops in the sigma model $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansion.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Alexander Barabanschikov, Eric D’Hoker, Zurab Kakushadze, Boris Pioline, Stephan Stieberger and Cumrun Vafa for illuminating discussions and correspondence.