text:
# Light-cone

## 1 Introduction

It has been well known since early days of string theory that the covariant quantization of the free Nambu-Goto string  and the Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz fermionic string  leads in non-critical dimensions to consistent quantum models with longitudinal excitations. The relevance of the (super)-Liouville theory for a proper description of these extra degrees of freedom was first pointed out by Polyakov in his celebrated papers on conformal anomaly in string theories . The free string models obtained by adding the (super)-Liouville sectors were first analyzed by Marnelius . More recently the no-ghost theorems for these models were derived  yielding one continuous and one discrete series of free non-critical string models. In particular it was shown that the non-critical Nambu-Goto string and the non-critical RNS string are members of the corresponding discrete series. In all cases the first excited state is massive which justifies the name massive string for all these models. It was subsequently shown that massive strings admit the light-cone formulation which can be used to analyze their spin content . In contrast to the critical strings where the number of the tachyon-free models is strongly limited, the GSO projection yields a large class of tachyon-free massive strings with rich mass and spin spectra . None of these models contains massless states with spin greater than 1. This makes them good candidates for matter fields in an effective description of low energy QCD.

In the present paper we shall discuss some aspects of introducing interactions for bosonic massive strings of the discrete series. The solution of the physical state conditions in terms of DDF operators yields in this case three types of physical degrees of freedom : the transverse excitations described by the $`d2`$ tensor power of the 2-dim scalar field Fock space, the Brower longitudinal excitations described by a unitary Verma module with the central charge $`0c^\mathrm{B}<1`$, and the Liouville longitudinal excitations described by the Verma module with the central charge $`1<c^\mathrm{L}=1+48\beta <25`$ and the highest weight $`(2\beta ,2\beta )`$. Each of these models describes a free string propagating in the flat $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski target space, only the structure of the longitudinal sector changes along the series. A special case where the Brower longitudinal excitations drop out ($`c^\mathrm{B}=0`$) and the longitudinal sector consists solely of the Liouville excitations corresponds to the Nambu-Goto non-critical string333 In this case the Liouville longitudinal sector of the massive string corresponds to the Brower longitudinal sector of the non-critical Nambu-Goto string. The name Brower longitudinal excitations is motivated by the way in which they arise in the covariant quantization of the massive string — it is essentially the same as in the case of Brower longitudinal excitations in the non-critical Nabu-Goto string. . Our choice to consider the whole series is motivated by the properties of the Brower excitations which provide a convenient “intermediate step” between the properties of the transverse, and of the Liouville longitudinal sector.

In the case of the critical string there are two strategies to construct interacting theory. The first one is the Polyakov covariant approach which can be seen as a modern covariant version of the old dual model construction . In this approach the on-shell string amplitudes are defined in terms of correlators of the 2-dim conformal field theory integrated over moduli spaces of corresponding Riemann surfaces . The second approach, introduced by Mandelstam , is based on the light-cone formulation of the free string. In this approach the unitarity of the S-matrix is manifest while the Lorentz covariance requires a (non-trivial) proof . The light-cone formulation is well developed only for critical strings in the flat Minkowski background. In this case it is equivalent to the covariant approach  what provides a proof of the unitarity of the Polyakov formulation.

Once a free string theory is known the problem of calculating string amplitudes reduces in both formulations to the problem of extending the 2-dim theory describing the string degrees of freedom from the cylinder to an arbitrary Riemann surface. In the simplest case of tree amplitudes this is an extension of the theory from the sphere with 2 punctures to the sphere with arbitrary number of punctures. In the standard CFT such extension is straightforward. Indeed the puncture with an associated external state can be replaced by an insertion of a local operator what results in a correlator on a sphere with no punctures. Thus there is no real difference between the free theory on the cylinder and the theory on an arbitrary punctured sphere. This is not necessarily the case in the Liouville sector where the operator-state correspondence is subtle and still not fully understood .

Within the covariant approach one can define the massive string amplitudes by a straightforward application of the critical string construction. The transverse sector is included in the tensor product of $`d`$ copies of the free scalar CFT. The Brower sector can be extended to a CFT on an arbitrary Riemann surface by combining several unitary Verma modules into the Hilbert space of an appropriate minimal model. Following this line of reasoning one should then extend the Liouville sector to the CFT with the central charge $`1<c^\mathrm{L}=1+48\beta <25`$ and with a single $`(2\beta ,2\beta )`$-conformal family.

The structure of this theory differs in two respects from the structure of standard CFT of other sectors. First, the $`(0,0)`$-family does not belong to its spectrum (i.e. there is no $`PSL(2,)`$-invariant vacuum). Second, as can be easily inferred from the Vafa condition , with only one conformal family the standard OPE for the punctures does not hold . This means in particular that the correlators do not factorize on the free spectrum (in commonly adopted approaches to the quantum Liouville theory the spectrum required by factorization is actually continuous ).

The main problem in calculating tree amplitudes of string models under consideration is thus a construction of a consistent Liouville theory on arbitrary punctured sphere. Such theory is well understood in the so called weak coupling regime, i.e. for the central charge of the Liouville sector in the range $`c^\mathrm{L}1`$ or $`25c^\mathrm{L}`$ . Indeed in this case the perturbative continuous formulation is in a perfect agreement with the topological gravity and the matrix model results . However, in the strong coupling region $`1<c^\mathrm{L}<25`$ it leads to complex critical exponents . This phenomenon can be interpreted as a manifestation of the tachyon instability .

One way to evade this so called $`c=1`$ barrier was proposed by Gervais . In this approach the continuous Liouville spectrum is truncated to a discrete subset which enters both the external states and the factorization. However, due to technicalities involved , it is still not clear whether this approach may lead to consistent string models in non-critical dimensions. Another possibility is related to the conjecture of Al. and A. Zomolodchikov  that the continuum spectrum along with the 3-point functions proposed by Otto and Dorn  satisfy the bootstrap consistency conditions. This conjecture was recently proved by Ponsot and Teschner  in the weak coupling regime $`c>25`$. By the analytic continuation argument it is believed to hold in the strong coupling regime $`1<c<25`$ as well . Finally there exists the geometric approach to the 2-dim quantum gravity originally proposed by Polyakov  and further developed by Takhtajan . According to this approach the Liouville correlation functions are defined in terms of path integral over conformal class of Riemannian metrics in which the vertex operator insertions are replaced by metric singularities at the insertion points. None of these approaches is developed well enough to provide correlation functions even in the simplest case of punctured spheres.

Even though any ultimate solution to the Liouville theory has not been found yet it is still reasonable to analyze the relation between its properties and the properties of the resulting non-critical string. In the present paper we address two problem of this kind: the construction of the light-cone tree amplitudes, and the proof of their Lorentz covariance. Our main motivation is the issue of unitarity of non-critical strings for which the approach based solely on the physical degrees of freedom is especially well suited. Although expected, it is a priori not obvious that in non-critical dimensions the light-cone construction is equivalent to the covariant one. Our results suggest that this is the case. If so, the light-cone approach would provide a useful complementary technique for analyzing non–critical strings. It also yields the physical interpretation of string interaction in terms of subsequent joining and splitting processes.

Our considerations are based on the following assumptions concerning the correlators of the Liouville theory on punctured spheres:

1. the spectrum of the free external states is described by the Verma module with the central charge $`1<c^\mathrm{L}=1+48\beta <25`$ and the highest weight $`(2\beta ,2\beta )`$;
2. the standard form of the conformal anomaly and its relation to the central charge is preserved;
3. the conformal Ward identities hold for the punctures and for the energy-momentum tensor itself.

Save for the first assumption (determined by the spectrum of free string models under consideration) these are the general properties of the Liouville theory in all hitherto approaches. Our main result is that the assumptions stated above are necessary and sufficient conditions both for the construction of the light-cone amplitudes and for their Lorentz covariance.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the free massive string model in the light-cone formulation is defined and the light-cone local fields in each sector are introduced. In Section 3 following the idea of joining–splitting interactions we construct the tree string amplitudes. In Subsection 3.2 we discuss all the properties necessary for the construction of the amplitude in the Liouville sector. On this level the conformal Ward identities are indispensable for the state–puncture correspondence. In Subsection 3.4 the final form of the light-cone amplitude is calculated. In particular an explicitly Lorentz covariant form of the tachionic tree amplitude is derived. It coincides with the corresponding covariant amplitude. This indicates that both formulations are indeed equivalent also in the non-critical dimensions444A formal proof is more complicated that in the critical string case  where one can use the factorization argument to avoid technically involved calculations for excited states.. In Section 4 we present the proof of the Lorentz covariance for arbitrary tree amplitude. It turns out that the properties of the Liouville sector introduced in Subsection 3.2. are sufficient to complete the proof. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the issue of unitarity and derive some conclusions.

We attached three appendices containing detailed derivations of the results used in the main text.

## 2 Free string

### 2.1 Light-cone formulation

In this subsection we remind the light-cone formulation of closed bosonic massive string propagating in the $`d`$ dimensional Minkowski target space ($`1<d<25`$) .

For a given choice of a light-cone basis one construct the quantum theory as a representation of the algebra of zero modes

$$[P^i,x^j]=i\delta ^{ij},[P^+,x^{}]=i,$$

along with the algebra of the transverse

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill [a_m^i,a_n^j]& =\hfill & m\delta ^{ij}\delta _{m,n},\hfill & & & \\ \hfill [\stackrel{~}{a}_m^i,\stackrel{~}{a}_n^j]& =\hfill & m\delta ^{ij}\delta _{m,n},\hfill & m,n\{0\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

the Liouville longitudinal

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill [c_m,c_n]& =\hfill & m\delta _{m,n},\hfill & & & \\ \hfill [\stackrel{~}{c}_m,\stackrel{~}{c}_n]& =\hfill & m\delta _{m,n},\hfill & m,n\{0\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

and the Brower longitudinal

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [L_m^\mathrm{B},L_n^\mathrm{B}]& =\hfill & (mn)L_{m+n}^\mathrm{B}+\frac{c^\mathrm{B}}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m,n},\hfill \\ \hfill [\stackrel{~}{L}_m^\mathrm{B},\stackrel{~}{L}_n^\mathrm{B}]& =\hfill & (mn)\stackrel{~}{L}_{m+n}^\mathrm{B}+\frac{c^\mathrm{B}}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m,n},\hfill \end{array}$$

excitations. All other commutators vanish and the standard conjugation properties are assumed. Although heterotic constructions are possible we shall consider only the models with the same central charge in the right and the left algebras of Brower longitudinal excitations. This is also the case which arises in the covariant quantization of closed massive string .

The algebra of non-zero modes is by construction isomorphic to the (diagonalized) algebra of the DDF operators of the covariant approach . In particular, the algebra of $`L_m^\mathrm{B}`$ corresponds to the (left) Virasoro algebra of the shifted Brower longitudinal DDF operators. There is no zero mode in this sector and the space of states has the structure of tensor product of the left and the right Verma modules. In the following we shall restrict ourselves to the discrete series of the unitary Verma modules $`𝒱_m(p,q)`$ with the central charge

$$c^\mathrm{B}=c_m1\frac{6}{m(m+1)},m=2,3,\mathrm{},$$

and with the highest weight

$$h_m(p,q)=\frac{((m+1)pmq)^21}{4m(m+1)},1pm1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}qp.$$

Any pair of the allowed left and right highest weights leads to a consistent free string model. Slightly more general models can be constructed as direct sums of pairs of Verma modules of the same central charge and with different highest weights. Guided by the experience with the critical string we assume that the space $`𝒱^\mathrm{B}`$ of Brower longitudinal excitation is identical with the space of states of a unitary minimal model of 2-dim conformal field theory. In the case of the diagonal ($`A`$-type) minimal models one gets

$$𝒱^\mathrm{B}=\underset{p,q}{}𝒱_m(p,q)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_m(p,q).$$

The space of states in the transverse sector is given by

$$^\mathrm{T}=d^{d2}\overline{p}(\overline{p}),$$

where $`\overline{p}=(p^1,\mathrm{},p^{d2})`$, and $`(\overline{p})`$ denotes the Fock space generated by the left and right transverse excitations out of the unique ground state $`|\overline{p}`$ satisfying

$$P^i|\overline{p}=p^i|\overline{p}.$$

The total space of states in the light-cone formulation is then defined by

$$=𝑑p_+|p^+^\mathrm{T}𝒱^\mathrm{L}𝒱^\mathrm{B},$$

where $`P^+|p^+=p^+|p^+`$ and $`𝒱^\mathrm{L}`$ is the Fock space generated by the left and right Liouville excitations out of the unique vacuum state $`|0^\mathrm{L}`$.

In order to construct a unitary realization of the Poincaré algebra on $``$ we introduce

$`L_n^\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d2}{}}}:a_k^ia_{n+k}^i:,`$
$`L_n^\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{k0,n}{}}:c_kc_{n+k}:+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}i\sqrt{\beta }nc_n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\beta \delta _{n,0}.`$ (2.1)
The operators $`L_nL_n^\mathrm{T}+L_n^\mathrm{L}+L_n^\mathrm{B}`$ and their left counterparts $`\stackrel{~}{L}_n`$ form two commuting Virasoro algebras with the central charge $`c=d+48\beta \frac{6}{m(m+1)}`$. In this construction we have used the zero modes $`a_0^i=\stackrel{~}{a}_0^i=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}P^i`$ with the dimensionful parameter $`\alpha `$ related to the conventional Regge slope $`\alpha ^{}`$ by $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}`$. The algebra of generators:

$`P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{P^+}}(L_0+\stackrel{~}{L}_02),P^+,P^i,`$
$`M_{\mathrm{lc}}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`P^ix^jP^jx^i+i{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(a_n^ia_n^ja_n^ja_n^i+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\stackrel{~}{a}_n^j\stackrel{~}{a}_n^j\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\right),`$
$`M_{\mathrm{lc}}^{i+}`$ $`=`$ $`P^+x^i,`$ (2.2)
$`M_{\mathrm{lc}}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(P^+x^{}+x^{}P^+),`$
$`M_{\mathrm{lc}}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(x^iP^{}+P^{}x^i)P^ix^{}i{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\alpha }}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(a_n^iL_nL_na_n^i+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\stackrel{~}{L}_n\stackrel{~}{L}_n\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\right),`$
closes to the Lie algebra of Poincaré group if and only if the parameter $`\beta `$ entering the definition of $`L_n^\mathrm{L}`$ satisfies :

$$\beta =\frac{24d}{48}+\frac{1}{8m(m+1)}.$$

This representation induces a unitary representation on the subspace $`^{\mathrm{ph}}`$ of physical closed string states defined by the condition

$$(L_0\stackrel{~}{L}_0)|\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$

In the case of the diagonal minimal model in the Brower longitudinal sector the on-mass-shell condition takes the form

$$M^2=4\alpha \left(2N+\frac{((m+1)pmq)^2}{2m(m+1)}\frac{d}{12}\right),N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

### 2.2 Light-cone fields in the transverse sector

Following standard light-cone formulation  we choose the world sheet parameterization $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ where $`\tau `$ is related to the target space time by $`\tau =2\sqrt{\alpha }x^+`$ and $`\sigma `$ is in the range555The subscript $`r`$ will serve in the following to distinguish between various incoming and outgoing strings; we use it here to avoid confusing the range of $`\sigma `$ with the parameter $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}`$.

$$0\sigma <2\pi \left|\alpha _r\right|,\alpha _r=\frac{p_r^+}{\sqrt{\alpha }}.$$

The string fluctuations in the transverse sector are described by the fields

$$X^i(\sigma ,\tau )=x^i+\frac{P^i}{2\alpha }\frac{\tau }{\alpha _r}+\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{in\tau }{\alpha _r}}\left(a_n^i\mathrm{e}^{\frac{in\sigma }{\alpha _r}}+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\mathrm{e}^{\frac{in\sigma }{\alpha _r}}\right)$$

satisfying the Heisenberg equation of motion

$$2\sqrt{\alpha }\frac{}{\tau }X^i(\sigma ,\tau )=i[P^{},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )].$$

After Wick rotation $`\tau i\tau `$ the fields $`X^i`$ can be decomposed into the holomorphic and antiholomorphic components in the complex variable $`\rho =\tau +i\sigma `$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X^i(i\tau ,\sigma )& =\hfill & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}\left(\chi ^i(\rho )+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{\rho })\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \chi ^i(\rho )& =\hfill & q_0^iia_0^i\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n^i}{n}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{n\rho }{\alpha _r}},\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{\rho })& =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{q}_0^ii\stackrel{~}{a}_0^i\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\alpha _r}+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i}{n}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{n\overline{\rho }}{\alpha _r}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the left and the right zero modes satisfy:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill [a_0^i,q_0^j]& =\hfill & i\delta ^{ij},[\stackrel{~}{a}_0^i,\stackrel{~}{q}_0^j]=i\delta ^{ij},\hfill & \\ \hfill P^i& =\hfill & \sqrt{\alpha }(a_0^i+\stackrel{~}{a}_0^i),\hfill & \\ \hfill x^i& =\hfill & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}(q_0^i+\stackrel{~}{q}_0^i),\hfill & \end{array}$$

and the restriction to the subspace on which $`a_0^i=\stackrel{~}{a}_0^i`$ is assumed. Another local field of the transverse sector is the energy-momentum tensor. Within the Euclidean framework its holomorphic component is given by

$$T^\mathrm{T}(\rho )=\frac{1}{\alpha _r^2}\underset{n}{}\left(L_n^\mathrm{T}\frac{d}{24}\delta _{n,0}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{n\rho }{\alpha _r}}.$$

In order to avoid unnecessary repetition we omit here and in the following the formulae for the right (antiholomorphic) sector. The generator $`Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}`$ of the the infinitesimal conformal transformation $`\rho \rho +ϵ(\rho ),\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\overline{\rho })`$ reads

$$Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{T}\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\rho ϵ(\rho )T^T(\rho )+\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\overline{\rho }\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\overline{\rho })\stackrel{~}{T}^T(\overline{\rho }),$$
(2.3)
and the transformation rules for the transverse fields and states take the form

$`\delta _ϵ\chi ^i(\rho )`$ $``$ $`ϵ(\rho )_\rho \chi ^i(\rho )=[Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{T},\chi ^i(\rho )],`$ (2.4)
$`\delta _ϵT^\mathrm{T}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`[Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{T},T^\mathrm{T}(\rho )],`$ (2.5)
$`\delta _{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{T}|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2.6)
For arbitrary conformal mapping $`\rho \rho (z)`$ the integrated version of (2.5) yields

$$T^\mathrm{T}(\rho )T^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{T}}(z)=\left(\frac{d\rho (z)}{dz}\right)^2T^\mathrm{T}\left(\rho (z)\right)+\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}S(\rho ,z)$$
(2.7)
where the Schwartz derivative is defined as

$$S(\rho ,z)=\frac{\rho ^{(3)}(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}\right)^2.$$

The transformation law (2.7) is satisfied by the free field representation of the energy–momentum tensor

$$T^\mathrm{T}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}:_\rho \chi ^i(\rho )_\rho \chi _i(\rho ):\frac{d}{24\alpha _r^2}.$$

By means of the conformal map $`z\rho (z)=\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}\rho `$ one can proceed to the complex plane where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T^\mathrm{T}(z)& =\hfill & \underset{n}{}L_n^\mathrm{T}z^{n2},\hfill \\ \hfill \chi ^i(z)& =\hfill & \chi _0^iia_0^i\mathrm{ln}z+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n^i}{n}z^n.\hfill \end{array}$$

According to the standard operator–state correspondence for each state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{T}`$ there exists a unique local vertex operator $`V_\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\overline{z})`$ such that

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{z,\overline{z}0}{lim}V_\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\overline{z})|\overline{0},$$

and $`|\overline{0}`$ is the unique $`PSL(2,)`$-invariant vacuum state in $`^\mathrm{T}`$. In particular the vertex operators $`V_{\overline{p}}(z,\overline{z})`$ corresponding to the ground states $`|\overline{p}^\mathrm{T}`$ are given by

$$V_{\overline{p}}(z,\overline{z}):\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}p^i(\chi ^i(z)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{z}))}:.$$

One possible way to construct the vertex operator corresponding to the excited state is to express the creation operators in terms of the contour integrals of the local fields $`X^i(w,\overline{w})`$. Another way, which can be easily generalized to the longitudinal sector, is to consider the transverse sector as a tensor product $`^\mathrm{T}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d2}{}}^i`$ of $`d2`$ copies of the $`c=1`$ scalar CFT. In each $`^i`$ one has the basis consisting of the vectors

$$|\{𝒌\},\{\overline{𝒌}\},p^i=\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,\overline{k}_1}^i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,\overline{k}_m}^iL_{r,k_1}^i\mathrm{}L_{r,k_n}^i|p^i,$$

generated by the modes $`L_{r,k}^i,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,\overline{k}}^i,`$ of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ components $`T^i(\rho ),\stackrel{~}{T}^i(\overline{\rho })`$ of the “transverse” energy–momentum tensor $`T^\mathrm{T}(\rho _r),\stackrel{~}{T}^\mathrm{T}(\overline{\rho }_r)`$. The vertex operators corresponding to these states can be constructed as

$`V_{|\{𝒌\},\{\overline{𝒌}\},p^i}^i(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{z}_r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{w}_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}^i(\overline{w}_1)}{(\overline{w}_1\overline{z}_r)^{\overline{k}_11}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{z}_r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{w}_n}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}^i(\overline{w}_m)}{(\overline{w}_m\overline{z}_r)^{\overline{k}_n1}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{z_r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^i(w_1)}{(w_1z_r)^{k_11}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{z_r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw_m}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^i(w_m)}{(w_mz_r)^{k_m1}}}:\mathrm{e}^{ip^iX^i(z_r,\overline{z}_r)}:,`$
where the integration contours are nested radially around $`z_r,`$ $`|w_1z_r|>|w_2z_r|>\mathrm{}>|w_mz_r|,`$ $`|\overline{w}_1\overline{z}_r|>|\overline{w}_2\overline{z}_r|>\mathrm{}>|\overline{w}_m\overline{z}_r|.`$

### 2.3 Light-cone fields in the longitudinal sector

The CFT interpretation of the Brower longitudinal sector is essentially the same as in the transverse one except there are no counterparts to the fields $`\chi ^i,\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i,`$ which reflects the fact that there is no classical description of this sector in terms of action functional. The energy–momentum tensor and the transformations rules on the cylinder are given by the standard expressions:

$`T^\mathrm{B}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(L_n^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \frac{c^\mathrm{B}}{24}}\delta _{n,0}\right)\mathrm{e}^{n\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}},`$ (2.8)
$`\delta _ϵT^\mathrm{B}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`[Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{B},T^\mathrm{B}(\rho )],`$ (2.9)
$`\delta _{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{B}|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2.10)
Due to the assumed minimal model structure there exists the unique $`SL(2,)`$-invariant vacuum state $`|0,0^\mathrm{B}𝒱^\mathrm{B}`$ and the standard operator–state correspondence holds. Proceeding to the complex plane by the map $`\rho =\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}z`$ one gets:

$`T^\mathrm{B}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}L_n^\mathrm{B}z^{n2},`$ (2.11)
$`\delta _ϵT^\mathrm{B}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑wϵ(w)T^\mathrm{B}(w)T^\mathrm{B}(z)},`$ (2.12)
$`\delta _{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}V_\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑wϵ(w)T^B(w)V_\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\overline{z})}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{w}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\overline{w})\stackrel{~}{T}^B(\overline{w})V_\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\overline{z})}.`$
Let us note that in contrast to the transverse sector where the free field representation of the energy–momentum tensor is available, the l.h.s. of (2.12) can be independently defined only by the transformation properties of the correlation functions involving $`T^\mathrm{B}(z)`$.

The space of states in the Liouville sector carries representations of two different Virasoro algebras with the central charges $`c=1+48\beta `$ and $`c=1`$. This leads to two different interpretations of this sector as a conformal field theory.

Within the scalar interpretation the space of states in the Liouville sector can be seen as the restriction of the space of states of a single scalar field in two dimensions to the subspace of states with zero momentum. In order to make the standard field theoretic techniques available one can extend the space of states to that of a single scalar field and then define the subspace of physical states by imposing an extra constraint of vanishing momenta. As in the case of the transverse sector it is convenient to introduce the algebra of left and right zero modes

$$[c_0,\varphi _0]=i,[\stackrel{~}{c}_0,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0]=i,$$

restricted to the subspace annihilated by $`c_0\stackrel{~}{c}_0`$. The subspace of physical states is then determined by the condition $`(c_0+\stackrel{~}{c}_0)|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. The Poincaré representation on the extended space is given by the formulae (2.2) with the Virasoro generators $`L_n^L`$ (2.1) modified by the appropriate zero mode contribution. In the extended space one can define the local Liouville field

$$\varphi (\rho )=\varphi _0ic_0\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{c_n}{n}\mathrm{e}^{n\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}}.$$
(2.14)
The energy–momentum tensor and the transformation rules are given as in the Liouville interpretation by the formulae (2.82.3). The crucial feature of the scalar interpretation is that the transformation rule for the Liouville field,

$$\delta _ϵ\varphi (\rho )=[Q_{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}^\mathrm{L},\varphi (\rho )]=ϵ(\rho )_\rho \varphi (\rho )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\beta }_\rho ϵ(\rho ),$$
(2.15)
does not coincide with the change of $`\varphi (\rho )`$ under infinitesimal conformal transformation of its argument $`\rho \rho +ϵ(\rho )`$. The same discrepancy shows up in the transformation rule of the energy–momentum tensor which can be written as

$$T^\mathrm{L}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}:_\rho \varphi (\rho )_\rho \varphi (\rho ):+2\sqrt{\beta }_\rho ^2\varphi (\rho )\frac{1}{24\alpha _r^2}.$$
(2.16)
It satisfies formulae (2.9), (2.12) only when the non-homogeneous transformation law for the Liouville field is assumed. The drawback of the scalar interpretation is that the local field defined by (2.14) does not provide any working model for the transformation law (2.15). One can show that just this feature is responsible for the failure of constructing Lorentz covariant joining–splitting interactions within the scalar approach. For this reason we shall not discuss this interpretation in this paper any more.

According to the Liouville interpretation the space of states is a tensor product of single left and single right Verma modules with the same central charge $`c^\mathrm{L}=\overline{c}^\mathrm{L}=1+48\beta `$ and the same non-zero highest weight $`h=\overline{h}=2\beta `$. The construction of energy–momentum tensor and the form of transformation rules are essentially the same as in the Brower longitudinal sector and are given by exact counterparts of the formulae (2.82.3). The crucial difference is that the only ground state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}`$ in this sector is not $`PSL(2,)`$-invariant,

$$L_0^\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}=2\beta |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L},\stackrel{~}{L}_0^\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}=2\beta |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L},$$

and the energy momentum-tensor acting on $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}`$ is singular in the limit $`z0,`$

$$T^\mathrm{L}(z)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}=\frac{2\beta }{z^2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}+\frac{1}{z}L_1^\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{terms}.$$

This singular behavior cannot be mimic by any local operator placed at the origin of the complex plane which means that the operator–state correspondence does not hold in this sector. Instead of the identity operator which corresponds in the standard CFT to the invariant vacuum, there is a puncture corresponding to the non invariant vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}`$ with prescribed singularity structure of the energy–momentum tensor at it. It should be stressed that the Liouville interpretation goes far beyond the standard CFT where the existence of a unique invariant vacuum and the operator–state correspondence are fundamental assumptions.

## 3 Interacting string

### 3.1 Joining–splitting interactions

In the light-cone picture, developed by S. Mandelstam , string amplitudes are constructed in terms of light-cone diagrams corresponding to time ordered sequences of elementary splitting and joining processes.

The elementary process of joining–splitting can be described in terms of the vertex operator acting between three Hilbert spaces of free string states . Assuming the free string evolution between acts of interaction one can construct string amplitudes automatically satisfying the (perturbative) unitarity requirements. Another approach first introduced by Mandelstam  is to express the string amplitudes in terms of path integral over string trajectories with the world-sheet geometries corresponding to appropriate light-cone diagrams. Within this approach the 3-string interaction vertex is implicitly defined by the requirement that the free CFT defined on each cylinder-like region of free string propagation are glued up to a unique CFT on the light-cone diagram. It can be shown that in the case of the transverse string excitations described by the 2-dim scalar CFT both formulations are equivalent .

In this section we shall follow the original Mandelstam approach and construct the string amplitudes in terms of conformal field theories on the light-cone diagrams. It allows to avoid technically involved questions of sewing conformal field theories and makes it easier to express the light-cone amplitudes in terms of CFT on the complex plane. Let us note that in such formulation the unitarity in the longitudinal sector is not automatic and requires additional considerations.

A tree light-cone diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`N`$ external states is uniquely characterized by the circumferences $`2\pi \alpha _r`$ of external semi-infinite cylinders, the interaction times $`\tau _1\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{N2}`$, and the $`N3`$ angles describing twists of the intermediate cylinders. These twist angles can be parameterized by the $`\sigma _I`$ coordinates of all but one interaction points. We assume that all external states are eigenstates of the momentum operators $`P^+,P^{},P^i`$. In the $`p^+`$ sector the tree string light-cone amplitude is given by the conservation delta function. The eigenvalues $`p_r^+`$ of the external states are related to the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`p_r^+=\sqrt{\alpha }\alpha _r`$. If we assume the time translation invariance the integration over one of the interaction times results in the energy conservation delta function. The contribution of the light-cone diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the string amplitude can than be written in the form

$$A_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_r^+\right)\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_r^{}\right)\underset{I=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho _I\rho _1)W^\mathrm{T}W^\mathrm{B}W^\mathrm{L}$$
(3.1)
where $`\rho _I=\tau _I+i\sigma _I`$ describe locations of the interaction points and the integration domain reflects the time ordering of string interactions. $`W^\mathrm{T},W^\mathrm{B},W^\mathrm{L}`$ denote the transverse, the Brower, and the Liouville sector contributions respectively.

### 3.2 Transverse sector

In this subsection we shall briefly discuss the transverse sector contribution to the tree string amplitude. This material is not new and was included in order to set notation and to provide an introduction for the discussion of the longitudinal sector. The only novelty is the derivation of the amplitude in terms of correlation functions of vertex operators in the case of excited physical states. The transverse sector contribution is defined by

$`W^\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi \alpha _r}{}}}𝑑\vartheta _r{\displaystyle 𝒟X_r^i(\sigma _r)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}(P_r^{})^\mathrm{T}\tau _r}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha _r}}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r+\vartheta _r)]}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{lc}}}X^i(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{lc}},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )]},`$
where the inner path integral goes over fields satisfying the Dirichlet boundary conditions $`X^i(\sigma _r,\tau _r)=X_r^i(\sigma _r)`$. According to our assumption the external states are eigenstates of the transverse part $`(P_r^{})^\mathrm{T}`$ of the light-cone Hamiltonian,

$$\begin{array}{c}(P_r^{})^\mathrm{T}=\frac{2\alpha }{P^+}(L_0^\mathrm{T}+\stackrel{~}{L}_0^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}),\hfill \\ \frac{(P_r^{})^\mathrm{T}}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]=\frac{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}}{\alpha _r}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)],\hfill \\ \lambda _r^\mathrm{T}=\frac{\overline{p}_r^2}{4\alpha }+2n_r^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12},\hfill \end{array}$$

with the same left $`n_r^\mathrm{T}`$ and right $`\stackrel{~}{n}_r^\mathrm{T}`$ occupation numbers. Then one can rewrite (3.2) in the form

$`W^\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\sqrt{2\pi \alpha _r}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}}{\alpha _r}\tau _r}{\displaystyle 𝒟X_r^i(\sigma _r)\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{lc}}}X^i(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{lc}},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )]}.`$
In order to express the light cone amplitude in terms of the conformal field theory on the complex plane we shall use the holomorphic Mandelstam map

$$\rho (z)=\underset{r}{}\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(zz_r),\underset{r}{}\alpha _r=0.$$
(3.4)
At the first step of the calculations one can regard this map merely as a change of parameterization. Let $`M_\tau `$ be the pre-image of the light-cone diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with long but finite legs. The inner path integral in (3.2) determines on $`M_\tau `$ the theory of $`d`$ scalar fields defined with respect to the pull-back $`\rho ^{}g_{\mathrm{lc}}`$ of the flat light-cone metric $`g_{\mathrm{lc}}`$. The metric $`\rho ^{}g_{\mathrm{lc}}`$ is related to the standard metric $`g_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ on the complex plane by the conformal factor $`\sigma (z),`$

$$\rho ^{}g_{\mathrm{lc}}(z)=\mathrm{e}^{\sigma (z)}g_{\mathrm{pl}}(z),\sigma (z)=\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\rho }{z}\right|^2.$$

It is singular at the locations $`Z_I`$ of the interaction points and also in the limit $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ (Appendix A.1).

At the second step one uses the conformal properties of the theory to change the metric from $`\mathrm{e}^\sigma g_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ to $`g_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. The response of the path integral representation of the amplitude to this change is given by the conformal anomaly ,

$$_{M_\tau }𝒟^{\mathrm{e}^\sigma g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[\mathrm{e}^\sigma g_{\mathrm{pl}},X(z,\overline{z})]}=(𝒜_{M_\tau })^{c^\mathrm{T}}_{M_\tau }𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X(z,\overline{z})]},$$
(3.5)
where the integral on the r.h.s. goes over the fields satisfying boundary conditions

$$X^i(\rho ^1(\tau _r+i\sigma _r),\overline{\rho }^1(\tau _ri\sigma _r))=X_r^i(\sigma _r).$$
(3.6)
In the limit $`\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}\mathrm{},r=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ the anomaly factor takes the form (Appendix A.4)

$$𝒜_{M_\tau }=[ϵ]^{\frac{1}{12}}A^{\frac{1}{4}}[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{8}}[P]^{\frac{1}{12}},$$
(3.7)
where the abbreviated notations (A.5), (A.14) are used. Let us stress that since the standard metric $`g_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ is regular at the interaction points so is the energy–momentum tensor of the transformed theory.

At the third step of our calculation we shall express the wave functionals $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X^i(\sigma _r)]`$ through the vertex operators of the “transverse” CFT. Following the standard path integral derivation of the operator-states correspondence (Appendix B) one gets

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]=\mathrm{e}^{(\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12})\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}_{D_r}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(z,\overline{z})]}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r),$$

where the integration goes over the fields defined on the disc

$$D_{\eta _r}=\{z:|zz_r|\eta _r=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}\}$$

and satisfying the boundary conditions

$$X^i(z_r+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _r+i\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}},\overline{z}_r+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _ri\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}})=X_r^i(\sigma _r),$$

while $`V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ is the vertex operator corresponding to the state $`|r^\mathrm{T}.`$

The complement of $`M_\tau `$ consists of disjoint sets $`D_{\tau _r}`$ around each point $`z_r`$. For every $`r`$ we define a non-singular, invertible conformal transformation

$$w_r(z)=\rho _r^1\left(\rho (z)\right)=z_r+(zz_r)\underset{s,sr}{}(zz_s)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}},$$
(3.8)
from $`D_{\tau _r}`$ into $`D_{\eta _r}`$, with $`z_r`$ being a fixed point. Using this map one can pull all the objects back from $`D_{\eta _r}`$ to $`D_{\tau _r}`$. This yields the representation of the $`r^{\mathrm{th}}`$ string wave functional

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\left(\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}\right)\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}\left(𝒜_{D_{\tau _r}}\right)^{c^\mathrm{T}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{D_{\tau _r}}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(z,\overline{z})]}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r),`$
where $`𝒜_{D_{\tau _r}}`$ denotes the conformal anomaly of the map (3.8) and the integration goes over the fields $`X^i(z,\overline{z})`$ on $`D_{\tau _r}`$ satisfying boundary condition

$$X^i(\rho ^1(\tau _r+i\sigma _r),\overline{\rho }^1(\tau _ri\sigma _r))=X_r^i(\sigma _r).$$
(3.10)
$`w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ in formula (3.2) denotes the pull-back of the vertex operator $`V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ by the map (3.8). In the simplest case of the primary field corresponding to the ground state $`|\stackrel{}{p}`$ we have

$`w_r^{}V_\stackrel{}{p}^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dw_r}{dz}}(z_r)\right)^{h_r}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{w}_r}{d\overline{z}}}(\overline{z}_r)\right)^{\stackrel{~}{h}_r}V_\stackrel{}{p}^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,sr}{}}\left(|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right)^{\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{4\alpha }}V_\stackrel{}{p}^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r).`$
In the limit of large (but finite) $`|\tau _r|`$, each $`D_{\tau _r}`$ tends to the small disc $`D_{ϵ_r}`$ centered at $`z_r`$. The radius $`ϵ_r`$ of $`D_{ϵ_r}`$ is given by

$$\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha }=\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r+\underset{sr}{}\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\mathrm{ln}|z_rz_s|.$$

In this limit the conformal anomaly takes the form

$$𝒜_{D_{\tau _r}}=\underset{s,sr}{}\left(|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}},$$

and one can rewrite (3.2) as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}ϵ_r^{\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,sr}{}}\left(|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right)^{\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{D_{\tau _r}}{}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(z,\overline{z})]}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r).`$
The functional integrals over the fields $`X^i(z,\overline{z})`$ on the regions $`M_\tau `$ and $`D_{\tau _r}(r=1,\mathrm{},N),`$ integrated over common boundary values along common boundaries, combine to the functional integral over the fields on the entire complex plane. Equations (3.2), (3.5), (3.2) then imply the following expression:

$`W^\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`[2\pi \alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}(𝒜_{M_\tau })^{c^\mathrm{T}}[ϵ]^{\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(z,\overline{z})]}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\left(w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{p}_r\right)[2\pi \alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}(𝒜_{M_\tau })^{c^\mathrm{T}}[ϵ]^{\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{T},`$
where the abbreviated notations (A.14) are used.

### 3.3 Longitudinal sector

The conformal field theory describing the string excitations in the Brower sector is not defined by any action functional666Note that the Coulomb gas formalism, although based on the action functional, does not provide the standard Lagrangean field-theoretical framework for the minimal models and should be regarded rather as an ansatz for calculating the correlation functions. and Mandelstam’s functional method of constructing amplitudes cannot be applied. There are also no counterparts of the local fields $`\chi ^i(z),\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{z})`$ and the standard construction of the splitting–joining vertex based on the connection condition is not directly available. One can however implement the idea of joining–splitting interaction defining the light-cone amplitudes in terms of the conformal field theory on the light-cone diagram. To this end one can use an appropriate generalization of formula (3.2) derived in the previous subsection. This leads to the following Brower sector contribution

$`W^\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒜_{M_\tau })^{c^\mathrm{B}}[ϵ]^{\frac{c^\mathrm{B}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\frac{c^\mathrm{B}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B},`$ (3.14)
where the vertex operators $`V_r^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ correspond to the external states $`|r^\mathrm{B}`$ in the Brower sector, and the correlation function is calculated within an appropriate minimal model. Although we have expressed the Brower contribution in terms of the CFT on the complex plane, one can easily transform the theory back to the light-cone diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In fact, such transformation can be seen as a rigorous definition of the minimal model on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Let us now turn to the Liouville longitudinal sector. According to the Liouville interpretation advocated in Subsection 2.3 the energy–momentum tensor is the only local field in this sector and the standard state–operator correspondence is replaced by the state–puncture correspondence. These conclusions were derived by analyzing the free theory on the cylinder. In order to implement the idea of splitting–joining interaction some extension of the theory from a cylinder to an arbitrary light-cone diagram is required. As we have seen in the other sectors this can be done in terms of the Mandelstam map and a well defined conformal theory on the complex plane. Our strategy is to find all the properties of such theory which are indispensable for a construction of the Lorentz covariant string amplitudes. As a guiding principle one can use the properties of the free theory already derived in Subsection 2.3 along with the above derivation of the transverse and the Brower sector contributions to the string amplitude. This leads to the following assumptions concerning the Liouville sector.

Our first requirement concerns the conformal anomaly. We assume that it has its universal form given by the Liouville action and depends on the central charge $`c^\mathrm{L}=1+48\beta `$ in the standard way.

The second assumption is related to the fact that there is no operator–state correspondence in this sector. To the ground state applied to the free end of a semi-infinite cylinder there corresponds a puncture on the complex plane. In the case of tree light-cone diagrams with $`N`$ external states, instead of correlation functions of $`N`$ vertex operators and arbitrary number of the energy–momentum tensor insertions on the Riemann sphere $`S^2`$, one should rather expect correlation functions of arbitrary number of the energy–momentum tensor insertions on the Riemann sphere $`S^2(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ with $`N`$ punctures :

$$\underset{j}{}T^\mathrm{L}(w_j)\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{T}^\mathrm{L}(\overline{w}_k)_{S^2(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)}.$$
(3.15)
Since the vacuum of this sector is not $`PSL(2,)`$ invariant both the partition function (no energy–momentum tensor insertions) and the correlations functions of the energy–momentum tensor on $`S^2(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ depend on the locations $`z_r`$ of the punctures. For this reason and also because the properties of the punctures are similar to that of the primary vertex operators in the standard CFT we shall replace the clumsy notation (3.15) by

$$\underset{j}{}T^\mathrm{L}(w_j)\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{T}^\mathrm{L}(\overline{w}_k)\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.$$
(3.16)
The theory on the cylinder discussed in Subsection 2.3. defines the Liouville theory on the Riemann sphere with two punctures. In this case one can easily derive (just from the definitions of the objects involved) the operator-operator product expansion (OOPE) and the operator-puncture product expansion (OPPE):

$`T^\mathrm{L}(w)T^\mathrm{L}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}(1+48\beta )}{(wz)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(wz)^2}}T^\mathrm{L}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz}}T^\mathrm{L}(z)+\mathrm{},`$ (3.17)
$`T^\mathrm{L}(w)P(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{(wz)^2}}P(z,\overline{z})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz}}P(z,\overline{z})+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.18)
The new assumption which can be seen as the connection condition for the energy–momentum tensor is that these expansions also hold in the case of the sphere with $`N`$ punctures and that the punctures are the only singularities of the energy–momentum tensor.

The third requirement one has to impose on the correlation functions (3.16) concerns their transformation properties with respect to the conformal change of their arguments:

$`\delta _ϵT^\mathrm{L}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑wϵ(w)T^\mathrm{L}(w)T^\mathrm{L}(z)},`$ (3.19)
$`\delta _{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}P(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑wϵ(w)T^L(w)P(z,\overline{z})}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{w}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\overline{w})\stackrel{~}{T}^L(\overline{w})P(z,\overline{z})}.`$
With the expansions (3.17) and (3.18) one can cast this requirement in the form of the conformal Ward identities (CWI):

$`T^\mathrm{L}(w){\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{(wz_r)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_r}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L},`$ (3.21)
$`T^\mathrm{L}(u)T^\mathrm{L}(w){\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}(1+48\beta )}{(uw)^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(uw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uw}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}\right)T^\mathrm{L}(w){\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{(uz_r)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{uz_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_r}}\right)T^\mathrm{L}(w){\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.`$
Just as in the standard CFT the equations above completely determine all the three puncture correlation functions (3.16). In particular in the case of no energy–momentum insertions (the three puncture partition function) we have

$$P(z_1,\overline{z}_1)P(z_2,\overline{z}_2)P(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=\frac{C}{|z_1z_2|^{2\beta }|z_1z_3|^{2\beta }|z_2z_3|^{2\beta }}.$$
(3.23)
Let us stress that the correlation functions of punctures does not have the interpretation of the vacuum expectation value of some operators acting in the Hilbert space $`𝒱^\mathrm{L}`$ of the free theory. This means in particular that we are not forced to require any product expansion for punctures. Still one can follow most of the constructions of the standard CFT. In particular the familiar state–operator correspondence can be replaced by the state–puncture correspondence defined by

$`L_{n_1}^\mathrm{L}\mathrm{}L_{n_N}^\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^\mathrm{L}`$ $``$ $`L_{n_1}^\mathrm{L}\mathrm{}L_{n_N}^\mathrm{L}P(z,\overline{z})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^N}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑z_1{\displaystyle \frac{T^\mathrm{L}(z_1)}{(z_1z)^{n_11}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{C_N}}𝑑z_N{\displaystyle \frac{T^\mathrm{L}(z_N)}{(z_Nz)^{n_N1}}}P(z,\overline{z})`$
where the contours of integration are chosen such that $`C_i`$ surrounds $`C_{i+1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, and $`C_N`$ surrounds the point $`z`$. Using this prescription one can associate to each state $`|r^\mathrm{L}𝒱^\mathrm{L}`$ a uniquely determined object $`V_r^\mathrm{L}(z,\overline{z})`$ which we shall call the vertex puncture corresponding to $`|r^\mathrm{L}`$. Using such vertex punctures one can define the Liouville sector contribution to the tree string amplitude by the formula analogous to those of the Brower (3.14) and of the transverse (3.2) sectors

$`W^\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒜_{M_\tau })^{c^\mathrm{L}}[ϵ]^{\frac{c^\mathrm{L}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\frac{c^\mathrm{L}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{L}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.`$ (3.25)
The correlation function above can be in principle rewritten in terms of the contour integrals of the correlators (3.16).

### 3.4 Light-cone amplitudes

Gathering formulae (3.1), (3.2), (3.14), (3.25), (3.7) of the previous subsections one gets the following expression for the light-cone amplitude corresponding to a given type of light-cone diagram

$`A_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_r^\mu \right){\displaystyle \underset{I=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho _I\rho _1)[2\pi \alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}A^6[\alpha ]^3[P]^2}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{2\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{L}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.`$
A more symmetric form can be obtained by proceeding to the Koba–Nielsen variables. We choose $`z_2,\mathrm{},z_{N2}`$ as a new integration variables. The Jacobian of this change takes the form (Appendix A.5)

$$𝒥=\left|(z_Nz_{N1})(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)\right|^2A^6[\alpha ]^2[P]^2,$$

and

$`A_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{\frac{D}{2}}[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_r^\mu \right)`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{D_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}}d^2z_r\left|(z_Nz_{N1})(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)\right|^2`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{2\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w_r^{}V_r^\mathrm{L}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.`$
Let us note that $`[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _r^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the expected relativistic flux factor. The integration domain $`D_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for the Koba-Nielsen variables depends on the geometry of the light-cone diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is well known from the theory of the critical string that the domains of integrations for different types of the tree light-cone diagrams with $`N`$ external legs sum up to the whole range of integration $`^{N3}`$ of the Koba-Nielsen variables. Hence the full $`N`$-string tree amplitude is given by formula (3.4) with the domain $`D_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ replaced by $`^{N3}`$.

In general the calculation of the amplitude (3.4) is difficult due to the complicated dependence of the transformed vertex operators and vertex punctures on the Mandelstam map. An essential simplification occurs for the (tachionic) ground states. In this case the transformed vertex operators of the transverse sector satisfy formula (3.2). The corresponding formulae in the Brower and the Liouville sectors read

$`w_r^{}V_{p,q}^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,sr}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}2h_m(p,q)}V_{p,q}^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r),`$
$`w_r^{}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,sr}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}4\beta }P(z_r,\overline{z}_r).`$
Taking this into account and using the relation

$$p_r^{}=\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha _r}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}{4\alpha }+2h_m(p,q)+2\beta 2\right)$$

valid for the ground states one gets

$`{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}2}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w^{}V_{\stackrel{}{p}_r}^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w^{}V_{p,q}^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}w^{}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{p_s^+p_r^{}}{2\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}V_{\stackrel{}{p}_r}^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}V_{p,q}^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}`$ $`.`$
Calculating the correlator in the transverse sector one gets an explicitly covariant expression for the tachionic tree string amplitude:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{\frac{D}{2}}[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_r^\mu \right)`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{^{N3}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}}d^2z_r\left|(z_Nz_{N1})(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)\right|^2`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{rs}{}}|z_rz_s|^{\frac{p_sp_r}{2\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}V_{p,q}^\mathrm{B}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}P(z_r,\overline{z}_r)^\mathrm{L}.`$
## 4 Lorentz covariance

In this section we shall analyze Lorentz covariance of the tree string amplitudes for arbitrary states. Our approach is a slight modification of the method originally invented by Mandelstam  and further developed in . Nontrivial part concerns the generators $`M^i`$ and we restrict ourselves to this case.

Our aim is to calculate the effect of an infinitesimal Lorentz rotation

$$|r|r+\epsilon M^i|r$$
(4.1)
on the tree string amplitude. To this end we shall derive a convenient expression for the Lorentz generators $`M^i`$ . Applying the time splitting technique and the $`\zeta `$ function regularization one gets

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\pi i}}𝒯\left(T(\rho +ϵ)\chi ^i(\rho )\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{p^+}}\left[\left(L_0{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}\right)q_0^i+q_0^i\left(L_0{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}\right)\right]`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(a_n^iL_nL_na_n^i\right)i{\displaystyle \frac{P^i}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{2\pi i}}\rho T(\rho ),`$
where $`T(\rho )T^\mathrm{T}(\rho )+T^\mathrm{B}(\rho )+T^\mathrm{L}(\rho )`$ is the total energy–momentum tensor, $`𝒯`$ means (Euclidean) time ordering, and the integration goes over the contour of constant time $`\tau `$. Then for every external leg one can write $`M_r^i`$ in the form

$$M_r^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau )_r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^i(\tau )+\frac{iP_r^i}{\sqrt{\alpha }}\frac{}{\alpha _r}+\frac{iP_r^i}{\sqrt{\alpha }}\left(Q_r(\tau )+\stackrel{~}{Q}_r(\tau )\right),$$
(4.3)
where

$`Q_r(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}}T(\rho ),`$ (4.4)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^i(\tau ),\stackrel{~}{Q}_r(\tau )`$ are the antiholomorphic counterparts of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau ),Q_r(\tau )`$, respectively. Let us stress that although $`M^i`$ is conserved the decomposition (4.3) depends on the choice of the contour. One can however verify that the decomposition (4.3) is consistent with the free string evolution, i.e.

$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}P_r^{}(\tau \tau ^{})}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}P_r^{}(\tau \tau ^{})},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}P_r^{}(\tau \tau ^{})}Q_r(\tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`Q_r(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}P_r^{}(\tau \tau ^{})}.`$
These formulae hold also in the interacting theory if we assume the following transformation rule of the local fields $`A(\rho ,\overline{\rho })`$ on the light-cone diagram with respect to the infinitesimal conformal transformations:

$`\delta _{ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}A(\rho ,\overline{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}ϵ(\omega )T(\omega )A(\rho ,\overline{\rho })}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\omega }}{2\pi i}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\overline{\omega })\stackrel{~}{T}(\overline{\omega })A(\rho ,\overline{\rho })}.`$ (4.5)
It is certainly satisfied in the sectors described by standard CFT. As we have discussed in the previous section it is assumed in the Liouville sector as well. With this assumption the action of the operators $`M_r^i\frac{i}{\sqrt{\alpha }}P^i\frac{}{\alpha _r}`$ on each external state $`|r`$ can be replaced by the insertions of the operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau _r^{}),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^i(\tau _r^{}),Q_r(\tau _r^{\prime \prime }),\stackrel{~}{Q}_r(\tau _r^{\prime \prime })`$ at arbitrary chosen times $`\tau _r^{},\tau _r^{\prime \prime }`$ on the corresponding external legs.

Let us first calculate the effect of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau _r^{}),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^i(\tau _r^{})`$ insertions. To the sum of contributions of external legs one can add pairs of opposite contributions of opposite oriented contours for each intermediate cylinder. Since the insertion times are arbitrary one can move the contours of integration towards nearest interaction times $`\tau _I`$ in such a way that each interaction point $`Z_I`$ is surrounded by the contour $`C_I`$ consisting of three disjoint components $`C_{I,s}`$ as indicated on Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Integration contours on the light-cone graph

The contribution of each interaction point can be rearranged as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_I^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\pi i}}𝒯\left(T(\rho )\chi ^i(\rho )\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{C_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\rho }}{\pi i}}𝒯\left(\stackrel{~}{T}(\overline{\rho })\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{\rho })\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_I^i+{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}}𝒯\left(P_s^{}(\chi ^i(\rho _I)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{\rho }_I))\right),`$
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\pi i}}𝒯\left(T(\rho )\left(\chi ^i(\rho )\chi ^i(\rho _I)\right)\right).`$ (4.6)
In order to calculate the contour integrals $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_I^i`$ one can proceed from the light-cone diagram to the complex plane by the Mandelstam map,

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^1(C_I)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}}𝒯\left(T^\mathrm{T}(z)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right)\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^1(C_I)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{(3)}(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)\right)^2}{\left(\rho ^{}(z)\right)^2}}\right)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right),`$
and then deform the integration contour to one surrounding the point of interaction $`Z_I=\rho ^1(\rho _I)`$ (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Deformation of the integration contour on the complex $`z`$ plane

As it is shown in Appendix C,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i=\left(1\frac{c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}}{24}\right)\frac{2b}{a^2}\chi ^i(z_I)+\left(\frac{c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}}{16}\frac{3}{2}\right)\frac{2}{a}^2\chi ^i(z_I),$$
(4.7)
where the constants $`a,b`$ are determined by the expansion

$$\rho (z)\rho (z_I)=\frac{1}{2}a(zz_I)^2+\frac{1}{3}b(zz_I)^3+𝒪\left((zz_I)^4\right)$$

of the Mandelstam map (3.4) near the interaction point. Since $`c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}=24`$ and the calculations in the antiholomorphic sector are essentially identical, the first two terms in (4.6) vanish. Due to the time ordering involved, the third term in (4.6) can be seen as a commutator of the Hamiltonian

$$P^{}=\sqrt{\alpha }\underset{\tau }{}\frac{d\rho }{\pi i}T(\rho )+\sqrt{\alpha }\underset{\tau }{}\frac{d\overline{\rho }}{\pi i}\stackrel{~}{T}(\overline{\rho })$$

with the operator

$$X^i(\rho _I,\overline{\rho }_I)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}(\chi ^i(\rho _I)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^i(\overline{\rho }_I)).$$

Thus inside the correlator defining the string amplitude one gets

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^i(\tau _r)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_r^i(\tau _r))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_I^i)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\sqrt{\alpha }{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _I}}X^i(\rho _I,\overline{\rho }_I).`$ (4.8)
Let us now consider the effect of the third term in the decomposition (4.3). Since the external states are eigenstates of the momenta operators one can replace $`P_r^i`$ by corresponding eigenvalues $`p_r^i`$. In the $`p^+`$-sector the third term of (4.3) is given by the operator $`\frac{i}{\sqrt{\alpha }}_rp_r^i\frac{}{\alpha _r}`$ applied to the delta function $`\delta (_rp_r^+)`$ and vanishes by the conservation of $`P^i`$ momentum. In the other sectors the string amplitude depends on $`\alpha _r`$ only via the geometry of the light-cone diagram. For all $`r`$ the change $`\alpha _r\alpha _r+\delta \alpha _r`$ corresponds to the rescaling of the $`r^{\mathrm{th}}`$ external leg

$$\rho \rho +\delta \alpha _r\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r},\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho }+\delta \alpha _r\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\alpha _r}.$$
(4.9)
It follows from (4.5) that the the effect of these rescaling on the local operators (punctures) representing external state on the $`r^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leg is given by the insertion of the operator $`Q_r(\tau )\stackrel{~}{Q}_r(\tau )`$. Hence inside the correlator defining the string amplitude for every $`r`$

$$\frac{}{\alpha _r}=Q_r(\tau )\stackrel{~}{Q}_r(\tau )$$

and therefore the third and the fourth term in (4.3) cancel each other.

The net effect of the infinitesimal Lorentz rotation (4.1) on the contribution $`A_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the tree string amplitude thus reads

$$\delta A_\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\sqrt{\alpha }\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_r^+\right)\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_r^{}\right)\underset{I=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho _I\rho _1)\underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}\frac{}{\tau _I}(W^\mathrm{T}[X_I^i]W^\mathrm{B}W^\mathrm{L}),$$

where $`W^\mathrm{T}[X_I^i]`$ denotes the transverse sector contribution modified by the insertion of the operator $`X^i(\rho )`$ at the interaction point $`\rho _I`$. Due to the ordering of the interaction times for a given light-cone diagram the integral above yields non-vanishing boundary terms. It is well known from the theory of critical string  that boundaries of integration of all light-cone diagrams contributing to a given tree string amplitude can be arranged into pairs of identical boundaries corresponding to different diagrams. An example of such a pair is exhibited on Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 $`s`$-channel (3a) and $`t`$-channel (3b) boundary contribution to the scattering amplitude

The boundary terms corresponding to each of these pairs cancel each other if the expressions $`W^\mathrm{T}[X_I^i]W^\mathrm{B}W^\mathrm{L}`$ for different diagrams are the same on the common boundary component. In our construction, where the expression $`W^\mathrm{T}[X_I^i]W^\mathrm{B}W^\mathrm{L}`$ was defined in terms of a Mandelstam map and conformal field theories on the complex plane, this condition is satisfied. Indeed the Mandelstam map is the same for light-cone diagrams with common boundaries of integration and the correlators on the complex plane depend on the interaction times only through the insertion $`X^i(Z_I)`$. This completes the proof of the Lorentz covariance of the light-cone tree string amplitudes introduced in Sect. 3.

## 5 Unitarity

Our derivation of the tree light-cone amplitudes presented in Section 3 shows that the propertirs of the Liouville sector listed in the Introduction: the spectrum, the conformal anomaly, and the conformal Ward identities form a minimal set of assumptions necessary for implementing the idea of splitting–joining interaction for all massive string models of the bosonic discrete series. It follows from our calculations in Section 4 that these properties are also sufficient for the Lorentz covariance of the light-cone amplitudes. The only fundamental property of standard CFT we have not yet required in the Liouville sector is the puncture – puncture product expansion (PPPE). The question arises to what extend this property is necessary for the perturbative unitarity of tree amplitudes.

We shall start with a brief discussion of the critical string. According to the presentation of Sect. 3 the tree amplitudes can be constructed by means of correlators of $`24`$ copies of the scalar conformal field on the complex plane. In order to prove the unitarity one has to identify these amplitudes as terms of a Dyson perturbative expansion in the space of multi-string states. Such identification is easily seen in the functional approach where one can express the amplitudes in terms of path integrals on light cone diagrams. Cutting the path integral open just before and just after each interaction time one gets the free string propagation of multi-string states between instant joining–splitting interaction vertices (Fig. 4). This intuitive picture can be justify by explicit calculations. Considering the limit of an infinitely short pants one can construct an operator corresponding to the elementary joining–splitting vertex . This vertex and the free string evolution yield the Dyson expansion required.

Fig. 4 Decomposition of the light-cone graph onto vertices and free propagation

One can extend this line of reasoning to the string degrees of freedom described by arbitrary standard CFT. This concerns in particular various compactifications of critical string. What we need to separate the correlator into regions of free propagation and interaction vertices, is a well defined cutting-open procedure i.e. a prescription which for any closed curve with no self-intersections yields a unique decomposition of the correlator into scalar product of two states from the free string Hilbert space. With the operator–state correspondence assumed the existence of such procedure is equivalent to the operator product expansion (OPE) which is a fundamental property of any standard CFT. The detailed construction of the decomposition of the correlator into cylinders of free propagation and infinitely short pants of joining–splitting vertices goes beyond the scope of the present paper. Let us only mention that one can use for instance the techniques of  where a similar decomposition into 3-point functions was derived.

Let us now turn to the non-critical string. In the transverse and in the Brower longitudinal sector one can decompose the correlators into interaction vertices and free evolution just as in the case of critical string. A similar decomposition in the Liouville sector requires the puncture-puncture product expansion (PPPE). This however leads to some consistency conditions. One can for instance apply PPPE to calculate 4-puncture correlator in three different ways. The condition that the results should coincide is usually referred to as the crossing symmetry or the bootstrap equation. One of its consequences in standard CFT is the restriction on possible central charge, conformal dimensions, and fusion rules known as Vafa’s condition . Using Lewellen’s derivation of this condition  one can show that the PPPE assumption is in contradiction with the spectrum of conformal weights in the Liouville sector .

Let us first assume that PPPE holds. Then the spectrum in the Liouville sector must be essentially larger. In commonly adopted approaches to the quantum Liouville theory it is actually continuous. If we extend the space of external states to accommodate such spectrum the unitarity will be preserved but the original physical content of the theory will be lost. Indeed the extension would result in the continuous family of intercepts. The only way out is the truncation of spectrum to a discrete subset as was proposed for instance in . On the other hand one could preserve the space of external states determined by the free string models and use the Liouville theory with the continuous spectrum to calculate string amplitudes. In this case the proof of unitarity known from the critical string theory breaks down and one has to analyze the problem on the level of string amplitudes rather than on the level of 2-dim field theories on the light-cone diagrams. It is an interesting open problem whether the ODZZ proposal to solve the Liouville theory  leads to the non-critical string amplitudes satisfying the conditions of perturbative unitarity.

The second possibility is to relax the PPPE requirement. Up to our knowledge the only approach to the Liouville theory where PPPE is not explicitly or tacitly assumed is the geometric formulation of the 2-dim quantum gravity . The Liouville correlation functions are defined in this approach in terms of path integral over conformal class of Riemannian metrics with prescribed singularities at the punctures. The case of the metrics with parabolic singularities was extensively analyzed by means of the perturbation expansion around the classical hyperbolic geometry . In particular the conformal weight of puncture and the central charge were calculated, and the conformal Ward identities were proved. The results are in perfect agreement with the properties of the Liouville sector we required in Subsections 2.3 and 3.3 on different grounds. Let us stress that the geometrical approach is strongly justified by the fact that many of its geometric predictions can be rigorously proved (, and references therein). Still it is very far from its final solution. The most important open questions are the factorization, and the relation to the ODZZ approach.

Our discussion shows that the relation between the properties of the 2-dim theory on the world sheet and the perturbative unitarity of the string amplitudes is in the Liouville longitudinal sector much more complicated than in other sectors described by standard CFT. It seems that further investigations of this relation should provide a new insight into the longstanding problem of string interactions in 4 dimensions.

## A. The Mandelstam map

### A.1 Conformal factor of the Mandelstam map

Conformal factor of the full Mandelstam map

$$\rho (z)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(zz_r),\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _r=0,$$

is

$$\sigma =\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\rho }{z}\right|^2=\mathrm{ln}\left|\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\alpha _r}{zz_r}\right|^2.$$
(A.1)
The metric $`\rho ^{}g_c`$ is flat except at singular points $`\{z_r\}_{r=1}^N`$ and $`\{Z_I\}_{I=1}^{N2}`$. Singularities at these points can be calculated by means of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{M}{}\sqrt{g}d^2zR_g+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{M}{}𝑑s\kappa _g=22gb.$$

One gets

$$\sqrt{\rho ^{}g_c}R_{\rho ^{}g_c}=4\pi \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}\delta (zZ_I)+4\pi \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (zz_r).$$

Since

$$\sqrt{\rho ^{}g}R_{\rho ^{}g}=_a\sqrt{g}g^{ab}_b\varphi +R_g,$$

the conformal factor satisfies

$$^2\sigma =4\pi \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}\delta (zZ_I)+4\pi \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (zz_r),^2_a^a=4_z_{\overline{z}}.$$

On the complex plane an identity

$$^2\mathrm{ln}|zw|^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi \delta (zw)$$

holds and the general solution to the previous equation can be written as

$$\sigma =\sigma _0+\underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zZ_I|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zz_r|^2,$$
(A.2)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is an arbitrary solution of the homogeneous equation

$$^2\sigma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

One can find $`\sigma _0`$ analyzing the asymptotic behavior of $`\sigma `$ for $`|z|^2\mathrm{}`$. From (A.1) one gets

$$\sigma =2\mathrm{ln}|z|^2+\mathrm{ln}\left|z^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\alpha _r}{z}+\frac{\alpha _rz_r}{(zz_r)z}\right)\right|^2=2\mathrm{ln}|z|^2+\mathrm{ln}\left|\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _rz_r\right|^2+o\left(\frac{1}{|z|}\right),$$
(A.3)
while (A.2) implies

$$\sigma =\sigma _02\mathrm{ln}|z|^2+o(\frac{1}{|z|}).$$
(A.4)
Comparison of (A.3) and (A.4) yields $`\sigma _0=\mathrm{ln}A^2`$ where

$$A\left|\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _rz_r\right|,$$
(A.5)
and leads to the following expression for the conformal factor

$$\sigma =\mathrm{ln}A^2+\underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zZ_I|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zz_r|^2.$$
(A.6)
### A.2 Boundary terms

We shall show that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_r}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}A^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r^2{\displaystyle \underset{s(sr)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rz_s|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_Iz_r|^2`$ (A.7)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r,`$ (A.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_I}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}A^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_I^2{\displaystyle \underset{J(JI)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_IZ_J|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rZ_I|^2`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}c_I2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_I=\mathrm{ln}c_I\mathrm{ln}2r_I,`$ (A.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_{\mathrm{}}}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{ln}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{ln}A=4\mathrm{ln}r_0+2\mathrm{ln}A,`$ (A.11)
where $`M_r`$ and $`M_I`$ denote small circles of the radii $`ϵ_r`$ and $`ϵ_I`$, surrounding points $`z_r`$ and $`Z_I`$, respectively, and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a big circle of the radius $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ “surrounding” $`\mathrm{}`$.

External points

In the limit

$$ϵ_r=|zz_r|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

one has

$`\rho (z)`$ $``$ $`\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(zz_r),`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{z_r}}\right|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{zz_r}}\right|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _r|}{ϵ_r}},`$
$`n^a_a\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ_r}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _r|}{ϵ_r}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_r}},`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_r}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r,`$
what proves (A.8). To demonstrate validity of (A.7) we use for $`\sigma `$ the expression (A.6) with the result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_r}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_r𝑑\phi \mathrm{ln}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_r𝑑\phi \mathrm{ln}ϵ_r^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_r}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_r𝑑\phi \left({\displaystyle \underset{s(sr)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zz_s|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zZ_I|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_r}}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{ln}A^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r^2{\displaystyle \underset{s(sr)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rz_s|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rZ_I|^2.`$
Interaction points

For

$$ϵ_I=|zZ_I|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

one has

$`\rho (z)\rho (Z_I)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{z^2}}(Z_I)(zZ_I)^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{z}}(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{z^2}}(Z_I)(zZ_I).`$
Introducing

$$c_I=\left|\frac{^2\rho }{z^2}(Z_I)\right|,r_I=|\rho (z)\rho (Z_I)|,$$

one gets

$$r_I=\frac{1}{2}c_Iϵ_I^2ϵ_I^2=\frac{2r_I}{c_I},$$

and

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{z}}\right|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{ln}c_I+2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_I=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{ln}c_I+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2r_I}{c_I}}=\mathrm{ln}c_I+\mathrm{ln}2r_I,`$
$`n^a_a\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ_r}}(2\mathrm{ln}c_I+2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_I)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_I}}.`$
Thus

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{M_I}{}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma 2\mathrm{ln}c_I2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_I=\mathrm{ln}c_I\mathrm{ln}2r_I,$$

what proves (A.10). On the other hand, with the help of (A.6) we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{M_I}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_I𝑑\phi \mathrm{ln}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_I}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_I𝑑\phi \mathrm{ln}ϵ_I^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_I}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}ϵ_I𝑑\phi \left({\displaystyle \underset{J(JI)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zZ_I|^2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\mathrm{ln}|zz_r|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_I}}`$
$``$ $`4\pi \mathrm{ln}A^24\pi \mathrm{ln}ϵ_I^24\pi {\displaystyle \underset{J(JI)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_IZ_J|^2+4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_Iz_r|^2.`$
Point at infinity

In the limit

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=|z|\mathrm{}$$

one has

$`\rho (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(zz_r)={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_r}{z}})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{z_r}{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_r}{z}}+o({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}})=\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _rz_r\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}+o({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}).`$
For the radius $`r_0`$ of the circle surrounding 0 on the light-cone diagram one thus gets

$$r_0|\rho (z)|\frac{1}{|z|}\left|\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _rz_r\right|=\frac{A}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

In the limit $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ one also has

$$\sigma =2\mathrm{ln}|z|^2+\mathrm{ln}A^2,n^a_a\sigma =\frac{4}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}},$$

and

$$\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{M_{\mathrm{}}}{}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\mathrm{ln}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{ln}A=4\mathrm{ln}r_0+2\mathrm{ln}A.$$

### A.3 Identities

Comparing the r.h.s of (A.7), (A.8) and (A.9), (A.10) one gets the identities

$`\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _rz_r\right|+{\displaystyle \underset{s(sr)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rz_s|{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_Iz_r|,`$ (A.12)
$`\mathrm{ln}c_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _rz_r\right|+{\displaystyle \underset{J(JI)}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_IZ_J|{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rZ_I|.`$ (A.13)
Summing formula (A.12) over $`r`$ and formula (A.13) over $`I`$ and adding the results one gets the equality

$`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}\mathrm{ln}c_I{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|=`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _rz_r\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{s<r}{}}\mathrm{ln}|z_rz_s|^2{\displaystyle \underset{I,r}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_Iz_r|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J<I}{}}\mathrm{ln}|Z_IZ_J|^2.`$
Introducing compact notation

$`[c]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}c_I,[\alpha ]{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _r,[ϵ]{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_r,`$ (A.14)
$`[P]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{1r<sN}{}|z_rz_s|\underset{I<J}{}|Z_IZ_J|}{\underset{r,I}{}|z_rZ_I|}},`$
it can be written in the form

$$[c][\alpha ]^1=A^2[P]^2.$$
(A.15)
### A.4 Conformal anomaly

We calculate the Liouville action for the conformal factor of the Mandelstam map

$`S_L[g,\sigma ]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}d^2z(g^{ab}_a\sigma _b\sigma +2R_g\sigma )}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑s\kappa _g\sigma }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_r}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_r}{}}𝑑s\kappa _g\sigma `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_I}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{M_{\mathrm{}}}{}}𝑑s\sigma n^a_a\sigma .`$
The last line of the formula above is necessary for regularization of the singularities arising at the points $`Z_I`$ and $`z\mathrm{}`$ which correspond via the full Mandelstam map to internal points on the light-cone diagram.

The geodesic curvature on small circles surrounding $`z_r`$ is $`\kappa _g=\frac{1}{ϵ_r}`$ and

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{M_r}{}𝑑s\kappa _g\sigma =2\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|+2\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r.$$

Using expressions (A.8), (A.10) and (A.11) for other boundary integrals one gets

$`S_L[g,\sigma ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}|\alpha _r|+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}ϵ_r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}\mathrm{ln}c_I+2\mathrm{ln}A4\mathrm{ln}r_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}\mathrm{ln}2r_I`$
and

$`\left(\mathrm{det}_{\mathrm{e}^\sigma g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{12}S_L[g,\sigma ]}\left(\mathrm{det}_g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`[ϵ]^{\frac{1}{12}}A^{\frac{1}{6}}[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{12}}[c]^{\frac{1}{24}}\left(\mathrm{det}_g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Using formula (A.15) it can be written in the form

$`\left(\mathrm{det}_{\mathrm{e}^\sigma g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ]^{\frac{1}{12}}A^{\frac{1}{4}}[\alpha ]^{\frac{1}{8}}[P]^{\frac{1}{12}}\left(\mathrm{det}_g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (A.16)
### A.5 Jacobian for the Mandelstam map

Interaction point $`\rho _I`$ depends on $`z_r`$ through the relation

$$\rho _I=\underset{r}{}\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(Z_Iz_r),$$
(A.17)
where $`Z_I=Z_I(\alpha _s,z_s)`$ is a solution of the equation

$$\underset{r}{}\frac{\alpha _r}{Z_Iz_r}=0.$$
(A.18)
When we change the integration variables from differences of the interaction points $`\rho _I\rho _1`$ to $`z_s`$s (with $`I,s=2,\mathrm{},N2`$), the corresponding Jacobian reads

$$𝒥=\left|det\left(\frac{(\rho _I\rho _1)}{z_s}\right)\right|^2.$$

Differentiating (A.17) with respect to $`z_s`$ and using (A.18) we get

$$\frac{\rho _I}{z_s}=\left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\alpha _r}{Z_Iz_r}\right)\frac{Z_I}{z_s}\underset{r=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\alpha _r}{Z_Iz_r}\frac{z_r}{z_s}=\frac{\alpha _s}{Z_Iz_s},$$

and consequently

$$𝒥=\left|det\left(\frac{\alpha _s(Z_IZ_1)}{(Z_Iz_s)(Z_1x_s)}\right)\right|^2=\underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}\left|\frac{\alpha _r}{Z_1z_r}\right|^2\underset{J=2}{\overset{N2}{}}\left|Z_JZ_1\right|^2\left|detC\right|^2,$$

where $`C`$ is an $`(N3)\times (N3)`$ matrix with elements

$$C_{Ir}=\frac{1}{Z_Iz_r}.$$

The identity

$$\mathrm{det}C=w_{N3}\underset{2r<sN2}{}(z_sz_r)\underset{2I<J}{}(Z_JZ_I)\underset{r,I=2}{\overset{N2}{}}(Z_Iz_r)^1,$$
(A.19)
where $`w_{N3}`$ depends only on $`N,`$ follows from the fact that both sides of (A.19) are analytic functions of all $`z_r`$s and $`Z_I`$s with the same locations and orders of zeroes and poles. If we choose $`Z_I=I`$ and $`z_r=1r,`$ then the l.h.s. of the Eq. (A.19) reduces to the special case of the Hankel’s determinant

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1/2& \mathrm{}& 1/n\\ 1/2& 1/3& \mathrm{}& 1/(n+1)\\ \mathrm{}& & & \\ 1/n& 1/(n+1)& \mathrm{}& 1/(2n1)\end{array}\right)=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}k!\right)^3\left[\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(n+k1)!\right]^1$$

with $`n=N3,`$ while the r.h.s. is equal to

$$w_n(1)^{\frac{1}{2}n(n1)}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}k!\right)^3\left[\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(n+k1)!\right]^1.$$

This leads to

$$w_{N3}=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(N3)(N4)}$$

and gives

$`𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}}|\alpha _r|^2{\displaystyle \underset{2r<N2}{}}|z_rz_s|^2{\displaystyle \underset{1I<J}{}}|Z_IZ_J|^2{\displaystyle \underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}|Z_Iz_r|^2`$ (A.20)
$`=`$ $`[\alpha ]^2[P]^2\left|(z_Nz_{N1})(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)\right|^2{\displaystyle \underset{t=1,N1,N}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\alpha _t|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_I|Z_Iz_t|^2}{_{st}|z_sz_t|^2}}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\left|(z_Nz_{N1})(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)\right|^2A^6[\alpha ]^2[P]^2,`$
where the last equality follows from (A.12) and $`A`$ is defined by (A.5).

## B. Operator–states correspondence

Let $`C_r`$ stands for a part o the world-sheet of $`r^{\mathrm{th}}`$ external string,

$$C_r=\{\rho :\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}\mathrm{}\frac{\rho }{\alpha _r}\frac{\tau _r^{}}{\alpha _r}\}.$$

Using the equivalence of the operator and path integral expression for the evolution operator between light-cone times $`\tau _r^{}`$ and $`\tau _r`$ one can write

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\tau _r^{}}}𝒟X_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{}){\displaystyle _{C_r}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{lc}}}X^i(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{lc}},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )]}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}(P^\mathrm{T})_r^{}(\tau _r^{}\tau _r)}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^{}^i(\sigma _r)]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}}{\alpha _r}(\tau _r\tau _r^{})}{\displaystyle _{\tau _r^{}}}𝒟X_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{}){\displaystyle _{C_r}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{lc}}}X^i(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{lc}},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )]}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^{}^i(\sigma _r)],`$
where the inner path integral goes over the fields satisfying the Dirichlet boundary conditions

$$X^i(\sigma _r,\tau _r)=X_r^i(\sigma _r),X^i(\sigma _r,\tau _r^{})=X_r^{}^i(\sigma _r).$$

The functional Fourier transform at the light-cone time $`\tau _r^{}`$ allows to convert the wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X^i(\sigma _r)]`$ to the momentum representation and Eq. (B.) takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}}{\alpha _r}(\tau _r\tau _r^{})}{\displaystyle _{C_r}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{lc}}}X^i(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{lc}},X^i(\sigma ,\tau )]}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\tau _r^{}}}𝒟P_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{})\mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _r^{}P_r^i(\sigma _r^{})X^i(\sigma _r^{},\tau _r^{})}}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[P_r^{}^i(\sigma _r)],`$
with

$$X^i(\sigma _r,\tau _r)=X_r^i(\sigma _r),_\tau X^i(\sigma _r,\tau )|_{\tau =\tau _r^{}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Using the conformal map

$$\rho _r(z)=\alpha _r\mathrm{ln}(zz_r)$$
(B.3)
one can rewrite Eq. (B.) in terms of the path integral on the annulus

$$P_r=\left\{\eta _r^{}=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _r^{}}{\alpha _r}}|zz_r|\eta _r=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}\right\}$$

in the complex plane endowed with the standard flat metric $`g_{\mathrm{pl}}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}}{\alpha _r}(\tau _r\tau _r^{})}\left(𝒜_{P_r}\right)^{c^\mathrm{T}}{\displaystyle _{P_r}}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(w,\overline{w})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(w,\overline{w})]}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\tau _r^{}}}𝒟P_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{})\mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma _rP_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{})X^i(z_r+\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\tau _r^{}+i\sigma _r^{}}{\alpha _r}}},\overline{z}_r+\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\tau _r^{}i\sigma _r^{}}{\alpha _r}}})}}\mathrm{\Psi }_r[P_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{})],`$
where the conformal anomaly factor reads

$$𝒜_{P_r}=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\tau _r^{}\tau _r}{12\alpha _r}}.$$

In the limit $`\eta _r^{}0`$ one can replace the integration over the fields defined on the annulus $`P_r`$ with the boundary conditions on the “small” boundary determined by the state functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r[P_r^{}^i(\sigma _r^{})]`$, by the integration over the fields on the disc $`D_r=\{z:|zz_r|\eta _r\}`$ with an appropriate operator insertion $`V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r)`$ at $`z_r`$. In this limit the $`\eta _r^{}`$-dependence drops out. Indeed the contribution from the partition function on the annulus:

$$_{P_r}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(w,\overline{w})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(w,\overline{w})]}(\eta _r^{})^{\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{6}},$$

and the “self interaction” term $`(\eta _r^{})^{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}`$ resulting from the singular behavior of the classical action are cancelled by the term $`(\eta _r^{})^{(\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12})}`$. One thus gets

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r[X_r^i(\sigma _r)]=\mathrm{e}^{(\lambda _r^\mathrm{T}\frac{c^\mathrm{T}}{12})\frac{\tau _r}{\alpha _r}}_{D_r}𝒟^{g_{\mathrm{pl}}}X^i(w,\overline{w})\mathrm{e}^{S[g_{\mathrm{pl}},X^i(w,\overline{w})]}V_r^\mathrm{T}(z_r,\overline{z}_r).$$
(B.5)
## C. Calculation of the contour integrals

To calculate the integral

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^1(C_I)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}}𝒯\left[T^\mathrm{T}(z)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{z_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (w)}{dw}}\right)^1𝒯\left[T^\mathrm{T}(w)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right)\right],`$
where

$$\epsilon =\rho (w)\rho (z)$$
(C.1)
is small compared to $`zz_I,`$ we use the identity

$$T^\mathrm{T}(w)\chi ^i(z)=\frac{1}{wz}_w\chi ^i(w)+:T^\mathrm{T}(w)\chi ^i(z):=\frac{1}{wz}_w\chi ^i(w)+:T^\mathrm{T}(z)\chi ^i(z):+𝒪(\epsilon ).$$

It gives

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{z_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (w)}{dw}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz_I}}\right)_w\chi ^i(w)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (z)}{dz}}\right)^1:T^\mathrm{T}(w)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right):.`$
The second integral vanishes due to the zero of $`\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)`$ for $`zz_I.`$

Differentiation of (C.1) with respect to $`z`$ gives

$$\frac{d\rho (w)}{dz}=\frac{d\rho (z)}{dz}\rho ^{}(z),$$

and

$$\frac{d\rho (w)}{dw}=\frac{d\rho (w)}{dz}\left(\frac{dw}{dz}\right)^1=\rho ^{}(z)\left(\frac{dw}{dz}\right)^1.$$

Expanding $`\rho (w)`$ around $`z`$ and inverting the resulting series one gets

$$wz=\frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}\epsilon \frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{2\left(\rho ^{}(z)\right)^2}\epsilon ^2+𝒪\left(\epsilon ^3\right).$$

Consequently

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}(z)}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}}+𝒪\left(\epsilon \right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\left(\rho ^{}(z)\right)^2}}\epsilon +𝒪\left(\epsilon ^2\right),`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (w)}{dw}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\left(\rho ^{}(z)\right)^2}}+𝒪\left(\epsilon \right),`$
and

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\underset{z_I}{}\frac{dz}{\pi i}\frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}+\frac{1}{zz_I})_z\chi ^i(z),$$
(C.2)
where we have used the fact that $`_z\chi ^i(z)`$ is regular at $`z=z_I`$ so that

$$\frac{1}{\epsilon }\underset{z_I}{}\frac{dz}{\pi i}_z\chi ^i(z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

for any $`\epsilon .`$

If we write Taylor expansion of $`\rho (z)`$ around $`z_I`$ as

$$\rho (z)\rho (z_I)=\frac{1}{2}a(zz_I)^2+\frac{1}{3}b(zz_I)^3+𝒪\left((zz_I)^4\right),$$

then from (C.2)

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\frac{2b}{a^2}\chi ^i(z_I)\frac{3}{a}^2\chi ^i(z_I),$$

where $`\chi ^i(z_I)_{z_I}\chi ^i(z_I).`$ It is also immediately to check that

$$\underset{z_I}{}\frac{dz}{\pi i}\frac{1}{\rho ^{}(z)}\left(\frac{\rho ^{(3)}(z)}{\rho ^{}(z)}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\left(\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)\right)^2}{\left(\rho ^{}(z)\right)^2}\right)\left(\chi ^i(z)\chi ^i(z_I)\right)=\frac{b}{a^2}\chi ^i(z_I)\frac{3}{2a}^2\chi ^i(z_I),$$

what finally gives

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_I^i=\left(1\frac{c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}}{24}\right)\frac{2b}{a^2}\chi ^i(z_I)+\left(\frac{c^\mathrm{T}+c^\mathrm{B}+c^\mathrm{L}}{16}\frac{3}{2}\right)\frac{2}{a}^2\chi ^i(z_I).$$

Acknowledgements

L.H. would like to thank the faculty of the C. N. Yang Institute of Theoretical Physics for their warm hospitality during his stay at Stony Brook, where part of this work has been completed. The work of L.H. was partially supported by the Foundation for the Polish Science fellowship.

Z.J. is grateful to R. Flume and R. Poghossian for illuminating discussions. He thanks the Physics Institute of Bonn University for its hospitality during his stay at Bonn, where part of this work was done. The financial support of DAAD foundation for this stay is acknowledged.