format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the last year, vacuum string field theory (VSFT)  attracted much attention. The basic idea of this theory has recently been extended to the superstring case in  for cubic superstring field theory  and in  for Berkovits’ non-polynomial superstring field theory . If we assume that the kinetic operator $`𝒬`$ is made purely out of ghost fields as in the bosonic case, the equation of motion admits factorized solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{g}`$, and it was shown in  that we can take $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{m}`$ to be projectors in the non-polynomial case as well.

In the (super)ghost sector, however, the construction of brane solutions in Berkovits’ theory becomes complicated due to the fact that it is formulated in the “large” Hilbert space,222The $`\beta \gamma `$-ghost system is fermionized as
$$\beta =e^\varphi \xi ,\gamma =\eta e^\varphi .$$
(1.1)  The usual superstring theory and cubic superstring field theory are closed in the state space without the $`\xi _0`$ mode, which is called the “small” Hilbert space, whereas the Berkovits’ superstring field theory uses the full “large” Hilbert space including $`\xi _0`$. in addition to the existence of the $`\beta \gamma `$-ghosts and the GSO($`\pm `$) sectors. Although the supersliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ solves the equation of motion with $`𝒬=𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}=(c(i)c(i))/2i`$ and hence it was conjectured in  that the non-BPS D9-brane was described by the supersliver itself, we will argue in section 2 that this conjecture is not correct. In particular, any state which is annihilated by $`\eta _0`$, including the supersliver, is shown to be pure-gauge. Such a thing could happen because not only the field configuration space but also the space of gauge degrees of freedom has been enlarged in the “large” Hilbert space formulation.

To find a clue to the correct D-brane solution, we will pay attention to the fact that there is a remarkable resemblance between the ghost number 1 combination $`A=e^\mathrm{\Phi }𝒬e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Berkovits’ theory and the ghost number 1 string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of cubic string field theory, as explained in section 4. Since it has been shown that in bosonic vacuum string field theory the equation of motion $`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ with $`𝒬=𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}`$ is solved by the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ in an auxiliary twisted conformal field theory  and $`A`$ satisfies an equation of the same form, we conjecture that the solution representing the spacetime-filling non-BPS D9-brane is also given by $`A\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ with $`𝒬=𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}`$. With this choice the equation of motion $`\eta _0A=0`$ is satisfied. Of course, it is possible that the correct answer will turn out to have more complicated structure peculiar to superstring theory: We do not consider such a possibility in this paper, except in section 6. Even if we have specified the form of $`A`$, it still remains to express this candidate ‘solution’ $`A`$ in terms of the string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of this theory. Although we have not solved this ‘inverse’ problem yet, we will anyway calculate $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=a_{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\sigma _1`$ to show an example in which $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ is exactly calculable. Here, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is the supersliver state in the ‘triply-twisted’ conformal field theory introduced in section 3, where the twisting is performed in all of the $`bc`$-, $`\varphi `$\- and $`\eta \xi `$-sectors of the ghost CFT. The configuration $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ has the following preferable features: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ has ghost number 0 and picture number 0; $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ lives in the GSO($``$) sector, while $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is in the GSO($`+`$) sector; $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ has the factorized form $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{m}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{g}`$ and its matter part is simply the matter sliver; $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ is exactly calculable; Neither $`\widehat{\eta }_0`$ nor $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ annihilates $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ so that it may not be pure-gauge. Therefore, we believe that the triply-twisted supersliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ may be useful in constructing a non-trivial solution in non-polynomial vacuum superstring field theory.

We further calculate $`A`$ for another configuration $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, and we will obtain the result $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_e}𝒬e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_e}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ denotes the $`bc`$-twisted sliver of ghost number 1. In the context of bosonic vacuum string field theory, it looks like this equation says that the $`bc`$-twisted sliver, which is the only ghost solution obtained so far, is a pure-gauge configuration. We will have a discussion on this point in section 5.

Section 6 is devoted to summary of our results and discussion for future directions. In Appendices we derive some formulae about the $``$\- and $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-products used in the text.

## 2 Problems with the Supersliver as a Brane Solution of Vacuum Superstring Field Theory

In this paper we mainly deal with the issues of non-polynomial vacuum superstring field theory, which is supposed to describe the open string dynamics around the tachyon vacuum in Berkovits’ superstring field theory on a non-BPS D9-brane of type IIA theory. This type of vacuum superstring field theory was elegantly formulated by Mariño and Schiappa in , based on the earlier work of Klusoň . We will discuss the ghost structure of non-perturbative brane solutions in this theory.

First of all, we see that the full (i.e. matter+ghost) geometric supersliver, although it is a solution of the equation of motion, fails to describe the non-BPS D9-brane. From now on, we will use the notation

$$A(\mathrm{\Phi })=e^\mathrm{\Phi }𝒬e^\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(2.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the string field of ghost number 0 and picture number 0, and $`𝒬`$ is the kinetic operator of vacuum superstring field theory. From the Wess-Zumino-Witten–like action333When discussing the tachyon condensation, we need to include in the theory the GSO($``$) sector where the tachyon lives. It can be achieved by introducing the internal Chan-Paton factors  as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\sigma _1`$, where $`\sigma _1`$ is one of the Pauli matrices and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+,\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ are the string fields in the GSO($`+`$), GSO($``$) sectors, respectively. In this section, however, since the supersliver state is fully contained in the GSO($`+`$) sector, we will forget about this structure and simply write $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ for a while.

$$S=\frac{\kappa _0}{2}\left(\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }𝒬e^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }\eta _0e^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\left(e^{t\mathrm{\Phi }}_te^{t\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\{e^{t\mathrm{\Phi }}𝒬e^{t\mathrm{\Phi }},e^{t\mathrm{\Phi }}\eta _0e^{t\mathrm{\Phi }}\}\right),$$
(2.2)
we derive the following equation of motion:

$$\eta _0A=\eta _0\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }𝒬e^\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0.$$
(2.3)
(For more details about Berkovits’ superstring field theory, see .) Let us define the (geometric) supersliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }|\phi =f\phi (0)_{\mathrm{UHP}},$$
(2.4)
where $`f(\xi )=\mathrm{tan}^1\xi `$ and $`|\phi `$ is an arbitrary Fock space state. Defined this way, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ can be shown to be a projector of the $``$-algebra, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }`$, in the same way as in the bosonic case . (The algebraic construction of the (twisted) sliver state was given in .) Note that the sliver state, as well as any surface state $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is annihilated by $`\eta _0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }|\eta _0|\phi =f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\underset{C}{}\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\eta (z)\phi (0)\right)_{\mathrm{UHP}}=\underset{C^{}}{}\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\eta (z)f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi (0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}=0,$$
(2.5)
where $`f_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi )`$ is the conformal map associated with the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`C,C^{}`$ are the integration contours encircling $`0,f_\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)`$, respectively. The second equality holds because $`\eta _0`$ is the contour integral of a primary field of conformal weight 1. The last equality can be shown by the contour-deformation argument. More strongly, it can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|\eta _0|𝒜`$ vanishes for arbitrary states $`|𝒜`$ even if they do not belong to the Fock space. Any surface state $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }=U_{f_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}|0$$
(2.6)
with

$$U_{f_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle v_nL_n}},$$
(2.7)
where $`v_n`$’s are coefficients determined by the conformal map $`f_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`L_n`$’s are the total Virasoro generators. Since the superghost sector of $`L_n`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\beta \gamma `$ ghosts themselves, $`L_n`$ does not contain the zero mode of $`\xi `$, as can be seen from the fermionization formula (1.1). In addition, the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ vacuum $`|0`$ is annihilated by $`\eta _0`$ because $`\eta `$ has conformal weight 1. Hence $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not give rise to any factor of $`\xi _0`$. If we recall that the correlation function in the “large” Hilbert space is normalized as

$$0|\xi _0c_1c_0c_1e^{2\varphi }|0=V_{10},$$
(2.8)
where $`V_{10}`$ denotes the volume of the 10-dimensional space-time, $`|𝒜`$ must supply two factors of $`\xi _0`$ in order for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|\eta _0|𝒜`$ to have a non-vanishing value, but it is impossible. We then conclude that $`\eta _0|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ strongly vanishes in the sense that it has vanishing inner product with any state.

Now consider a string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ which is annihilated by $`\eta _0`$, such as the sliver. From the derivation property of $`\eta _0`$, it follows

$$\eta _0e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}=\eta _0e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}=0.$$
(2.9)
Given that $`\{\eta _0,𝒬\}=0`$, we find that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ trivially satisfies the equation of motion (2.3) as

$$\eta _0\left(e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}𝒬e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}\right)=(\eta _0e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a})(𝒬e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a})e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}𝒬(\eta _0e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a})=0.$$
(2.10)
Since the equation of motion does not constrain the form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ anymore, we cannot hope to obtain any isolated solutions even after fixing the gauge. This is obviously an unwelcome feature when looking for the D-brane solutions. Moreover, the energy density associated with such a state is completely zero, as can be seen from the form of the action (2.2). This problem cannot be resolved even if we take the overall normalization factor $`\kappa _0`$ to be infinite, because there are no sources of $`\xi _0`$ which is necessary to have non-vanishing correlators in the “large” Hilbert space formulation. In fact, we will show below that any such state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is pure-gauge in Berkovits’ superstring field theory.

In what follows, we consider the action (2.2), but we do not restrict $`𝒬`$ to being pure ghost, if only $`𝒬`$ satisfies the requisite properties: nilpotency, Leibniz rule, etc. By analogy with the Wess-Zumino-Witten action for a field $`g=e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which takes value in a group manifold $`G`$, we see that the action (2.2) is invariant under the finite gauge transformation

$$e^\mathrm{\Phi }(e^\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=h_1^𝒬e^\mathrm{\Phi }h_2^{\eta _0},$$
(2.11)
where the superscripts indicate that the gauge parameters $`h_1^𝒬,h_2^{\eta _0}`$ are annihilated by $`𝒬,\eta _0`$, respectively. Then we can take $`h_2^{\eta _0}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}`$ because of (2.9). By choosing $`h_1^𝒬`$ to be the identity string field $``$,444For the identity string field defined geometrically as $`|\phi =f_{}\phi (0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$ with $`f_{}(\xi )=2\xi /(1\xi ^2)`$, we can show $`A=A=A`$ using the gluing theorem . (cf. ) On the other hand, the oscillator representation of the identity state  does not satisfy $`A=A=A`$ in the ghost sector . We take the identity string field to be the geometric one in the present paper, because it is important that the identity $``$ behaves as the ‘identity element’ of the $``$-algebra. we find from (2.11)

$$e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_a}=e^0,$$

i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has been gauged away. This completes the proof that the string field obeying $`\eta _0\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ is non-perturbatively pure-gauge. This fact can more transparently be seen in the case of a projector. When $`h_1^𝒬=e^{𝒬\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`h_2^{\eta _0}=e^{\eta _0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ infinitesimal gauge parameters, the infinitesimal form of (2.11) is, as is well-known, given by

$$\delta (e^\mathrm{\Phi })=(𝒬\mathrm{\Omega })e^\mathrm{\Phi }+e^\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta _0\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(2.12)
Given that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\eta _0\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, by taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a\xi _0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`(a1)`$ we have

$$(e1)\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\left(+(e1)\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\eta _0(a\xi _0\mathrm{\Phi })=ae\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi },$$

which implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be gauged away by piling up the above infinitesimal transformations. The conclusion that any string field configuration annihilated by $`\eta _0`$ is pure gauge seems very restrictive from the viewpoint of vacuum superstring field theory because the $``$-algebra projectors known so far  are constructed within the “small” Hilbert space and all annihilated by $`\eta _0`$. For the same reason, the configurations $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which are annihilated by $`𝒬`$ are also pure gauge, but this criterion crucially depends on the choice of $`𝒬`$.

We remark here that our concerns above are irrelevant to cubic superstring field theory  which is formulated within the “small” Hilbert space. In that case it has been proposed that the space-filling non-BPS D9-brane is represented by the sliver states in the twisted conformal field theories .

## 3 Triply Twisted Conformal Field Theory

In the preceding section, we have seen that the supersliver, though it solves the equation of motion and has the correct quantum numbers (ghost number 0 and picture number 0), is not qualified as a D-brane solution. To obtain a non-trivial solution by deforming the sliver,555Throughout this and the next sections the ‘sliver’ is interchangeable with any one of the projectors such as the butterfly state and the nothing state . it will be useful to introduce an auxiliary twisted conformal field theory, according to . We twist the energy-momentum tensors $`T,\overline{T}`$ by the ghost and picture number currents $`j^{bc}=bc,j^\varphi =\varphi ,j^{\eta \xi }=\eta \xi ;\overline{j^{bc}}=\overline{b}\overline{c},\overline{j^\varphi }=\overline{}\overline{\varphi },\overline{j^{\eta \xi }}=\overline{\eta }\overline{\xi }`$ as<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6Similar operation in $`\varphi `$-sector has been considered in .

$`T^{\prime \prime \prime }(w)`$ $`=`$ $`T(w)j^{bc}(w)j^\varphi (w)j^{\eta \xi }(w),`$ (3.1)
$`\overline{T}^{\prime \prime \prime }(\overline{w})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{T}(\overline{w})\overline{}\overline{j^{bc}}(\overline{w})\overline{}\overline{j^\varphi }(\overline{w})\overline{}\overline{j^{\eta \xi }}(\overline{w}),`$
such that $`b^{},c^{},\xi ^{},\eta ^{}`$ in the new theory have spins 1, 0, 1, 0, respectively. This new ‘triply-twisted’ conformal field theory, denoted by CFT′′′, has a total central charge $`c^{\prime \prime \prime }=15212=10`$. If we bosonize the $`bc`$\- and $`\eta \xi `$-systems as777Hermitian bosonized ghost fields $`\rho ,\overline{\rho }`$ are related to the antihermitian fields $`\phi ,\overline{\phi }`$ used in  via $`\rho =i\phi ,\overline{\rho }=i\overline{\phi }`$.

$`ce^\rho ,be^\rho ,\xi e^\chi ,\eta e^\chi ,`$ (3.2)
$`\overline{c}e^{\overline{\rho }},\overline{b}e^{\overline{\rho }},\overline{\xi }e^{\overline{\chi }},\overline{\eta }e^{\overline{\chi }};`$
$`c^{}e^\rho ,b^{}e^\rho ,\xi ^{}e^\chi ,\eta ^{}e^\chi ,`$ (3.3)
$`\overline{c}^{}e^{\overline{\rho }},\overline{b}^{}e^{\overline{\rho }},\overline{\xi }^{}e^{\overline{\chi }},\overline{\eta }^{}e^{\overline{\chi }};`$
the relation between the Euclidean world-sheet actions $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ of the two theories is found to be

$$𝒮^{\prime \prime \prime }=𝒮\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2w\sqrt{g}R(g)\left(\rho +\overline{\rho }\varphi \overline{\varphi }+\chi +\overline{\chi }\right),$$
(3.4)
where $`w=\sigma +i\tau `$ denotes the world-sheet coordinates, $`g`$ and $`R(g)`$ are the world-sheet metric and its scalar curvature, respectively. The OPEs among the bosonized ghosts are given by

$`\rho (z)\rho (0)+\mathrm{log}z,\varphi (z)\varphi (0)\mathrm{log}z,\chi (z)\chi (0)+\mathrm{log}z,`$
$`\overline{\rho }(\overline{z})\overline{\rho }(0)+\mathrm{log}\overline{z},\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})\overline{\varphi }(0)\mathrm{log}\overline{z},\overline{\chi }(\overline{z})\overline{\chi }(0)+\mathrm{log}\overline{z},`$ (3.5)
$`0\mathrm{otherwise}.`$
The conformal weights of the ghost fields are summarized as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & e^\mathrm{}\rho & e^\mathrm{}\varphi & e^\mathrm{}\chi \\ & & & \\ \text{in the original theory}& (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}3),0)& (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2),0)& (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}1),0)\\ & & & \\ \text{in the twisted theory}& (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}1),0)& (\mathrm{}^2/2,0)& (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1),0)\end{array}$$
(3.6)
and similarly for antiholomorphic fields. On the flat world-sheet (e.g. each local coordinate patch) $`\rho ,\varphi ,\chi `$ fields of the two theories can be identified:

$$e^{\mathrm{}\rho (z)}|_{\mathrm{CFT}}=z^{d^{\prime \prime \prime }d}e^{\mathrm{}\rho (z)}|_{\mathrm{CFT}^{\prime \prime \prime }}\mathrm{etc}.,$$

where $`d`$ and $`d^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ denote the conformal weights (3.6) of $`e^\mathrm{}\rho `$ in the respective theories. Therefore we have the following identification among the oscillators of the two theories,

$$c_nc_n^{},b_nb_n^{},\xi _n\xi _n^{},\eta _n\eta _n^{}.$$
(3.7)
The $`SL(2,𝐑)`$-invariant vacua $`|0`$ and $`|0^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ of the two theories are mapped as

$$\xi ce^\varphi (0)|0|0^{\prime \prime \prime }.$$
(3.8)
For any state $`|\phi `$ we can give vertex operator representations of it with respect to the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ vacua of the two theories as

$$|\phi =\phi (0)|0=\phi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)|0^{\prime \prime \prime }.$$
(3.9)
The correlation functions of the two theories are normalized as

$$\xi \frac{1}{2}cc^2ce^{2\varphi }_{\mathrm{UHP}}=\eta ^{}c^{}_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime }=V_{10}.$$
(3.10)
The star product of the twisted theory is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_3=f_1^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)f_2^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)f_3^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime },$$
(3.11)
where the conformal transformations

$$f_k^{(3)}(z)=h^1\left(e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}(k1)}h(z)^{\frac{2}{3}}\right),h(z)=\frac{1+iz}{1iz}$$

are generated by the Virasoro operators of the twisted theory. The supersliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ in this twisted conformal field theory is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }|\phi =𝒩^{\prime \prime \prime }f\phi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime },$$
(3.12)
with $`f(z)=\mathrm{tan}^1z`$ for an arbitrary Fock space state $`|\phi `$. $`𝒩^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is a normalization constant which would be needed to achieve $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ because of the non-vanishing total central charge. The original supersliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and the twisted supersliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ can be written as

$`|\mathrm{\Xi }=U_f^{}|0,`$ $`U_f^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}L_4{\displaystyle \frac{11}{1890}}L_6+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (3.13)
$`|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }=𝒩^{\prime \prime \prime }U_f^{\prime \prime \prime }|0^{\prime \prime \prime },`$ $`U_f^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L_2^{\prime \prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}L_4^{\prime \prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{11}{1890}}L_6^{\prime \prime \prime }+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (3.14)
where $`L_n(L_n^{\prime \prime \prime })`$ are total (i.e. matter+ghost) Virasoro generators associated with the energy-momentum tensor $`T(T^{\prime \prime \prime })`$ in the original (twisted) conformal field theory. From the relation (3.8) between the two $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ vacua $`|0`$ and $`|0^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, we can rewrite $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ as

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }=𝒩^{\prime \prime \prime }U_f^{\prime \prime \prime }\xi ce^\varphi (0)|0=𝒩^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(U_f^{\prime \prime \prime }\xi ce^\varphi (0)U_f^1\right)|\mathrm{\Xi }.$$
(3.15)
From this relation, we find that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ has ghost number 0 and picture number 0, and is Grassmann odd. (Remember that $`\xi `$ has ghost number $`1`$ and picture number $`+1`$, and that $`e^\mathrm{}\varphi `$ is Grassmann odd if $`\mathrm{}`$ is an odd integer.) Thus we can consider $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ itself as the string field in the GSO($``$) sector. $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ can be calculated by using the formula (derived in Appendix A, eq.(A.10))

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}K^{(3)}\left|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)\right|^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(iϵ)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(iϵ)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_2$$
(3.16)
relating the $``$-product to the $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-product. Here, $`K^{(3)}`$ is a normalization constant. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is a projector of the $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-algebra, we have

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}K^{(3)}\left|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)\right|^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(iϵ)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(iϵ)}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }.$$
(3.17)
For later purpose, we collect here some formulas regarding the conformal field theory CFT twisted only in the $`bc`$-ghost sector. Using the correlation function normalized as

$$\xi c^{}e^{2\varphi }_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{}=V_{10},$$

the $`bc`$-twisted sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|\phi =𝒩^{}f\phi ^{}(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{},$$
(3.18)
where $`\phi ^{}(0)`$ is the vertex operator representation of the state $`|\phi `$ with respect to the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$-invariant vacuum $`|0^{}=c(0)|0`$ of the $`bc`$-twisted theory. The $`^{}`$-product of this theory is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3=f_1^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(0)f_2^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}(0)f_3^{(3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{},$$

and is related to the $``$-product of the original theory through

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (iϵ)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(iϵ)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2,$$
(3.19)
## 4 Search for the D-brane Solution: Guesswork

Since we do not know what form the ghost part of the brane solution should take, we will proceed by making use of an analogy with bosonic vacuum string field theory. By definition, $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{𝒬}\widehat{A}+\widehat{A}\widehat{A}=0,$$
(4.1)
if $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ is a nilpotent derivation and annihilates the identity $``$. Noting that both $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ carry ghost number 1 and picture number 0, this ‘constraint’ equation closely resembles the equation of motion of bosonic VSFT. Since we already know that the $`bc`$-twisted sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ (defined below), if normalized suitably, satisfies

$$𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=0,$$
(4.2)
and is supposed to represent a spacetime-filling D25-brane in bosonic string theory, we guess that the spacetime-filling D9-brane and the ghost kinetic operator in the superstring case may be given by

$`\widehat{A}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=C\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma _3,`$ (4.3)
$`\widehat{𝒬}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(c(i)c(i))\sigma _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c^{}(i)+c^{}(i))\sigma _3,`$ (4.4)
which have the correct ghost and picture numbers. Here we have tensored the intenal Chan-Paton matrices , and the normalization constant $`C`$ should be uniquely determined by the non-linear equation (4.1). The equation of motion $`\widehat{\eta }_0\widehat{A}=0`$ is solved by the configuration (4.3) because the $`bc`$-twisting does not affect the $`\xi \eta `$-sector at all. There is one more reason to identify the specific combination $`\widehat{A}`$ of the string field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in Berkovits’ theory with the string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in cubic string field theory. In cubic theory, the new kinetic operator $`𝒬^{}`$ arising from the expansion around a classical solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ takes the form

$$𝒬^{}X=𝒬X+\mathrm{\Psi }_0X(1)^{|X|}X\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(4.5)
On the other hand, it was shown in  that in Berkovits’ theory, when the string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is expanded around a classical solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}e^\varphi `$ with $`\varphi `$ denoting the fluctuation field, the resultant action for $`\varphi `$ takes the same form as the original one, but with a new kinetic operator $`𝒬^{}`$ given by

$$𝒬^{}X=𝒬X+A(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)X(1)^{|X|}XA(\mathrm{\Phi }_0),$$
(4.6)
where $`X`$ is an arbitrary string field, and $`|X|`$ is its Grassmannality. Eq.(4.6) looks the same as eq.(4.5) if we replace $`A(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. Taking into account the facts that the open string spectrum around the classical solution is governed by $`𝒬^{}`$ and that seemingly the correct open string spectrum is reproduced around the matter sliver solution $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_0)_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{m}`$ in bosonic VSFT , we are inclined to take at least the matter part of $`A`$ to be the matter sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{m}`$ as in (4.3). This also motivates us to adopt the ansatz (4.3),(4.4).

The problem now is how to solve the equation (4.3) for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in the “large” Hilbert space. Though we have not succeeded in finding an appropriate solution, we will give an example of calculations of $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ for a certain string field configuration $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ which has some desired properties. Since we are looking for a configuration representing a D-brane, we require $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ to satisfy the following conditions:

* $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ has ghost number 0 and picture number 0, in order for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ to be acceptable as a string field;
* $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ has a matter-ghost split form and its matter part is simply the matter sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{m}`$;
* $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ is exactly calculable;
* $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ is not a pure-gauge configuration. In particular, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ should not be killed by $`\widehat{\eta }_0`$ nor $`\widehat{𝒬}`$.

It turns out that the triply-twisted supersliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ introduced in the previous section satisfies the above conditions. So we try

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=a_{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\sigma _1,$$
(4.7)
where we have attached the internal Chan-Paton matrix $`\sigma _1`$ according to its GSO parity (i.e. Grassmannality). The conditions (1),(2) are satisfied, as noticed in section 3. The condition (4) can be shown in the following way: We can show that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is now annihilated by $`\xi _0^{}`$ in the same way as in eq.(2.5), because $`\xi ^{}(z)`$ is a primary field of comformal weight 1 in the twisted theory. Given that $`\{\xi _0^{},\eta _0^{}\}=1`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ must not be killed by $`\eta _0^{}=\eta _0`$. On the other hand,

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }|𝒬|\phi =\frac{1}{2}f(c^{}(i)+c^{}(i))f\phi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime }=c^{}(\mathrm{})f\phi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime }$$

does not vanish for a general state $`|\phi `$ because $`c^{}(\pm i)`$ in the twisted theory has conformal weight 0 so that they give rise to no vanishing conformal factors.

Now we calculate $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0)=e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$. Making use of (3.17) $`(n1)`$ times and (B), we obtain

$$\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }}}=(K^{(3)})^{n1}|f_1^{(3)}(i)|^{\frac{n1}{4}}\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)^{n1}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime },$$
(4.8)
where $`ϵ`$-regularization is implicit, and the $`(n1)`$-fold operator product above is not normal ordered yet. We have assumed that the associativity of the $``$-product is not violated by $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$. We can write $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ in the form

$`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}^n}{n!}}(K^{(3)})^{n1}|f_1^{(3)}(i)|^{\frac{n1}{4}}`$
$`\times \left(e^{\frac{1}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)^{n1}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\sigma _1^n.`$
If the kinetic operator (4.4) is regularized as

$$\widehat{𝒬}=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒬^ϵI𝒬^ϵ\right)\sigma _3\mathrm{with}𝒬^ϵ=\frac{1}{2i}\left(e^{iϵ}c(ie^{iϵ})e^{iϵ}c(ie^{iϵ})\right),$$
(4.10)
where $`I(z)=1/z`$, then $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ annihilates the identity $``$ even for finite $`ϵ`$ . On the sliver state twisted in the $`bc`$-sector, $`𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}`$ can be rewritten as

$$𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=|(hf)^{}(i)|^{1/4}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{1/4}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{},$$
(4.11)
because

$`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}|\phi =f(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)})f\phi ^{}(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`hf(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)})hf\phi ^{}(0)_{\mathrm{disk}}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\rho (hf(i))}hf\phi ^{}(0)_{\mathrm{disk}}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}c^{}(\mathrm{})f\phi ^{}(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}|\phi ,`$
where we have used the conformal map $`h(z)=\frac{1+iz}{1iz}`$ to rewrite the correlator on the upper half plane as the disk correlator. Eq.(4.11) holds for $`|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ as well. From these facts, we find

$`\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ $`=`$ $`|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}^n}{n!}}(K^{(3)})^{n1}|f_1^{(3)}(i)|^{\frac{n1}{4}}`$ (4.12)
$`\times \left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\right)^n\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)^{n1}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\sigma _3\sigma _1^n.`$
$`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ can easily be found by replacing $`a_{}`$ with $`a_{}`$ in (4). Then we have

$`\widehat{A}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0)=e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$
$`=`$ $`|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}^{n+n^{}}}{n!n^{}!}}(K^{(3)})^{n+n^{}1}`$
$`\times |f_1^{(3)}(i)|^{\frac{n+n^{}1}{4}}\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\right)^{n+n^{}}\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)^{n+n^{}1}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }\sigma _3\sigma _1^{n+n^{}}.`$
Thus we have exactly calculated $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0}`$ for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$ given in (4.7), up to the cocycle factors for the exponential operators we have been ignoring. Since this configuration turns out not to solve the equation of motion $`\widehat{\eta }_0\widehat{A}=0`$ unless $`a_{}=0`$, we cannot consider the triply-twisted supersliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ itself as representing a D-brane. However, considering the properties possessed by $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, we expect that it may be relevant to the construction of the correct D-brane solutions.

As the second example, we consider the string field configuration

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e=a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(4.14)
though it is annihilated by $`\eta _0`$ and hence it is pure-gauge. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e`$ is Grassmann-even just like the untwisted sliver, and has ghost number 0 and picture number 0, as it should be. From eqs.(B) and (3.19), we find

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}a_+K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (iϵ)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(iϵ)}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e.$$
(4.15)
In the $`ϵ0`$ limit, $`e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (iϵ)}`$ can be replaced by the leading term $`ϵ^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ of the OPE. Using (4.15) recursively, we obtain

$`\widehat{A}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e)=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_e}𝒬e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_e}\sigma _3`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}|(hf)^{}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i+ϵ)hf(iϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}a_+ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n^{}}{n!n^{}!}}(a_+K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}})^{n+n^{}1}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma _3`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K^{(3)}}}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|(hf)^{}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i+ϵ)hf(iϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}`$
$`\times \left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma _3`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma _3.`$
in the same way as in (4.8)–(4). From this expression, one may think that we have obtained the solution $`\widehat{A}=C\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma _3`$ (4.3) from $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_e`$, but unfortunately this configuration is pure-gauge, as mentioned above. So we have to say that it seems difficult to obtain the non-trivial solution (4.3) in vacuum superstring field theory with $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ given in (4.4).

## 5 Remarks on Bosonic VSFT Solutions

In this section we turn our attention to the bosonic case. In bosonic vacuum string field theory, it was demonstrated in  that the equation of motion

$$𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(5.1)
is solved by the $`bc`$-twisted sliver. Plugging $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ into (5.1), we find the left hand side of (5.1) to be

$$C\left(1+CK^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|(hf)^{}(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}|hf(i)hf(i)|^{\frac{1}{4}}\right)𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}|\mathrm{\Xi }^{},$$
(5.2)
where we have used (4.11) and (3.19), the latter of which is valid also in the bosonic case. By requiring (5.2) to vanish, the overall normalization of the solution is uniquely fixed as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{1}{K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{1/4}|(hf)^{}(i+ϵ)|^{1/4}|hf(i+ϵ)hf(iϵ)|^{1/4}}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}.$$
(5.3)
Recalling the result (4) from the last section, we have

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\right)𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\right)`$ (5.4)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K^{(3)}}}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{1/4}|(hf)^{}(i+ϵ)|^{1/4}|hf(i+ϵ)hf(iϵ)|^{1/4}`$
$`\times \left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}.`$
Comparing (5.4) with (5.3), we find that if $`a_+`$ is determined such that

$$1\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+K^{(3)}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)=1$$
(5.5)
is satisfied, then the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\right)𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}\mathrm{exp}\left(a_+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\right).$$
(5.6)
On the other hand, finite gauge transformation in cubic string field theory is generally given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q+\mathrm{\Psi })e^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(5.7)
where $`Q`$ is the kinetic operator of the theory and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a gauge parameter of ghost number 0. Then it follows that the string field configuration of the form

$$e^\mathrm{\Lambda }Qe^\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(5.8)
is pure-gauge. Since the expression (5.6) is of the form (5.8) with $`Q=𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{K^{(3)}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}|f_1^{(3)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (i+ϵ)}e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{\rho }(i+ϵ)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{},$$
(5.9)
it seems that the $`bc`$-twisted sliver solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is pure-gauge in bosonic VSFT with $`𝒬=𝒬_{\mathrm{GRSZ}}`$. However, this conclusion holds true only when the above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (5.9) is allowed as a gauge transformation parameter. In fact, it was argued in  that the gauge parameters having logarithmically divergent norms in the matter sector should not be allowed around a D-brane solution. In our case, we notice the following fact: As we mentioned at the beginning of section 4, string field configurations $`\psi `$ of the form (5.8) should always satisfy an equation $`Q\psi +\psi \psi =0`$ irrespective of details of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as long as $`Q`$ is a nilpotent derivation. Contrary to this general argument, however, the configuration given in eq.(5.6) does not obey this equation unless $`a_+`$ satisfies the condition (5.5). This might be a manifestation of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (5.9) is ill-defined as a gauge parameter so that it violates some of the formal properties the allowed gauge parameters should have. Thus, it is possible that the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is actually not a pure-gauge configuration in bosonic VSFT, in spite of the expression (5.6). Nevertheless, we believe that in the superstring case considered in section 2 the string field configurations annihilated by $`\eta _0`$ are really pure-gauge because of the circumstantial evidence that such configurations are tensionless and form a continuous family of solutions including $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

## 6 Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have presented several pieces of evidence that the untwisted supersliver solution is not appropriate for the description of a D-brane in non-polynomial vacuum superstring field theory. In particular, we have shown that any state annihilated by $`\eta _0`$ (or $`𝒬`$) is non-perturbatively pure-gauge. We have then guessed the possible form of the kinetic operator $`\widehat{𝒬}`$ (4.4) and the spacetime-filling D-brane solution $`\widehat{A}`$ (4.3) in this theory, based on an analogy with those of bosonic vacuum string field theory. As an effort at constructing non-trivial solutions, we have used the triply-twisted supersliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, which is not a gauge degree of freedom, to give an example in which $`e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ can be calculated exactly. It may turn out that our proposals (4.3)–(4.4) are not quite correct, especially for the reason discussed below. Nevertheless, we hope that our ideas as well as the computational techniques developed in this paper will be useful in clarifying the structure of vacuum superstring field theory solutions.

As a by-product of the above calculations, we have found that the $`bc`$-twisted sliver solution in bosonic vacuum string field theory, which has been believed to be the D-brane solution, can formally be written as a pure-gauge configuration. We have not reached a definite conclusion on this point because we have not determined whether the required gauge transformation is a valid one or not. We end this paper by making a few remarks on further research.

From the internal Chan-Paton structure

$$\widehat{𝒬}=𝒬\sigma _3,\widehat{\eta }_0=\eta _0\sigma _3,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\sigma _1,$$

we can see that the action

$$S=\frac{\kappa _0}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)\left(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{\eta }_0e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\left(e^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}_te^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)\{e^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{𝒬}e^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}},e^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{\eta }_0e^{t\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\}\right),$$
(6.1)
is invariant under the $`𝐙_2`$-transformation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\sigma _1\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\sigma _1.$$
(6.2)
It then follows that, if we have a solution with a non-vanishing GSO($``$) component, there always exists one more solution with the same energy density. Since we do not anticipate such a two-fold degeneracy of solutions in vacuum superstring field theory , this result may imply that we should modify the kinetic operator as

$$\widehat{𝒬}=𝒬_{\mathrm{odd}}\sigma _3+𝒬_{\mathrm{even}}i\sigma _2,$$
(6.3)
as proposed in . Here $`𝒬_{\mathrm{odd}}`$ and $`𝒬_{\mathrm{even}}`$ are Grassmann odd and even operators, respectively. It would be interesting to further investigate this possibility.

Aside from other D-brane solutions which appear in type IIA superstring theory, we should be able to construct ‘another vacuum’ solution with vanishing energy density, which corresponds to the other minimum of the double-well potential. This solution may be given by a configuration $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=0`$ because we expect the new kinetic operator $`𝒬^{}`$ (4.6) around this vacuum to have zero cohomology as well. Since the solutions representing this vacuum or BPS D-branes (brane-antibrane pairs) have no analogues in bosonic string theory, to seek them would be a challenging problem.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to I. Kishimoto for careful reading of the manuscript and many helpful discussions. I’d also like to thank T. Eguchi, T. Kawano, K. Sakai, T. Suyama, T. Takayanagi and S. Teraguchi for useful discussions and stimulating conversations. This work is supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

## Appendices

## A Relating $``$ and $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$

In this appendix, we derive the formula (3.16) relating the $``$-product and $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-product with some details, closely following the strategy of . The $`n`$-string interaction vertex of string field theory is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}},$$
(A.1)
using the correlation function in the original CFT. Here, the conformal maps are given by

$$f_k^{(n)}(z)=h^1\left(e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}(k1)}h(z)^{\frac{2}{n}}\right),h(z)=\frac{1+iz}{1iz}.$$
(A.2)
Now let us consider rewriting the expression (A.1) in terms of the twisted CFT′′′. When the $`n`$ strips are glued together with the Witten’s prescription , the resultant surface is flat everywhere except at the common midpoint of the $`n`$ open strings, where we have an excess angle $`(n2)\pi `$. Substituting $`R=(n2)\pi \delta ^{(2)}(w\frac{\pi }{2})`$ into eq.(3.4), we find that $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ are related in this case as

$$𝒮^{\prime \prime \prime }=𝒮+\frac{n2}{2}(\rho +\overline{\rho }\varphi \overline{\varphi }+\chi +\overline{\chi })(z=e^{iw}=i).$$
(A.3)
In the path integral formulation, the correlator (A.1) is written as

$$f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)=\frac{V_{10}}{Z}𝒟\omega f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)e^{𝒮[\omega ]},$$
(A.4)
where $`\omega `$ collectively denotes the world-sheet fields in the original theory,
$`Z=𝒟\omega \xi \frac{1}{2}cc^2ce^{2\varphi }e^𝒮`$ is the normalization factor. Using the relations (A.3) and (3.9), the above expression (A.4) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{10}}{Z}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\omega f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)e^{𝒮[\omega ]}}`$ (A.5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{10}}{Z^{\prime \prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\omega ^{\prime \prime \prime }f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}e^{𝒮^{\prime \prime \prime }[\omega ^{\prime \prime \prime }]}}`$
$`=`$ $`f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}^{\prime \prime \prime }.`$
Thus we have obtained

$`f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$ (A.6)
$`=`$ $`K^{(n)}f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime },`$
where we have put a finite normalization constant $`K^{(n)}`$. Since $`f_1^{(n)}(i)=i`$ and $`e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })}`$ is a primary field of conformal weight $`(d_n,d_n)=((n2)^2/8,(n2)^2/8)`$ in the twisted theory, we can further rewrite (A.6) as (up to a possible phase)

$$K^{(n)}|f_1^{(n)}(i)|^{2d_n}f_1^{(n)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime }.$$
(A.7)
Here we introduce the $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-product by the following relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_nf_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime },$$
(A.8)
using the twisted CFT′′′. Comparing (A.7) with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|𝒪^{\prime \prime \prime }|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_n=f_1^{(n)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)I𝒪^{\prime \prime \prime }\right)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}^{\prime \prime \prime },$$

where $`𝒪^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ denotes some operator and $`I(z)=1/z`$, we find the following formula relating the $``$-product (A.1) and the $`^{\prime \prime \prime }`$-product (A.8),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=K^{(n)}|f_1^{(n)}(i)|^{\frac{(n2)^2}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1|I\left(e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(i)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(i)}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_n$$
(A.9)
via eqs.(A.6), (A.7). Removing the same state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1|`$ from both sides, we at last reach the desired expression

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}K^{(n)}|f_1^{(n)}(i+ϵ)|^{\frac{(n2)^2}{4}}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\rho \varphi +\chi )(iϵ)}e^{\frac{n2}{2}(\overline{\rho }\overline{\varphi }+\overline{\chi })(iϵ)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\Phi }_n$$
(A.10)
where we have regularized the expression by introducing a regulation parameter $`ϵ`$ because

$$f_1^{(n)}(i+ϵ)\frac{4i}{n}\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}ϵ^{\frac{2}{n}1}$$

is divergent in the limit $`ϵ0`$ when $`n3`$.

## B Operator Insertion at the Midpoint

We consider the following expression

$$𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n,$$
(B.1)
where $`𝒪(i)`$ is assumed to be a holomorphic primary field of conformal weight $`(d,0)`$ and $`\overline{𝒪}(i)`$ is the corresponding antiholomorphic field of weight $`(0,d)`$. Open string boundary condition requires $`\overline{𝒪}(i)=𝒪(i)`$. Taking the inner product of (B.1) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1|`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1|𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ (B.2)
$`=`$ $`f_1^{(n)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)I𝒪(i)I\overline{𝒪}(i)\right)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$
$`=`$ $`|I^{}(i)|^{2d}|f_1^{(n)}(i)|^{2d}f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}.`$
Since $`|I^{}(i)|=1,f_k^{(n)}(i)=i`$ for all $`k`$ and $`|f_1^{(n)}(i)|=\mathrm{}=|f_n^{(n)}(i)|`$, we find

$`f_1^{(n)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)I𝒪(i)I\overline{𝒪}(i)\right)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2(0)f_3^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_3(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$
$`=`$ $`f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)f_2^{(n)}\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(0)\right)f_3^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_3(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{|𝒪\overline{𝒪}||\mathrm{\Phi }_2|}f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)f_2^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_2(0)f_3^{(n)}\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_3(0)\right)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)_{\mathrm{UHP}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{|𝒪\overline{𝒪}|(|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|+\mathrm{}+|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}|)}f_1^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)\mathrm{}f_n^{(n)}\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)\right)_{\mathrm{UHP}},`$
which implies

$`𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=|\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{|𝒪\overline{𝒪}||\mathrm{\Phi }_2|}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_3\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{|𝒪\overline{𝒪}|(|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|+\mathrm{}+|\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}|)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}\left(𝒪(i)\overline{𝒪}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }_n\right).`$
(We have not been careful about the fact that $`f_k^{(n)}(i)`$’s actually diverge.)


text:
# SCUBA observations of galaxies with metallicity measurements: a new method for determining the relation between submm luminosity and dust mass

## 1 Introduction

Measurements of the depletion of heavy elements, relative to the solar abundances, along the line of sight to the stars show that about $`50\%`$ of the metals in the Galaxy is bound up in dust grains (Whittet 1992). This raises the questions: Is this fraction the same for every galaxy? What are the processes that so efficiently lock metals into dust grains?

Although the presence of dust manifests itself in a multitude of ways - extinction, reddening, the polarisation of starlight, to name but three - the best way, in principle, to estimate the mass of dust in a galaxy is from the submm flux density. The advantages of this are that (a) the emission from dust is optically thin and (b) the emission depends mainly on the mass of dust and is only weakly dependent on the temperature of the dust. The practical obstacle to making the full use of this technique has been the difficulty of estimating the constant of proportionality between the emission and the mass of dust, the mass-extinction or the mass-absorption coefficient. There are two methods that have been used to estimate this constant.

The most commonly used technique to calibrate this constant is by observations of Galactic reflection nebulae (Hildebrand 1983; Casey et al. 1991). By making optical and far-infrared/submillimetre observations, one can estimate $`A_V`$/$`\tau `$submm in a reasonably straightforward way. If one assumes a value of *$`N_H/A_V`$* and a gas-to-dust ratio, one can estimate the mass-absorption coefficient, $`\kappa _d`$. For observations at long wavelengths such as with the SCUBA submillimetre camera (Holland et al. 1999), which operates mostly at 850$`\mu `$m, there is also the practical problem that this technique has only been applied at relatively short ($`\lambda `$ $`<`$ 400$`\mu `$m) submillimetre wavelengths, which means that the coefficient has to be extrapolated to longer wavelengths. Since the dust emissivity index, $`\beta `$, $`(\kappa _d\nu ^\beta )`$ is uncertain by a factor of two, there is an immediate uncertainty of a factor of two in the long-wavelength value of $`\kappa _d`$ on top of all the other uncertainties. This problem, of course, could be solved by SCUBA observations of reflection nebulae, but there are additional problems with this technique. First, there is evidence that the properties of dust vary with environment (e.g. Cardelli et al. 1996), and so the dust in a reflection nebula may not be representative of a galaxy as a whole. Second, the technique relies on the assumption of spherical symmetry for the reflection nebulae and on the values for properties that are not themselves simple to measure, such as the dust-to-gas ratio and *$`N_H/A_V`$* (although there are variations in this technique that do not require these, there are other assumptions that have to be made, such as the typical sizes and densities of dust grains). Hughes et al. (1993) estimate that the factor of uncertainty in $`\kappa _d(\nu )/(M_g/M_d)`$ at $`800\mu m`$ is $`25`$.

Alton (2000) employed Hildebrand’s (1983) technique using SCUBA observations of an external galaxy to derive $`A_V/\tau _{850}`$, essentially using a galaxy rather than a reflection nebula to calibrate $`\kappa _d`$. This method obviously avoids the problems of extrapolation to longer wavelengths and the fact that nebular dust may not be the same as dust in the rest of the interstellar medium but still requires assumptions to be made about the physical properties of the dust.

The other technique that has been used to estimate $`\kappa _d`$ is more loosely linked to submillimetre observations. In this technique one constructs a model for dust (its chemical composition, distribution of grain sizes etc.) that agrees with all the available data, for example the shape of the optical extinction curve, and then uses the model to estimate the value of the submillimetre mass-absorption coefficient (Draine & Lee 1984; Hughes et al. 1993).

In this paper we suggest an alternative way of estimating the mass-absorption coefficient based on the global properties of galaxies rather than on individual properties within the Galaxy. This technique is based on the assumption that the fraction of metals within the interstellar medium of a galaxy that is bound up in dust is a constant. There is some evidence for this from the correlation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity in nearby galaxies (Issa, MacLaren & Wolfendale 1990). The high depletion of many elements within our own ISM (Whittet 1992) also suggests that the mechanism forming dust is efficient - that is, if there are metals present, they are efficiently incorporated into dust grains. Finally, there is evidence in the Galaxy that although the dust extinction curve is quite variable from place to place, the gas phase carbon and oxygen abundances are remarkably constant over a wide range of ISM density (Cardelli et al. 1996; Meyer et al. 1998), implying (as these elements are the most important constituents of dust) that the fraction of metals in dust is a constant. In contrast to this evidence, Lisenfeld & Ferrara (1998) found a non-linear relationship between metallicity and dust-to-gas ratio for 28 dwarf irregular galaxies, which suggests that $`\epsilon `$, the fraction of metals locked up in dust, is not the same for all types of galaxy. In this paper, we will present new data that shows that Lisenfeld & Ferrara’s technique missed cool dust, and when this is taken into account $`\epsilon `$ does appear to be remarkably constant from galaxy to galaxy.

To apply the technique we need a galaxy which has submillimetre and far-infrared flux measurements, a measure of its total gass mass, and a measure of its metallicity.

The dust mass of the galaxy is then given by two equations:

$$M_d=M_g\times Z\times \epsilon \times f$$
(1)
where $`M_g`$ is the mass of gas in the galaxy, $`Z`$ is the metallicity relative to solar, $`\epsilon `$ is the ratio of the mass of metals in the dust to the total mass of metals and $`f`$ is the ratio of the mass of metals to the mass of gas for gas with solar metallicity, we estimate $`f=0.019`$, and;

$$M_d=\frac{S_{850}\times D^2}{\kappa _{850}\times B_{850}(\nu ,T)}$$
(2)
in which $`S_{850}`$ is the flux density at 850$`\mu `$m, $`D`$ is the distance of the galaxy, $`B_{850}(\nu ,T)`$ is the value of the Planck function at 850$`\mu `$m, T is the dust temperature and $`\kappa _{850}`$ is the mass-absorption coefficient at 850$`\mu `$m. We then set these two equations equal to one another, and as long as we know $`\epsilon `$, we can estimate $`\kappa _d`$.

The arrangement of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we present the results of a search through the archive of the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope for submm data for galaxies with known metal abundances. In section 3 we derive a value for $`\epsilon `$ based on observations of the local interstellar medium. In section 4 we apply the technique to estimate $`\kappa _d`$ and investigate whether $`\epsilon `$ is a universal constant. We assume throughout that $`H_0=75kms^1Mpc^1`$.

## 2 Data reduction & Results

We looked through the JCMT111The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the Netherlands Organization for scientific Research and the Canadian National Research Council archive for all the objects for which there are both abundance measurements and observations with the SCUBA camera (Holland 1999). Table 1 is a list of galaxies in the archive for which there are published metallicity measurements but no published submm results.

The data for these five objects was reduced in the usual way using the SURF (Jenness & Lightfoot 1998) software package. Images were first flat-fielded to remove inhomogeneity in bolometer sensitivity. Corrections were then made for atmospheric absorption using the opacities ($`\tau _{850}`$) derived from skydip measurements. Noisy bolometers were masked and large spikes in the bolometer time-stream removed by applying a 4-$`\sigma `$ clip. Residual sky noise was removed with the SURF task REMSKY. Following removal of the sky noise, the bolometer time-stream was clipped again at the 3-$`\sigma `$ level.

All the datasets in the archive which were taken with the same chop throw were then made into a map using the SURF program REBIN. The maps were calibrated using jiggle maps of both primary and secondary calibrators reduced in the same way. Figure 1 shows contour plots of the maps of these objects overlaid on images from the Digitised Sky Survey (DSS). The lowest level contour is $`1\sigma `$ and increasing in $`1\sigma `$ steps to $`6\sigma `$. Although it appears that the submm emission is concentrated in the centre of NGC5253, the dynamical range of the optical data is much greater than the submm data, thereby making it difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to whether the optical emission is indeed more extended than the dust emission.

The flux was measured by using the DSS image as a guide to chose an aperture which contained as much of the galaxy and as little of the sky as possible. The flux errors were estimated using the procedure in Dunne et al. (2000). The fluxes and the apertures used are given in Table 1.

Since the first draft of this paper another submm map of NGC1569 has been published (Lisenfeld et al. 2001). The new data was taken in much better conditions than the data we retrieved from the SCUBA archive and the flux measured is significantly higher than ours. We repeated our reduction of this object but the flux determined remained $`20\%`$ lower than the flux measured by Lisenfeld et al. (2001). The discrepancy may arise from the galaxy being larger than the SCUBA array, for which Lisenfeld et al (2001) have tried to correct.

## 3 Calibrating $`\epsilon `$

The fraction of metals incorporated in dust in the interstellar medium can be estimated from $`UV`$ spectroscopic observations of nearby stars, which show that a significant fraction of the metals that one would expect, from cosmic abundances, to be in the ISM are not there - they have been bound up in dust. If $`n_i`$ is the number of atoms of a given chemical element relative to the number of hydrogen atoms, $`a_i`$ is the atomic weight of the element, and $`\delta _i`$ is the proportion of that element bound up in dust, then

$$\epsilon =\frac{_in_i\times \delta _i\times a_i}{_in_i\times a_i}$$
(3)
Recent $`UV`$ observations of nearby stars with the Hubble Space Telescope have made it possible to calculate $`\epsilon `$ more accurately because they have provided accurate depletion measurements for two of the most important elements, oxygen and carbon, strong evidence that the depletion is the same along different sight lines, and evidence that the cosmic metal abundance is about two thirds the solar metal abundance (Cardelli et al. 1996; Meyer et al. 1998). To calculate $`\epsilon `$, we have assumed the solar metal abundance given in Pagel (1997) and then multiplied this by two thirds to obtain the cosmic metal abundances. It should be noted that the recent re-determination of the solar oxygen abundance by Allende Prieto et al. (2001), suggests that the solar metallicity is considerably closer to the ISM value than has been conventionally assumed. We have assumed the depletions given by Whittet (1992), except that we have preferred the recent measurements for carbon and oxygen obtained from the Hubble Space Telescope observations (Cardelli et al. 1996; Meyer et al. 1998). We obtain a value for $`\epsilon `$ of 0.456.

## 4 Applying the method

Table 2 lists the submm results for all the galaxies that we are aware of which have metallicity measurements and submillimetre measurements. Many of the objects in the table are taken from the SCUBA Local Universe Galaxy Survey (SLUGS) of Dunne et al. (2000). Distances for objects with radial velocities $`v<2000kms^1`$ were taken from the Nearby Galaxies Catalogue (Tully 1988). Table 3 gives the metallicity measurements for the sample and also measurements of the masses of the atomic and molecular gas. Metallicities for some SLUGS objects were estimated using strong line ratios and the calibration method of Edmunds & Pagel (1984), relating $`R_{23}`$ and $`[NII]/H_\alpha `$ and oxygen abundances in HII regions. Line ratios were taken fron Keel et al. (1985) and Veilleux et al. (1995). Although more recent work has shown that the Edmunds & Pagel calibrator may over-estimate metallicities above solar, it is probably a reasonable estimator in the abundance range of these galaxies.

There are two complications to applying the simple method we have outlined in the introduction: (a) the requirement of equation (2) for a temperature model; (b) the fact that estimates of gas mass depend to some extent on assumptions about metallicity. We will now discuss these in turn.

### 4.1 Dust Masses

Dunne $`\&`$ Eales (2001), in their investigation of the FIR/submm spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of galaxies in the SCUBA Local Universe Galaxy Survey (SLUGS), found that the 450/850$`\mu `$m flux ratio is remarkably constant for galaxies with a wide range of luminosities. They conclude that the dust emissivity index $`\beta `$ must be $``$2. They then showed that with this emissivity index, there must be at least two dust components with different temperatures in galaxies, even in ultraluminous IRAS galaxies like Arp220.

We fitted the Dunne & Eales two-component model to the five objects for which we have new SCUBA data. Since we only have three fluxes for each galaxy (60, 100 and $`850\mu `$m), we fixed the temperature of the cold component to be 20K, the average of the values found by Dunne & Eales (2001). Figure 2 shows the fits for the five galaxies and Table 2 gives the temperature of the warm component and the ratio of the cold-to-hot dust ($`N_c/N_w`$). We have also given the results of the two component fits for the SLUGS galaxies by Dunne & Eales (2001) and values for a few other galaxies for which we either made two-component fits or for which we took two-component fits from the literature. From the results of these fits we have estimated dust masses using equation (4):

$$M_d=\frac{S_{850}\times D^2}{\kappa _{850}}\times \left[\frac{N_c}{B_{850}(\nu ,T_c)}+\frac{N_w}{B_{850}(\nu ,T_w)}\right]$$
(4)
in which $`S_{850}`$ is the flux density at 850$`\mu `$m, $`B_{850}(\nu ,T)`$ is the value of the Planck function at 850$`\mu `$m, $`\kappa _{850}`$ is the mass-absorption coefficient at 850$`\mu `$m and D is the distance found for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$. We have initially adopted the value for $`\kappa _d(850\mu `$m) of $`0.077m^2kg^1`$ used by Dunne et al. (2000), although of course one of the goals of the present paper is to measure a new value for this. These initial estimates of the dust masses are given in Table 2.

### 4.2 Gas Masses

The mass of HI can be unambiguosly calculated from the intensity of the 21-cm line. Following Lisenfeld & Ferrara (1998), we have calculated the dust mass within the optical disk, since the metallicity (and thus the dust content) outside the optical disk is likely to be low.

Cold $`H_2`$ is detected indirectly by means of a tracer such as CO. The $`COH_2`$ conversion factor is however highly variable depending on temperature, density and metallicity. It is usual to determine the $`H_2`$ mass in a galaxy by applying a ’standard’ conversion factor, $`X=N(H_2)/I(CO)`$, where I(CO) is the velocity-integrated CO intensity and $`N(H_2)`$ is the molecular hydrogen column density. A complication here is that the conversion factor almost certainly depends on metallicity. We investigated the dependence of our method on this uncertainty by trying a number of suggested relationships between X and metallicity.

Molecular hydrogen ($`H_2`$) masses for the five objects from the SCUBA archive were calculated from the CO fluxes taken from the literature using

$$M_{H_2}=4.82\left(\frac{X}{3\times 10^{20}}\right)L_{CO}$$
(5)
(see Tinney et al. 1990) where $`L_{CO}`$ is in $`Kkms^1pc^2`$. $`I_{CO}`$ values were taken from Sage, Salzer, Loose and Henkel (1992) and from Taylor, Kobulnicky and Skillman (1998). $`L_{CO}`$ was calculated from the relation $`L_{CO}=(\pi r^2)I_{CO}`$ where $`r`$ is the radius of the telescope beam on the galaxy in $`pc`$. Gas masses for the SLUGS sample were taken from Dunne et al. (2000). For those objects whose $`850\mu `$m fluxes were obtained from Amure (priv. comm.) and Bianchi et al. (1998, 2000) we took $`S_{CO}`$ values from Young et al. (1995).

We investigated the dependence of the method on the metallicity-dependence of the X-factor by trying two different suggested relationships for the dependence of X on metallicity. Arimoto, Sofue and Tsujimoto (1996) propose that X has a strong dependence on metallicity.

$$logX^{}=1.0(12+log[O]/[H])+9.30$$
(6)
where $`X^{}=N_{H_2}/I_{CO}\times 10^{20}H_2/(Kkms^1)`$.

Israel (2000) notes the probable dependence on ultra-violet ratiation field, but also suggests a simplified approximate metallicity dependence for X,

$$logX=12.22.5log[O]/[H]$$
(7)
We have used both of these relations to determine $`H_2`$ masses for our sample. These are listed in Table 3. As an additional test of the sensitivity of the method to the X-factor we have also used a “standard” conversion factor, $`X=2.8\times 10^{20}H_2cm^2/[kkms^1]`$, from Bloemen et al. (1986) derived from observations of the Galaxy. Table 3 also gives the dust masses calculated using equation 1.

## 5 Interpretation & Discussion

In figure 3 we have plotted the dust masses calculated by the two different methods against each other. We first performed a simple least-squares fit on the data points. All of the least squares solutions were consistent with a slope of unity. This suggests that the properties of dust, in particular $`\kappa _d`$ and $`\epsilon `$, are similar for dwarf galaxies and large galaxies like our own. On the assumption that this is true, the value of $`\kappa _d`$ can be determined in the following way. If the value of $`\kappa _d`$ we have initially assumed for plotting Fig. 3 is correct, the points should lie on a line of slope unity passing through the origin. By measuring the actual offset of the points from the line, we can calculate a new value of $`\kappa _d`$. We obtain values of 0.07 $`\pm `$ 0.02, 0.07$`\pm `$0.01 and 0.07$`\pm `$0.01 $`m^2kg^1`$ using Arimoto, Israel and Galactic $`COH_2`$ X-factors respectively.

The method clearly does not depend critically on the metallicity-dependence of the CO-to-$`H_2`$ X-factor, presumably because either the overall contribution of $`H_2`$ to the gas-mass is in all cases relatively small, or, where the molecular content is high, the X-factors do not vary greatly at these metallicities. The main uncertainty in the method is the basic assumption that the fraction of metals in dust ($`\epsilon `$) is a universal constant. If this is not correct, our estimate of this constant, from observations of the interstellar medium in our own galaxy will not be applicable to other galaxies. However, Figure 3 is itself evidence that this is not too bad an assumption. The scatter around the best fit lines is only a factor of 2 in the ordinate. This scatter includes all observational errors, as well as galaxy-to-galaxy variations in $`\kappa _d`$ and $`\epsilon `$. On the extreme assumption that all the scatter is caused by variation in $`\epsilon `$, we estimate that the galaxy-to-galaxy variation in $`\epsilon `$ can only be a factor of $`2`$. If this extreme assumption is correct, then our estimate of $`\kappa `$, would have an error of a factor of $`2`$ for an individual galaxy.

Our conclusion that the fraction of metals incorporated in dust is the same for giant and dwarf galaxies is in contradiction with the conclusions of Lisenfeld & Ferrara (1998), who found that metals are less effectively incorporated in dust in dwarfs than in giant galaxies. Figure 4 shows metallicity plotted against dust-to-gas mass ratio for our sample and that of Lisenfeld & Ferrara. The Lisenfeld & Ferrara points suggest a non-linear relationship between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity. However we have re-observed some of the objects from their sample with SCUBA and find that their dust-to-gas mass ratios are increased when estimated from submm rather than far-infrared flux. This is expected since in their study, Lisenfeld et al. (1998) used the *IRAS* $`60/100\mu `$m flux ratio to determine a dust temperature and hence may have underestimated the dust mass by missing cold dust at longer wavelengths. The re-observed points are consistent with a slope of unity. Very recently Lisenfeld et al. (2001) have suggested that a low dust mass is appropriate for NGC1569, whether such a model is applicable to all dwarf galaxies, or is unique to NGC1569 is not yet clear. We have also plotted two of the galaxy dust evolution models of Edmunds (2001) in figure 4. The solid line shows a model in which supernovae play an important role in dust production and the dashed line a model in which dust is produced in some kinds of evolved low and intermediate mass stars. Our current dataset is unable to make a distinction between these two models but further submm observations at low metallicities $`(12+log(O/H)<7.8)`$ should help demonstrate whether or not condensation of dust grain cores in supernova ejecta is an important dust source. Such observations will be quite challenging as the number of objects suitable for observation at $`850\mu `$m which have very low metallicities is small.

In Figure 5 we have reproduced a plot from Alton (2001) that shows estimates of the dust mass absorption coefficient in the IR-Submm from a variety of sources. Sopka et al. (1985) made observations of the thermal emission from the dust envelopes of evolved stars. Rengarajan (1984) reports results from observations of centrally heated infrared sources deeply imbedded in molecular clouds. Boulanger et al. (1996) studied the dust-to-gas correlation at high Galactic latitude using COBE data. The Draine & Lee (1984) points come from a model for diffuse Galactic dust. Both the Hildebrand (1983) and Casey (1991) points are from Galactic reflection nebulae. The Alton (2000) measurement is from SCUBA observations of the spiral galaxy NGC891 while Bianchi et al. (1999) used COBE & IRAS data. Finally, Agladze et al. (1994) performed laboratory experiments on forsterite $`(Mg_2SiO_4)`$. The line shows $`\kappa \nu ^2`$. Our data (open triangle) is consistent with the COBE data of Boulanger et al. (1996) as well as that of Draine & Lee (1984), Hildebrand (1983) and Bianchi et al. (1999).

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a new method for determining the $`850\mu `$m dust mass absorption coefficient, and obtain a value of 0.07$`\pm `$0.02 $`m^2kg^1`$.

Our method for determining this coefficient avoids the problems encountered by previous investigators (Hildebrand 1983, Bianchi 1999, Alton 2000). Using SCUBA observations at $`850\mu `$m we can probe the dust emission directly. We do not make any assumptions about the properties of the dust nor do we rely on similarity between dust in Galactic reflection nebulae and that in the general ISM. Our only assumption (admittedly an important one) is that the fraction of metals incorporated in dust is a universal constant. This seems a justified assumption however since the small scatter in Fig. 3 suggests that the fraction of metals in dust is the same for a wide range, from dwarf to high mass galaxies.

Having used both metallicity-dependent (Israel 2000; Arimoto et al. 1996) and independent (Bloemen et al. 1986) $`COH_2`$ conversion factors to derive a molecular gas mass we have concluded that the metallicity-dependence of the $`COH_2`$ X-factor is not an important consideration in this derivation of $`\kappa _d`$.

The COBE data of Boulanger et al. (1996) are consistent with our value for $`\kappa _{850}`$ as are the data of Draine & Lee, Bianchi and Hildebrand. The $`\kappa _{850}`$ value of Alton (2000) that was derived from SCUBA observations of the edge on galaxy NGC891 is $`3`$ times higher than ours. They do however admit that uncertainty in their technique means that their quoted value for the dust emissivity could be in error by a factor of 2 either way. Agladaze et al. (1994) laboratory experiments yield a $`\kappa _{850}`$ that is $`2`$ times higher than ours, however they use $`\beta =1.3`$ for wavelength extrapolations. Sopka et al. 1985 also use $`\beta =1.2`$.

Unfortunately, the metallicity range of our sample does not extend low enough to make a distinction between the dust formation models proposed by Edmunds (2001). We intend to acquire $`850\mu `$m data for the rest of the Lisenfeld & Ferrara (1998) sample where possible.

## Acknowledgments

Guest User, Canadian Astronomy Data Centre, which is operated by the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory for the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Stephen Eales thanks the Leverhulme Trust for the award of a research fellowship.

We thank the referee for helpful comments.