text:
# KUNS-1797hep-th/0208067 Higher Level Open String States from Vacuum String Field Theory

## 1 Introduction and summary

Vacuum String Field Theory (VSFT)  has been proposed as a string field theory expanded around the tachyon vacuum. In order for VSFT to really be connected to ordinary bosonic string theory on an unstable D25-brane, there must exist a Lorentz and translationally invariant classical solution of VSFT satisfying the following two requirements: the fluctuation modes around the solution reproduce the open string spectrum, and the energy density of the solution is equal to the D25-brane tension. Recently, there has been much progress in understanding the above problem. In particular, a full classical solution of VSFT including the ghost part has been presented in  using the oscillator formulation, and the tachyon and the massless vector fluctuation modes have been constructed there. They have shown that the tachyon mass is correctly reproduced. However, the massless vector mode contains an arbitrary vector in the level number space, implying that there are infinite number of massless vector states. This problem was later resolved by Imamura : most of the massless vector modes can be gauged away by VSFT gauge transformation leaving only one physical vector mode.

The purpose of this paper is to carry out the oscillator construction of fluctuation modes representing higher level massive modes of open string.*** In this paper we shall consider only the oscillator formulation of VSFT. For the construction of the fluctuation modes using boundary conformal field theory, see .  This is in fact a non-trivial and interesting problem. Let us take, as a candidate massive state with mass squared equal to $`(k1)\alpha ^{}`$, a state given as $`k`$ matter creation operators $`a_n^\mu `$ acting on the tachyon state. It is a natural extension of the tachyon and massless vector states of . However, naive analysis shows that this kind of states are all massless. The wave equation (namely, the linearized equation of motion), $`𝒬_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, for the fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the above type is reduced to a simple algebraic equation consisting only of the projection operators, $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$, onto the modes of the left- and right-half of the string . The masslessness is a consequence of the basic property of projection operators, $`\rho _\pm ^2=\rho _\pm `$.

We find, however, that the above mode can represent a massive state with the expected mass squared, $`(k1)\alpha ^{}`$, if $`\rho _\pm `$ has an anomalous eigenvalue $`1/2`$ despite that it is a projection operator. Such an anomalous eigenvalue is of course impossible for projection operators in a finite dimensional space. However, there is a subtle point for $`\rho _\pm `$ which is an operator in the infinite dimensional space of string level number. In fact, the eigenvector $`𝒇^{(\kappa )}`$ of the matrix representation of the Virasoro algebra $`K_1=L_1+L_1`$ (the eigenvalue $`\kappa `$ is continuous and extending from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$) is at the same time the eigenvector of $`\rho _\pm `$ and the corresponding eigenvalue is the step function $`\theta (\pm \kappa )`$ . Therefore, the vector $`𝒇^{(0)}`$ is the eigenvector of $`\rho _\pm `$ with eigenvalue $`\theta (0)`$, which is indefinite but could be the desired value $`1/2`$. To verify whether this expectation is correct, we have to study $`\rho _\pm `$ with some kind of regularization. In this paper, we analyze numerically the eigenvalue problem of $`\rho _\pm `$ regularized to finite size matrices to obtain results supporting the above expectation: $`\rho _\pm `$ has an eigenvalue and an eigenvector which tend to $`1/2`$ and $`𝒇^{(0)}`$, respectively, as the size of the matrices is increased.

Even if $`\rho _\pm `$ has the expected anomalous eigenvalue $`1/2`$, there still remains a problem to be solved for the construction of higher level open string modes. Analysis of the wave equation for fluctuations of the above type, $`(a^{})^k|\mathrm{tachyon}`$, shows that there still exists infinite degeneracy of massive states with mass squared equal to $`\mathrm{}\alpha ^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}k2`$). In addition, we also have spurious massless states mentioned above. We have to show that these unwanted states are not physical ones. This problem is solved in the same manner as in the massless vector case : infinite number of spurious states can be gauged away. However, we need gauge transformations of a different kind from that used in  in order to remove all the unwanted massive states.

Our construction of massive open string states is not complete, and there remain a number of future problems. First, we have to present a rigorous analytic proof of the existence of the anomalous eigenvalue $`1/2`$ of the projection operators $`\rho _\pm `$. Second, as we shall see later, we construct only the highest spin states at a given mass level. The construction of lower spin states is our remaining subject. Finally, in our analysis we consider the wave equation $`𝒬_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ only in the Fock space of first quantized string states. Namely, our massive modes $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfy the wave equation in the sense of $`\mathrm{Fock}|𝒬_\mathrm{B}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ for any Fock space element $`\mathrm{Fock}|`$. However, analysis of the potential height problem of the D25-brane solution of VSFT shows that we have to consider the equation of motion in a larger space including the states constructed upon the D25-brane solution . This is our important future problem.

The organization of the rest of this paper is as follows. In sec. 2, we analyze the equation of motion for our candidate massive modes and argue that $`\rho _\pm `$ needs an anomalous eigenvalue $`1/2`$. In sec. 3, we present numerical analysis of the eigenvalue problem of finite size $`\rho _\pm `$. In sec. 4, we show that the spurious states are unphysical ones which can be removed by gauge transformations. In appendix A, we present technical details used in the text.

## 2 Massive modes

The action of VSFT is given by

$$S=K\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi })\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`K`$ is a constant and the BRST operator $`𝒬`$ of VSFT consists purely of ghost oscillators:

$$𝒬=c_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n\left(c_n+(1)^nc_n^{}\right).$$
(2.2)
The VSFT action (2.1) is invariant under the gauge transformation,

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒬\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(2.3)
The D25-brane configuration of VSFT is a translationally and Lorentz invariant solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}`$ to the equation of motion:

$$𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}=0.$$
(2.4)
Assuming that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}`$ factorizes into the matter part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}`$ and the ghost one $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$, (2.4) is reduced into the following two:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m},`$ (2.5)
$`𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}=0.`$ (2.6)
Here we shall fix our convention for the Neumann coefficient matrices. The matter part of the three-string vertex defining the $``$-product is given in the oscillator representation by

$$|V^\mathrm{m}_{123}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n0}{}\frac{1}{2}a_m^{(r)}V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(r)}\right)|p_1|p_2|p_3,$$
(2.7)
with $`a_0=\sqrt{2}p`$ (we are taking the convention of $`\alpha ^{}=1`$). The Neumann coefficient matrices and the vectors, $`M_\alpha `$ and $`𝒗_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,\pm `$), are related to $`V^{rs}`$ in (2.7) as follows:

$`(M_0)_{mn}=(CV^{rr})_{mn},(M_\pm )_{mn}=(CV^{r,r\pm 1})_{mn},`$
$`(𝒗_0)_n=V_{n0}^{rr},(𝒗_\pm )_n=V_{n0}^{r,r\pm 1},(m,n1)`$ (2.8)
where $`C`$ is the twist matrix, $`C_{mn}=(1)^m\delta _{mn}`$.

The matter part solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}`$ to (2.5) has been obtained as a squeezed state :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}=\left[det(1T)\right]^{13}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n1}{}a_m^{}(CT)_{mn}a_n^{}\right)|0,$$
(2.9)
where the matrix $`T`$ is given in terms of $`M_0`$ by

$$T=\frac{1}{2M_0}\left(1+M_0\sqrt{(1M_0)(1+3M_0)}\right).$$
(2.10)
The ghost part solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$ to (2.6) has also been obtained by taking the Siegel gauge and assuming the squeezed state form . Beside determining $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$, (2.6) fixes the coefficients $`f_n`$ in $`𝒬`$ (2.2) which are arbitrary for the gauge invariance alone.

Let us express the VSFT field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a sum of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}`$ and the fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}+\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(2.11)
Then the linear part of the equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reads

$$𝒬_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Phi }𝒬\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}=0,$$
(2.12)
where $`𝒬_\mathrm{B}`$ is the BRST operator around the classical solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}`$. We would like to construct the fluctuation modes $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to higher level open string states and satisfying the wave equation (2.12). We assume the factorization for these modes and that the ghost part is common to that of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}.$$
(2.13)
Then the wave equation for the matter part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}.$$
(2.14)
In the following we are interested only in the matter part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$ of the fluctuation modes and omit its superscript $`\mathrm{m}`$. Eq. (2.14) has been solved for the tachyon mode $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ . Explicitly, it is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n1}{}t_na_n^{}a_0+ip\widehat{x}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m},$$
(2.15)
with

$$𝒕=3(1+T)(1+3M_0)^1𝒗_0.$$
(2.16)
It has been shown that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ (2.15) satisfies (2.14) when the momentum $`p_\mu `$ carried by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ is on the tachyon mass-shell $`p_\mu ^2=m_{\mathrm{tachyon}}^2=1`$.

Now we shall start constructing fluctuation modes at a generic mass level. As a candidate fluctuation mode with mass squared equal to $`k1`$, let us take the following one; $`k`$ creation operators acting on the tachyon mode $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}=\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k1}{}\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}a_{n_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}a_{n_k}^{\mu _k}|\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t},$$
(2.17)
where $`\beta `$ is an unknown coefficient satisfying

$$\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{}=(1)^k(1)^{_{i=1}^kn_i}\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k},$$
(2.18)
which is due to the hermiticity constraint of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$ (see appendix A). Substituting (2.17) into (2.14), we obtain equations determining $`\beta `$. The detailed calculation using the oscillator expression of the three-string vertex is presented in appendix A. Although the assumed state (2.17) has fixed number $`k`$ of creation operators $`a^{}`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$, there emerge on the RHS of (2.14) states with fewer number of $`a^{}`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ besides those with $`k`$ $`a^{}`$s. In order to eliminate these unwanted terms, we impose the following transverse and traceless conditions on $`\beta `$: Due to these two conditions, (2.19) and (2.20), our construction of massive modes is restricted only to the highest spin states at a given mass level.

$`p_{\mu _1}\beta ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}=0,`$ (2.19)
$`\beta _{\mu _1}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{k1}}=0.`$ (2.20)
Then the equation for the coefficient $`\beta `$ is given by

$$\beta _{m_1\mathrm{}m_k}2^{p^2}\left((\rho _{})_{m_1n_1}\mathrm{}(\rho _{})_{m_kn_k}+(\rho _+)_{m_1n_1}\mathrm{}(\rho _+)_{m_kn_k}\right)\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}=0,$$
(2.21)
with

$$\rho _\pm =\frac{TM_\pm +M_{}}{(1+T)(1M_0)}.$$
(2.22)
The matrices $`\rho _\pm `$ are projection operators  satisfying

$$\left(\rho _\pm \right)^2=\rho _\pm ,\rho _+\rho _{}=\rho _{}\rho _+=0,\rho _++\rho _{}=1.$$
(2.23)
Eqs. (2.21) and (2.23) lead to a disappointing result that our states (2.17) can represent only massless states. Namely, multiplying (2.21) by $`\rho _{s_1}\rho _{s_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{s_k}`$ with $`s_i=+`$ or $``$, we find that the equations for the purely $`\rho _+`$ component $`(\rho _+\mathrm{}\rho _+)\beta `$ and the purely $`\rho _{}`$ one $`(\rho _{}\mathrm{}\rho _{})\beta `$ are reduced to

$$\left(12^{p^2}\right)(\rho _\pm \mathrm{}\rho _\pm )\beta =0,$$
(2.24)
implying that they are massless states. On the other hand, (2.21) tells that the mixed components, for example, $`(\rho _+\rho _{}\mathrm{}\rho _{})\beta `$, are equal to zero. In the case of vector state with $`k=1`$, eq. (2.21) with $`\rho _++\rho _{}=1`$ substituted reproduces the result of  that this is a massless state and the coefficient $`\beta _n^\mu `$ is arbitrary.

The above result is inevitable so long as the basic equations (2.23) are valid. However, there is a subtle point concerning the eigenvalues of $`\rho _\pm `$. Recall that the eigenvalue problem of the Neumann coefficient matrices $`M_0`$ and $`M_1M_+M_{}`$ has been solved in . They found that these matrices are expressed in terms of a single matrix $`K_1`$ which is the matrix representation of the Virasoro algebra $`L_1+L_1`$, and the eigenvalue problem of $`M_\alpha `$ is reduced to that of $`K_1`$. Let $`𝒇^{(\kappa )}`$ be the eigenvector of $`K_1`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\kappa `$:

$$K_1𝒇^{(\kappa )}=\kappa 𝒇^{(\kappa )}.$$
(2.25)
The distribution of $`\kappa `$ is uniform and extending from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. This eigenvector $`𝒇^{(\kappa )}`$ is at the same time that of $`M_0`$, $`M_1`$, $`T`$ and hence $`\rho _\pm `$. In particular we have

$$\rho _\pm 𝒇^{(\kappa )}=\theta (\pm \kappa )𝒇^{(\kappa )},$$
(2.26)
where $`\theta (\kappa )`$ is the step function

$$\theta (\kappa )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & (\kappa >0)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (\kappa <0)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2.27)
The subtle point is the eigenvalue of $`\rho _\pm `$ at $`\kappa =0`$. In fact, it has been known that there is an eigenvector $`𝒇^{(\kappa =0)}`$, which is twist-odd, $`C𝒇^{(0)}=𝒇^{(0)}`$. However, the eigenvalue $`\theta (\kappa =0)`$ of $`\rho _\pm `$ is indefinite.

If we are allowed to set $`\theta (0)=1/2`$ in (2.26), which would look most plausible, the fluctuation (2.17) represents a massive state at the expected mass level,

$$p^2=1k,$$
(2.28)
by adopting either of the following two choices of $`\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ concerning its dependence on the level number indices $`n_1\mathrm{}n_k`$:

* $`\beta `$ is the tensor product of $`k`$ $`𝒇^{(0)}`$s,

$$\beta =𝒇^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝒇^{(0)}.$$
(2.29)
* $`\beta `$ is the tensor product of $`(k1)`$ $`𝒇^{(0)}`$s and one arbitrary vector $`𝒘`$,

$$\beta =𝒇^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝒇^{(0)}𝒘.$$
(2.30)

In both cases we have to multiply (2.29) and (2.30) by a transverse and traceless tensor carrying the Lorentz indices, and carry out symmetrization if necessary. Quite similarly, by taking $`\beta `$ which is a tensor product of $`\mathrm{}`$ $`𝒇^{(0)}`$s and $`k\mathrm{}`$ arbitrary vectors ($`\mathrm{}k1`$), we obtain a state at mass level $`p^2=\mathrm{}`$. See sec. 4 for precise form of these states in the case $`k=2`$.

Now we have to resolve two problems. One is whether $`\rho _\pm `$ really has eigenvalue $`1/2`$. Second, even if this is the case, we have infinite degeneracy of massive as well as massless states which are apparently physical ones. We have to show that these spurious states are gauge artifacts. Analysis of these two questions is the subject of the following two sections.

## 3 Numerical analysis of $`𝝆_\mathbf{\pm }`$

As seen in the previous section, the existence of the eigenvalue $`1/2`$ of the “projection operators” $`\rho _\pm `$ was essential for the construction of the massive fluctuation modes. The corresponding eigenvector is expected to be $`𝒇^{(0)}`$, the zero-mode of $`K_1`$. It is obvious that we need some regularization for studying this expectation since what we want to know is the value of the step function $`\theta (\kappa )`$ (2.27) at $`\kappa =0`$. In the following, we shall show numerically that $`\rho _\pm `$ has indeed eigenvalue $`1/2`$ by regularizing them to finite size matrices.

We have solved numerically the eigenvalue problem of the regularized $`\rho _+`$ obtained by replacing $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$ in it with $`L\times L`$ ones. Since we have $`\rho _{}=C\rho _+C`$, we do not need to repeat the analysis for $`\rho _{}`$. The expression (2.22) of $`\rho _\pm `$ was in fact obtained by naively using the non-linear relations among the Neumann coefficient matrices  upon the original expressions, which are given by (see appendix A)

$$\rho _\pm =(M_+,M_{})(1T)^1\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\hfill & \\ \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\hfill & \end{array},$$
(3.1)
with

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_0& M_+\\ M_{}& M_0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.2)
Since the non-linear relations no longer hold for regularized $`M_\alpha `$ and naive use of them may be dangerous near $`\kappa =0`$ , we have employed the original expression (3.1) in our numerical analysis.

Tables 15 show the result of our calculations. Since the eigenvalue distributions are qualitatively different between even and odd $`L`$, we have carried out the analysis for each of these two cases. In the case of even $`L`$, all the eigenvalues of $`\rho _+`$ are close to either $`0`$ or $`1`$ except two “anomalous” ones, $`\lambda ^{(1)}`$ and $`\lambda ^{(2)}`$ , which are given in table 1 for various even $`L`$. Though the raw values of these anomalous eigenvalues are not so close to $`1/2`$, their values at $`L=\mathrm{}`$ obtained by fitting are surprisingly close to the expected value of $`1/2`$.

Analysis of the eigenvectors of these anomalous eigenvalues is presented in tables 2 and 3. Let us denote by $`𝒖^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒖^{(2)}`$ the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^{(1)}`$ and $`\lambda ^{(2)}`$, respectively. These eigenvectors do not have a definite twist. We define a twist-odd vector $`𝒂^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) with components $`a_{2n+1}^{(i)}=u_{2n+1}^{(i)}/f_{2n+1}^{(0)}`$, and a twist-even one $`𝒃^{(i)}`$ with $`b_{2n}^{(i)}=u_{2n}^{(i)}/u_2^{(i)}`$. Here, $`𝒖^{(i)}`$ is normalized so that $`u_1^{(i)}=1`$, and the components of $`𝒇^{(0)}`$ are given by

$$f_n^{(0)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(1)^{(n1)/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\hfill & n\text{: odd}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & n\text{: even}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
Components of $`𝒂^{(i)}`$ and $`𝒃^{(i)}`$ for various even $`L`$ and their values at $`L=\mathrm{}`$ obtained by fitting are given in tables 2 and 3 for $`i=1`$ and $`2`$, respectively. They strongly support that all (odd) components of $`𝒂^{(i)}`$ are equal to one and that $`𝒃^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒃^{(2)}`$ are equal to each other.§§§ If we adopt the fitting by polynomials of $`1/L`$, we obtain better coincidence between $`b_{2n}^{(1)}`$ and $`b_{2n}^{(2)}`$ at $`L=\mathrm{}`$ for larger $`n`$.  This implies that $`𝒖^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒖^{(2)}`$ are given as linear combinations of two vectors, $`𝒇^{(0)}`$ which is twist-odd and $`𝒃^{(1)}(=𝒃^{(2)})`$ which is twist-even. Therefore, in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, the projection operator $`\rho _+`$ has the eigenvalue $`1/2`$ which is doubly degenerate, and the corresponding eigenvectors are $`𝒇^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒃^{(1)}`$. The norm of $`𝒃^{(1)}`$ seems to have worse divergence than that of $`𝒇^{(0)}`$ which is logarithmically divergent. We do not know whether $`𝒃^{(1)}`$, which appears only for even $`L`$, has any relevance to the construction of fluctuation modes.

In the case of odd $`L`$, we have only one anomalous eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ largely deviated from either $`0`$ or $`1`$. Table 4 shows this eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ for various odd $`L`$ and its extrapolation to $`L=\mathrm{}`$. As expected, the table 4 supports that $`\lambda 1/2`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$. The eigenvector $`𝒖`$ of this eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ does not have definite a twist for a finite $`L`$. However, its twist-even component is negligibly small compared with the twist-odd one. In fact, the norm of the twist-even part, $`(1+C)𝒖/2`$, is at most $`0.6\%`$ of the norm of the whole vector $`𝒖`$. In the case of even $`L`$, the norms of the even and odd parts of $`𝒖^{(i)}`$, $`(1\pm C)𝒖^{(i)}/2`$, are of the same order.  Therefore, we have studied only the twist-odd vector $`𝒂`$ with components $`a_{2n+1}=u_{2n+1}/f_{2n+1}^{(0)}`$. The results given in table 5 again support our expectation that $`𝒖`$ is equal to $`𝒇^{(0)}`$.

In summary, in both even and odd $`L`$ cases, our numerical analysis of the eigenvalue problem of $`\rho _\pm `$ (3.1) confirms our expectation that $`\rho _\pm `$ has an anomalous eigenvalue $`1/2`$ and the corresponding eigenvector is $`𝒇^{(0)}`$.

## 4 Gauging away the spurious states

In sec. 2 we have shown that we can construct massive fluctuation modes if the projection operator $`\rho _\pm `$ has eigenvalue $`1/2`$. This property has been verified numerically in the last section. However, there still remains a problem: we have infinite degeneracy of massive and massless states as we saw in the last part of sec. 2. In this section we shall show that these spurious states can in fact be gauged away. Our argument here is an application of that given in  for spurious massless vector states.

For simplicity we restrict ourselves to the lowest massive state $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k=2)}`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}=\beta _{mn}^{\mu \nu }a_m^\mu a_n^\nu |\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t},$$
(4.1)
where $`\beta _{mn}^{\mu \nu }`$ is traceless and transverse with respect to its Lorentz indices. However, the following argument can straightforwardly be extended to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$ with larger $`k`$. Fourier-expanding $`\beta _{mn}`$ in terms of the eigenvector $`𝒇^{(\kappa )}`$ of $`K_1`$,

$$\beta _{mn}^{\mu \nu }=𝑑\kappa 𝑑\lambda f_m^{(\kappa )}f_n^{(\lambda )}\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda ),$$
(4.2)
and substituting it into the equation for $`\beta `$, (2.21) with $`k=2`$, we obtain the following equation for $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$:

$$\left(12^{p^2}\left[\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )+\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )\right]\right)\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )=0.$$
(4.3)
The construction of massive states given in sec. 2 (see the paragraph containing (2.29) and (2.30)) can be restated as follows in terms of the spectral function $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$. First, (4.3) implies that $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ must have support only in the regions $`\{\kappa 0,\lambda 0\}`$ and $`\{\kappa 0,\lambda 0\}`$. Taking into account that $`\theta (0)=1/2`$ as we have seen in the previous section, there are three possible types of $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ giving massive as well as massless states (table 6). Since the function $`g(\kappa )`$ for the type-B state and $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ for the type-C are arbitrary except that they are smooth (and has support only in the regions stated above for $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ for type-C), these two types of states are infinitely degenerate. We shall show that the type-B and C states can in fact be removed by gauge transformations of VSFT.

The gauge transformation of VSFT, (2.3), expressed in terms of the fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (2.11) reads $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒬_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`𝒬_\mathrm{B}`$ defined by (2.12). We shall consider the inhomogeneous part

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒬_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(4.4)
of the whole transformation, and in particular take the following type of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}^\mathrm{g},$$
(4.5)
where $`^\mathrm{g}`$ is the ghost part of the identity string field $`=^\mathrm{m}^\mathrm{g}`$ satisfying $`^\mathrm{g}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{g}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{g}`$ of (2.6) and $`𝒬^\mathrm{g}=0`$ . For this $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the factorized form (2.13), we have

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}.$$
(4.6)
As the matter part $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}`$ of the gauge transformation string field, we take

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}=\gamma _{mn}^{\mu \nu }a_m^\mu a_n^\nu |\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t},$$
(4.7)
with the coefficient $`\gamma _{mn}^{\mu \nu }`$ being traceless and transverse with respect to $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. Then, (4.6) is given by

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{I}|\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}=2^{p^2}\left((\rho _{})_{mp}(\rho _{})_{nq}(\rho _+)_{mp}(\rho _+)_{nq}\right)\gamma _{pq}^{\mu \nu }a_m^\mu a_n^\nu |\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t},$$
(4.8)
which is expressed as the following transformation on the spectral function $`\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ of (4.2):

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{I}\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )=2^{p^2}\left(\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )\right)\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda ),$$
(4.9)
where $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ is defined for $`\gamma _{mn}^{\mu \nu }`$ similarly to (4.2).

Eq. (4.9) implies that the type-B and C states are unphysical ones which can be eliminated by the present gauge transformation. First, the type-B states are gauged away by taking $`\delta (\lambda )g(\kappa )ϵ(\kappa )`$ as the $`(\kappa ,\lambda )`$-dependence of $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$. Here, $`ϵ(\kappa )`$ is the signature function $`ϵ(\kappa )=\theta (\kappa )\theta (\kappa )`$. Second, $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$ for gauging away the type-C states is $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )=2^{p^2}\left[\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )\theta (\kappa )\theta (\lambda )\right]\beta ^{\mu \nu }(\kappa ,\lambda )`$. It is obvious that the type-A states cannot be removed by the present gauge transformation.

Finally in this section we shall comment on the relation between the gauge transformation used in this paper and that in . Our gauge transformation string field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}`$ (4.7) is of different type from that used in ; the latter is based on the identity string field instead of the classical solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}`$. If we have adopted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{m}`$ of the type of , we would have obtained (4.8) with $`\rho _\pm `$ replaced by $`(1+T)\rho _\pm `$. This gauge transformation cannot remove the type-B states which are absent for the vector case discussed in .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank K. Hashimoto, Y. Imamura, E. Itou, H. Kajiura, I. Kishimoto, Y. Matsuo, S. Moriyama, T. Muramatsu, K. Ohmori, T. Takahashi and S. Teraguchi for valuable discussions and comments. The works of H. H. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (#12640264).

## Appendix A Derivation of (2.21)

In this appendix we outline a derivation of (2.21) from the equation of motion (2.14). First we shall mention the hermiticity constraint (2.18). We impose the following hermiticity condition on the matter part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$ of a string field of the type (2.13):

$${}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}|=\underset{r=1,2}{}\frac{d^{26}p_r}{(2\pi )^{26}}(2\pi )^{26}\delta ^{26}(p_1+p_2){}_{12}{}^{}R^\mathrm{m}|\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}_{1}^{},$$
(A.1)
where the matter reflector (two-string vertex) $`R^\mathrm{m}|`$ is defined by

$${}_{12}{}^{}R^\mathrm{m}|=p_1|p_2|\mathrm{exp}(\underset{n1}{}(1)^na_n^{(1)}a_n^{(2)}).$$
(A.2)
This constraint reduces the number of degrees of freedom in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$ to half and ensures the hermiticity of the action. Eq. (2.18) for $`\beta `$ is immediately obtained by plugging the expression (2.17) into (A.1) and using that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ itself satisfies (A.1).

The wave equation (2.14) for the matter fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$ is rewritten in the oscillator representation as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}_3_1\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}|_2\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}|V^\mathrm{m}_{123}{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}|_2\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}|V^\mathrm{m}_{123}=0,$$
(A.3)
where we have omitted the integrations $`\left(_{r=1}^3d^{26}p_r/(2\pi )^{26}\right)(2\pi )^{26}\delta ^{26}(p_1+p_2+p_3)`$ in the second and third terms. Let us consider the second term of (A.3) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$ (2.17) substituted for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{m}`$, $`{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}|_2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}|V^\mathrm{m}_{123}`$. The basic formula for this calculation is obtained from the well-known formula valid for any bosonic oscillators satisfying $`[a_i,a_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$:

$`0|\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_iA_{ij}a_jK_ia_i\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^{}B_{ij}a_j^{}J_ia_i^{}\right)|0`$
$`=[det\left(1AB\right)]^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}JPAJ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}KBPK+JPK\right),`$ (A.4)
with $`P=(1AB)^1`$. Letting $`(/K_{i_1})\mathrm{}(/K_{i_k})`$ act on (A.4), we get

$`0|a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_k}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_iA_{ij}a_jK_ia_i\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_i^{}B_{ij}a_j^{}J_ia_i^{}\right)|0`$
$`=[det(1AB)]^{\frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(KBPJP)_{i_a}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a>b}{}}(BP)_{i_ai_b}{\displaystyle \underset{ca,b}{}}(KBPJP)_{i_c}+\mathrm{}\left\}\mathrm{exp}\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}JPAJ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}KBPK+JPK),`$ (A.5)
where we have omitted terms with more than one $`(BP)_{i_ai_b}`$ factors. In our applications of (A.5), the index $`i`$ represents the level number $`n`$, the Lorentz index $`\mu `$ and the string index $`r=1,2`$. Contracting (A.5) with $`(\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k})^{}`$, the terms containing the $`(BP)_{i_ai_b}`$ factors drop out due to the traceless condition (2.20), while due to the transverse condition the $`(KBPJP)_i`$ factor with $`i=(n,\mu ,r=2)`$ contributes only $`a_m^{\mu (3)}\left(\rho _{}C\right)_{mn}`$ with $`\rho _{}`$ defined by (3.1). Therefore, we have

$`{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}|_2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}|V^\mathrm{m}_{123}`$ $`=2^{p^2}(1)^ka_{m_1}^{\mu _1(3)}\mathrm{}a_{m_k}^{\mu _k(3)}(\rho _{}C)_{m_1n_1}\mathrm{}(\rho _{}C)_{m_kn_k}(\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k})^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$
$`=2^{p^2}a_{m_1}^{\mu _1(3)}\mathrm{}a_{m_k}^{\mu _k(3)}(\rho _{})_{m_1n_1}\mathrm{}(\rho _{})_{m_kn_k}\beta _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}|\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t},`$ (A.6)
where we have used $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}=2^{p^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{t}`$ and the hermiticity (2.18). This gives the $`\rho _{}`$ term of (2.21). Derivation of the $`\rho _+`$ term of (2.21) from the last term of (A.3) is quite similar.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In most cases, M theory is much easier to handle when it is compactified along the small circle, in which the theory becomes the weakly-coupled IIA superstring theory. In this case we can use full power of perturbative string theory to probe the model. It may be true even in the M theory on non-trivial background such as pp-wave geometry -. The pp-wave geometry for IIB string theory is maximally supersymmetric. Furthermore, the IIB superstring theory on the pp-wave background reduces to free massive theory in the light-cone gauge  and thus many techniques in string theory on the flat Minkowski background can be adopted. The theory is used to probe the stringy nature of four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory in .

On the other hand, even though M theory on the eleven-dimensional pp-wave is also maximally supersymmetric, it is not easy to probe various aspects on the theory due to the lack of powerful tool as much as string theory. Matrix model on pp-wave background  has interesting property such as the removal of flat directions due to the presence of mass terms. Subsequently, various aspects on matrix theory in pp-wave background has been investigated -. However it has time-dependent supersymmetry which does not commute with the Hamiltonian. The implication of the time-dependent supersymmetry is not clear. And still it may be desirable to study the model in the context of ten-dimensional string theory, more or less like the IIB string theory on pp-wave background.

In this paper we consider the Type IIA superstring theory on the following ten-dimensional pp-wave background:

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}A(x^I)(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(dx^I)^2,`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu ,F_{+4}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}},`$ (1)
where

$$A(x^I)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{\mu ^2}{9}(x^i)^2+\underset{i^{}=5}{\overset{8}{}}\frac{\mu ^2}{36}(x^i^{})^2.$$
(2)
As shown in the appendix, this geometry comes from the compactification of the eleven-dimensional pp-wave geometry along the isometry direction.111This is different pp-wave geometry from the one used by Alishahiha et.al. in . Their geometry comes from the T-duality of IIB pp-wave. See also Refs.  for similar construction. It has 24 supersymmetry, thus one may fear that the theory is not so simple compared to the case of maximally supersymmetric IIB string theory on pp-wave geometry. As we will show, 16 supersymmetry in target space is non-linearly realized on the string worldsheet theory. On the other hand, eight supersymmetry is linearly realized. This eight, so-called, dynamical supersymmetry, which is half to the maximally symmetric cases, turns out to be time independent. This means that each half of bosonic fields have the same mass as each half of fermionic fields, forming a supermultiplet. Thus the theory is described by the two-dimensional $`𝒩`$=(4,4) supersymmetric theory with two massive supermultiplets. The light-cone action of the IIA superstring on the above pp-wave geometry turns out to have only quadratic terms, the same as the case of the IIB superstring theory on the pp-wave, thus the theory seems to be almost as simple as the IIB case.

In section 2, we show that the pp-wave geometry admits 24 Killing spinors. In particular, we find the explicit form of the Killing spinors for later use. In section 3, we construct the ligh-cone superstring action on the above pp-wave background starting from the eleven dimensional supermembrane action on $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ in the pp-wave limit. The action becomes the one of two massive supermultiplets of (4,4) supersymmetry. In section 4, we identify the kinematical and dynamical supersymmetry on the worldsheet action. In particular, we give the transformation rules for the $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ worldsheet supersymmetry. In section 5, we draw some conclusions. In the appendix, we describe the compactification of the eleven-dimensional pp-wave which gives rise to the IIA pp-wave geometry and give some useful formula which is used in the main context.

Note added: While writing this manuscript, there appeared a paper  which treats the same subject. However, the action obtained in that paper seems to be non-supersymmetric while the background geometry is obviously supersymmetric.

## 2 Supersymmetry of IIA pp-wave geometry

The IIA pp-wave geometry Eq. (1) has 24 Killing spinors. The original eleven-dimensional pp-wave background is maximally supersymmetric and therefore has 32 Killing spinors. Among them only 24 components survive after the compactification along $`x^9`$. This can be shown by counting the number of spinors which are invariant under the Lie derivative along $`x^9`$-direction.222See Ref.  for detailed derivation.

Here we directly compute the ten-dimensional Killing spinor equations and get the explicit expression for those Killing spinors. This will be needed in the study of supersymmetry in the IIA string theory and also it will illuminate the nature of supersymmetry more clearly. The Killing spinor equations come from the vanishing of supersymmetry variations of gravitino and dilatino fields, $`\delta _\eta \psi _\mu =\delta _\eta \lambda =0`$. The general expressions for these supersymmetry transformation rules are given in the appendix.

The equation from the dilatino transformation rule, $`\delta _\eta \lambda =0`$, reduces to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12349}1)\eta =0.$$
(3)
From the gravitino transformation rule, we have another condition which is

$`\delta _\eta \psi _\mu =(_\mu +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu )\eta =0,`$ (4)
where the explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is given in the appendix. In our case at hand, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{96}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(9\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12349})+(157\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12349})\right).`$ (5)
For the spinors $`\eta `$ which satisfy Eq. (3), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$’s are given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}.`$ (6)
In order to see the structure of the spinor more clearly and to solve the Killing spinor equations explicitly, we now introduce the following representations for $`SO(1,9)`$ gamma matrices:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=i\sigma ^2\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}=\sigma ^1\mathrm{𝟏}_{16},\mathrm{\Gamma }^I=\sigma ^3\gamma ^I,$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^9=\sigma ^3\gamma ^9,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}),$$
(7)
where $`\sigma `$’s are Pauli matrices, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{16}`$ the $`16\times 16`$ unit matrix. $`\gamma ^I`$ are the $`16\times 16`$ symmetric real gamma matrices satisfying the spin$`(8)`$ Clifford algebra $`\{\gamma ^I,\gamma ^J\}=2\delta ^{IJ}`$, which are reducible to the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬+\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐜`$ representation of spin$`(8)`$. We note that, since we compactify along the $`x^9`$ direction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9`$ is the $`SO(1,9)`$ chirality operator and $`\gamma ^9`$ becomes $`SO(8)`$ chirality operator,

$$\gamma ^9=\gamma ^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^8.$$

Firstly, we consider the 16 component spinor which satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\stackrel{~}{\eta }=0,$$
(8)
which is clearly a solution of the condition, Eq. (3). With the above gamma matrix representation, Eq. (7), the transformation parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{~}{ϵ}\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
By plugging this into the condition Eq. (4), we see from the $``$ and $`I`$ components of the condition that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is independent of the coordinates $`x^{}`$ and $`x^I`$, and hence $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ may be at most a function of $`x^+`$.

The $`+`$ component of Eq. (4), which is the only remaining nontrivial condition and specifies the light-cone time dependence of the spinor $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$, is read as

$$_+\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\frac{\mu }{4}\gamma ^{123}(1\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^{12349})\stackrel{~}{ϵ}.$$
(10)
Since $`(\gamma ^{12349})^2=1`$, it is now convenient to decompose $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^++\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^\pm `$ are eigenstates of $`\gamma ^{12349}`$:

$$\gamma _{12349}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^\pm =\pm \stackrel{~}{ϵ}^\pm .$$
(11)
Then solving the Eq. (10) for each of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^\pm `$ leads to

$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^+`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\mu }{6}\gamma ^{123}x^+}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_0^+,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\mu }{3}\gamma ^{123}x^+}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_0^{},`$ (12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_0^\pm `$ are constant spinors with eight independent components. Therefore the 16 component Killing spinor $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ considered so far depends only on $`x^+`$ and, as will be shown in the next section, correspond to 16 kinematical supersymmetry of the IIA string action.

Next we consider eight remaining Killing spinors, which will correspond to the dynamical supersymmetry of the string theory. First of all, from the condition, Eq. (3), the transformation parameter of the dynamical supersymmetry can be written of the form,

$$\eta =\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ\\ ϵ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`ϵ`$ should satisfy $`\gamma ^{12349}ϵ=ϵ`$. The $`x^{}`$ component of the Killing spinor equation (4) reduces to $`_{}\eta =0`$, which means that $`\eta `$ is independent of $`x^{}`$. The $`x^I`$ components of Eq. (4) reduce to $`(_I+\mathrm{\Omega }_I)\eta =0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I\mathrm{\Omega }_J=0`$ for any $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},8`$ due to the fact that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)^2=0`$, $`\eta `$ depends on $`x^I`$, at most, linearly and thus is of the following form

$`\eta =(1+x^I\mathrm{\Omega }_I)\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
where $`ϵ`$ is independent of $`x^I`$ as well as $`x^{}`$. One can easily convince that this automatically satisfies $`(_++\mathrm{\Omega }_+)\eta =0`$ as well only if $`ϵ`$ is independent of $`x^+`$. This means that the eight dynamical supersymmetry in the light-cone IIA superstring action, which corresponds to this Killing spinor, is independent of time and thus becomes genuine symmetry which commute with the Hamiltonian. The fermions in the matrix model in eleven dimensional pp-wave background have different masses from those of bosons as the supersymmetry in matrix model does not commute with the Hamiltonian. Now it is natural to expect to get the same mass content in bosons and fermions, which is indeed the case as will be shown in the next section.

## 3 Light-cone IIA superstring action in plane wave background

The best way to get the IIA GS superstring action in the general background is the double dimensional reduction of the supermembrane action in eleven-dimensions. In general, it is very complicate to get the full expression of the GS superstring action in the general background, which is up to 32th order in terms of the fermionic coordinate. However, in the case at hand, we know the full action of supermembrane in eleven-dimensional pp-wave background. This comes from the fact that eleven-dimensional pp-wave geometry can be thought as a special limit  of $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ geometry on which the full supermembrane action is constructed using coset method . Therefore we start from the supermembrane action in eleven-dimensional pp-wave in the rotated coordinates Eq. (44), given in the appendix. The supermembrane is wrapped on $`x^9`$, and becomes IIA superstring after the double dimensional reduction along $`x^9`$.

The general expression of the eleven dimensional supermembrane action is too complicated, especially for the double dimensional reduction. Thus we first simplify the action by fixing the fermionic $`\kappa `$-symmetry,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =0.$$
(17)
Super elfbein of Ref.  in this fixing condition has the following form:333The index notations adopted here are as follows: $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are used for the target superspace indices while $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ for tangent superspace. As usual, a superspace index is the composition of two types of indices such as $`M=(\mu ,\alpha )`$ and $`A=(r,a)`$. $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}(r,s,\mathrm{})`$ are the ten dimensional target (tangent) space-time indices. $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}(a,b,\mathrm{})`$ are the ten dimensional (tangent) spinor indices. For the eleven dimensional case, we denote quantities and indices with hat to distinguish from those of ten dimensions. $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ are the worldsheet vector indices with values $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. The convention for the worldsheet antisymmetric tensor is taken to be $`ϵ^{\tau \sigma }=1`$.

$`\widehat{E}^a`$ $`=`$ $`D\theta ,`$
$`\widehat{E}^{\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{e}^{\widehat{r}}+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{r}}D\theta .`$ (18)
where $`\overline{\theta }=i\theta ^T\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ and $`D\theta `$ is the super-covariant one-form whose general expression is given by

$$D\theta =d\theta +\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }^{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}\theta +\frac{1}{2!3!4!}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{r}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}8\delta _{\widehat{r}}^{[\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}]})\theta F_{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}.$$
(19)
In the pp-wave background geometry, Eq. (44), and in the $`\kappa `$-symmetry fixing condition, Eq. (17), $`D\theta `$ reduces to

$$D\theta =d\theta \frac{\mu }{4}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49}\right)\theta dx^+,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}`$ comes from the non-vanishing constant four-form field strength and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49}`$ is due to the component of the spin connection $`\widehat{\omega }_+^{49}=\mu /6`$, which is related to the ten dimensional RR two-form field strength as $`\widehat{\omega }_+^{49}=F_{+4}/2`$ under the Kaluza-Klein reduction. In the $`\kappa `$-symmetry fixing condition, the super three-form field is simplified as

$$\widehat{B}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{e}^+\widehat{e}^i\widehat{e}^j\widehat{C}_{+ij}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+\widehat{I}}D\theta \widehat{e}^+\widehat{e}^{\widehat{I}},$$
(21)
where $`\widehat{I}=1,\mathrm{},9`$.

Through the usual Kaluza-Klein reduction, the super zehnbein is related to the above super elfbein. Among the super zehnbein fields, $`E^r`$ is the only what we need for the construction of the superstring action and is obtained from the relations $`\widehat{E}_\mu ^r=\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/3}E_\mu ^r`$ and $`\widehat{E}_\alpha ^r=\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/3}e^{\varphi /6}E_\alpha ^r`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the super dilaton field given by $`\widehat{E}_9^9`$ . Their explicit expression in the component form is then

$`E_\mu ^r`$ $`=`$ $`e_\mu ^r{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}\delta _{}^r\delta _\mu ^+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49}\right)\theta ,`$
$`E_\alpha ^r`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^r)_\alpha .`$ (22)
Having the component form of the ten dimensional super fields, it is ready to construct the Type IIA superstring action in the pp-wave background, Eq. (1). In the superspace formalism, the IIA superstring action is written as follows :

$$S_{IIA}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma \left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}h^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r\mathrm{\Pi }_n^s\eta _{rs}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^A\mathrm{\Pi }_n^BB_{BA}\right),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r`$ is the pullback of super zehnbein onto the worldsheet;

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r=_mZ^ME_M^r.$$

By using the super zehnbein fields, Eq. (22), each component of the pullback in the background, Eq. (1), is expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^+`$ $`=`$ $`_mX^+,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_mX^{}+_mX^+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(X^I){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49}\right)\theta \right]+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_m\theta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^I`$ $`=`$ $`_mX^I.`$ (24)
On the other hand, the super three-form field, Eq. (21), leads to the following Wess-Zumino term:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^A\mathrm{\Pi }_n^BB_{BA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{mn}_mZ^M_nZ^N\widehat{B}_{9NM}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`ϵ^{mn}_mX^+(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9_n\theta ).`$
Plugging the expressions, Eqs. (24) and (25) into the super field action, Eq. (23), we then finally get the $`\kappa `$-symmetry fixed action in the component form for the Type IIA superstring in the pp-wave background, Eq. (1), which is obtained as

$`S_{IIA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma \sqrt{h}h^{mn}[2_mX^+_nX^{}+_mX^I_nX^IA(X^I)_mX^+_nX^+`$ (26)
$`2_mX^+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_n\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}_mX^+_nX^+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49})\theta ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma ϵ^{mn}_mX^+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9_n\theta }.`$
We now consider the bosonic light-cone gauge to get the action for the physical degrees of freedom. The equation of motion for $`X^+`$ is harmonic, the same as in the flat case, which means that the usual light-cone gauge, $`X^+\tau `$, is allowed. We then take the conventional light-cone gauge conditions as follows:

$`X^+`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}p^+\tau ,`$
$`\sqrt{h}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`h_{\sigma \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (27)
where $`p^+`$ is the total momentum congugate to $`X^{}`$. The last two conditions are for the fixing of the worldsheet diffeomorphisms and allow us to fix other worldsheet metric components consistently as

$$h_{\tau \tau }=h_{\sigma \sigma }=1.$$

In this bosonic light-cone gauge choice, the superstring action, Eq. (26), is further simplified, and the light-cone string action, which we call $`S_{LC}`$, is read as

$`S_{LC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma [\eta ^{mn}_mX^I_nX^I+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9}}(X^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{36}}(X^i^{})^2`$ (28)
$`+\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_\tau \theta +\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9_\sigma \theta {\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49})\theta ],`$
where we have rescaled the fermionic coordinate as $`\theta \theta /\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}p^+}`$. $`m`$ is a mass parameter defined by

$$m\mu \alpha ^{}p^+,$$

which characterizes the masses of the worldsheet fields. We see that the light-cone gauge fixed action $`S_{LC}`$ is quadratic in fields and thus describes a free theory as in the IIB case .

Though it is now obvious that $`S_{LC}`$ describes the theory of free fields, the mass spectrum is still unclear due to the mass term of fermionic fields. Reading off the mass contents of the fermionic fields is necessary and important step, especially to see the supersymmetry of the action more clearly, which will be elucidated in the next section. We first rewrite the action in the 16 component spinor notation with $`\theta ^A=\frac{1}{2^{1/4}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \psi ^A\end{array}\right)`$ (Superscript $`A`$ denotes the $`SO(1,9)`$ chirality.), under which we have

$`S_{LC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma [\eta ^{mn}_mX^I_nX^I+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9}}(X^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{36}}(X^i^{})^2`$ (29)
$`i\psi ^1(_\tau +_\sigma )\psi ^1i\psi ^2(_\tau _\sigma )\psi ^2i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\psi ^2(\gamma ^{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma ^4)\psi ^1].`$
Let us observe that $`(\gamma ^{1234})^2=1`$ and $`[\gamma ^{1234},\gamma ^9]=0`$, which mean that a fermionic field with definite $`SO(8)`$ chirality can be decomposed according to the eigenvalues of $`\gamma ^{1234}`$: $`\psi ^A=\psi _+^A+\psi _{}^A`$ where $`\psi _\pm ^A`$ are eigenstates of $`\gamma ^{1234}`$, that is, $`\gamma ^{1234}\psi _\pm ^A=\pm \psi _\pm ^A`$. With this decomposition, the fermion mass term in the light-cone action, Eq. (29), can be rewritten as

$$2i\frac{m}{3}\psi _+^2\gamma ^4\psi _{}^1+2i\frac{m}{6}\psi _{}^2\gamma ^4\psi _+^1.$$
(30)
In our notation, fermion has the same $`SO(1,9)`$ and $`SO(8)`$ chirality measured by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9`$ and $`\gamma ^9`$, respectively. Thus, among sixteen fermionic components in total, eight with $`\gamma ^{12349}=1`$ have the mass of $`m/6`$ and the other eight with $`\gamma ^{12349}=1`$ the mass of $`m/3`$, which are identical with the masses of bosons. Therefore the theory contains two supermultiplets $`(X^i,\psi _{}^1,\psi _+^2)`$ and $`(X^i^{},\psi _+^1,\psi _{}^2)`$ of (4,4) supersymmetry with the masses $`m/3`$ and $`m/6`$, respectively.

## 4 $`𝒩`$=(4,4) Worldsheet Supersymmetry

In this section we describe the supersymmetry in the above light-cone fixed action, Eq. (29). The supersymmetry transformation $`(\delta _\eta )`$ for the worldsheet fields is the odd part of the supertranslation in superspace, which is read off from

$`\delta _\eta Z^ME_M^r`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\eta ,`$
$`\delta _\eta Z^ME_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^a.`$ (31)
With these relations, the supersymmetry transformation rules in the light-cone gauge, Eq. (27), and the $`\kappa `$ symmetry fixing condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =0`$ are obtained as

$`\delta _\eta X^+`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _\eta X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\theta }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\eta ^A,`$
$`\delta _\eta X^I`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\theta }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\eta ^A,`$
$`\delta _\eta \theta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^A.`$ (32)
For the kinematic supersymmetry $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}`$ with the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ of Eq. (9) satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\stackrel{~}{\eta }=0`$, the light-cone gauge choice $`X^+=\alpha ^{}p^+\tau `$ is preserved and the transformation rules for the physical degrees of freedom are

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }X^I`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\theta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }^A.`$ (33)
These rules tell us that the kinematic supersymmetry is nonlinearly realized on the string worldsheet.

For the dynamical supersymmetry $`\delta _\eta `$ with the parameter of Eq. (16), fermionic $`\kappa `$-symmetry fixing condition is no longer preserved, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\eta 0`$. Therefore we need the supplement $`\kappa `$ transformations so that the total transformation rule,

$$\delta =\delta _\eta +\delta _\kappa $$

preserves $`\kappa `$-symmetry fixing condition. In the superspace notation, the $`\kappa `$ symmetry transformation $`(\delta _\kappa )`$ satisfies the following equations

$`\delta _\kappa Z^ME_M^r`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _\kappa Z^ME_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9)^a{}_{b}{}^{}\kappa _{}^{b},`$ (34)
where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}ϵ^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r\mathrm{\Pi }_n^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_s$$
(35)
with the determinant $`g`$ of the induced metric $`g_{mn}`$ given by $`g_{mn}=\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r\mathrm{\Pi }_n^s\eta _{rs}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the properties as a projection operator:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1,\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.$$
(36)
In the component notation, the transformation rules for the $`\kappa `$-symmetry in our gauge choice become

$`\delta _\kappa X^+`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _\kappa X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\theta ^A,`$
$`\delta _\kappa X^I`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\kappa \overline{\theta }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\theta ^A,`$
$`\delta _\kappa \theta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9)\kappa ^A.`$ (37)
For the superstring case, it is usually convenient to introduce

$$\kappa _m^A=i\frac{\sqrt{h}}{2\sqrt{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa ^A,$$
(38)
which allows us to view the parameter $`\kappa `$ as a worldsheet vector. It is easily checked using Eqs. (35) and (36) that $`\kappa _m^2`$ $`(\kappa _m^1)`$ is the (anti-) self-dual vector and thus each worldsheet vectors has one independent component, say $`\rho ^A`$. In our notation, $`\kappa ^{1\tau }=\kappa ^{1\sigma }=\rho ^1`$ and $`\kappa ^{2\tau }=\kappa ^{2\sigma }=\rho ^2`$. Then the $`\delta _\kappa \theta ^A`$ becomes

$$\delta _\kappa \theta ^A=2i\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\kappa ^{Am}.$$
(39)
Now one can find the appropriate $`\kappa `$ transformation parameters so that the total transformation rules obey $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\delta \theta =0`$.444For example, see Ref. . The resultant transformation rules are as follows:

$`\delta X^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+}}}\psi ^A\gamma ^Iϵ^A,`$
$`\delta \psi ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+}}}(_\tau X^I_\sigma X^I)\gamma ^Iϵ^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{3}}X^i\gamma ^{123}\gamma ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{6}}X^i^{}\gamma ^{123}\gamma ^i^{}\right)ϵ^2,`$
$`\delta \psi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+}}}(_\tau X^I+_\sigma X^I)\gamma ^Iϵ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}p^+}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{3}}X^i\gamma ^{123}\gamma ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{6}}X^i^{}\gamma ^{123}\gamma ^i^{}\right)ϵ^1,`$ (40)
where we performed the rescaling in fermions $`\psi \psi /(2^{1/4}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}p^+})`$ and the supersymmetry parameter $`ϵϵ/2^{1/4}`$ given in (16). Now it is straightforward to check that the light-cone action Eq. (29) is on-shell invariant under the above (4,4) supersymmetry, Eq. (40).

## 5 Discussions

The simplicity of the action of the IIA GS superstring on the pp-wave geometry and its supersymmetry is quite striking. The light-cone action consists only of quadratic terms and thus the theory is free. Furthermore the dynamical supersymmetry is independent of the worldsheet time coordinate which implies that the fields in the same supermultiplet have the same mass. Since the number of dynamical supersymmetries is half the number of those in IIA superstring on the flat background, the full field contents split into two supermultiplets. Each supermultiplet consists of half number of bosons and fermions which has the same mass. Therefore the theory can be interpreted as the free $`𝒩`$=(4,4) two-dimensional theory with two massive supermultiplets.

The mode expansions are straightforward and the spectrum should have the same supersymmetry structure. It should be much more straightforward to find BPS D-branes in the string theory  than the original eleven-dimensional M theory. For example, all the BPS states found in  in the context of matrix model in eleven dimensions would be found in this string theory. The IIA matrix string theory on pp-wave background should also have the same supermultiplet structure as it becomes free string theory in the IR limit. In that sense, the matrix string theory on ten dimensional pp-wave seems to be more transparent than the matrix model on eleven dimensional pp-wave. All these will be presented in the forthcoming paper .

Appendix

In this appendix, we describe how to get the ten-dimensional IIA pp-wave through the dimensional reduction from the eleven-dimensional pp-wave. We also give some useful formula used in our computations.

The pp-wave geometry in eleven-dimensions is given by

$`ds_{11}^2=2dX^+dX^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{9}}(X^i)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=4}{\overset{9}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{36}}(X^i^{})^2\right)(dX^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{9}{}}}(dX^I)^2,`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu ,`$ (41)
where $`\mu `$ is a parameter of the geometry and characterizes the matrix theory of Ref. .

We change the coordinates as

$`X^+=x^+,X^{}=x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}x^4x^9,X^I=x^I,I=1,2,3,5\mathrm{}8,`$ (42)
$`X^4=x^4\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}x^+)X^9\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}X^+),X^9=x^4\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}x^+)+x^9\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}x^+),`$ (43)
under which the geometry becomes

$`ds_{11}^2=2dx^+dx^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{9}}(x^i)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=5}{\overset{8}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{36}}(x^i^{})^2\right)(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu x^4dx^9dx^++{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{9}{}}}(dx^I)^2,`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu .`$ (44)
Therefore in the new coordinates, $`_9=\frac{}{x^9}`$ is an isometry. If the $`x^9`$ coordinate is periodically identified, M theory in this pp-wave background can be compactified to give type IIA string theory in the following new pp-wave geometry:

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}A(x^I)(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(dx^I)^2,`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu ,F_{+4}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}},`$ (45)
where

$$A(x^I)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{\mu ^2}{9}(x^i)^2+\underset{i^{}=5}{\overset{8}{}}\frac{\mu ^2}{36}(x^i^{})^2.$$
(46)
From this ten dimensional IIA geometry, we may choose the zehnbein as

$`e^+`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+,`$
$`e^{}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(x^I)dx^+,`$
$`e^I`$ $`=`$ $`dx^I.`$ (47)
The only non-vanishing spin connection one-form is

$$\omega ^I=\frac{1}{2}_IA(x^I)dx^+.$$
(48)
The supersymmetry transformation rule for the ten-dimensional gravitino $`\psi _\mu `$, in the string frame and in the vanishing fermion background, is

$`\delta _\eta \psi _\mu =(_\mu +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu )\eta ,`$ (49)
where the covariant derivative is given by

$$_\mu =_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}$$

and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\eta e_\mu ^re^{\nu s}_\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}e_\mu ^r(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rst}14\eta _{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\eta e^\varphi F^{st}`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}e_\mu ^r(\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{stu}9\delta _r^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tu})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\eta H_{stu}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{768}}e_\mu ^r(3\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{stuv}20\delta _r^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tuv})\eta e^\varphi F_{stuv}^{}.`$
The dilatino field transforms under the supersymmetry as

$`\delta _\eta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\eta e_r^\nu _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{rs}\eta e^\varphi F_{rs}`$ (51)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{rst}\eta H_{rst}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{rstu}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\eta e^\varphi F_{rstu}^{}.`$
## Acknowledgments

One of us (H.S.) would like to thank the Yonsei Visiting Research Center (YVRC) for its hospitality, where this work has been completed. The work of S.H. was supported in part by grant No. R01-2000-00021 from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.