text:
# An adjustable Brownian heat engine

## Abstract

A microscopic heat engine is modeled as a Brownian particle in a sawtooh potential (with load) moving through a highly viscous medium driven by the thermal kick it gets from alternately placed hot and cold heat reservoirs. We found closed form expression for the current as a function of the parameters characterizing the model. Depending on the values these model parameters take, the engine is also found to function as a refrigerator. Expressions for the efficiency as well as for the refrigerator performance are also reported. Study of how these quantities depend on the model parameters enabled us in identifying the points in the parameter space where the engine performs either with maximum power or with optimized efficiency. The corresponding efficiencies of the engine are then compared with those of the endoreversible and Carnot engines.

PACS number(s): 05.40.Jc, 02.50.Ey, 05.40.-a, 05.60.-k, 05.70.-a

We are in an era where devices including engines are being miniaturized to micron or even nano sizes. The physics of such microscopic engines is quite different from that of the macroscopic physics we daily experience. Due to their length scale, they are subjected to overdamped Brownian motion. Any task such an engine performs, such as translocating chemicals with finite velocity, costs energy. In order to find out how efficient such an engine is, one has to generalize the definition of efficiency. This is what Derényi et al. did in their crucial paper on generalized efficiency . Another issue of how an engine operates is whether a fastest transporting velocity exists under a given condition. Such fast transport is at the expense of losing significant energy and implying less efficiency. A compromise between fast transport and energy cost may lead to an optimized efficiency. Herńandez et al. recently came up with a unified optimization method for doing exactly this .

The aim of this paper is to model an adjustable microscopic (or Brownian) heat engine that could perform tasks in different modes of operation as mentioned above.

The idea of a Brownian heat engine working due to nonuniform temperature first came up with the works of Büttiker, van Kampen, and Landauer  while they were involved in exposing the significance of the now influential papers of Landauer on blowtorch effect . Following Büttiker’s work, Matsuo and Sasa  considered such an engine as an example to show that it acts as a Carnot engine at quasistatic limit. Derényi and Astumian , after analyzing the details of heat flow in a Brownian heat engine, found that its efficiency can, in principle, approach that of a Carnot engine. The same group later used a model Brownian heat engine as an example to apply their newly introduced definition of generalized efficiency and find its implications  .

All these recent works addressed how a Brownian heat engine behaves in the quasistatic limit. Instead of taking the engine as an example to address an issue of purely theoretical interest like quasistatic limit, we would like to take an exactly solvable model where information of practical interest can also be extracted from the model parameters themselves. Not only will we be dealing with the quasistatic limit but with general characteristics of real engines performing tasks either at maximum rate or at optimized efficiency or otherwise. Moreover, some of the wrong conclusions that were given due to either overlooking or lack of exact solution will be corrected.

The model consists of a Brownian particle moving in a sawtooth potential with an external load where the viscous medium is alternately in contact with hot and cold heat reservoirs along the space (or reaction) coordinate. The shape of a single sawtooth potential, $`U_s(x)`$, located around $`x=0`$ is described by

$$U_s(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}U_0\left(\frac{x}{L_1}+1\right),\hfill & \text{if }L_1x<0\text{;}\hfill \\ U_0\left(\frac{x}{L_2}+1\right),\hfill & \text{if }0x<L_2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The potential corresponding to the external load is linear, $`fx`$, where $`f`$ is the load. The temperature profile, $`T(x)`$, within the same interval $`L_1x<L_2`$ is describe by

$$T(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_h,\hfill & \text{if }L_1x<0\text{;}\hfill \\ T_c,\hfill & \text{if }0x<L_2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Both $`U_s(x)`$ and $`T(x)`$ are taken to have the same period such that $`U_s(x+L)=U_s(x)`$ and $`T(x+L)=T(x)`$ where $`L=L_1+L_2`$. Note that the left side of each sawtooth from its barrier top overlaps with the hot region of the medium while the right side overlaps with the cold region. The sawtooth potential with the load, $`U(x)=U_s(x)+fx`$, and the temperature profile, $`T(x)`$, are shown in Fig. 1.

From practical point of view, the size of such microscopic heat engine is limited by how small in size temperature gradients can be. Since temperature gradients of micron size can be produced , the size of such an engine could be as small as few microns.

Due to the presence of the hot and cold regions within each sawtooth potential and the external load, the Brownian particle will generally be driven unidirectionally and attain a steady state current, $`J`$, whose magnitude and direction depends upon the quantities characterizing the model. The dynamic equation governing the motion of the Brownian particle in such highly viscous and inhomogeneous medium is the corresponding Smoluchowski equation first derived by van Kampen and later by Jayannavar and Mahato :

$$\frac{}{t}(P(x,t))=\frac{}{x}\left[\frac{1}{\gamma (x)}\left(U^{}(x)P(x,t)+\frac{}{x}(T(x)P(x,t))\right)\right]$$
(3)
where $`P(x,t)`$ is the probability density of finding the particle at position $`x`$ at time $`t`$, $`U^{}(x)=dU(x)/dx`$, and $`\gamma (x)`$ is the coefficient of friction at position $`x`$. Boltzmann’s constant, $`k_B`$, is taken to be unity. The constant current at steady state is given by

$$J=\frac{1}{\gamma (x)}\left[U^{}(x)P_{ss}(x)+\frac{d}{dx}(T(x)P_{ss}(x))\right],$$
(4)
where $`P_{ss}(x)`$ is the steady state probability density at position $`x`$. Using periodic boundary condition, $`P_{ss}(x+L)=P_{ss}(x)`$, and taking coefficient of friction the same throughout the medium, we get a closed form expression for $`J`$ for our potential and temperature profiles :

$$J=\frac{F}{G_1G_2+HF},$$
(5)
where $`F`$, $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ab}1,`$ (6)
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{aT_h}}\left(1e^a\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{bT_c}}e^a\left(e^b1\right),`$ (7)
$`G_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma L_1}{a}}\left(e^a1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma L_2}{b}}e^a\left(1e^b\right).`$ (8)
On the other hand, $`H`$ can be put as a sum of three terms: $`A+B+C`$, where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{T_h}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{a}}\right)^2(a+e^a1),`$ (9)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma L_1L_2}{abT_c}}(1e^a)(e^b1),`$ (10)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{T_c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{b}}\right)^2(e^b1b).`$ (11)
Note that $`a=(U_0+fL_1)/T_h`$ and $`b=(U_0fL_2)/T_c)`$ in Eqns. (6) and (7). For the case when there is no load ($`f=0`$) and $`L_2=L_1`$, the current takes a simple expression given by

$$J=\frac{1}{2\gamma (T_h+T_c)}\left(\frac{U_0}{L_1}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{U_0}{T_h}}1}\frac{1}{e^{\frac{U_0}{T_c}}1}\right).$$
(12)
Note that this current is a resultant of currents to the right and to the left; i.e. $`J=J_+J_{}`$.

One can clearly see that the model acts as a heat engine when the current is to the right. The particle undergoes cyclic motion wherein during each cycle it is first in contact with the hot region of width $`L_1`$ and then with the cold region of width $`L_2`$. We take account of energy flows between the two regions neglecting energy transfer via kinetic energy due to the particle’s recrossing of the boundary between the regions . As the particle moves through the hot region it absorbs a total amount of heat, $`Q_h`$, which will enable it not only to climb up the potential $`(U_0+fL_1)`$ but also acquire additional energy $`\gamma vL_1`$ ($`v`$ being the particle’s drift velocity and equal to $`J(L_1+L_2)`$) to overcome the region’s viscous drag force so that

$$Q_h=U_0+(\gamma v+f)L_1.$$
(13)
On the other hand, the cold region will absorb energy as the particle moves down the potential hill while at the same time lose some energy due to the drag force in the region. Therefore, the net heat, $`Q_c`$, absorbed by the cold region will be

$$Q_c=U_0(\gamma v+f)L_2.$$
(14)
The net work, $`W`$, done by the engine in one cycle will then be the difference between $`Q_h`$ and $`Q_c`$ so that

$$W=(\gamma v+f)(L_1+L_2).$$
(15)
Note that the term $`(\gamma v+f)`$ appearing in the above three expressions (Eqs. (9-11)) is the sum of the drag force due to the particle’s motion through the medium and the load being lifted. One can take this term as generalized load so that the generalized efficiency, $`\eta `$, as suggested by Derényi et al.  will be given by

$$\eta =\frac{W}{Q_h}=\frac{(\gamma v+f)(L_1+L_2)}{U_0+(\gamma v+f)L_1}.$$
(16)
If, on the other hand, the load is large enough along with appropriately chosen other quantities then the current will be in the reverse direction in which case the load does work of amount $`W_L=f(L_1+L_2)`$ in one cycle forcing heat to be extracted from the cold region of amount $`Q_c=U_0(\gamma v+f)L_2`$. Under this condition the engine acts as a refrigerator. This will then lead us to a generalized definition of coefficient of performance (COP) of the refrigerator, $`P_{ref}`$, which is given by

$$P_{ref}=\frac{Q_c}{W_L}=\frac{U_0(\gamma v+f)L_2}{f(L_1+L_2)}.$$
(17)
The condition at which the current changes its direction is the boundary demarcating the domain of operation of the engine as a refrigerator from that as a heat engine. In general, this condition is satisfied when

$$f=\frac{U_0(T_hT_c)}{L_1T_c+L_2T_h}.$$
(18)
It is worth noting that the magnitude of the load at this point of zero current is exactly equal to what is usually called the stall force for molecular engines . When we evaluate the expressions for both $`\eta `$ and $`P_{ref}`$ as we approach this boundary, we analytically find that they are exactly equal to the values for efficiency of the Carnot engine and for COP of the Carnot refrigerator, respectively: $`\underset{J0^+}{lim}\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{T_hT_c}{T_h}}`$ and $`\underset{J0^{}}{lim}P_{ref}={\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{T_hT_c}}`$. Hence, this boundary at which current is zero corresponds to the quasistatic limit be it from the heat engine side or from the refrigerator side. We would like to emphasize that the efficiency of the heat engine at the stall force takes the maximum value contrary to the claim (of zero value) made by Derényi, et al. . We would also like to point out that the efficiency goes to zero as the barrier height, $`U_0`$, goes to infinity contrary to the claim (of maximum value) made by Derényi and Astumian . This can be clearly seen from Eq. (12) above. We also claim that the expression for power of a reversible heat engine given in Eq. (10) of Derényi et al.  does not make sense since one cannot have a thermal engine delivering finite power while, at the same time, operating reversibly.

We next explore how current, efficiency and COP of the model depend on some of the quantities characterizing it. In general, the quantities characterizing the model are $`U_0`$, $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`f`$, $`T_c`$ and $`T_h`$. We scale $`U_0`$, $`L_2`$, $`T_h`$ and $`f`$ such that $`u=U_0/T_c`$, $`\mathrm{}=L_2/L_1`$, $`\tau =(T_h/T_c)1`$, and $`\lambda =fL_1/T_c`$. Hence, we have four parameters $`u`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\lambda `$ characterizing the model for a given $`T_c`$ and $`L_1`$. We also scale current such that $`j=J/J_0`$, where $`J_0=T_c/(\gamma L_1^2)`$. Figure 2(a) is a plot of the scaled current, $`j`$, versus scaled load, $`\lambda `$. It shows that the engine works as a heat engine when the load value is less than the stall force ($`\lambda =0.8`$ in this case) and works as a refrigerator when the load is larger than this value. One can also see the domains of operations of the model by plotting $`j`$ as a function of $`u`$ as has been shown in Fig. 2(b). Note that when the model works as a heat engine there is a finite $`u`$ at which the current is maximum. This corresponds to the point in the parameter space at which the engine operates with maximum power. When we plot the efficiency, $`\eta `$, versus $`\lambda `$ within the domain where the model works as a heat engine, we find that it increases linearly with increase in $`\lambda `$ attaining its maximum value (Carnot efficiency) at the stall force (See Fig. 3(a)). On the other hand, Fig. 3(b) shows plot of $`P_{ref}`$ versus $`\lambda `$ which starts from its maximum value (COP of Carnot refrigerator) at the stall force and decreases fast as we increase the load.

Let us now compare the efficiency of our model heat engine with that of the so-called endoreversible engine when both operate with maximum power. Curzon and Ahlborn  took an endoreversible engine that exchanges heat linearly at finite rate with the two heat reservoirs and found its efficiency at maximum power, $`\eta _{CA}`$, to be equal to $`1\sqrt{(T_c/T_h)}`$. Figure 4 gives plots comparing $`\eta _{CA}`$ with that of the efficiency of our model heat engine when it also operates with maximum power, $`\eta _{MP}`$, for different values of $`\tau `$. The plots show that the two results are reasonably close to each other for small $`\tau `$ with $`\eta _{CA}`$ being slightly smaller than $`\eta _{MP}`$. The two values coincide at a particular value of $`\tau `$ and $`\eta _{CA}`$ progressively gets larger and larger than that of $`\eta _{MP}`$ for higher values of $`\tau `$. This shows that the assumption Curzon and Ahlborn took to get the expression for their efficiency holds reasonably well for our model heat engine as long as $`\tau `$ is small. It is worth noting that our model did not take any extra assumption in the way it operates either with maximum power or otherwise. We, therefore, believe that the reason for their deviation has got to do with the nonlinear nature of the way heat is exchanged.

We would further like to compare Carnot efficiency, $`\eta _{CAR}`$, with what is called optimized efficiency, $`\eta _{OPT}`$, by Herńandez et al. . This optimized efficiency is the efficiency at the point of operation of an engine where competition between energy cost and fast transport is compromised. We briefly summarize the method Herńandez, et al.  used to get $`\eta _{OPT}`$. When the model operates with finite time the amount of work, $`W`$, it delivers is such that it lies between the maximum, $`W_{max}`$, and minimum, $`W_{min}`$, amount of work that can be extracted from the model:$`W_{min}WW_{max}`$. They defined two quantities: effective work, $`W_e=WW_{min}`$ and noneffective work $`W_{ne}=W_{max}W`$ and introduced a function, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, to be optimized to be equal to the difference between these quantities. For our model heat engine (since $`W_{min}=0`$) this function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=2W\left(\frac{\tau }{1+\tau }\right)Q_h.$$
(19)
Figure 5 shows plot of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ versus $`u`$ in which the function has indeed an optimum at a finite value of $`u`$. The efficiency of the model heat engine when it operates at this particular point in the parameter space is what we call as optimized efficiency, $`\eta _{OPT}`$. For the sake of comparison, we plot $`\eta _{OPT}`$ along with the corresponding Carnot efficiency, $`\eta _{CAR}`$, in the same figure (Fig. 4) as we did for the other efficiencies. The plots clearly show that $`\eta _{OPT}`$ always lies between the $`\eta _{CAR}`$ and $`\eta _{MP}`$. One can therefore say that the operation of the model at optimized efficiency is indeed a compromise between fast transport and energy cost.

In conclusion, we believe that our work has, for the first time, quantitatively explored the basic properties such as current, efficiency and COP of a model Brownian heat engine. The recently introduced definition of generalized efficiency  has been used in getting the expressions for these quantities. We have found operating conditions of the model under which either maximum power is delivered or optimized efficiency is attained and have been able to explicitly compare their efficiencies. These theoretical results propose the extents and limits to be considered in the design of actual Brownian heat engines which, of course, take finite time to accomplish any task.

We would like to thank The Abdus Salam ICTP and Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) as this paper was written while the authors were visiting the Centre with their support. We would also like to thank IPPS, Uppsala University, Sweden for the facilities they have provided for our research group.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As is well known by now, besides flat space and AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ type IIB superstring theory admits an additional solution preserving all 32 supersymmetries, the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background . In contrast to flat space and $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ which are related being the asymptotic and near-horizon geometry of the D3-brane respectively, the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave solution is obtained from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ by the Penrose limit , i.e. blowing up the neighborhood of the trajectory of a massless particle rotating around a great circle of the $`S^5`$. This observation led Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN)  to a generalization of the AdS/CFT correspondence to the pp-wave background, by proposing that on the Yang-Mills side the Penrose limit is mimicked by focusing on a subset of composite operators of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM with large R charge. The main importance of this conjectured correspondence lies in the fact that, in contrast to IIB string theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ which due to the presence of the RR 5-form flux is still largely intractable, in the light-cone GS formalism type IIB theory in the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background is free and thus exactly solvable  despite of the RR flux.

Due to the solvability of the theory it is natural to try to include interactions in the picture. In light-cone (closed) superstring field theory interactions are encoded in a cubic interaction vertex, which in flat space was studied in detail by Green, Schwarz and Brink  and recently has been generalized to the pp-wave background by Spradlin and Volovich . The interaction vertex can be split into two parts, one – the exponential part of the vertex – contains the Neumann matrices and is necessary to impose the kinematic constraints of the interaction . The second part – the so called prefactor – implements the dynamical constraint that the superalgebra is realized in the interacting theory .

In the usual AdS/CFT correspondence it is used that $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ SYM perturbation theory can be written as a double series expansion in the genus counting parameter $`1/N^2`$ and the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda =g_{\text{YM}}^2N`$. String theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ has three parameters, the string length $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$, the string coupling $`g_s`$ and – characterizing the background – the AdS and sphere radius $`R`$ from which we can form two dimensionless quantities to be matched with corresponding parameters of the gauge theory

$$\frac{R^2}{\alpha ^{}}=\sqrt{\lambda },\text{and}4\pi g_s=g_{\text{YM}}^2.$$
(1.1)
In particular the supergravity approximation, where explicit calculations can be performed, corresponds to strongly coupled gauge theory and this makes a detailed comparison of non-protected quantities very difficult. In the pp-wave case one considers the sector of operators in the SYM theory with $`U(1)`$ charge $`J`$ and conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ remains fixed in the limit $`J`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. One also takes $`N\mathrm{}`$ such that $`J\sqrt{N}`$ and keeps $`g_{\text{YM}}^2`$ finite . There is evidence  that in this case the theory can again be expanded in a double series in the effective genus counting parameter $`g_2^2=\frac{J^4}{N^2}`$ and the effective coupling $`\lambda ^{}=\frac{g_{\text{YM}}^2N}{J^2}`$. Moreover the finite quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ turns out to be a function of $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`g_2^2`$ . So we are still left with two parameters on the gauge theory side in the pp-wave limit, although we introduced the quantity $`J`$ and so $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`g_2^2`$ depend on three parameters. However, since both $`J`$ and $`N`$ are strictly taken to infinity, only the ratio $`J^2/N`$ survives as a true parameter. Light-cone string theory in the pp-wave background effectively has three parameters, the string length $`|\alpha |\alpha ^{}|p^+|`$, the string coupling $`g_s`$ and the scale $`\mu `$ characterizing the background. The matching in this case is

$$\frac{1}{(\mu \alpha )^2}=\lambda ^{},\text{and}4\pi g_s(\mu \alpha )^2=g_2.$$
(1.2)
An interesting property of the duality between string theory on the pp-wave and the subsector of composite operators in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM with large R charge is that in this case both sides of the duality are simultaneously accessible in their perturbative regimes.

A definite proposal which quantity on the field theory side should be matched with three-string amplitudes was put forward in  for the free, planar limit corresponding to $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$111Whenever we write $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mu 0`$ we actually mean the dimensionless quantity $`\mu |\alpha |`$. on the string theory side. Various checks of this proposal and further studies of cubic interactions in the pp-wave background and their comparison to field theory were done in  and . So called vector operators were studied in , whose results suggest that the proposal of  has to be modified for mixed scalar/vector operators, in order to match string theory predictions.222I would like to thank Marcus Spradlin for emphasizing this point to me. An alternative resolution – to use a different fermionic zero-mode vertex as compared to  – was proposed in . The structure of the interaction vertex for large $`\mu `$, in particular subleading corrections which are important in trying to generalize the proposal of  to the interacting gauge theory were studied in . The latter has some overlap with results presented in section 4 of this paper. Additional work on string interactions can be found in , an interesting new development concerning string theory on non-maximally supersymmetric plane wave backgrounds is . For the covariant formulation of string theory on plane wave backgrounds see . A first study of four-point correlation functions in the BMN limit was initiated in .

This paper is organized as follows. We begin with a brief review of the free light-cone string theory in section 2. In section 3 we discuss the interacting theory. The first part of this section deals with the bosonic contribution to the exponential part of the vertex and is included for completeness, all of the presented formulae were already derived in . The second part of section 3 deals with the fermionic contribution to the exponential part of the vertex and slightly differs from the original result of . A detailed proof of the expressions presented there is relegated to appendix B. Section 4 deals with properties of the Neumann matrices and the flat space limit of the exponential part of the vertex, in particular we generalize a flat space factorization theorem  to the pp-wave background, see also  were the same result is obtained. In section 5 we study in some detail the constituents of the prefactor. We begin with the oscillator expressions of the bosonic part which were already obtained in . Using results of section 4 we then verify explicitly that the operator expressions  for the bosonic constituents coincide up to a possibly $`\mu `$-dependent normalization with the oscillator expressions when acting on the vertex. In the second part of section 5 we consider the fermionic constituent and relate the vector appearing in the oscillator expression to its bosonic counterpart and check that it has the correct flat space limit of . In the end of this section we prove that in the fermionic case a non-trivial $`\mu `$-dependent matrix appears in the relation between operator and oscillator expressions. We finish with conclusions in section 6, summarize some known identities  in appendix A and present the alternative solution of the kinematic constraints (see ) based on the proposal of  in appendix C.

## 2 Review of free string theory on the pp-wave

In this section we review some known facts about free light-cone string field theory in the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background . We begin with the bosonic part of the string light-cone action in the pp-wave background

$$S_{\text{l.c.}}=\frac{e(\alpha )}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha |}𝑑\sigma \left[\dot{x}^2\stackrel{`}{x}^2\mu ^2x^2\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`\dot{x}=_\tau x`$, $`\stackrel{`}{x}=_\sigma x`$, $`|\alpha |\alpha ^{}|p^+|`$, $`e(\alpha )\text{sign}(\alpha )`$ and $`p^+<0`$ ($`p^+>0`$) for incoming (outgoing) strings. We suppress the transverse index. The mode expansions of the fields $`x(\sigma ,\tau )`$ and $`p(\sigma ,\tau )`$ at $`\tau =0`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x(\sigma )& =x_0+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(x_n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}+x_n\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill p(\sigma )& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha |}\left[p_0+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(p_n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}+p_n\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}\right)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
where in terms of oscillators

$$x_n=i\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\omega _n}}\left(a_na_n^{}\right),p_n=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _n}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(a_n+a_n^{}\right),[a_n,a_m^{}]=\delta _{nm}$$
(2.3)
and $`\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+(\mu \alpha )^2}`$. The light-cone hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{\alpha }\underset{n𝐙}{}\omega _n\left(a_n^{}a_n+4\right).$$
(2.4)
The zero-point energy will be cancelled by the fermionic contribution. The hamiltonian only depends on the two dimensionful quantities $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$, i.e. $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`p^+`$ should not be treated separately.

The fermionic part of the action is

$$S_{\text{l.c.}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha |}𝑑\sigma [i(\overline{\vartheta }\dot{\vartheta }+\vartheta \dot{\overline{\vartheta }})\vartheta \stackrel{`}{\vartheta }+\overline{\vartheta }\stackrel{`}{\overline{\vartheta }}2\mu \overline{\vartheta }\mathrm{\Pi }\vartheta ],$$
(2.5)
where $`\vartheta ^a`$ is a complex positive chirality spinor of $`SO(8)`$ (we mostly suppress the index $`a`$) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$ is symmetric and traceless, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2=1`$.

The mode expansion of $`\vartheta `$ and its conjugate momentum $`i\lambda \frac{i}{4\pi }\overline{\vartheta }`$ at $`\tau =0`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \vartheta (\sigma )& =\vartheta _0+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\vartheta _n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}+\vartheta _n\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda (\sigma )& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha |}\left[\lambda _0+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda _n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}+\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma }{|\alpha |}\right)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
with the reality condition $`\lambda _n=\frac{|\alpha |}{2}\overline{\vartheta }_n`$. The anticommutation relation $`\{\vartheta ^a(\sigma ),\lambda ^b(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ follows from $`\{\vartheta _n^a,\lambda _m^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{n,m}`$. To write the hamiltonian in canonical form in terms of fermionic operators $`b_n`$ satisfying $`\{b_n,b_m^{}\}=\delta _{nm}`$ define

$$\vartheta _n=\frac{c_n}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}\left[(1+\rho _n\mathrm{\Pi })b_n+e(\alpha n)(1\rho _n\mathrm{\Pi })b_n^{}\right],$$
(2.7)
where $`e(n)=\text{sign}(n)`$, ($`e(0)1`$) and

$$\rho _n=\rho _n=\frac{\omega _n|n|}{\mu \alpha },c_n=c_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho _n^2}}.$$
(2.8)
Then the fermionic part of the light-cone hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{\alpha }\underset{n𝐙}{}\omega _n\left(b_n^{}b_n4\right).$$
(2.9)
Notice that in the limit $`\mu 0`$ we have $`c_n(1\pm \rho _n\mathrm{\Pi })1`$ and therefore

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}\vartheta _n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}\left(b_n+e(\alpha n)b_n^{}\right).$$
(2.10)
This allows to relate the $`b_n`$ to the $`Q_n^{I,II}`$ of  which will be useful when checking that the fermionic vertex has the correct flat space limit. For $`n>0`$ we have in the limit $`\mu 0`$

$$b_n\frac{e(\alpha )}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}Q_n^I,b_n\frac{e(\alpha )}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}Q_n^{II},$$
(2.11)
and $`\left[Q_n^{I,II}\right]^{}=e(\alpha )Q_n^{I,II}`$.

## 3 Interacting string theory

As already stated in the introduction, the cubic interaction vertex of light-cone string field theory can be split into two parts, determined by imposing the kinematic and dynamic constraints of the interaction. In this section we study the exponential part of the vertex which deals with the kinematic constraints. The prefactor that is determined by the dynamic constraints is the subject of section 5. The bosonic contribution to the exponential part of the three-string interaction vertex has to satisfy the kinematic constraints

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_r(\sigma _r)|E_a=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)x_r(\sigma _r)|E_a=0.$$
(3.1)
It can be obtained by evaluating the integral

$$|E_a=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝑑p_r\psi (p_r)\mathrm{\Delta }^8\left[\underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_s(\sigma _s)\right]|0=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}𝑑p_{n(r)}\psi (p_{n(r)})\delta ^8\left[\underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(X^{(s)}p_s\right)_n\right]|0.$$
(3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^8\left[_{s=1}^3p_s(\sigma _s)\right]`$ is the Delta-functional guaranteeing the continuous overlap of the string worldsheets in the interaction and $`\psi (p_{n(r)})`$ is the harmonic oscillator wavefunction for occupation number $`n`$

$$\psi (p_{n(r)})=\left(\frac{\omega _{n(r)}\pi }{\alpha ^{}}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{(2\omega _{n(r)})}p_{n(r)}^2+\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha ^{}}{\omega _{n(r)}}}a_{n(r)}^{}p_{n(r)}\frac{1}{2}a_{n(r)}^{}a_{n(r)}^{}\right).$$
(3.3)
The coordinates of the three strings are parameterized by

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=\sigma \pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi \alpha _1,`$
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sigma \pi \alpha _1\hfill & \pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2),\hfill \\ \sigma +\pi \alpha _1\hfill & \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi \alpha _1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.4)
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2).`$
Here $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3=0`$ and $`\alpha _3<0`$. We also use $`\beta \alpha _1/\alpha _3`$ and $`\beta +1=\alpha _2/\alpha _3`$. The full Delta-functional takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_r(\sigma _r)\right]\underset{m𝐙}{}\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}X_{mn}^{(r)}p_{n(r)}\right).$$
(3.5)
We ignored factors of $`\sqrt{2}`$ which can be absorbed in the measure. The matrices $`X_{mn}^{(r)}`$ have the following structure333The matrices $`X_{mn}^{(r)}`$ actually differ from the ones of  by a factor of $`(1)^m`$, which however has no physical significance.

$$X_{mn}^{(r)}\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{mn}^{(r)},m>0,n>0\hfill & \\ \frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}\frac{n}{m}X_{m,n}^{(r)},m<0,n<0\hfill & \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}X_{m0}^{(r)},m>0\hfill & \\ 1,m=0=n\hfill & \\ 0,\text{otherwise}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.6)
Here

$$X_{mn}^{(1)}(1)^n\frac{2m\beta }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2\beta ^2n^2},X_{mn}^{(2)}\frac{2m(\beta +1)}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2(\beta +1)^2n^2}$$
(3.7)
and $`X_{mn}^{(3)}=\delta _{mn}`$. It is standard to perform the gaussian integral (3.2) and the result is

$$|E_a\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}a_r^T\overline{N}^{rs}a_s^{}\right)|0,$$
(3.8)
where $`r,s\{1,2,3\}`$. The determinant factor coming from the functional determinants will be cancelled by the fermionic contribution except for the zero-mode part which is proportional to $`(\frac{\mu }{\alpha ^{}})^2(\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _3})^2`$.

The Neumann matrices are

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\delta ^{rs}\delta _{mn}2\left(C_{(r)}^{1/2}X^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^1X^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}\right)_{mn},$$
(3.9)
where

$$\left[C_{(r)}\right]_{mn}=\omega _{m(r)}\delta _{mn},\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}X^{(r)}C_{(r)}X^{(r)T}.$$
(3.10)
From the structure of the $`X^{(r)}`$ it follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is block diagonal and using the identities (A.5) in appendix A one can write the blocks as  ($`C_{mn}=m\delta _{mn}`$)

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\right]_{mn}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(C^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }C^{1/2}\right)_{mn},\hfill & m,n>0,\hfill \\ 2\mu \alpha _3,\hfill & m=0=n,\hfill \\ \left(C^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}C^{1/2}\right)_{m,n},\hfill & m,n<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}U_{(r)}A^{(r)T},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_{}^{(r)}U_{(r)}^1A_{}^{(r)T}.$$
(3.12)
Here $`A_{mn}^{(r)}=\left[C^{1/2}X^{(r)}C^{1/2}\right]_{mn}`$ for $`m`$, $`n>0`$ and

$$U_{(r)}=C^1\left(C_{(r)}\mu \alpha _r\mathrm{𝟏}\right),U_{(r)}^1=C^1\left(C_{(r)}+\mu \alpha _r\mathrm{𝟏}\right),A_{}^{(r)}=\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}C^1A^{(r)}C.$$
(3.13)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which reduces to the flat space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of  for $`\mu 0`$) exists and is invertible, whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is ill-defined since the above sum is divergent. Nevertheless it is possible to derive a well-defined identity for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^1`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^1=U_{(3)}\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1U_{(3)}\right).$$
(3.14)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^1`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ it is possible to relate the Neumann matrices with positive and negative indices. The only nonvanishing matrix elements with negative indices are $`\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}`$ for $`m`$, $`n>0`$ related to $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ via

$$\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}=\left(U_{(r)}\overline{N}^{rs}U_{(s)}\right)_{mn}.$$
(3.15)
Analogously to the bosonic contribution, the fermionic exponential part of the interaction vertex has to satisfy

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{(r)}(\sigma _r)|E_b=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\vartheta _{(r)}(\sigma _r)|E_b=0.$$
(3.16)
As in the bosonic case it could be obtained by constructing the fermionic analogue of the wavefunction (3.3) and then performing the resulting integrals over the non-zero-modes. The pure zero-mode contribution has to be treated separately. Notice that due to the structure of the $`X_{mn}^{(r)}`$ the exponential will – as in flat space  – contain a part which is linear in zero-mode oscillators. Instead of directly performing the functional integral the exponential can be obtained (up to the normalization) by making a suitable ansatz and imposing the constraints (3.16) . We find the following expression (cf. appendix B for the details; the notation is defined below)

$$|E_b\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{m(r)}^{}Q_{mn}^{rs}b_{n(s)}^{}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_m^rb_{m(r)}^{}\right]|E_b^0,$$
(3.17)
where $`|E_b^0`$ is the pure zero-mode part of the fermionic vertex (see also the discussion below and apendix C)

$$|E_b^0=\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(r)}^a\right]|0$$
(3.18)
and manifestly satisfies $`_{r=1}^3\lambda _{0(r)}|E_b^0=0`$ and $`_{r=1}^3\alpha _r\vartheta _{0(r)}|E_b^0=0`$. Notice that $`|0`$ is not the vacuum defined to be annihilated by the $`b_{0(r)}`$. Rather it satisfies $`\vartheta _{0(r)}|0=0`$ and $`H_{(r)}|0=4\mu e(\alpha _r)|0`$ so that the zero should be thought of as the occupation number. In the limit $`\mu 0`$ it coincides with the usual flat space vacuum. Furthermore

$`Q_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right|}\left[P_{(r)}^1U_{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}U_{(s)}P_{(s)}^1\right]_{mn},`$ (3.19)
$`Q_n^r`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))\left[P_{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\right]_n,`$ (3.20)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=\alpha _1\lambda _{0(2)}\alpha _2\lambda _{0(1)}.`$ (3.21)
Here we introduced some more notation, namely $`\alpha \alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3`$,

$$P_{n(r)}\frac{1\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi }}{\sqrt{1\rho _{n(r)}^2}},K\frac{1}{4}B^T\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B,\overline{N}^rC^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B$$
(3.22)
and the vector $`B_m`$ is related to $`X_{m0}^{(r)}`$ via $`X_{m0}^{(r)}=\epsilon ^{rs}\alpha _s\left(C^{1/2}B\right)_m`$. The scalar $`K`$ and the vector $`\overline{N}^r`$ reduce to the quantities defined in  in the flat space limit. Notice that our result (3.17) is slightly different from the one obtained in , in particular the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ were absent. We will show in section 4 that as $`\mu 0`$ our expression (3.17) coincides with the flat space result of . This however does not really prove that the above expression is correct since some structure is lost in the flat space limit. The analysis of appendix B however uniquely fixes the above expressions. Another important point is the following: in a recent paper  it was proposed that in order to resolve present discrepancies  with the field theory proposal of  one should use a different zero-mode vertex $`|\delta `$ built on the vacuum $`|v`$ annihilated by all the $`b_{0(r)}`$. In particular it was shown that the states $`|v`$ and $`|0`$ have opposite parity with respect to the discrete $`_2`$ symmetry that exchanges the two transverse $`^4`$’s of the background . To preserve the $`_2`$ symmetry in the interacting theory one has to assign positive parity to $`|0`$ if one uses the zero-mode vertex in equation (3.18), whereas the proposal of  requires positive parity for $`|v`$. Both assignments seem plausible: in the limit $`\mu 0`$ $`|0`$ reduces to the state in flat space which is a $`SO(8)`$ scalar, so continuity suggests that $`|0`$ should have positive parity; on the other hand as $`|v`$ is the true vacuum in the pp-wave background it might be more natural to expect that it has positive parity. It was shown in  that it is possible to extend their proposal to a solution of the full kinematic constraints (3.16), see also appendix C. Clearly it is necessary and interesting to try to extend this to the level of the dynamical constraints.

## 4 Properties of the Neumann matrices and the flat space limit

In this section we analyze in more detail the exponential part of the vertex presented in the previous section. We check that in the flat space limit all the expressions reduce to the known ones derived long ago by Green, Schwarz and Brink . As already stated this is only a consistency check which nevertheless is illuminating. A detailed proof of the expressions appearing in the exponential part of the vertex is presented in appendix B. Furthermore we generalize a flat space factorization theorem  for the bosonic Neumann matrices to the pp-wave background (the same expression was obtained independently in ) which might be useful for various purposes, such as the comparison of string and field theory computations.

For $`m,n>0`$ the nonvanishing elements of the bosonic Neumann matrices are

$`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=\delta ^{rs}\delta _{mn}2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{m(r)}\omega _{n(s)}}{mn}}}\left(A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1A^{(s)}\right)_{mn},`$ (4.1)
$`\overline{N}_{m0}^{rs}`$ $`=\sqrt{2\mu \alpha _s\omega _{m(r)}}\epsilon ^{st}\alpha _t\overline{N}_m^r,s\{1,2\},`$ (4.2)
$`\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}`$ $`=\left(\delta ^{rs}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}}{\alpha _3}}\right)\left(14\mu \alpha K\right),r,s\{1,2\},`$ (4.3)
$`\overline{N}_{00}^{r3}`$ $`=\delta ^{r3}\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}\right|},r\{1,2\}.`$ (4.4)
The terms in $`\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}`$ and $`\overline{N}_{00}^{r3}`$ that are not proportional to $`\mu `$ give the pure supergravity contribution to the Neumann matrices. The part of $`\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}`$ that is proportional to $`\mu `$ is induced by positive string modes of $`p_3`$. The only nonvanishing matrix elements with negative indices are $`\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}`$ related to the Neumann matrices with positive indices by (3.15). In flat space $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ is related to $`\overline{N}_m^r\overline{N}_n^s`$ via444Notice that in comparison with  we have $`\overline{N}_{\text{here}}^{rs}=C^{1/2}\overline{N}_{\text{there}}^{rs}C^{1/2}`$.

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\alpha \frac{(mn)^{3/2}}{\alpha _rn+\alpha _sm}\overline{N}_m^r\overline{N}_n^s.$$
(4.5)
Below we will derive a generalization of this formula for all $`\mu `$ (see also ). Let us introduce
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{r=1}^3A^{(r)}U_{(r)}^1A^{(r)T}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mu \alpha BB^T`$ (cf. (A.5)). Its inverse is related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ by (see also )

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\frac{\mu \alpha }{14\mu \alpha K}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B\right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B\right)^T$$
(4.6)
and thus

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1B=\frac{1}{14\mu \alpha K}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B.$$
(4.7)
Then one can show that the following relations hold

$`A^{(r)T}C^1U_{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ $`=A^{(r)T}C^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}C^1U_{(r)}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,r\{1,2\},`$ (4.8)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1U_{(3)}^1C^1A^{(r)}`$ $`=C^1A^{(r)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1A^{(r)}U_{(r)}^1C^1,r\{1,2\},`$ (4.9)
$`2C^1`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1U_{(3)}C^1+C^1U_{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1U_{(3)}^1C^1+C^1U_{(3)}^1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1`$
$`\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1B\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B\right)^T.`$ (4.10)
From here we find using (4.6), (4.7) and (A.4)

$`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=(14\mu \alpha K)^1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _r\omega _{n(s)}+\alpha _s\omega _{m(r)}}}\left[U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\right]_m\left[U_{(s)}^1C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]_n.`$ (4.11)
Clearly equation (4.11) reduces to equation (4.5) as $`\mu 0`$. It coincides with the result obtained by . It is useful to write the above in matrix form as

$$\alpha _sC_{(r)}\overline{N}^{rs}+\alpha _r\overline{N}^{rs}C_{(s)}=\alpha (14\mu \alpha K)^1U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\left[U_{(s)}^1C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]^T.$$
(4.12)
Using the above we can also give a simple expression for $`Q_{mn}^{rs}`$

$$Q_{mn}^{rs}=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\right|\frac{m}{n}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _r\omega _{n(s)}+\alpha _s\omega _{m(r)}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\right]_m\left[P_{(s)}^1C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]_n.$$
(4.13)
In what follows we will show that as $`\mu 0`$ the expressions for $`|E_a`$ and $`|E_b`$ (cf. (3.8) and (3.17)) coincide with the flat space expressions of . We begin with the bosonic contribution. In the limit $`\mu 0`$ and for $`n>0`$ the $`a_n`$ are related to the $`a_n^{I,II}`$ of  as

$$a_n\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}a_n^I,a_n\frac{i}{\sqrt{n}}a_n^{II}$$
(4.14)
and $`\left[a_n^{I,II}\right]^{}=a_n^{I,II}`$. Rewrite

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n𝐙}{}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,s}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}+2{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{m0}^{rs}a_{0(s)}^{}+a_{0(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}a_{0(s)}^{}\right].`$ (4.15)
Consider first the part linear in non-zero-mode oscillators. We have

$$\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{m0}^{rs}a_{0(s)}^{}=\sqrt{2\mu }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\omega _{m(r)}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_m^r\left(\alpha _1\sqrt{\alpha _2}a_{0(2)}^{}\alpha _2\sqrt{\alpha _1}a_{0(1)}^{}\right).$$
(4.16)
Using

$$a_0^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\mu |\alpha |}}p_0+i\sqrt{\frac{\mu |\alpha |}{2\alpha ^{}}}x_0$$
(4.17)
this can be further written as

$$\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\omega _{m(r)}}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_m^r\left(i\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\right).$$
(4.18)
Here $`=\alpha _1p_{0(2)}\alpha _2p_{0(1)}`$ and $`\alpha _3=x_{0(1)}x_{0(2)}`$, $`[,]=i`$. The above expression reduces to the one in flat space  for $`\mu 0`$. The part quadratic in non zero-mode oscillators obviously has the correct flat space limit using (3.15).

Finally the part quadratic in zero-mode oscillators is

$$\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_{0(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}a_{0(s)}^{}=\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_{0(r)}^{}M_{\text{Sugra}}^{rs}a_{0(s)}^{}+2K\alpha ^{}\left(i\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\right)^2.$$
(4.19)
In the limit $`\mu 0`$ the second term reduces to the result in flat space . The first term is divergent in the limit which is due to the fact that the supergravity particles are no longer confined by the harmonic oscillator potential and propagate in infinite volume.

Now consider the flat space limit of the fermionic expression $`|E_b`$ in (3.17). We will need that $`\underset{\mu 0}{lim}P_{n(r)}^1=1`$. Then we see from equations (3.19) and (3.20) that

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}Q_{mn}^{rs}=\frac{\sqrt{|\alpha _r\alpha _s|}}{\alpha _r}\left[C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}\right]_{mn},\underset{\mu 0}{lim}Q_m^r=\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[C\overline{N}^r\right]_m.$$
(4.20)
Taking into account (2.11) we see that $`|E_b`$ precisely coincides with the flat space expression equation (4.21) of .

## 5 The constituents of the Prefactor

The full expression for the superstring vertex involves an operator $`G`$, the so-called prefactor, necessary to ensure the realization of the superalgebra in the interacting theory . In flat space this operator, when written in the continuum basis depends on $`p_r(\sigma )`$, $`\stackrel{`}{x}_r(\sigma )`$ and $`\lambda _r(\sigma )`$. Since $`p_r(\sigma )`$ and $`\lambda _r(\sigma )`$ correspond to functional derivatives with respect to $`x_r(\sigma )`$ and $`\vartheta _r(\sigma )`$ the only physically sensible value of $`\sigma `$ to choose is the interaction point $`\sigma =\pm \pi \alpha _1`$. Since operators at this point are singular the prefactor must be carefully defined in the limit $`\sigma |\pi \alpha _1|`$ . In the end one obtains an expression containing both creation and annihilation operators of the various oscillators. The annihilation operators can be eliminated by (anti)commuting them through the exponential factors of the vertex. We then write $`GE_aE_b|0=E_aE_b\stackrel{~}{G}|0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ only contains the creation operators.

In this section we study the bosonic and fermionic constituents of the prefactor, relate the infinite component vectors that appear in their oscillator basis expressions and point out a subtlety in the relation between the continuum and oscillator basis expressions which is not present in the flat space case. This might have the consequence that the precise form of the prefactor derived in  has to be changed.

### 5.1 The bosonic constituents

An important constraint on the prefactor is that it must respect the local conservation laws ensured by $`|E_a`$ and $`|E_b`$. For the bosonic part this means that it must commute with

$$[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_r(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{G}]=0=[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)x_r(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{G}].$$
(5.1)
Consider first an expression of the form

$$𝒦_0+𝒦_+=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{m(r)}a_{m(r)}^{}.$$
(5.2)
The Fourier transform of (5.1) leads to the equations

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[X^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_m=0=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\left[X^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_m.$$
(5.3)
Here the components $`m=0`$ and $`m>0`$ decouple from each other. For $`m=0`$ one finds

$$F_{0(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{\mu \alpha _1}\alpha _2,F_{0(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _2}}F_{0(1)},F_{0(3)}=0.$$
(5.4)
Then $`𝒦_0`$ can be written as

$$𝒦_0=i\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}$$
(5.5)
which has the correct flat space limit. So in contrast to a statement in  the term $`\mu `$ is included in the supergravity part of the prefactor and although in supergravity $`|V=0`$ we have $`𝒦_0^I𝒦_0^J|V=\left[^I^J+\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\delta ^{IJ}\right]|V`$ so the inclusion of $``$ does make a difference.555Moreover $`|V`$ is no longer zero in the full string theory, so to obtain a consistent expression for the prefactor $``$ has to be included, as was in fact done in  when working with the oscillator expressions. The overall normalization of $`F_{0(1)}`$ is not determined by (5.3) and could be any function $`f(\mu )`$ with $`\underset{\mu 0}{lim}f(\mu )=1`$.666In  this normalization was fixed to be a constant by comparing the results of  with a supergravity calculation. For $`m>0`$ we have

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[A^{(r)}C^{1/2}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_m=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\mu \alpha B_m=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mu \alpha _r\left[A^{(r)}C^{1/2}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right].$$
(5.6)
Subtracting the second equation from the first one

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[A^{(r)}C^{1/2}C_{(r)}^{1/2}U_{(r)}F_{(r)}\right]_m=0.$$
(5.7)
Using the first identity in (A.5) gives

$$F_{m(r)}=\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\left[C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}U_{(r)}^1A^{(r)T}V\right]_m$$
(5.8)
with $`V_m`$ an arbitrary vector determined by plugging the above expression for $`F_{m(r)}`$ in, say, the second equation in (5.6). The complete solution is

$$F_{m(r)}=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\left[C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}U_{(r)}^1A^{(r)T}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^1B\right]_m.$$
(5.9)
The matrix $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ was introduced in section 4. Using equation (4.7) one can show that

$$F_{m(r)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\frac{\alpha }{14\mu \alpha K}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\left[U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\right]_m$$
(5.10)
and as $`\mu 0`$

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}\left(𝒦_0+𝒦_+\right)=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\left[C\overline{N}^r\right]_m\sqrt{m}a_{m(r)}^{}$$
(5.11)
coincides with the flat space result of .

From the expression for $`F_{m(r)}`$ in (5.10) we see that the equations in (5.3) are actually constraints on $`\overline{N}^r`$

$$B+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}C^{1/2}U_{(r)}\overline{N}^r=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}A^{(r)}C^{3/2}\overline{N}^r=0$$
(5.12)
precisely satisfied by $`\overline{N}^r=C^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B`$.

Now take into account the negative modes, i.e. consider

$$𝒦_{}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{m(r)}a_{m(r)}^{}.$$
(5.13)
This leads to the equations

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\left[A^{(r)}C^{1/2}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_m=0=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[A^{(r)}C^{1/2}C_{(r)}^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_m.$$
(5.14)
Comparing the second equation with (5.7) it is clear that

$$F_{m(r)}U_{m(r)}F_{m(r)}.$$
(5.15)
However, if one substitutes this into the first equation one actually sees that the sum is divergent . This phenomenon already appears in flat space and it is known  that the function of $`\sigma `$ responsible for the divergence is $`\delta (\sigma \pi \alpha _1)\delta (\sigma +\pi \alpha _1)`$. Since $`\pm \pi \alpha _1`$ are actually identified this divergence is harmless but the precise normalization in (5.15) has to be determined by other means.

In flat space the prefactor can be alternatively defined as follows. Consider the operators defined via their action on $`|V`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X|V& =4\pi \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha ^{}}\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\stackrel{`}{x}_1(\sigma )+\stackrel{`}{x}_1(\sigma )\right)|V,\hfill \\ \hfill P|V& =2\pi \sqrt{\alpha }\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(p_1(\sigma )+p_1(\sigma )\right)|V.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.16)
These expressions contain creation and annihilation operators. The claim is that after commuting the annihilation operators through the exponential and taking the limit $`\sigma \pi \alpha _1`$ we have777Notice that in comparison with  we changed the sign in the definition of $`X`$. Then $`𝒦X_{\text{GS}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}\stackrel{~}{X}_{\text{GS}}`$ as compared to .

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(P+\frac{1}{4\pi }X\right)|V& =\left(𝒦_0+𝒦_++𝒦_{}\right)|V𝒦|V,\hfill \\ \hfill \left(P\frac{1}{4\pi }X\right)|V& =\left(𝒦_0+𝒦_+𝒦_{}\right)|V\stackrel{~}{𝒦}|V.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.17)
Substituting the mode expansion of $`p_1(\sigma )`$ into (5.16) yields

$`P|V`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_{m(r)}a_{m(r)}^{}|V`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\underset{e0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\sqrt{\omega _{n(1)}}\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\overline{N}_{nm}^{1r}\right]a_{m(r)}^{}|V.`$ (5.18)
Now the singular behavior of the sum as $`\epsilon 0`$ can be traced to the way it diverges as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Therefore to take the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ we can approximate the summand for large $`n`$. Thus for $`m>0`$ and $`n`$ large

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{N}_{n0}^{1r}& \sqrt{2\mu \alpha _rn}\epsilon ^{rt}\alpha _t\overline{N}_n^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{N}_{nm}^{1r}& \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _r}\frac{1}{14\mu \alpha K}\left(C^{1/2}\overline{N}^1\right)_n\left(U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\right)_m,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.19)
where we used (4.11). Hence we find for $`m>0`$

$$P_{0(1)}=f(\mu )F_{0(1)},P_{0(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _2}}P_{0(1)},P_{m(r)}=f(\mu )F_{m(r)}.$$
(5.20)
Here we defined

$$f(\mu )2\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha _1}\underset{e0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nn\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\overline{N}_n^1$$
(5.21)
which is equal to one for $`\mu =0`$ . It is not clear to us that or even if this still holds for $`\mu `$ non-zero but we will not need the precise form of $`f(\mu )`$ in what follows. Thus we have shown that $`P|V=f(\mu )\left(𝒦_0+𝒦_+\right)|V`$. For the negative modes we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}X|V`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}X_{m(r)}a_{m(r)}^{}|V`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha _1}}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{\omega _{n(1)}}}}\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\overline{N}_{n,m}^{rs}\right]a_{m(r)}^{}|V.`$ (5.22)
Using that $`\overline{N}_{n,m}^{1r}\overline{N}_{nm}^{1r}U_{m(r)}`$ for large $`n`$ we see that

$$X_{m(r)}=iU_{m(r)}P_{m(r)}.$$
(5.23)
Hence $`F_{m(r)}=iU_{m(r)}F_{m(r)}`$ which differs by a factor of $`i`$ from the result of . As $`\mu 0`$ it reduces to the flat space result of . So we have seen that the continuum basis operators and the oscillator expressions coincide up to a possibly $`\mu `$-dependent normalization. Since we do not fix the normalization anyway this is not important. We will see however in the next subsection that the situation is slightly different in the fermionic case.

### 5.2 The fermionic constituent

The fermionic part of the prefactor has to satisfy the conditions

$$\{\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _r(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{G}\}=0=\{\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\vartheta _r(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{G}\}.$$
(5.24)
Consider

$$𝒴=\underset{r=1}{\overset{2}{}}G_{0(r)}\lambda _{0(r)}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_{m(r)}b_{m(r)}^{}.$$
(5.25)
For the zero-modes we can set the coefficient of, say, $`\lambda _{0(3)}`$ to zero due to the property of the fermionic supergravity vertex that $`_{r=1}^3\lambda _{0(r)}|E_b^0=0`$ . The Fourier transform of (5.24) leads to the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[A^{(r)}CC_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}G_{(r)}\right]_m=0,\hfill \\ & \left[C^{1/2}B\right]_m\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{2}{}}\epsilon ^{rs}\alpha _r\alpha _sG_{0(r)}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}\left[C^{1/2}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}^1G_{(r)}\right]_m=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.26)
The components $`m=0`$ and $`m>0`$ decouple from each other (the term proportional to $`B`$ is absent for $`m=0`$). For $`m=0`$ we have

$$G_{0(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\alpha _2,G_{0(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\alpha _1.$$
(5.27)
As in the previous subsection the normalization is only determined up to a matrix $`y_{ab}(\mu )`$ with $`\underset{\mu 0}{lim}y_{ab}(\mu )=\delta _{ab}`$. For $`m>0`$ we can rewrite the second equation as

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}\left[A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}^1G_{(r)}\right]_m=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}B_m.$$
(5.28)
Then

$$G_{m(r)}=\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}A^{(r)T}W\right]_m$$
(5.29)
solves the first equation using (A.5) with $`W_m`$ an arbitrary vector that is determined by the second equation. The final solution is

$$G_{m(r)}=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{a^{}}}\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^1B\right]_m.$$
(5.30)
Here

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}P_{(r)}^2A^{(r)T},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu \alpha }{14\mu \alpha K}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B\right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B\right)^T(1+\mathrm{\Pi }).$$
(5.31)
Hence $`G_{(r)}`$ can be expressed via $`F_{(r)}`$ as

$$G_{(r)}=\left(12\mu \alpha K(1\mathrm{\Pi })\right)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}P_{(r)}^1U_{(r)}C^{1/2}F_{(r)}.$$
(5.32)
As $`\mu 0`$ we have

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}𝒴=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{F_{m(r)}}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}b_{m(r)}^{}.$$
(5.33)
Taking into account that $`\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}b_{m(r)}^{}Q_{m(r)}^I`$ this is exactly the flat space expression of . As a further check of the previous equations, in particular (5.32), we note that upon substitution of $`G_{(r)}`$ one can show that the constraints determining $`G_{(r)}`$ reduce again to the two equations given in (5.12). In flat space the operator

$$Y(\sigma )=2\pi \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha }}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\lambda _1(\sigma )+\lambda _1(\sigma )\right)$$
(5.34)
satisfies $`\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V=𝒴|V`$. Substituting the mode expansion for $`\lambda _1(\sigma )`$ we get

$$Y|V=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{\alpha _1}}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\left[\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }Q_n^1+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_{nm}^{1r}b_{m(r)}^{}\right]|V.$$
(5.35)
For large $`n`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_n^1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha _1}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))\left[C\overline{N}^1\right]_n,\hfill \\ \hfill Q_{nm}^{1r}& \sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha _1}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))\left[C\overline{N}^1\right]_nG_{m(r)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.36)
Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Y_0& =f(\mu )(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda },\hfill \\ \hfill Y_{m(r)}& =f(\mu )(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))G_{m(r)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.37)
So we have shown that $`Y|V=f(\mu )(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒴|V`$, i.e. for the fermionic constituent a non-trivial $`\mu `$-dependent matrix appears in the relative normalization.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we studied light-cone superstring field theory on the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background. Our main results are a modified expression for the fermionic contribution to the exponential part of the vertex as compared to , the generalization of a flat space factorization theorem  to the pp-wave background (see also ) and simple expressions for the fermionic Neumann matrices in terms of the bosonic ones. We analyzed the oscillator and continuum basis expressions for the constituents of the prefactor in detail and pointed out that in contrast to flat space the relation between the two is non-trivial in the fermionic case. As a consistency check, we have shown that all expressions appearing in the exponential as well as the prefactor part of the interaction vertex coincide with the flat space results of  in the limit $`\mu 0`$.

## Acknowledgment

I am grateful for discussions with Gleb Arutyunov and Jan Plefka. In particular I would like to thank Bogdan Stefanski and Stefan Theisen for very useful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by GIF, the German-Israeli foundation for Scientific Research.

## Appendix A Some summation formulae

It is convenient to introduce the matrices for $`m,n>0`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_{mn}& =m\delta _{mn},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{mn}^{(1)}& =(1)^n\frac{2\sqrt{mn}\beta }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2\beta ^2n^2}=\left(C^{1/2}X^{(1)}C^{1/2}\right)_{mn},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{mn}^{(2)}& =\frac{2\sqrt{mn}(\beta +1)}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2(\beta +1)^2n^2}=\left(C^{1/2}X^{(2)}C^{1/2}\right)_{mn},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{mn}^{(3)}& =\delta _{mn}\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.1)
and the vector $`(m>0)`$

$$B_m=\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}m^{3/2}\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta $$
(A.2)
related to $`X_{m0}^{(r)}`$ via

$$X_{m0}^{(r)}=\epsilon ^{rs}\alpha _s\left(C^{1/2}B\right)_m.$$
(A.3)
These quantities satisfy some very important identities that were derived in . They are

$$\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}CA^{(r)T}C^1A^{(s)}=\delta ^{rs}\mathrm{𝟏},\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}C^1A^{(r)T}CA^{(s)}=\delta ^{rs}\mathrm{𝟏},A^{(r)T}CB=0$$
(A.4)
for $`r,s\{1,2\}`$ and

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}A^{(r)}CA^{(r)T}=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _rA^{(r)}C^1A^{(r)T}=\frac{\alpha }{2}BB^T,$$
(A.5)
where $`\alpha \alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3`$. In terms of the big matrices $`X_{mn}^{(r)}`$, $`m,n𝐙`$ the relations (A.4) and (A.5) can be written in the compact form

$$\left(X^{(r)T}X^{(s)}\right)_{mn}=\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _r}\delta ^{rs}\delta _{mn},r,s\{1,2\},\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\left(X^{(r)}X^{(r)T}\right)_{mn}=0.$$
(A.6)
## Appendix B The exponential part of the vertex

### The bosonic part

The bosonic constraints the exponential part of the vertex has to satisfy are

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}X_{mn}^{(r)}p_{n(r)}|V=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}\alpha _rX_{mn}^{(r)}x_{n(r)}|V=0.$$
(B.1)
For $`m=0`$ this leads to

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_{0(r)}|V=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _rx_{0(r)}|V=0.$$
(B.2)
Substituting (2.3) and commuting the annihilation operators through the exponential this requires

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}\left[\left(\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}+\delta ^{rs}\right)a_{0(s)}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{N}_{0n}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}\right]|V=0,`$ (B.3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}\left[\left(\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}\delta ^{rs}\right)a_{0(s)}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{N}_{0n}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}\right]|V=0.`$ (B.4)
Using the expressions given for $`\overline{N}_{0n}^{rs}`$ and $`\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}`$ in (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4) one can check that the above equations are satisfied trivially, i.e. without further use of additional non-trivial identities. For $`m>0`$ we find the following constraints

$`B+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}A^{(r)}C^{1/2}U_{(r)}\overline{N}^r`$ $`=0,`$ (B.5)
$`A^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}U_{(s)}^1+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}U_{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}`$ $`=0,`$ (B.6)
$`\alpha _sA^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _rA^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}`$ $`=\alpha B\left[C_{(s)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^s\right]^T.`$ (B.7)
Equation (B.5) is identical to the first equation in (5.12). To prove equations (B.6) and (B.7) substitute the expression for $`\overline{N}^{rs}`$ given in (4.1). For $`m<0`$ there is one additional constraint

$$A^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}U_{(s)}^1\alpha _s\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}U_{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}C_{(s)}^1=0$$
(B.8)
which can be verified by subtracting it from equation (B.6) and using (4.12). Here the identity

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _rA^{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^r=2\alpha KB.$$
(B.9)
is used.

### The fermionic part

The fermionic constraints the exponential part of the vertex has to satisfy are

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}X_{mn}^{(r)}\lambda _{n(r)}|V=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝐙}{}\alpha _rX_{mn}^{(r)}\vartheta _{n(r)}|V=0.$$
(B.10)
For $`m=0`$ this leads to

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(r)}|V=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\vartheta _{0(r)}|V=0.$$
(B.11)
These equations are satisfied by construction of the zero-mode part of $`|V`$. For $`m>0`$ we get

$`B+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}Q^r`$ $`=0,`$ (B.12)
$`\sqrt{|\alpha _s|}A^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}P_{(s)}^1+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}Q^{rs}`$ $`=0,`$ (B.13)
$`\sqrt{|\alpha _s|}A^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}P_{(s)}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}^1Q^{srT}`$ $`=\alpha BQ^{sT}`$ (B.14)
and $`\alpha _3\mathrm{\Theta }|V_0\left(\vartheta _{0(1)}\vartheta _{0(2)}\right)|V_0=0`$. The latter equation is satisfied by the zero-mode part of the vertex given in equation (3.18). For $`m<0`$ the constraints are

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}A^{(r)}CC_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}^1Q^r`$ $`=0,`$ (B.15)
$`A^{(s)}CC_{(s)}^{1/2}e(\alpha _s)\sqrt{|\alpha _s|}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}A^{(r)}CC_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}^1Q^{rs}P_{(s)}^1`$ $`=0,`$ (B.16)
$`A^{(s)}CC_{(s)}^{1/2}+e(\alpha _s)\sqrt{|\alpha _s|}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}A^{(r)}CC_{(r)}^{1/2}P_{(r)}Q^{srT}P_{(s)}`$ $`=0.`$ (B.17)
Now equations (B.12) and (B.15) uniquely determine

$$Q^r=\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))P_{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^r.$$
(B.18)
Furthermore comparing equations (B.13) and (B.6) we see that

$$Q^{rs}=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|\frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}\right|}P_{(r)}^1U_{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}U_{(s)}P_{(s)}^1$$
(B.19)
solves (B.13). Using

$$P_{(r)}^2U_{(r)}\overline{N}^{rs}U_{(s)}P_{(s)}^2=\overline{N}^{rs}+\mu \alpha (14\mu \alpha K)^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\left[C_{(s)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^s\right]^T(1\mathrm{\Pi })$$
(B.20)
establishes (B.14) by virtue of (B.7). Equation (B.16) is satisfied due to the identity

$$A^{(s)}C_{(s)}^{1/2}\alpha _s\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}A^{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{3/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{3/2}=0$$
(B.21)
which can be proved using the expression for $`\overline{N}^{rs}`$ given in (4.1). Finally, equation (B.17) is identical to (B.6). This concludes the determination of the exponential part of the fermionic vertex.

## Appendix C A note on the fermionic zero-mode vertex

Here we show that the recent proposal of  for the fermionic zero-mode vertex can be extended to a solution of the full kinematic constraints eq. (B.10), see also .888In a previous version of this paper it was erroneously claimed that this extension is not possible. I would like to thank the authors of  for useful correspondence about this point. Recall that the proposal of  is to use

$$|\delta =\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left[\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _s\lambda _{0(r)}^a\vartheta _{0(s)}^a\right]|v$$
(C.1)
instead of $`|E_b^0`$ as the fermionic zero-mode vertex. Here $`|v`$ is the pp-wave vacuum that is annihilated by all the $`b_{n(r)}`$. Expressing $`\lambda _{0(r)}`$ and $`\vartheta _{0(r)}`$ in terms of $`b_{0(r)}`$, $`b_{0(r)}^{}`$ it is easy to see that

$$|\delta =\alpha _3^8\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left[1\left(\sqrt{\beta }b_{0(1)}^{}+\sqrt{\beta +1}b_{0(2)}^{}\right)b_{0(3)}^{}\right]|v.$$
(C.2)
Now the most general ansatz for the exponential part of the fermionic vertex is

$$|E_b\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{m(r)}^{}Q_{mn}^{rs}b_{n(s)}^{}\right]|v.$$
(C.3)
Using the identities of appendix B it was shown in  that the kinematic constraints eq. (B.10) are solved by

$`Q_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\overline{Q}_{mn}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\overline{Q}_{nm}^{sr}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\overline{Q}_{mn}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _s}}\left(C^1\overline{Q}^{rs}C\right)_{mn},`$ (C.4)
$`Q_{m0}^{rs}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\epsilon ^{st}\sqrt{\alpha _s}\alpha _t\overline{Q}_m^r,`$ (C.5)
$`Q_{0n}^{rs}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\epsilon ^{rt}\sqrt{\alpha _r}\alpha _t\overline{Q}_n^s,`$ (C.6)
$`Q_{00}^{3r}`$ $`=Q_{00}^{r3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}},`$ (C.7)
and in terms of the bosonic Neumann matrices we have

$`\overline{Q}^{rs}`$ $`=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right|}U_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}U_{(s)}^{1/2},`$ (C.8)
$`\overline{Q}^r`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}\left(U_{(r)}C_{(r)}C\right)^{1/2}\overline{N}^r.`$ (C.9)
To compare with  note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}\epsilon ^{st}\sqrt{\alpha _s}\alpha _tb_{0(s)}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (C.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}\epsilon ^{st}\sqrt{\alpha _s}\alpha _tb_{0(s)}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (C.11)