Abstract
Starting from the pseudo-\({\mathcal {B}}_0\) gauge solution for marginal deformations in OSFT, we analytically compute the relation between the perturbative deformation parameter \(\tilde{\lambda }\) in the solution and the BCFT marginal parameter \(\lambda \), up to fifth order, by evaluating the Ellwood invariants. We observe that the microscopic reason why \(\tilde{\lambda }\) and \(\lambda \) are different is that the OSFT propagator renormalizes contact-term divergences differently from the contour deformation used in BCFT.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and conclusion
In the recent years there has been published overwhelming evidence that the various consistent open string backgrounds (i.e. D-branes) can be described analytically as solitons of open string field theory (OSFT) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].Footnote 1
A classical [15] yet not fully understood problem in this correspondence is how the D-branes moduli space is described in OSFT. Given an exactly marginal boundary field j, there is a corresponding family of OSFT solutions, which can be generically found in powers of a deformation parameter \(\tilde{\lambda }\),
where \(\Psi _k\) are perturbative contributions obeying the recursive relation
Physically we expect that the deformation parameter \({\tilde{\lambda }}\), which we used to construct the solution, should be related to the natural parameter \(\lambda \) in boundary conformal field theory (BCFT), given by the coefficient in front of the boundary interaction which deforms the original world-sheet action,
On general grounds, \(\tilde{\lambda }\) does not have a gauge invariant meaning, but nonetheless it is useful to understand how \(\lambda \) and \({\tilde{\lambda }}\) are related for a given solution, because this can shed light on the different mechanisms by which a classical solution changes the world-sheet boundary conditions.
Analytic solutions for marginal deformations with nonsingular OPE (\(j j \sim \hbox { reg}\)) have been computed to all orders in [2, 3]. A different perturbative analytic solution for marginal currents with singular OPE has been constructed in [4] and generalized in [5].Footnote 2 An analytic solution for any self-local (hence exact [18]) marginal deformation has been constructed nonperturbatively in [9]. Conveniently, this solution is directly expressed in terms of the deformation parameter of the underlying BCFT, \(\lambda \). In [19] this has been used to explicitly find the relation between the BCFT modulus \(\lambda \) and the coefficient of the marginal field in the solution \(\left\langle c\partial cj|\Psi (\lambda )\right\rangle \). It has been observed that this function of \(\lambda \) starts linearly; then it has a local maximum, and finally it approaches zero for large values of \(\lambda \). Nontrivial evidence that this behavior may also be present in Siegel gaugeFootnote 3 has been given in [20] in level truncation, but it has not been possible there to establish the validity of the full equations of motion for large BCFT moduli.
In this note we would like to study this problem in another analytic wedge-based example, which is quite close to Siegel gauge. We will analyze the observables of the solution proposed by Schnabl in [2], in the so-called pseudo-\({\mathcal {B}}_0\) gauge
for a chiral marginal current j(z) with OPE
Computing the Ellwood invariants and matching them with the BCFT expected answers, gives the following relation:
Let us comment on the relation found.
Perhaps the most interesting fact about (1.7) is the origin itself-of the found coefficients of \(\lambda ^{2n+1}\). These coefficients are obtained by comparing the Ellwood invariants computed from the solution in powers of \({\tilde{\lambda }}\), with the coefficients of the Ishibashi states obtained from the marginally deformed boundary state expressed in powers of \(\lambda \), see Eqs. (4.11)–(4.16). Naively these two quantities reduce to the same world-sheet calculation and therefore one would expect to find perfect match between \(\lambda \) and \({\tilde{\lambda }}\), which is evidently not true. This is explained as follows. At order \(\tilde{\lambda }^k\), the encountered Ellwood invariants have the structure of OSFT tree-level amplitudes between an on-shell closed string and k on-shell open strings given by the marginal field cj, with \(\tilde{\lambda }\) playing the role of the open string coupling constant. These amplitudes are naively affected by infrared divergences due to the collisions of the marginal fields at zero momentum, which correspond to the propagation of the zero momentum tachyon. The propagator \(\frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\) gives a uniquely defined prescription to renormalize these singularities; see Sect. 3. On the other hand, in BCFT, the same contact-term divergences are renormalized by contour deformation [18], so that the renormalized boundary interaction \(e^{-\lambda \oint \mathrm{d}s j(s)}\) acquires a topological nature. This difference in the renormalization procedure of contact-term divergences is the ultimate reason why \(\lambda \) and \(\tilde{\lambda }\) are different. Had the self-OPE between the currents been regular, we would have found no difference between the two quantities.
We also observe that the growing of the coefficients in (1.7) is in agreement with the findings from other non-perturbative approaches (although in different gauges) such as [19, 20], and it suggests that the power series in \({\tilde{\lambda }}\) may have a finite radius of convergence. It would be desirable to improve our calculation to be able to estimate the growing of the higher order coefficients and the nature of the singularity in the complex \({\tilde{\lambda }}\) space. This would be a complementary (perturbative) way of understanding the reason why (in Siegel gauge) the marginal solution breaks down at a critical value of \({\tilde{\lambda }}\). Indeed, it turns out that our computations in pseudo \(\mathcal{B}_0\)-gauge can be related to the analogous computations in Siegel gauge, whose direct evaluation is notoriously complicated. Work in this direction is in progress [21].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we review the needed material for constructing the boundary state in BCFT [18] and in OSFT [23]. Then we review the construction of the marginal solution in the pseudo-\({\mathcal {B}}_0\) gauge [2], and we explicitly write it down up to the fifth order. Section 3 describes the regularization procedure implemented by the propagator \(\frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\). In Sect. 4 we write down the coefficients of the Ishibashi states in the boundary state in terms of the deformation parameter \(\lambda \) using the standard BCFT prescription by Recknagel and Schomerus [18]. Then we compute the same quantities for the OSFT solution in the pseudo-\({\mathcal {B}}_0\) gauge. Finally we compare the coefficients of the Ishibashi states in OSFT and BCFT and we obtain the function \(\tilde{\lambda }=\tilde{\lambda }(\lambda )\) up to fifth order. An appendix contains useful formulas for the correlators encountered.
2 The boundary state and the marginal solution
Let us consider a deformation of a BCFT by a boundary primary operator j(x) of conformal weight one,
From the OSFT point of view the new theory can be described by a classical solution, a state in the original BCFT
where
The leading term in \(\tilde{\lambda }\) satisfies the linearized equations of motion
If j is exactly marginal, higher orders in \(\tilde{\lambda }\) should exist,
and they can be found by solving the recursive equations of motion
with the initial condition (2.3).
Notice that while in BCFT the perturbation is unique, the OSFT solution is not unique because it can be changed by gauge transformations. We can get rid of this gauge redundancy by computing observables. In particular the information on the marginal deformation can be effectively cast in the boundary state.
Boundary states in bosonic string theory can be written as a superposition of Ishibashi states \(|{\mathcal {V}^m}\rangle \!\rangle \) [24]
where \(|B_{\text {gh}}\rangle \) is the universal ghost part. When we deform a given world-sheet theory with an exactly marginal boundary deformation, the boundary state will be deformed to
with
where \(\left[ \ldots \right] _{\text {R}}\) means that a regularization is needed (and it will be reviewed later on), and \(|B_0\rangle \) is the boundary state of the starting BCFT.
On the other hand, given an OSFT solution \(\Psi _{\tilde{\lambda }}\), the boundary state will depend on \(\tilde{\lambda }\)
The two boundary states should be the same by the Ellwood conjecture [25] and this induces a functional relation
To obtain this relation we can compare the coefficients of the Ishibashi states. From (2.7) it follows thatFootnote 4
where \(\langle \mathcal {V}_m|\) is the BPZ conjugate of the Virasoro primary \(|\mathcal{V}^n\rangle \) of the matter so that \(\left\langle \mathcal {V}_m|\mathcal{V}^n\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathcal {V}_m|\mathcal{V}^n\right\rangle \!\rangle =\delta _m^n\) where we used the fact that Ishibashi states have the generic form
The series expansion of the exponential in (2.12) gives rise to contact divergences and one needs to renormalize them properly. In the next section we will review the standard procedure of [18].
The way to compute the \(n_m\) from OSFT was given in [23] by appropriately generalising the Ellwood invariant
where \(\Psi _{\text {TV}}\) is a tachyon vacuum solution and \(V_m^{(0,0)}(i,-i)\) is a weight (0, 0) bulk field of the form
As explained in detail in [23], the auxiliary bulk field \({\mathcal {V}}_{\text {aux}}^{(1-h_m,1-h_m)} \) lives in an auxiliary \(\hbox { BCFT}_{\text {aux}}\)of \(c=0\) and has unit one-point function on the disk,
In a similar way the open string fields entering in (2.14) are lifted to the extended BCFT
For the solution we will be dealing with this lifting procedure is trivial and amounts to the substitution \(L_n\rightarrow L_n+L_n^{(\mathrm aux)}\) in the equations that will follow. For this reason we will not distinguish between normal and lifted string fields in the sequel.
As far as the solution itself-is concerned, we search for it in the convenient pseudo-\({\mathcal {B}}_0\) gauge [2], making the following ansatz:
with the gauge condition
where \({\mathcal {B}}_0\) is the zero mode of the b ghost in the Sliver frame, obtained from the UHP by the conformal transformation \(z=\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan w\)
and the operators \(U_r\) are the common exponentials of total Virasoro operators creating the wedge states [27] in the well known way
Solving order by order in \(\tilde{\lambda }\) (2.6) we find
- \(O(\lambda ^2)\)::
-
\( Q\Psi _2 = -(cj)^2\).
The r.h.s. is explicitly given by
$$\begin{aligned} (cj)^2\equiv & {} cj(0)|0\rangle * cj(0)|0\rangle \ \nonumber \\= & {} U_3^* U_3\ cj\left( \tfrac{1}{2} \right) cj\left( -\tfrac{1}{2} \right) |0\rangle , \end{aligned}$$(2.22)where the cj insertions are written in the Sliver frame. The solution is therefore
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi _2= & {} U_3^* U_3\ \hat{\Psi }_2 |0\rangle \nonumber \\= & {} -\ U_3^* U_3\ \frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\ cj\left( \tfrac{1}{2} \right) cj\left( -\tfrac{1}{2} \right) |0\rangle , \end{aligned}$$(2.23)where \({\mathcal {L}}_0\) is the zero mode of the energy-momentum tensor in the Sliver frame,
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {L}}_0 = \oint \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{2\pi i}\ z\ T(z). \end{aligned}$$(2.24)Note that inverting \(Q_B\) using \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0\) is only meaningful if the OPE of cj with itself-does not produce weight zero terms, otherwise we would find a vanishing eigenvalue of \({\mathcal {L}}_0\). As is well known this is the first nontrivial condition for j to generate an exactly marginal deformation.
- \(O(\lambda ^3)\)::
-
\(Q_B\Psi _3 + \left[ cj,\Psi _2\right] =0\).
At the third order the solution \(\Psi _3\) is written in terms of \(\Psi _2\). We write the state \(\left[ cj,\Psi _2\right] \) as
$$\begin{aligned} \left[ cj,\Psi _2\right]= & {} \Big [ U_2^* U_2\ cj(0)|0\rangle ,\ U_3^* U_3\ \hat{\Psi }_2|0\rangle \Big ] \nonumber \\= & {} U_4^* U_4\ \Big [\!\Big [ cj(0),\hat{\Psi }_2\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(2,3)}} |0\rangle , \end{aligned}$$(2.25)where in the second step we explicitly write the width of the wedge states using the \(U_r\) operators. The inside insertions have to be placed according to (A.2): to lighten a bit the notation we have defined the graded commutator-like symbol \([\![\ldots ]\!]\) as
$$\begin{aligned}&\Big [\!\Big [ \psi (x),\phi (y)\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(r,s)}} \nonumber \\&\quad \equiv \psi \left( x+\tfrac{s-1}{2} \right) \phi \left( y-\tfrac{r-1}{2} \right) \nonumber \\&\qquad -\ (-1)^{|\psi ||\phi |}\ \phi \left( y+\tfrac{r-1}{2} \right) \psi \left( x-\tfrac{s-1}{2} \right) ,\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(2.26)coming from
$$\begin{aligned}&\left[ U_r^* U_r\ \psi (x)|0\rangle ,\ U_s^* U_s\ \phi (y)|0\rangle \right] \nonumber \\&\quad =\ U_{r+s-1}^* U_{r+s-1}\ \Big [\!\Big [ \psi (x),\phi (y)\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(r,s)}}\ |0\rangle . \end{aligned}$$(2.27)Finally we can write the solution at the third order as
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi _3= & {} U_4^* U_4\ \hat{\Psi }_3 |0\rangle \ \nonumber \\= & {} - U_4^* U_4\ \frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\ \Big [\!\Big [ cj,\hat{\Psi }_2\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(2,3)}} |0\rangle . \end{aligned}$$(2.28) - \(O(\lambda ^4)\)::
-
\(Q_B\Psi _4 + \left[ cj,\Psi _3\right] + \Psi _2^2 =0\).
Again,
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi _4= & {} U_5^* U_5\ \hat{\Psi }_4 |0\rangle \ = -\ U_5^* U_5\ \frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\nonumber \\&\times \;\left( \frac{1}{2}\ \Big [\!\Big [ \hat{\Psi }_2,\hat{\Psi }_2\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(3,3)}}\ + \Big [\!\Big [ cj,\hat{\Psi }_3\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(2,4)}} \right) |0\rangle .\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(2.29) - \(O(\lambda ^5)\)::
-
\(Q_B\Psi _5 + \left[ cj,\Psi _4\right] + \left[ \Psi _2,\Psi _3\right] =0\).
We find the fifth order as
$$\begin{aligned} \Psi _5= & {} U_6^* U_6\ \hat{\Psi }_5 |0\rangle \ = - U_6^* U_6\ \frac{{\mathcal {B}}_0}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\ \nonumber \\&\times \; \left( \Big [\!\Big [ cj,\hat{\Psi }_4\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(2,5)}} + \Big [\!\Big [ \hat{\Psi }_2,\hat{\Psi }_3\Big ]\!\Big ]_{\text {(3,4)}}\right) |0\rangle .\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(2.30)
This procedure can be continued to higher order.Footnote 5 Although higher orders can easily be written down, their Ellwood invariants become more and more complicated because they involve a large number of multiple integrals which by themselves need to be properly renormalized, as we will see in the next section.
3 Contact-term divergences and the propagator
The computation of the Ellwood invariants for the solution we have just presented involves in general contact divergences due to the definition of the propagator \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0\). As usual, we start by defining the inverse of \({\mathcal {L}}_0\) via the Schwinger representation
which is well defined for eigenvalues of \({\mathcal {L}}_0\) with a strictly positive real part. The operator \(s^{{\mathcal {L}}_0}\) is the generator of dilatations \(z\mapsto s z\) in the Sliver frame. Its action on a primary field with conformal weight h in the Sliver frame is
The integral representation (3.1) is only valid for fields with a positive scaling dimension \(h>0\); if we apply the above integral representation to a state \(|\varphi _{-|h|}\rangle \) with negative weight \(-|h|\),
we find a divergence, as s approaches zero. But this just reflects that the integral representation (3.1) has been used outside its domain of validity. This can easily be remedied in the following way:
This prescription amounts to computing the Schwinger integral in its region of convergence by assuming \(\mathrm{Re}(\epsilon )> |h|\), and then analytically continuing to \(\epsilon =0\) Footnote 6
This analytic continuation allows one to define \({\mathcal {L}}_0^{-1}\) on every state we encounter during our computations except on weight zero states which remain as an obstruction, as it should be.Footnote 7 Pragmatically, this procedure is equivalent to adding and removing the tachyon contribution from the OPE, for example,
and to defining \(1/{\mathcal {L}}_0\) on the tachyon as
4 Comparing \(\lambda \) and \(\tilde{\lambda }\)
In this section we perturbatively compute the coefficients of the series expansion of \(\tilde{\lambda }= \tilde{\lambda }(\lambda )\)
up to fifth order. On general grounds we expect that \(b_0=0\) and \(b_1=1\), and this will be verified in the next subsections. The \(b_k\)s are computed by equating the coefficients of the Ishibashi states in the boundary state in BCFT and OSFT [22, 23],
In both cases one can expand the above coefficients in power series of the corresponding deformation parameter
The \(B_{k,m}^{\text {BCFT}}\) coefficients can be found expanding the exponential in (2.12),
where the conformal factor \( 2^{2h_m}\) comes from the transformation of \({\mathcal {V}}_m\) under the map from the disk to the UHP.
These integrals need a renormalization, discussed by Recknagel and Schomerus [18]: thanks to the self-locality property of the current j, one can modify the path of each integral to be parallel to the real axis but with a positive imaginary part \(\epsilon \), with \(0< \epsilon<\!< 1\),
In such a way all the contact divergences between the currents are avoided and only the contraction of the currents with the closed string will give contribution. Thanks to this renormalization the loop operator \(\left[ e^{-\lambda \oint j(s)\mathrm{d}s}\right] _{\text {R}}\) becomes a topological defect.
For the sake of simplicity we consider an exactly marginal deformation produced by the operator
on an initial Neumann boundary condition of a free boson compactified at the self-dual radius \(R=1\)(\(\alpha '=1\)).Footnote 8 This deformation switches on a Wilson line in the compactified direction, which can be detected by a closed string vertex operator carrying winding charge,
where m is the winding number (which specifies the closed string index) and \({\tilde{X}}(z,\bar{z})=X(z) - \bar{X}(\bar{z})\) the T-dual field of \(X(z,\bar{z})\).Footnote 9 This closed string state has conformal weight \((\frac{m^2}{4},\frac{m^2}{4})\).
Performing the renormalized integral (4.4), one obtain with this choice of the current and closed string state (see Appendix 1 for conventions and basic correlators),
which can easily be resummed to
In the OSFT framework, the analytic computation of coefficients of the Ishibashi state involves the Ellwood invariants and we compute them order by order in \(\tilde{\lambda }\), starting from (2.14), which gives
The relation between \(\lambda \) and \(\tilde{\lambda }\) must be universal, in the sense that it cannot depend on the particular choice of the closed string. In our specific computation we will see that this is the case by verifying that the relation is independent of the winding charge m.
Now rewriting (4.2) using (4.3) and (4.1) gives explicitly
- \(O(\lambda ^0)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned} b_0 \ \propto \ B_{0,m}^{\text {SFT}} -B_{0,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \ (=\ 0), \end{aligned}$$(4.11)
- \(O(\lambda ^1)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned} b_1 = \dfrac{B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}}}{B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}}}, \end{aligned}$$(4.12)
- \(O(\lambda ^2)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned} b_2 = \dfrac{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}}\ -\ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}}}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3}, \end{aligned}$$(4.13)
- \(O(\lambda ^3)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned} b_3= & {} \dfrac{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3 B_{3,m}^{\text {BCFT}}\ -\ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^3 B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}}}{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^4} \nonumber \\&+\; 2\ \dfrac{ B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} }{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^4}\ \left( \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}}\ \right. \nonumber \\&\left. -\; \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) , \end{aligned}$$(4.14)
- \(O(\lambda ^4)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned} b_4= & {} \frac{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^4 \left( 5 B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}} -\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) }{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^6} \nonumber \\&-\;3\frac{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}} }{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^4 } \nonumber \\&+\;\frac{ 6 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^5} \nonumber \\&+\;\frac{ \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^6 B_{4,m}^{\text {BCFT}} -5 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^4 \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3 }{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^7} \nonumber \\&-\;\frac{ B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \left( 2 B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {BCFT}}+\left( B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2\right) }{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3}, \end{aligned}$$(4.15)
- \(O(\lambda ^5)\) :
-
$$\begin{aligned}&b_5 = \frac{14 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^5 \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^4}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^9} -\;\frac{21 \left( \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^5 \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}}\right) }{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^8} \nonumber \\&+\;\frac{6 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^5 B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} B_{4,m}^{\text {SFT}} + 3 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^5 \left( B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 - 20 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^3 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^7} +\;\frac{20 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^3 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}}-\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^5 B_{5,m}^{\text {SFT}}}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^6} \nonumber \\&+\;\frac{-4 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^3 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{4,m}^{\text {SFT}}+6 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 B_{3,m}^{\text {BCFT}}+6 B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^5} \nonumber \\&+\; \frac{-3 \left( B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \right) ^2 B_{3,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}}-3 B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \left( B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^2 B_{3,m}^{\text {SFT}}}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^4} +\; \frac{-2 B_{1,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} B_{4,m}^{\text {BCFT}}-2 B_{2,m}^{\text {BCFT}} B_{2,m}^{\text {SFT}} B_{3,m}^{\text {BCFT}}}{\left( B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}} \right) ^3}+\frac{B_5^{\text {BCFT}}}{B_{1,m}^{\text {SFT}}}. \end{aligned}$$(4.16)
4.1 Zeroth order
As a starting consistency check, the zeroth order of the expansion of the coefficients of the Ishibashi states in OSFT is
where, as explained in [23], the tachyon vacuum contribution can be replaced with \(\Psi _{\text {TV}} \rightarrow \frac{2}{\pi } c(0) |0\rangle \). The amplitude then becomesFootnote 10
where we used the conformal map defining the identity string field \(f_\mathcal {I} (z) = \frac{2z}{1-z^2}\). Then
Consistently we find
which confirms that
4.2 First order
As an extra starting check, let us look at the first order, where we have to compute
where in the last step we wrote the correlator on a cylinder of width one \(C_1\), without any conformal factor because the conformal weight of all the insertions is zero.
Acting with the map
this two-point function on the cylinder becomes the two-point function on the disk D,
which equals the amplitude computed from BCFT (4.8),
and so the corresponding coefficient in the \(\tilde{\lambda }/\lambda \) relation is
4.3 Second order
At second order the Ellwood invariant contains one \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0\) propagator inside \(\Psi _2\),
This amplitude is depicted in Fig. 1.
The action of the propagator on the double insertion of cj follows the regularization (3.3), so this state can be written as
The \({\mathcal {B}}_0\) ghost acts on c(w) as the contour integral
so that we have
Therefore (renaming \(s/2\rightarrow s\)) \(\Psi _2\) simplifies to
and the amplitude becomes
where we have used the obvious rotational invariance of the bc CFT on the cylinder.
Using the Wick theorem (which is reviewed in Appendix A) and in particular (A.17) we obtain
which using (A.13), (A.15) and (A.18) gives
where the \(\epsilon \) prescription acts only on the first term because it is the only one which is divergent. This gives
here we have used our analytic continuation which, as explained in Sect. 3, amounts to computing the integral in the region of the \(\epsilon \)-complex plane where it converges (\(\text {Re}\,\epsilon > 1\)) and then analytically continue to \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\). In doing this we have also took the freedom of ignoring convergent terms proportional to \(\epsilon \) since we are only interested in the \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\) limit.
Computing also the other convergent integral, we obtain again a perfect match with the BCFT results,
which leads to
4.4 Third order
At this level the amplitude we have to compute is
where \(\Psi _3\) is defined in (2.28). This amplitude is depicted in Fig. 2.
Explicitly we find
where \(\epsilon _1\) is the regulator for the most internal propagator (the one inside the lower order contribution \(\hat{\Psi }_2\) (2.23)) and \(\epsilon _2\) is the regulator for the external propagator. From the perturbative construction of the solution, it is clear that \(\epsilon _1\) should be analytically continued to zero before
\(\epsilon _2\). Using the symmetries of the correlator in the matter and ghost sector and renaming \(t/2\rightarrow t\), the whole Ellwood invariant reduces to
It is useful to change variable with \(x=\frac{3}{2}y\) and \(s=ty=\frac{2}{3}xt\) so as to rewrite the integral as
Now we apply the Wick theorem (see (A.17) of Appendix A),
and using the correlators (A.15) and (A.18), we end up with the following integral:
The first integral contains a divergence in \(\left\langle \,j(s)j(-s)\,\right\rangle \) when s approaches zero. Explicitly using (A.13) this part of the amplitude is given by
Notice that the integral in x is convergent which tells us that we could have avoided the \(\epsilon _2\) regulator. This is because the external propagator acts on a state which is in the fusion of three marginal operators and therefore it cannot contain the tachyon in its level expansion. We have
Summarizing: from the BCFT side we found that the third order is proportional to \(m^3\) (4.8) and there are no other terms. Instead, in the OSFT computation, at the third order we still get the same BCFT number proportional to \(m^3\) but in addition to it there is another contribution coming from the peculiar renormalization implicitly defined by the propagator \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0 \). This is the first time that there appears a discrepancy between the two approaches. As a consequence the third order coefficient in the \(\tilde{\lambda }(\lambda )\) equation (4.1) is
4.5 Fourth order
The fourth order Ellwood invariant is given by
there are two contributions coming from the \(\Psi _{\tilde{\lambda }}\) solution (2.29)
The Ellwood invariant at this order is given by
First term \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{2,4}\,\right\rangle \)
In the first term, as before, we need to compute the commutator of the insertions and apply the propagators,
The corresponding amplitude is depicted in Fig. 3.
First diagram \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{2,4}\,\right\rangle \). The first two legs of cj from the left are to be understood as commutators. The z, y and 2t variables are the Schwinger parameters (taking value in the interval [0, 1]). The integration variable s in (4.51) is related to the Schwinger parameters as \(s=t y\)
Applying the two propagators, the amplitude takes the form
Using the symmetries of the problem translating the correlators \(\xi \rightarrow \xi +\frac{z}{2}\) and changing variables \(w=sz\) and \(x=yz\), the amplitude simplifies to
Second term \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{3,3} \,\right\rangle \)
The second term is the Ellwood invariant of \(\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{3,3}\),
and it is depicted in Fig. 4.
Explicitly we have to compute the star product of two \(\Psi _2\) and then act with a propagator \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0\):
Again the four different insertions of the ghosts contribute in the same way, and therefore
With the change of variable \(x=zt\) and \(y=zs\),
Complete \(B_{4,m}^{\text {SFT}}\)
The complete term at this order is given by summing the two integrals (4.52) and (4.56),
As in the previous order \(\tilde{\lambda }^3\), here also we have contribution from three different powers of the winding number m coming from the different contractions in Wick theorem (A.17). This means that we can write \(B_{4,m}^{\text {SFT}}\) in terms of the \(B_{k,m}^{\text {BCFT}} \sim m^k \),
From this consideration (setting to zero all the regulators as they are not important here) we find that
Using these results we find that
which corresponds to
4.6 Fifth order
At the fifth order the solution is composed of three terms,
Then the Ellwood invariant we have to compute is
First term \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{2,5} \,\right\rangle \)
The first term involves the state
The amplitude to compute is depicted in Fig. 5 and after some manipulations, involving changes of variables and conformal transformations, we get
where the Schwinger parameters \(t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4\) are related to the integration variables as
Second term \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}_{3,4} \,\right\rangle \)
The state here is
and its Ellwood invariant is (Fig. 6)
where the integration variables are related to the Schwinger parameters as
Third term \(\left\langle \,V_m\hat{\mathcal {A}}^{3,3}_{2,5} \,\right\rangle \)
The last term involves the state
and it becomes (Fig. 7)
where the Schwinger parameters are related to the integration variables as
Complete \(B_{5,m}^{\text {SFT}}\)
Now we have to compute the three Ellwood invariants as we have done in previous examples. Again the total Ellwood invariant can be expanded in terms of the first, third and fifth power of the winding number,
The \(a_5\) coefficient is easily computed:
which gives the usual exact match with the BCFT results. As far as \(a_3\) is concerned the computation follows closely the fourth order (with one more integral) and everything can be analytically done giving the result
This is precisely the number needed to ensure that \(b_5\) is m-independent (4.16) so this is a consistency check.
Let us now address the \(a_1\) coefficient, which is determined by the O(m) winding number contribution in (4.75). This is generated by the term from the Wick theorem with the maximal number of contractions between the j and computing the four dimensional integrals (coming from the three diagrams) analytically is not possible. Therefore we proceed analytically as far as we can and then we resort to numerics. The Y and Z integrals can be analytically computed in all of the three diagrams, including the subtraction of the tachyon divergence.
Rescaling the X variable in the first diagram \(X\rightarrow 2X\), the O(m) contribution \(E_i\) from each diagram is reduced to an expression of the form
where the function \(f_i\) are known analytically. To renormalize the tachyon divergence in the X integration we explicitly subtract the second order pole in X from the function \(f_i\) in the following way:
It turns out that the coefficient of the \(1/X^2\) pole, which in the above formula is indicated as \((f_i)_{-2}\), is T independent.
This treatment leaves us with three numerical functions of T, which have to be integrated in the interval \(\left[ 0,\frac{5}{2}\right] \). Surprisingly each of these functions shows a nonvanishing 1 / T pole, as shown in Fig. 8,
with \({\tilde{F}}_i\) finite in \(T=0\). We explicitly find
These poles are potentially problematic, and it is reassuring that the sum of them vanishes,
see also Fig. 9. This is an important consistency check, because a 1 / T pole would be an obstruction to the existence of the solution at the fifth order. Numerically computing the integral over T finally gives
To conclude the total contribution to fifth order is given by
which corresponds to (4.1)
Notes
In Siegel gauge the perturbative coefficient \(\tilde{\lambda }\) (1.1) and the coefficient of the marginal field in the solution \(\langle c\partial c j|\Psi \rangle \) coincide. This is not generically true for other perturbative solutions; see for example [5, 17]. This is also not true for the solution [2] analyzed in this paper and the relation can be computed, if needed, by the same methods of Sect. 4.
From now on we will only consider the matter part of boundary states.
In [2] an all-order expression is written down, by explicitly acting with the \({\mathcal {B}}_0\) ghosts, which coincides with our expressions, up to the issue of renormalizing contact-term divergences. We keep the propagators \({\mathcal {B}}_0/{\mathcal {L}}_0\) explicit, because they are the origin of the contact-term renormalization we will describe next.
Notice that one could in principle define \({\mathcal {L}}_0^{-1}\) on negative weight states as
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{{\mathcal {L}}_0}|\varphi _{-|h|}\rangle =\frac{-1}{-{\mathcal {L}}_0}|\varphi _{-|h|}\rangle =-\int _0^1\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{s}s^{-{\mathcal {L}}_0}|\varphi _{-|h|}\rangle =-\frac{1}{|h|}\ |\varphi _{-|h|}\rangle ;\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(3.5)however, this integral representation does not work for positive weight states. Since the star product generates both positive and negative weight states at the same time, we need a representation of \({\mathcal {L}}_0^{-1}\) that works on the whole set of fields (except, of course, the weight zero fields).
Since we are considering a compactified theory at the self-dual radius, there are other marginal operators in the enlarged SU(2) chiral algebra. Our choice (4.6) is equivalent to the chiral marginal operators \(i\sqrt{2}\sin \left( 2X(z) \right) \) and \(i\sqrt{2}\cos \left( 2X(z) \right) \), which have been studied in a similar context in [20, 22]
If R is not self-dual, our computation goes on unaffected by replacing the self-dual winding mode m with the winding mode at generic radius, mR.
From now on we will write \(V_m\) instead of \(V_m^{(0,0)}\) to denote the lifted closed string state associated to the spinless matter primary \(\mathcal {V}_m\).
This can be obtained from (A.1) of [23] by mapping the UHP to the disk, trading Dirichlet boundary conditions with Neumann and momentum with winding (T-duality) and setting \(q=\mathrm{im}\) there.
References
M. Schnabl, Analytic solution for tachyon condensation in open string field theory. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 10(4), 433 (2006). https://doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2006.v10.n4.a1. arXiv:hep-th/0511286
M. Schnabl, Comments on marginal deformations in open string field theory. Phys. Lett. B 654, 194 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.08.023. arXiv:hep-th/0701248 [HEP-TH]
M. Kiermaier, Y. Okawa, L. Rastelli, B. Zwiebach, Analytic solutions for marginal deformations in open string field theory. JHEP 0801, 028 (2008). arXiv:hep-th/0701249 [HEP-TH]
E. Fuchs, M. Kroyter, R. Potting, Marginal deformations in string field theory. JHEP 0709, 101 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/101. arXiv:0704.2222 [hep-th]
M. Kiermaier, Y. Okawa, Exact marginality in open string field theory: a general framework. JHEP 0911, 041 (2009). arXiv:0707.4472 [hep-th]
L. Bonora, C. Maccaferri, D.D. Tolla, Relevant deformations in open string field theory: a simple solution for lumps. JHEP 1111, 107 (2011). arXiv:1009.4158 [hep-th]
M. Murata, M. Schnabl, Multibrane solutions in open string field theory. JHEP 1207, 063 (2012). arXiv:1112.0591 [hep-th]
T. Erler, C. Maccaferri, Connecting solutions in open string field theory with singular gauge transformations. JHEP 1204, 107 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)107. arXiv:1201.5119 [hep-th]
C. Maccaferri, A simple solution for marginal deformations in open string field theory. JHEP 1405, 004 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2014)004. arXiv:1402.3546 [hep-th]
T. Erler, C. Maccaferri, String field theory solution for any open string background. JHEP 1410, 029 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2014)029. arXiv:1406.3021 [hep-th]
T. Kojita, C. Maccaferri, T. Masuda, M. Schnabl, Topological defects in open string field theory. arXiv:1612.01997 [hep-th]
E. Fuchs, M. Kroyter, Analytical solutions of open string field theory. Phys. Rep. 502, 89 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.01.003. arXiv:0807.4722 [hep-th]
M. Schnabl, Algebraic solutions in open string field theory—a lightning review. Acta Polytech. 50(3), 102 (2010). arXiv:1004.4858 [hep-th]
Y. Okawa, Analytic methods in open string field theory. Prog. Theor. Phys. 128, 1001 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.128.1001
A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, Large marginal deformations in string field theory. JHEP 0010, 009 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/10/009. [hep-th/0007153]
J.L. Karczmarek, M. Longton, Renormalization schemes for SFT solutions. JHEP 1504, 007 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)007. arXiv:1412.3466 [hep-th]
M. Longton, Time-symmetric rolling tachyon profile. JHEP 1509, 111 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2015)111. arXiv:1505.00802 [hep-th]
A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of D-branes. Nucl. Phys. B 545, 233 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00060-7. arXiv:hep-th/9811237
C. Maccaferri, M. Schnabl, Large BCFT moduli in open string field theory. JHEP 1508, 149 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2015)149. arXiv:1506.03723 [hep-th]
M. Kudrna, C. Maccaferri, BCFT moduli space in level truncation. JHEP 1604, 057 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2016)057. arXiv:1601.04046 [hep-th]
M. Kudrna, P.V. Larocca, C. Maccaferri, In progress
M. Kudrna, T. Masuda, Y. Okawa, M. Schnabl, K. Yoshida, Gauge-invariant observables and marginal deformations in open string field theory. JHEP 1301, 103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2013)103. arXiv:1207.3335 [hep-th]
M. Kudrna, C. Maccaferri, M. Schnabl, Boundary state from Ellwood invariants. JHEP 1307, 033 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2013)033. arXiv:1207.4785 [hep-th]
N. Ishibashi, The boundary and crosscap states in conformal field theories. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 251 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732389000320
I. Ellwood, The Closed string tadpole in open string field theory. JHEP 0808, 063 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/08/063. arXiv:0804.1131 [hep-th]
N. Berkovits, M. Schnabl, Yang–Mills action from open superstring field theory. JHEP 0309, 022 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/09/022. arXiv:hep-th/0307019
M. Schnabl, Wedge states in string field theory. JHEP 0301, 004 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/01/004. arXiv:hep-th/0201095
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ted Erler, Marialuisa Frau and Martin Schnabl for discussions. We especially thank Matej Kudrna for discussions and for sharing interesting Siegel gauge results in level truncation. PVL warmly thanks Edoardo Lauria for useful discussions and comments. CM thanks Nathan Berkovits and the other organizers of the VIII workshop String Field Theory and Related Aspects, where some of our preliminary results were reported. The research of CM is funded by a Rita Levi Montalcini grant from the Italian MIUR. This work is partially supported by the Compagnia di San Paolo contract MAST: Modern Applications of String Theory TO-Call3-2012-0088 and by the MIUR PRIN Contract 2015MP2CX4 Non-perturbative Aspects Of Gauge Theories And Strings.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: Conventions and correlators
Appendix A: Conventions and correlators
Witten’s star product
The Witten star product is best understood in the Sliver frame (with coordinate z), which is related to the UHP (with coordinate w) by the map
In this frame the star product of wedge states with insertions is given by
where the coordinates are in the“ \(2/\pi \)” Sliver frame (A.1), which implies some rescaling w.r.t. to (2.24) of [1], where the \(2/\pi \) factor in (A.1) was omitted.
Upper Half Plane
In the BCFT of a free boson X at the self-dual radius \(R=1\), with Neumann boundary conditions, consider the bulk winding mode
where \(\tilde{X}(z,\bar{z}) = X_L(z) - X_R(\bar{z}) \) is the T-dual field of \(X(z,\bar{z})\), and the boundary marginal field
which is defined as a bulk chiral field placed at the boundary. The chiral closed string field X(z) has the following two-point functions (\(\alpha '=1\)):
The current j(x) has the two-point function
and it has the following OPE with the bulk winding mode \(\mathcal {V}_m (z,\bar{z}) = e^{i m {\tilde{X}}(z,\bar{z})}\):
We also have
and, using the Wick theorem,
The one-point function isFootnote 11
In addition we have the following correlator for the auxiliary closed string field [23]:
Cylinder
On the cylinder the chiral closed string field X(z) has the following correlators [1]:
and then
Wick theorem
In the main text we deal with correlators of the following form:
This correlator significantly simplifies on a cylinder \(C_n\), when the bulk operator (properly dressed with the ghosts and the auxiliary sector to acquire total weight zero; see (2.15)) is placed at the midpoint \(i\infty \). In particular, thanks to the rotational invariance of \(C_n\) we have
The term containing the maximal number of contractions with the closed string is given by
Let us list for convenience the explicit correlators which are used in the main text:
where the only non-trivial correlator involving \(\tilde{X}\) is given by
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP3
About this article
Cite this article
Larocca, P.V., Maccaferri, C. BCFT and OSFT moduli: an exact perturbative comparison. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 806 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5379-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5379-3