text:
# Two-Loop Superstrings in Hyperelliptic Language III: the Four-Particle Amplitude

## 1 Introduction

Although we believe that superstring theory is finite in perturbation at any order , a rigorous proof is still lacking despite great advances in the covariant formulation of superstring perturbation theory á la Polyakov. The main problem is the presence of supermoduli and modular invariance in higher genus. At two loops these problems were solved explicitly by using the hyperelliptic formalism in a series of papers . The explicit result was also used by Iengo  to prove the vanishing of perturbative correction to the $`R^4`$ term  at two loop, in agreement with the indirect argument of Green and Gutperle , Green, Gutperle and Vanhove , and Green and Sethi  that the $`R^4`$ term does not receive perturbative contributions beyond one loop. Recently, Stieberger and Taylor  also used the result of  to prove the vanishing of the heterotic two-loop $`F^4`$ term. For some closely related works we refer the reader to the reviews . In the general case in superstring perturbation theory, there is no satisfactory solution. For a review of these problem we refer the reader to .

Recently two-loop superstring was studied by D’Hoker and Phong. In a series of papers  (for a recent review see ), D’Hoker and Phong found an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure from first principles.

Although their result is quite explicit, it is still a difficult problem to use it in actual computation. In , D’Hoker and Phong used their result to compute explicitly the chiral measure by choosing the split gauge and proved the vanishing of the cosmological constant and the non-renormalization theorem . They also computed the four-particle amplitude in another forthcoming paper . Although the final results are exactly the expected, their computation is quite difficult to follow because of the use of theta functions.111In , the two-loop 4-particle amplitude was also computed by using theta functions. Its relation with the previous explicit result  has not been clarified. Also modular invariance is absurd in their computations because of the complicated dependence between the 2 insertion points (the insertion points are also spin structure dependent).

In the old works  on two-loop superstrings, one of the author (with Iengo) used the hyperelliptic representation to do the explicit computation at two loops which is quite explicit and modular invariance is manifest at every stage of the computations. So it is natural to do computations in this language by using the newly established result. In a previous paper , we reported the main results of our computation of two loop superstring theory by using hyperelliptic language. In  the details for the verification of the vanishing of the cosmological constant and the non-renormalization theorem is given. As we have shown in , except one kind term involving the stress energy tensor of the $`\psi `$ field, all the rest relevant terms containing 3 or less particles are vanishing point-wise in moduli space after summation over spin structures. This non-vanishing term also gives a vanishing contribution to the 3-particle amplitude because of the antisymmetric property of the relevant kinematic factor. As we will see in this paper, the non-renormalization theorem greatly simplifies the computation of the possibly non-vanishing four-particle amplitude.

In this paper we will present the details for the explicit computation of the four-particle amplitude. As announced in , we obtained a quite simple and explicit expression for the chiral integrand. For type II superstring theories, we also give an explicit expression for the amplitude. By using this result, we show that the perturbative correction to the $`R^4`$ term in type II superstring theories is vanishing at two loops, confirming the computation of Iengo  and the the conjecture of Green and Gutperle  (see also ). We leave the proof of the equivalence between the new result and the old result of the four-particle amplitude as a problem of the future. This paper is organized as follows:

In the next section we will recall the relevant results of hyperelliptic representation of the genus 2 Riemann surface and set our notations for all the correlators. In section 3 we recall the results of D’Hoker and Phong for the chiral measure. In section 4 we computed explicitly all the relevant quantities appearing in the chiral measure and write the chiral integrand (before the summation over spin structures) by using hyperelliptic language. In section 5 we present the computation of the connected terms from the matter supercurrent and show that it gives vanishing contribution to the amplitude. In section 6, we will use the result of  and computed the terms with a single $`S_n(q)`$ factor. We show that the resulting expression is independent of the three arbitrary points $`p_{1,2,3}`$. In section 7 we compute the rest terms and found an almost total cancellation between the various terms. In section 8, we present the final form for the 4-particle amplitude by combing all the previous results. The final result for the 4-particle amplitude is quite simple. We also show that the result is independent of the insertion points $`q_{1,2}`$. By using this result, we show that the perturbative correction to the $`R^4`$ term in type II superstring theories is vanishing at two loops, confirming the explicit computation of Iengo  and the conjecture of Green and Gutperle . Some technical parts are relegated to the appendix. In Appendix A, we collect all the formulas for the $`X(z)X(w)`$ correlators. In Appendix B, we present the proof for the summation formulas eq. (103). In Appendix C, we compute explicitly the $`q`$ dependence of the factor $`𝒵`$. Here we also give some useful formulas which are needed in the transform from the branch point parametrization of the moduli space to the period matrix $`\tau _{ij}`$.

To conclude this section we note that D’Hoker and Phong have also proved that the cosmological constant and the 1-, 2- and 3-point functions are zero point-wise in moduli space . They have also computed the 4-particle amplitude . The agreement of the results from these two different gauge choices and two different methods of computations would be the final proof of the validity of the new supersymmetric gauge fixing method at two loops.

## 2 Genus 2 hyperelliptic Riemann surface

First we remind that a genus-g Riemann surface, which is the appropriate world sheet for one and two loops, can be described in full generality by means of the hyperelliptic formalism.222Some early works on two loops computation by using hyperelliptic representation are  which is by no means the complete list. This is based on a representation of the surface as two sheet covering of the complex plane described by the equation:

$$y^2(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g+2}{}}(za_i),$$
(1)
The complex numbers $`a_i`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2)`$ are the $`2g+2`$ branch points, by going around them one passes from one sheet to the other. For two-loop ($`g=2`$) three of them represent the moduli of the genus 2 Riemann surface over which the integration is performed, while the other three can be arbitrarily fixed. Another parametrization of the moduli space is given by the period matrix $`\tau `$. The transformation from the period matrix $`\tau `$ to the branch points can be found in Appendix C.

There are two independent holomorphic differentials on a genus two Riemann surface. In hyperelliptic language these are given explicitly as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1(z)=\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{y(z)},\mathrm{\Omega }_2(z)=\frac{z\mathrm{d}z}{y(z)}.$$
(2)
These differentials are not normalized in the standard way:

$$_{\alpha _i}\omega _j(z)=\delta _{ij},_{\beta _i}\omega _j(z)=\tau _{ij},i,j=1,2,$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ are the four nontrivial one cycles and $`\tau _{ij}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ period matrix. Setting

$$(K)_{ij}=_{\alpha _i}\mathrm{\Omega }_j,$$
(4)
we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\omega _jK_{ji},$$
(5)
and

$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_{22}\mathrm{\Omega }_1K_{21}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{\mathrm{det}K}},`$ (6)
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_{12}\mathrm{\Omega }_1+K_{11}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{\mathrm{det}K}}.`$ (7)
At genus 2, by choosing a canonical homology basis of cycles we have the following list of 10 even spin structures:

$`\delta _1\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_3|a_4a_5a_6),`$ $`\delta _2\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_4|a_3a_5a_6),`$ (12)
$`\delta _3\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_5|a_3a_4a_6),`$ $`\delta _4\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_6|a_3a_4a_5),`$ (17)
$`\delta _5\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_4|a_2a_5a_6),`$ $`\delta _6\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_5|a_2a_4a_6),`$ (22)
$`\delta _7\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_6|a_2a_4a_5),`$ $`\delta _8\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_4a_5|a_2a_3a_6),`$ (27)
$`\delta _9\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_4a_6|a_2a_3a_5),`$ $`\delta _{10}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_5a_6|a_2a_3a_4).`$ (32)
We will denote an even spin structure as $`(A_1A_2A_3|B_1B_2B_3)`$. By convention $`A_1=a_1`$. For each even spin structure we have a spin structure dependent factor from determinants which is given as follows :

$$Q_\delta =\underset{i<j}{}(A_iA_j)(B_iB_j).$$
(33)
This is a degree 6 homogeneous polynomials in $`a_i`$.

At two loops there are two odd supermoduli and this gives two insertions of supercurrent at two different points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Previously the chiral measure was derived in  by a simple projection from the supermoduli space to the even moduli space. This projection does’t preserve supersymmetry and there is a residual dependence on the two insertion points. This formalism was used in . In these papers we found that it is quite convenient to choose these two insertion points as the two zeroes of a holomorphic abelian differential which are moduli independent points on the Riemann surface. In hyperelliptic language the holomorphic abelian differential can be written generally as follows:

$$\omega _x(z)=\frac{c(zx)\mathrm{d}z}{y(z)}.$$
(34)
In hyperelliptic language the two zero points are the same points on the upper and lower sheet of the surface. We denote these two points as $`x_1=x+`$ (on the upper sheet) and $`x_2=x`$ (on the lower sheet).

In the following we will give some formulas in hyperelliptic representation which will be used later. First all the relevant correlators are given by333We follow closely the notation of .

$`\psi ^\mu (z)\psi ^\nu (w)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }G_{1/2}[\delta ](z,w)=\delta ^{\mu \nu }S_\delta (z,w),`$
$`b(z)c(w)`$ $`=`$ $`+G_2(z,w),`$
$`\beta (z)\gamma (w)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{3/2}[\delta ](z,w),`$ (35)
where

$`S_\delta (z,w)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z)+u(w)}{2\sqrt{u(z)u(w)}}},`$ (36)
$`u(z)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{zA_i}{zB_i}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (37)
$`G_2(z,w)=H(w,z)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_a)\varpi _a(z,z),`$ (38)
$`H(w,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(wz)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}},`$ (39)
$`G_{3/2}[\delta ](z,w)=P(w,z)+P(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(z)+P(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(z),`$ (40)
$`P(w,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S_\delta (w,z)\mathrm{\Omega }(z),`$ (41)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ is a holomorphic abelian differential satisfying $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_{1,2})0`$ and otherwise arbitrary. These correlators were adapted from . $`\varpi _a(z,w)`$ are defined in  and $`\psi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$ are the two holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differentials. When no confusion is possible, the dependence on the spin structure $`[\delta ]`$ will not be exhibited. The formulas for the $`X(z)X(w)`$ and related correlators are given in Appendix A.

In order take the limit of $`x_{1,2}q_{1,2}`$ we need the following expansions:

$`G_{3/2}(x_2,x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1q_1}}\psi _1^{}(x_2)\psi _1^{}(x_2)f_{3/2}^{(1)}(x_2)+O(x_1q_1),`$ (42)
$`G_{3/2}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_2q_2}}\psi _2^{}(x_1)\psi _2^{}(x_1)f_{3/2}^{(2)}(x_1)+O(x_2q_2),`$ (43)
for $`x_{1,2}q_{1,2}`$. By using the explicit expression of $`G_{3/2}`$ in (40) we have

$`f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)}{S(q_1,q_2)}}+\psi _2^{}(q_2),`$ (44)
$`f_{3/2}^{(2)}(q_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{q_1}S(q_2,q_1)}{S(q_1,q_2)}}+\psi _1^{}(q_1)=f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)|_{q_1q_2}.`$ (45)
The quantity $`\psi _\alpha ^{}(z)`$’s are holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differentials and are constructed as follows:

$$\psi _\alpha ^{}(z)=(zq_\alpha )S(z,q_\alpha )\frac{y(q_\alpha )}{y(z)},\alpha =1,2.$$
(46)
For $`z=q_{1,2}`$ we have

$`\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\beta )=\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ (47)
$`\psi _1^{}(q_2)=\psi _2^{}(q_1)=S(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}S_1(q),`$ (48)
$`\psi _1^{}(q_1)=\psi _2^{}(q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q),`$ (49)
$`^2\psi _1^{}(q_1)=^2\psi _2^{}(q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}S_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q),`$ (50)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xa_i)^n}},`$ (51)
$`S_n(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xA_i)^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xB_i)^n}}\right],`$ (52)
for $`n=1,2`$. This shows that $`\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_{\alpha +1})`$ and $`^2\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )`$ are spin structure dependent.

The other quantities introduced in  which will be used later are as follows:

$`\varpi _1(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(p_1)}{y^2(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}},`$ (53)
$`\varpi _2(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(p_2)}{y^2(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_1)(qp_3)}{(p_2p_1)(p_2p_3)}},`$ (54)
$`\varpi _3(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(p_3)}{y^2(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_1)(qp_2)}{(p_3p_1)(p_3p_2)}},`$ (55)
and

$`\varpi _1^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y(p_1)}{y(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(up_1\frac{1}{2}(u+p_1)(p_2+p_3)+p_2p_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y(p_1)}{y(u)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(up_1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1p_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1p_3}}\right)\right],`$
$`\varpi _2^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y(p_2)}{y(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(up_2\frac{1}{2}(u+p_2)(p_3+p_1)+p_1p_3)}{(p_2p_3)(p_2p_1)}},`$ (57)
$`\varpi _3^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y(p_3)}{y(u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(up_3\frac{1}{2}(u+p_3)(p_1+p_2)+p_1p_2)}{(p_3p_1)(p_3p_2)}}.`$ (58)
We note here that $`\varpi _1(q_1,q_2)=1`$ and $`\varpi _{2,3}(q_1,q_2)=0`$ in the limit $`p_1q_{1,2}`$.

## 3 The chiral measure: the result of D’Hoker and Phong

In this section we will briefly recall the result of D’Hoker and Phong. Previously the chiral measure was derived in  by a simple projection from the supermoduli space to the even moduli space. This projection does’t preserve supersymmetry and there is a residual dependence on the two insertion points. In the new formalism of D’Hoker and Phong, they use a supersymmetric projection to the super-period matrix. For detailed derivation of the chiral measure we refer the reader to their original papers . After making the choice $`x_\alpha =q_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2`$), the chiral measure obtained in these papers is:

$`𝒜[\delta ]`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒵\left\{1+𝒳_1+𝒳_2+𝒳_3+𝒳_4+𝒳_5+𝒳_6\right\},`$
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{a}{}b(p_a)\underset{\alpha }{}\delta (\beta (q_\alpha ))}{det\omega _I\omega _J(p_a)}},`$ (59)
and the $`𝒳_i`$ are given by:

$`𝒳_1+𝒳_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{16\pi ^2}}[\psi (q_1)X(q_1)\psi (q_2)X(q_2)`$ (60)
$`_{q_1}G_2(q_1,q_2)\psi _1^{}(q_2)+_{q_2}G_2(q_2,q_1)\psi _2^{}(q_1)`$
$`+2G_2(q_1,q_2)\psi _1^{}(q_2)f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)2G_2(q_2,q_1)\psi _2^{}(q_1)f_{3/2}^{(2)}(q_1)],`$
$`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{8\pi ^2}}S_\delta (q_1,q_2)`$ (61)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_a(q_1,q_2)[T(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)+\stackrel{~}{B}_2(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)+\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)],`$
$`𝒳_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{8\pi ^2}}S_\delta (q_1,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[_{p_a}_{q_1}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_1)\varpi _a^{}(q_2)`$ (62)
$`+_{p_a}_{q_2}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_2)\varpi _a^{}(q_1)],`$
$`𝒳_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[S_\delta (p_a,q_1)_{p_a}S_\delta (p_a,q_2)`$ (63)
$`S_\delta (p_a,q_2)_{p_a}S_\delta (p_a,q_1)]\varpi _a(q_1,q_2).`$
Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_{p_a}_w\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,w)\varpi _a^{}(w),`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}(G_2(w,q_\alpha )_{q_\alpha }\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_{q_\alpha }G_2(w,q_\alpha )\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )).`$ (65)
In comparing with  we have written $`𝒳_2`$, $`𝒳_3`$ together and we didn’t split $`T(w)`$ into different contributions. We also note that in eq. (61) the three arbitrary points $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) can be different from the three insertion points $`p_a`$’s of the $`b`$ ghost field. The symbol $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_a`$ is obtained from $`\varpi _a`$ by changing $`p_a`$’s to $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$’s. In the following computation we will take the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$. In this limit we have $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_{2,3}(q_1,q_2)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_1(q_1,q_2)=1`$ as we noted at the end of last section. This choice greatly simplifies the formulas and also make the summation over spin structure doable (see below and ).

## 4 The chiral measure in hyperelliptic language

In this section we will compute explicitly the chiral measure in hyperelliptic language. Here we will not only compute the spin structure dependent parts, but also compute explicitly all the quantities appearing in the chiral measure. In order to do this we will write the chiral measure in hyperelliptic language and then take the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$.

Let’s first start with $`𝒳_5`$. We have

$$S(z,q_1)_zS(z,q_2)S(z,q_2)_zS(z,q_1)=\frac{i}{4(zq)^2}S_1(z).$$
(66)
The exact phase of the above expression is determined by taking the limit $`zq_1`$. So the chiral integrand of the four-particle amplitude (before the summation over spin structures) from $`𝒳_5`$ is444An overall factor $`\frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{16\pi ^2}`$ was omitted.

$$𝒜_5=\frac{i}{4}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\varpi _a(q_1,q_2)}{(qp_a)^2}S_1(p_a)\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}V_i(k_i,ϵ_i;z_i,\overline{z}_i),$$
(67)
after including the vertex operators.

For $`𝒳_4`$, we need to combine it with the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_2(q_1)`$ in $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ in order to get a simpler expression. We have

$`𝒜_4+\stackrel{~}{B}_2(q_1)\text{in}𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[_{p_a}_{q_1}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_1)+_{p_a}_{q_2}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_2)\right]`$ (68)
$`\times \varpi _a^{}(q_1)S_1(q_1,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i(k_i,ϵ_i;z_i,\overline{z}_i)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(qp_a)^2}}\varpi _a^{}(q_1)S_1(q_1,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i(k_i,ϵ_i;z_i,\overline{z}_i),`$
where we have used eq. (152) in Appendix A and the fact $`\varpi ^{}(q_2)=\varpi ^{}(q_1)`$.

For the rest terms in $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$, we first compute the various contributions from the different fields in the stress energy tensor. The total stress energy tensor is:

$`T(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:_zX(z)_zX(z):+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:\psi (z)_z\psi (z):`$ (69)
$`:(bc+2bc+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta \gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \gamma )(z):`$
$``$ $`T_X(z)+T_\psi (z)+T_{bc}(z)+T_{\beta \gamma }(z),`$
in an obvious notations. The various contributions are (following the notations of ):

$`T_X(w)`$ $`=`$ $`10T_1(w),`$ (70)
$`T_\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{g}_{1/2}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}(S_1(w))^2,`$ (71)
$`T_{bc}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2(w)2_wf_2(w),`$ (72)
$`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{3/2}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_wf_{3/2}(w),`$ (73)
where

$`f_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(w)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_a)\varpi _a(w,w),`$ (74)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(w)`$ (75)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_a)\varpi _a(w,w)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wp_{a+1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wp_{a+2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(w)\right),`$
$`f_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(w)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(w),`$ (76)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }(w)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(S_1(w))^2`$ (77)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(w).`$
As we said in the last section we will take the limit of $`wq_1`$. In this limit $`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ is singular and we have the following expansion:

$$T_{\beta \gamma }(w)=\frac{3/2}{(wq_1)^2}\frac{\psi _1^{}(q_1)}{wq_1}\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)\frac{1}{32}S_1^2(q)+O(wq_1).$$
(78)
The explicit dependence of $`G_{3/2}`$ on the abelian differential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ drops out in the above expression. These singular terms are cancelled by similar singular terms in $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$. By explicit computation we have:

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{3/2}{(wq_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _1^{}(q_1)}{wq_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1q}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q)+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_1q)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\right)+O(wq_1).`$ (79)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates two other terms obtained by cyclicly permutating $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. By using the above explicit result we see that the combined contributions of $`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$ are non-singular in the limit of $`wq_1`$. We can then take $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$ in $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$. In this limit only $`a=1`$ contributes to $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$. This is because $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_{2,3}(q_1,q_2)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_1(q_1,q_2)=1`$. $`T_{bc}(w)`$ is regular in this limit and it is spin structure independent. It is given as follows:

$`T_{bc}(q_1)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q_1){\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q_1)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi _a^{}(q_1)}{(q_1p_a)^2}}`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_1p_1)^2}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_1p_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_1p_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_1p_2}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q_1))]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(q_1p_2)(q_1p_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+...\}.`$ (80)
where “$`\mathrm{}`$” again indicates two other terms obtained by cyclicly permutating $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. Combining all the above results together, we have

$`𝒜_2+𝒜_3`$ $`=`$ $`2S(q_1,q_2)\{(T_X(q_1)+T_\psi (q_1)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i_c`$ (81)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(S_1(q))^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q){\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi _a^{}(q_1)}{(qp_a)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qp_1)^2}}[1+(qp_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q_1))]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\}]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i\},`$
by omitting the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_2(q_1)`$ which has been included in eq. (68). The subscript “c” indicates that the disconnected contraction of $`T_\psi `$ with $`V_i`$ should be omitted. Also by comparing eq. (68) with the above expression we see that it exactly cancels the term with $`\varpi _a^{}(q_1)`$. Writing these expression together we have:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{4}{}}}𝒜_i`$ $`=`$ $`2S(q_1,q_2)\{(T_X(q_1)+T_\psi (q_1)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i`$ (82)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(S_1(q))^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q){\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qp_1)^2}}[1+(qp_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q_1))]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\}]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i\}.`$
Finally we compute $`𝒳_1+𝒳_6`$ explicitly. By using the explicit results given in eqs. (44)–(45), we have:

$`𝒜_1+𝒜_6`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (q_1)X(q_1)\psi (q_2)X(q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i`$ (83)
$`(_{q_1}G_2(q_1,q_2)+_{q_2}G_2(q_2,q_1))S(q_1,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i`$
$`+2(G_2(q_1,q_2)+G_2(q_2,q_1))`$
$`\times (\psi _1^{}(q_1)S(q_1,q_2)_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i.`$
Here it is important that the factor $`\psi _1^{}(q_2)`$ cancels the factor $`S(q_1,q_2)`$ appearing in the denominator of $`f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)`$. The $`G_2`$’s appearing in the above expression can be computed explicitly by using eq. (38). The expressions that we will need are given as follows:

$`G_2(q_1,q_2)+G_2(q_2,q_1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q)`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (84)
$`_{q_1}G_2(q_1,q_2)+_{q_2}G_2(q_2,q_1)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q)\right){\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\right].`$
Now we turn to the computation of the 4-particle amplitude. The computation was split into three sections.

## 5 The 4-particle amplitude I: the vanishing of the connected term $`\psi (q_1)\psi (q_2)_{i=1}^4k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)_c`$

For graviton and the antisymmetric tensor we use the following vertex operator (left part only):

$$V_i(k_i,ϵ_i,z_i)=(ϵ_iX(z_i)+ik_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i))\mathrm{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}.$$
(86)
Because the vertex operator doesn’t contain any ghost fields, all terms involving ghost fields can be explicit computed which we have done in the above. For the computation of amplitudes of other kinds of particles (like fermions), one either resorts to supersymmetry or can use similar method which was used in  to compute the fermionic amplitude.

Before we do explicitly computations, we will show that the connected term $`\psi (q_1)\psi (q_2)_{i=1}^4k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)_c`$ gives vanishing contributions by doing summation over spin structures. This result was first discovered in . Let’s recall the argument here.

First we note that all the connected contractions are the following three kinds:

$`A_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\psi (q_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (q_2)`$ (87)
$`\times \psi (z_2)\psi (z_3)\psi (z_3)\psi (z_4)\psi (z_4)\psi (z_2),`$
$`B_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\psi (q_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (z_2)\psi (z_2)\psi (q_2)(\psi (z_3)\psi (z_4))^2,`$ (88)
$`C_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\psi (q_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (z_1)\psi (z_2)`$ (89)
$`\times \psi (z_2)\psi (z_3)\psi (z_3)\psi (z_4)\psi (z_4)\psi (q_2),`$
or sometimes the expressions permutated among $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$ and $`z_4`$. By using the explicit expression of $`\psi (z)\psi (w)`$ and noting $`u(q_2)=u(q_1)`$, we have

$`A_\delta `$ $``$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)}{u(z_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(q_1)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{ij=2}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)u(z_i)}{u(z_1)u(z_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_j)}{u(q_1)u(z_i)}}\right],`$ (91)
$`B_\delta `$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)}{u(z_i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(q_1)}}\right]+2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right]`$ (92)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{kl=3}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)u(z_k)}{u(z_i)u(z_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)u(z_l)}{u(q_1)u(z_k)}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{kl=3}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_k)}{u(z_2)u(z_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)u(z_l)}{u(z_1)u(z_k)}}\right],`$
$`C_\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)}{u(z_i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(q_1)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(z_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_j)}{u(z_i)}}\right]`$ (93)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_3)}{u(z_2)u(z_4)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_3)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_1)u(z_i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_i)}{u(q_1)u(z_2)}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)u(z_3)}{u(z_i)u(z_4)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)u(z_4)}{u(q_1)u(z_3)}}\right].`$
By using the following “vanishing identities”:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z)}{u(w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(w)}{u(z)}}\right]=0,`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_2)}}\right]=0,`$ (95)
given in , we readily show that

$$\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta A_\delta =\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta B_\delta =\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta C_\delta =0.$$
(96)
This shows that all the connected terms in $`\psi (q_1)\psi (q_2)_{i=1}^4k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)_c`$ give vanishing contributions to the 4-particle amplitude after summation over spin structures, and can be neglected. For the first term in eq. (83) we only need to compute the disconnected term $`S(q_1,q_2)X(q_1)X(q_2)_{i=1}^4V_i`$.

## 6 The 4-particle amplitude II: the $`S_n(q)_{i=1}^4k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)`$ terms

The next step in the explicit calculation of the 4-particle amplitude is to compute the terms with a single $`S_n(q)`$ (or $`S_1(p_a)`$ from $`𝒜_5`$) in the summation over spin structures, i.e. terms like $`S_n(q)_{i=1}^4k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)`$. Other terms with less $`\psi `$ fields automatically give 0 after summation over spin structures (the non-renormalization theorem verified in ).

The first step in this computation is to do the contraction for the $`\psi `$ fields. We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)`$ $`=`$ $`K_1(1,2,3,4)(S(z_1,z_2)S(z_3,z_4))^2`$ (97)
$`+K_1(1,3,4,2)(S(z_1,z_3)S(z_2,z_4))^2`$
$`+K_1(1,4,2,3)(S(z_1,z_4)S(z_2,z_3))^2`$
$`+K_2(1,2,3,4)S(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$
$`+K_2(1,3,4,2)S(z_1,z_3,z_4,z_2)`$
$`+K_2(1,4,2,3)S(z_1,z_4,z_2,z_3),`$
where

$`S(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$ $`=`$ $`S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_4)S(z_4,z_1),`$ (98)
$`K_1(1,2,3,4)`$ $`=`$ $`(k_1k_2ϵ_1ϵ_2k_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_1)`$ (99)
$`\times (k_3k_4ϵ_3ϵ_4k_3ϵ_4k_4ϵ_3),`$
$`K_2(1,2,3,4)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1k_2k_3k_4ϵ_1ϵ_4ϵ_2ϵ_3k_1k_4k_2k_3ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4`$ (100)
$`+k_1k_2(k_3ϵ_4k_4ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3+k_3ϵ_2k_4ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_4k_3ϵ_2k_4ϵ_1ϵ_3ϵ_4)`$
$`+k_1k_4(k_2ϵ_1k_3ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4+k_2ϵ_3k_3ϵ_4ϵ_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_1k_3ϵ_4ϵ_2ϵ_3)`$
$`+k_2k_3(k_1ϵ_2k_4ϵ_1ϵ_3ϵ_4+k_1ϵ_4k_4ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_2k_1ϵ_2k_4ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_4)`$
$`+k_3k_4(k_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_4+k_1ϵ_4k_2ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3k_1ϵ_4k_2ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_2)`$
$`k_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_3k_3ϵ_4k_4ϵ_1k_1ϵ_4k_2ϵ_1k_3ϵ_2k_4ϵ_3.`$
We note that the above two kinematic factors have a symmetry under the simultaneous interchange of $`14`$ and $`23`$. $`K_2`$ is also invariant under the cyclic permutations of $`(1,2,3,4)`$, i.e., $`K_2(1,2,3,4)=K_2(2,3,4,1)=K_2(3,4,1,2)`$, etc.

By using the explicit expression for the Szegö kernel $`S(z_1,z_2)`$ given in eq. (36), we have

$`(S(z_1,z_2)S(z_3,z_4))^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16z_{12}^2z_{34}^2}}\{4+2[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}]+2[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)}{u(z_4)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_4)}{u(z_3)}}]`$ (101)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_3)}{u(z_2)u(z_4)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_3)}}]+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_4)}{u(z_2)u(z_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)u(z_3)}{u(z_1)u(z_4)}}]\},`$
$`S(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16z_{12}z_{23}z_{34}z_{41}}}\{2+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(z_j)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_j)}{u(z_i)}}]`$ (102)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_3)}{u(z_2)u(z_4)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_3)}}]\}.`$
By using the “vanishing identities” proved in , most of the terms are 0 after summation over spin structures. In order to do the summation over spin structure for the rest non-vanishing expression we need the following summation formula:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}\right\}(S_m(x))^n`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2P(a)\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}(z_iz_j)\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(xz_i)}{y^2(x)_{i=1}^4y(z_i)}}\times C_{n,m},`$ (103)
where

$`C_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (104)
$`C_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4),`$ (105)
$`C_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k,`$ (106)
$`C_{3,1}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(x)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ (107)
$`+4\left(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_22(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)(\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xz_k}},`$ (108)
$`P(a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(a_ia_j).`$ (109)
$`C_{1,1}`$ and $`C_{1,2}`$ were firstly derived in  (see also ). Although other values of $`n,m`$ also gives modular invariant expressions, the results are quite complex.555This is due to the non-vanishing of the summation over spin structures when we set $`z_1=z_3`$ or $`z_1=z_4`$, etc. Fortunately we only need to use the above listed results. The proof of the above summation formula can be found in Appendix B.

By using these result one easily prove the following:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_n(x)S(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)={\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_n(x)(S(z_1,z_2)S(z_3,z_4))^2`$ (112)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_1(x)_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{z}_i,\hfill & n=2.\hfill \end{array}`$
By using this result and eq. (97), we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_n(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)`$ (113)
$`=`$ $`K(k_i,ϵ_i){\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_1(x)_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{z}_i,\hfill & n=2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (116)
where

$`K(k_i,ϵ_i)`$ $``$ $`K_1(1,2,3,4)+K_1(1,3,4,2)+K_1(1,4,2,3)`$ (117)
$`+K_2(1,2,3,4)+K_2(1,3,4,2)+K_2(1,4,2,3)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(stϵ_1ϵ_3ϵ_2ϵ_4+suϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_4+tuϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s(ϵ_1k_4ϵ_3k_2ϵ_2ϵ_4+ϵ_2k_3ϵ_4k_1ϵ_1ϵ_3`$
$`+ϵ_1k_3ϵ_4k_2ϵ_2ϵ_3+ϵ_2k_4ϵ_3k_1ϵ_1ϵ_4)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t(ϵ_2k_1ϵ_4k_3ϵ_1ϵ_3+ϵ_3k_4ϵ_1k_2ϵ_2ϵ_4`$
$`+ϵ_2k_4ϵ_1k_3ϵ_3ϵ_4+ϵ_3k_1ϵ_4k_2ϵ_1ϵ_2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u(ϵ_1k_2ϵ_4k_3ϵ_2ϵ_3+ϵ_3k_4ϵ_2k_1ϵ_1ϵ_4`$
$`+ϵ_1k_4ϵ_2k_3ϵ_1ϵ_4+ϵ_3k_2ϵ_4k_1ϵ_1ϵ_2),`$
is the standard kinematic factor (left part only) appearing at tree and one loop computation of superstring theories . So apart from an overall factor and the kinematic factor, each appearance of $`S_n(x)_{i=1}^4V_i(k_i,ϵ;z_i,\overline{z}_i)`$ in the chiral integrand $`𝒜_i`$ can be substituted by either $`1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x)_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{z}_i`$ for $`n=1`$ or 2. After this has been done we have the following form for the chiral integrand:666omitting the $`(S_1(q))^3`$ and $`T_\psi `$ terms and an overall factor $`\frac{P(a)}{8y^2(q)}_{i=1}^4\frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)}`$. So the contribution from $`𝒜_5`$ has an extra factor of $`\frac{y^2(q)}{y^2(p_a)}_{i=1}^4\frac{p_az_i}{qz_i}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ in the following denotes $`\frac{1}{qz_k}`$.

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi _a(q_1,q_2)}{(qp_a)^2}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{y^2(q)}{y^(p_a)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_az_i}{qz_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}`$
$`+(X(q_1)(X(q_1)+X(q_2)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)+\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qp_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_1}}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q))]{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q))`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q){\displaystyle }_{k=1}^4\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qp_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}]{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}`$
$`=`$ $`:X(q_1)(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)},`$
and the complete chiral integrand is

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`K(k_i,ϵ_i)\{:X(q_1)(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}`$ (119)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}\}\times {\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(q)}}{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^4{\displaystyle \frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(S_1(q))^3{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i+S_1(q):\psi (q_1)\psi (q_1):{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}V_i_c_s.`$
Here we have reinserted the overall factor. The subscript $`c`$ indicates that the self contraction of $`\psi (q_1)`$ with $`\psi (q_1)`$ is omitted and $`\mathrm{}_s`$ indicates that appropriate summation over spin structure should be carried out. As one can see from the above results, all the dependence on $`p_a`$’s drops out. This is a very strong check for the validity of the new supersymmetric gauge fixing method at two loops.

## 7 The 4-particle amplitude III: terms from $`(S_1(q))^3`$ and $`T_\psi `$

To compute the last term in eq. (119), we need the following summation formulas:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta (S(x,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)_xS(z_2,x)+(z_1z_2))(S(z_3,z_4))^2S_1(x)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{16y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}\left(\stackrel{~}{z}_{14}\stackrel{~}{z}_{23}+\stackrel{~}{z}_{13}\stackrel{~}{z}_{24}\right),`$ (120)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta (S(x,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_4)_xS(z_4,x)`$
$`+(z_1z_4,z_2z_3))S_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{16y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^4{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}\stackrel{~}{z}_{14}\stackrel{~}{z}_{23},`$ (121)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta (S(z_1,z_2)S(z_3,z_4))^2(S_1(x))^3`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}[2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(x)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_i`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l24(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4)],`$ (122)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_4)S(z_4,z_1)(S_1(x))^3`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}}[2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(x)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_i`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l12(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)].`$ (123)
All these formulas can be derived by using the formulas given in eq. (103) and the following useful formula for the derivative of the Szegö kernel:

$$_xS(z,x)=\frac{1}{2(zx)^2}\frac{u(z)+u(x)}{\sqrt{u(z)u(x)}}\frac{S_1(x)}{8(zx)}\frac{u(z)u(x)}{\sqrt{u(z)u(x)}}.$$
(124)
Now we compute the last term explicitly in eq. (119). First we have the following contractions:

$`\psi (x)\psi (x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)`$
$`=2CS_1(1,2,3,4)K_1(1,2,3,4)2CS_1(1,3,4,2)K_1(1,3,4,2)`$
$`2CS_1(1,3,4,2)K_1(1,3,4,2)+CS_2(1,2,3,4)K_2(1,2,3,4)`$
$`+CS_2(1,3,4,2)K_2(1,3,4,2)+CS_2(1,3,4,2)K_2(1,3,4,2),`$ (125)
where

$`CS_1(1,2,3,4)`$ $`=`$ $`(S(x,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)_xS(z_2,x)+(z_1z_2))(S(z_3,z_4))^2`$ (126)
$`+(S(x,z_3)S(z_3,z_4)_xS(z_4,x)+(z_3z_4))(S(z_1,z_2))^2,`$
$`CS_2(1,2,3,4)`$ $`=`$ $`S(x,z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)+S(x,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_1)`$ (127)
$`+S(x,z_3,z_4,z_1,z_2)+S(x,z_4,z_1,z_2,z_3)`$
$`+S(x,z_3,z_2,z_1,z_4)+S(x,z_4,z_3,z_2,z_1)`$
$`+S(x,z_4,z_3,z_2,z_1)+S(x,z_4,z_3,z_2,z_1),`$
$`S(x,z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$ $``$ $`S(x,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_4)_xS(z_4,x),`$ (128)
and the kinematic factors $`K_{1,2}(1,2,3,4)`$ are defined as before. By using eq. (120), one sees that $`CS_1(1,2,3,4)`$ gives a factor:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_{14}\stackrel{~}{z}_{23}+\stackrel{~}{z}_{13}\stackrel{~}{z}_{24}+(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_3,\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_4))`$
$`=3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4)+{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l,`$ (129)
and by using eq. (121), one sees that $`CS_1(1,2,3,4)`$ gives a factor:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_{14}\stackrel{~}{z}_{23}+\stackrel{~}{z}_{21}\stackrel{~}{z}_{34}+\stackrel{~}{z}_{32}\stackrel{~}{z}_{41}+\stackrel{~}{z}_{43}\stackrel{~}{z}_{12})`$
$`=3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)2{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l.`$ (130)
By using these results one computes the connected contribution of the $`T_\psi `$ term as follows:

$`𝒜_{T_\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`[2(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4)+{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_1(1,2,3,4)`$ (131)
$`2(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_4)+{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_1(1,3,4,2)`$
$`+2(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_4+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_3)+{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_1(1,4,2,3)`$
$`+(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)2{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_2(1,2,3,4)`$
$`+(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)2{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_2(1,3,4,2)`$
$`+(3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)(\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)2{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K_2(1,4,2,3)]`$
$`=`$ $`2K(k_i,ϵ_i){\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l`$
$`6(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_1(1,2,3,4)6(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_1(1,3,4,2)`$
$`6(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_4+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_3)K_1(1,4,2,3)3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_2(1,2,3,4)`$
$`3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)K_2(1,3,4,2)3(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)(\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_4),`$
apart from an overall factor.

The $`(S_1(q))^3`$ contribution can also be computed. We need to use eq. (97) for the $`\psi `$ contraction and then eqs. (122) and (123) for the summation over spin structures. The result is

$`𝒜_{S_1^3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k+4{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l)K(k_i,ϵ_i)`$ (132)
$`24(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_1(1,2,3,4)24(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_1(1,3,4,2)`$
$`24(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_4+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_3)K_1(1,4,2,3)`$
$`12(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_2(1,2,3,4)`$
$`12(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)(\stackrel{~}{z}_2+\stackrel{~}{z}_3)K_2(1,3,4,2)`$
$`12(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)(\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_4)K_2(1,4,2,3)].`$
By using eq. (131) and eq. (132), we have

$`𝒜_{T_\psi }+𝒜_{S_1^3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k+{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l\right]`$ (133)
$`\times K(k_i,ϵ_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}{\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{8y^2(q)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)}},`$
by including the overall factor. The above contribution also has the standard kinematic factor and it exactly cancels the second part of the first term of eq. (119).

By using eq. (119) and eq. (133), we found that final result for the complete chiral integrand of the four-particle amplitude is quite simple and it is given as follows:

$$𝒜=K(k_i,ϵ_i):X(q_1)(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)},$$
(134)
where an overall factor $`\frac{P(a)}{8y^2(q)}`$ is omitted. This factor is cancelled by an identical factor from the factor $`𝒵`$ (see  and Appendix C). In the next section we will combine the above result with the measure and write the complete expression for the two loop four-particle amplitude. Some properties of this chiral integrand will also be studied in the next section.

## 8 The 4-particle amplitude IV: the final result

The chiral integrand obtained in the last section is not symmetric under the interchange $`q_1q_2`$. If we take the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_2`$ we would obtain the same result with $`q_1q_2`$. So the final result should be a symmetrization of eq. (134). We suspect that this ambiguity is caused by our use of the delta function super Beltrami differentials and the final result actually requires this symmetrization if we study carefully the limit. We will not do this in this paper. In fact this symmetrization also makes the final amplitude explicitly independent of $`q`$ as we will show immediately.

The symmetrized chiral integrand is

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`K(k_i,ϵ_i):(X(q_1)+X(q_2))(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):`$ (135)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^4{\displaystyle \frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)}}.`$
By using eq. (143) for the $`X(z)X(w)`$ correlators we have

$$:X(q_1)(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):=0.$$
(136)
To compute explicitly eq. (135) we also need eq. (146) for the $`X(z)X(w,\overline{w})`$ correlators and we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(X^\mu (q_1)+X^\mu (q_2))k_iX(w_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{k_i^\mu }{qw_i}.$$
(137)
By using eq. (136) and eq. (137) in eq. (135) we have:

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`K(k_i,ϵ_i)\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_i}{qz_i}}\right]^2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[k_ik_jG(z_i,z_j)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{qz_i}{y(z_i)}}`$ (138)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K(k_i,ϵ_i)}{_{i=1}^4y(z_i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[k_ik_jG(z_i,z_j)\right]`$
$`\times (s(z_1z_2+z_3z_4)+t(z_1z_4+z_2z_3)+u(z_1z_3+z_2z_4)),`$
which is independent of the insertion points $`q_{1,2}`$. Here $`G(z_i,z_j)`$ is the scalar Green function which is given in terms of the prime form $`E(z_i,z_j)`$ as follows (see ):

$$G(z,w)=\mathrm{ln}|E(z,w)|^2+2\pi \mathrm{Im}_z^w\omega _I(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega })_{IJ}^1\mathrm{Im}_z^w\omega _J.$$
(139)
$`s,t,u`$ are the standard Mandelstam variables, $`s=(k_1+k_2)^2`$, etc.

For type II superstring theory the complete integrand is

$`𝒜_{II}`$ $`=`$ $`K(k_i,ϵ_i):(X(q_1)+X(q_2))(X(q_1)+X(q_2)):`$ (140)
$`\times :(\overline{}X(\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_1)+\overline{}X(\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_2))(\overline{}X(\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_1)+\overline{}X(\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_2)):`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}{\displaystyle }_{i=1}^4{\displaystyle \frac{(qz_i)(\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}\overline{z}_i)}{|y(z_i)|^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K(k_i,ϵ_i)}{_{i=1}^4|y(z_i)|^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[k_ik_jG(z_i,z_j)\right]`$
$`\times |s(z_1z_2+z_3z_4)+t(z_1z_4+z_2z_3)+u(z_1z_3+z_2z_4)|^2,`$
which is independent of the left part insertion points $`q_{1,2}`$ and also the right part insertion points $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}`$.

The amplitude is obtained by integrating over the moduli space. At two loops, the moduli space can be parametrized either by the period matrix or three of the six branch points. We have

$`A_{II}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{II}K(k_i,ϵ_i){\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}\mathrm{d}^2a_i/\mathrm{d}V_{pr}}{T^5_{i<j}|a_ia_j|^2}}`$ (141)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2z_i}{|y(z_i)|^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{exp}[k_ik_jG(z_i,z_j)]`$
$`\times |s(z_1z_2+z_3z_4)+t(z_1z_4+z_2z_3)+u(z_1z_3+z_2z_4)|^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{d}V_{pr}=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2a_i\mathrm{d}^2a_j\mathrm{d}^2a_k}{|a_{ij}a_{jk}a_{ki}|^2}`$ is a projective invariant measure and $`c_{II}`$ is a constant which should be determined by factorization or unitarity (of the $`S`$-matrix).

An immediate application of the above result is to study the perturbative correction to the $`R^4`$ term at two loops. By taking the limit of $`k_i0`$, one sees from eq. (140) that the integrand $`𝒜_{II}`$ is zero identically in moduli space apart from the kinematic factor $`K(k_i,ϵ_i)`$. So we conclude that the perturbative correction to the $`R^2`$ term is zero, confirming the explicit calculation of Iengo . This result is also in agreement with the non-perturbative conjecture of  (see also ). Our new result also explicitly verifies the claim given in the the Appendix B of .

The finiteness of the amplitude can also be checked by following the detailed discussions given in .

## Appendix A: The $`X(z)X(w)`$ correlators

For the $`X(z,\overline{z})`$ correlators, D’Hoker and Phong in  use the following expression in terms of the prime form:

$$_zX^\mu (z)_wX^\nu (w)=\delta ^{\mu \nu }_z_w\mathrm{ln}E(z,w),$$
(142)
in their effective rules for chiral splitting. In this paper we use the following result given in :

$`X^\mu (z)X^\nu (w)=\delta ^{\mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4T}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}[{\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(zz_1)(zz_2)}{(wz_1)(wz_2)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}}|^2\mathrm{d}^2z_1\mathrm{d}^2z_2\right])+(zw).`$ (143)
This correlator satisfies the following relation:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i(\overline{z})X^\mu (z)X^\nu (w)\mathrm{d}^2z=0.$$
(144)
These two formulas are actually related by using eq. (139) by differentiating with respect to $`z`$ and $`w`$. We have

$`_z_w\mathrm{ln}E(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \omega (z)(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^1\omega (w)`$ (145)
$`+\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4T}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w}}[{\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(zz_1)(zz_2)}{(wz_1)(wz_2)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}}|^2\mathrm{d}^2z_1\mathrm{d}^2z_2\right])+(zw)\}.`$
By using eq. (143), one can also derive the correlators for $`_iX(z)k_iX(w_i)`$ with $`_i\alpha _i=0`$. It is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X^\mu (z)k_iX(w_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}k_i^\mu \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(zw_i)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{y(w_i)}{y(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw_i}}`$ (146)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(zz_1)(zz_2)}{(w_iz_1)(w_iz_2)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}}|^2\mathrm{d}^2z_1\mathrm{d}^2z_2\right\}.`$
The above correlator also satisfies

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i(\overline{z})\underset{i}{}X^\mu (z)k_iX(w_i)\mathrm{d}^2z=0.$$
(147)
By differentiating with respect to $`\overline{w}_i`$ in eq. (146), we have

$$X^\mu (z)\overline{}X^\nu (\overline{w})=\delta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\pi \delta ^{(2)}(zw)\frac{\pi }{2}\omega (z)(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^1\overline{\omega }(\overline{w})\right],$$
(148)
where

$`Q`$ $``$ $`\omega (z)(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^1\overline{\omega }(\overline{w})`$ (149)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(z)\overline{y}(\overline{w})}}{\displaystyle \frac{(zu)(\overline{w}\overline{u})}{|y(u)|^2}\mathrm{d}^2u},`$
and

$$T=\mathrm{d}^2z_1\mathrm{d}^2z_2\left|\frac{z_1z_2}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}\right|^2=2|\mathrm{det}K|^2\mathrm{det}\mathrm{Im}\tau .$$
(150)
The $`T_1`$ used in eq. (70) can also be obtained from eq. (143) explicitly. We have

$`T_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wa_i}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(wa_i)^2}}`$ (151)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8T}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2z_1\mathrm{d}^2z_2|{\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}}|^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(wz_1)(wz_2)}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(wz_i)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wz_2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wa_i}}].`$
The other formula used in the main text is

$$_{p_a}_{q_1}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_1)+_{p_a}_{q_2}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_2)=\frac{1}{(qp_a)^2},$$
(152)
which can be derived easily from eq. (145) by noting $`y(q_2)=y(q_1)`$ and $`\omega _i(q_2)=\omega _i(q_1)`$.

## Appendix B: The proof of eq. (103)

The proof of the summation formulas is quite simple. The strategy is the same as the proof for other “vanishing identities” given in  which was first used in . We first change $`S_m(x)`$ into a polynomial by using the following Möbius transformation:

$$a_i=x\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i},\text{or}\stackrel{~}{a}_i=\frac{1}{xa_i},\stackrel{~}{z}_i=\frac{1}{xz_i}.$$
(153)
Noting that $`y(z)=_i^6(za_i)=_{i=1}^3(zA_i)(zB_i)`$, we can write $`u(z)`$ and $`\frac{1}{u(z)}`$ as follows:

$`u(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(zA_i)}{y(z)}},`$ (154)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u(z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(zB_i)}{y(z)}}.`$ (155)
By using these expressions we see that the left hand side of eq. (103) is a homogeneous polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ (the Möbius transformed $`a_i`$ and $`z_k`$) times $`(_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{y}(\stackrel{~}{z}_k))^1`$, i.e.

$`P_{n,m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}\right\}(S_m(x))^n`$ (156)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^4(x)}{_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{y}(\stackrel{~}{z}_i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}_\delta [{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=3}{\overset{4}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{A}_i)(\stackrel{~}{z}_l\stackrel{~}{B}_i)(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B})]`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[(\stackrel{~}{A}_i)^m(\stackrel{~}{B}_i)^m]\right)^n.`$
This polynomial is modular invariant and it is also vanishing when $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1=\stackrel{~}{z}_{3,4}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}_{3,4}`$. So it is proportional to $`P(\stackrel{~}{a})_{i=1}^2_{j=3}^4(\stackrel{~}{z}_i\stackrel{~}{z}_j)`$. The rest factor can only be obtained by explicit computation (most easily by computer). Then we have

$$P_{n,m}=\frac{y^4(x)}{_{i=1}^4\stackrel{~}{y}(\stackrel{~}{z}_i)}\times 2P(\stackrel{~}{a})\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_i\stackrel{~}{z}_j)\times C_{n,m}.$$
(157)
By an inverse Möbius transformation we have

$`\stackrel{~}{y}(\stackrel{~}{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{a}_i)^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{y(z)}{(xz)^3y(x)}},`$ (158)
$`P(\stackrel{~}{a})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(a)}{(y(x))^{10}}},`$ (159)
etc. By using these results in eq. (157), we obtained the results given in eqs. (104)–(107). This completes the proof of eq. (103).

## Appendix C: The $`q`$ dependence of the factor $`𝒵`$

In this appendix we will compute explicitly the $`q`$ dependence of the factor $`𝒵`$ defined in eq. (59). The relevant part is

$$𝒟\beta 𝒟\gamma \delta (\beta (q_1))\delta (\beta (q_2))\mathrm{e}^{iS_{\beta \gamma }}=(\mathrm{det}^{}\overline{}_{3/2})^1d\beta _1d\beta _2\delta (\beta _0(q_1))\delta _0(\beta (q_2)),$$
(160)
where $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are the two coefficients in the zero mode part of the ghost field $`\beta (z)`$:

$$\beta _0(z)=\beta _1\phi _1^{}(z)+\beta _2\phi _2^{}(z),$$
(161)
where $`\phi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$ are two holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differentials. Comparing with the previously defined two holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differential $`\psi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$, $`\phi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$ are not required to satisfy the “normalization” condition eq. (47).

Choosing an arbitrary 1-differential $`\omega _x(z)`$ which has two zeroes at $`z=x_1=x+`$ and $`z=x_2=x`$, the $`\phi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$ can be constructed as follows:

$$\phi _\alpha ^{}(z)=\omega _x(z)S(z,x_\alpha ).$$
(162)
By using these holomorphic differentials, we have

$`{\displaystyle d\beta _1d\beta _2\delta (\beta _0(q_1))\delta (\beta _0(q_2))}`$
$`={\displaystyle d\beta _1d\beta _2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\delta (\beta _1\omega _x(q_\alpha )S(q_\alpha ,x_1)+\beta _2\omega _x(q_\alpha )S(q_\alpha ,x_2))}`$
$`=|\mathrm{det}(\omega _x(q_\alpha )S(q_\alpha ,x_\beta ))|^1=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{qx}{\omega _x(q)}}\right]^2,`$ (163)
by using the explicit expression of the Szegö kernel and noting that $`\omega _x(q_2)=\omega _x(q_1)`$ and $`u(q_2)=u(q_1)`$, etc. In hyperelliptic language, the 1-differential $`\omega _x(z)`$ is given as follows:

$$\omega _x(z)=\frac{c(zx)}{y(z)},$$
(164)
where $`c`$ is a possibly moduli dependent constant. By using this result we have:

$$𝒟\beta 𝒟\gamma \delta (\beta (q_1))\delta (\beta (q_2))\mathrm{e}^{iS_{\beta \gamma }}=\delta (\beta (q_1))\delta (\beta (q_2))=\frac{y^2(q)}{c^2}\times (\mathrm{det}^{}\overline{}_{3/2})^1.$$
(165)
The $`q`$ dependent factor $`y^2(q)`$ exactly cancels the factor $`y^2(q)`$ in $`𝒜`$. The complete expression for $`𝒵`$ is:

$$𝒵=\frac{y^2(q)\underset{i<j}{}A_{ij}B_{ij}}{c^2(\mathrm{det}K)^5_{i<j}(a_ia_j)}=\frac{y^2(q)Q_\delta }{c^2(\mathrm{det}K)^5P(a)},$$
(166)
by using the results of  (for previous works see ).

Finally we have a variational formula from :

$$\frac{\tau _{ij}}{a_n}=\frac{i\pi }{2}\widehat{\omega }_i(a_n)\widehat{\omega }_j(a_n),$$
(167)
where $`\omega (a_n)`$ is defined as follows:

$`\omega (z)\mathrm{d}z`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{\omega }(z_0)+\widehat{\omega }^{}(z_0)(zz_0)+\mathrm{})\mathrm{d}z`$ (168)
$`=`$ $`2u\omega (u^2+a_n)\mathrm{d}u,`$
$`\omega (a_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{u0}{lim}2u\omega (u^2+a_n).`$ (169)
Here we have used the uniformization coordinate $`u`$ instead of $`z`$ at the branch point $`a_n`$.

By using eq. (167), we have:

$$\frac{(\tau _{ij})}{(a_1a_2a_3)}=i\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^3\frac{a_{45}a_{46}a_{56}}{(\mathrm{det}K)^3P(a)},$$
(170)
which can be used to transform from period matrix parametrization to the branch points parametrization of the moduli space.

## Acknowledgments

Chuan-Jie Zhu would like to thank Roberto Iengo for reading the paper and comments. He would also like to thank E. D’Hoker and D. Phong for discussions and Jian-Xin Lu and the hospitality at the Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study, Physics, University of Science and Technology of China.