text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

Following earlier work on maximally supersymmetric solutions of eleven-dimensional supergravity , a new maximally supersymmetric solution of Type IIB supergravity  was found. This paved the way for quantisation in light-cone gauge of superstring theory in a constant R-R flux . The spectrum consists of a unique massless groundstate on which a tower of massive states is constructed  using creation operators whose masses are of order $`\omega _n/(\alpha ^{}p^+)`$ where

$$\omega _n\sqrt{n^2+(\alpha ^{}\mu p^+)^2},n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},$$
(1.1)
$`p^+`$ is momentum along the $`x^{}`$ light-cone direction and $`\mu `$ is the R-R flux. This new string background merits further investigation.

Since the string spectrum in the pp-wave background is now known, string interactions are the next step in the study of the pp-wave background. In this background ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance is broken by the non-zero R-R flux, and hence it is no longer possible to set $`p^+`$ to zero in general scattering amplitudes. This obstruction significantly hinders the vertex operator approach to string interactions. There is only one other known way of studying string interactions in light-cone gauge pioneered by Mandelstam  for the bosonic string. In this approach an interaction vertex for the scattering of three strings can be constructed by requiring continuity of string fields on the worldsheet depicted in Figure 1. This continuity is enforced by a delta functional on string fields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X^1+X^2X^3).$$
(1.2)
For computational purposes it is essential to express the delta functional in Fourier modes . The interaction vertex may then be written as an exponential of creation operators which enforce the delta functional conditions mode by mode.

The functional approach  can be extended to the superstring . The cubic interaction vertex is a first order in string coupling $`g_s`$ correction to the free Hamiltonian. In order to satisfy the superalgebra with this new Hamiltonian, dynamical supercharges also receive corrections. This essential difference from the bosonic string modifies the form of the vertex . In particular , in the oscillator basis, the superstring interaction vertex as well as the dynamical supercharges not only have a part exponential in creation operators, but also have a prefactor which is polynomial in creation operators. The exact form of the prefactors is determined by two requirements. Firstly, they should not destroy worldsheet continuity enforced by the exponential part of the vertex. Secondly, the superalgebra should be satisfied order by order in string coupling. In  an oscillator expression for the flat spacetime superstring vertex and dynamical supercharges was constructed and shown to satisfy all said consistency conditions.

In this paper we apply the formalism of  to the pp-wave background in order to construct an interaction vertex and dynamical supercharges in the oscillator basis. We prove explicitly that our expressions satisfy all the aforementioned consistency conditions. We use this vertex to compute various three-point functions in string theory.

The pp-wave interaction vertex has also been recently investigated in . Our results differ from the expressions presented in  in several ways. Firstly, our bosonic prefactor contains a piece, not present in , proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ (cf. equation (4.19)). This piece is crucial in proving (see section 4) that the dynamically generated supercharges and interaction Hamiltonian satisfy the pp-wave superalgebra at first order in string coupling. Further, without it, three-point functions of states containing only fermionic creation operators would vanish (see section 5.2). Secondly, we also present the oscillator-basis expression for the fermionic prefactor; in particular, the $`\mu `$-dependent normalisation (cf. equation (4.22)) is essential in proving that the dynamical superalgebra is satisfied. The exponential part of our vertex also contains a piece linear in fermionic zero-modes  (cf. equation (3.17)) and our expression for the coefficients of the negatively moded bosonic creation operators in the prefactor (cf. equation (4.11)) differs by a factor of $`i`$  from the original one in .111Recently a new version of  has appeared correcting the factor of $`i`$ discrepancy. Since we prove that our expressions for the dynamical supercharges and Hamiltonian satisfy the superalgebra, we believe that the vertex constructed here is the correct one.

The pp-wave background can be obtained as a Penrose limit  of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ . Through the AdS/CFT correspondence , this has led to a conjectured duality between string theory in the pp-wave background and a double scaling limit of SU($`N`$), $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang-Mills theory . Explicitly one considers a sector of (BMN) operators with $`U(1)`$ R-charge $`J`$ and conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ remains fixed in the limit $`J`$, $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`J^2/N`$ and $`g_{\text{YM}}`$ fixed . The BMN operators are field theory duals of perturbative string states in the pp-wave background. The SYM theory is believed to be expandable in a double series in the effective genus counting parameter $`g_2^2`$ and effective coupling $`\lambda ^{}`$

$$g_2^2=\frac{J^4}{N^2},\lambda ^{}=\frac{g_{\text{YM}}^2N}{J^2}.$$
(1.3)
Moreover, the finite quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ is a function of $`\lambda ^{}`$  and $`g_2^2`$ . The expansion parameters $`g_2`$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are related to string theory parameters by

$$\frac{1}{(\mu \alpha ^{}p^+)^2}=\lambda ^{},4\pi g_\text{s}(\mu \alpha ^{}p^+)^2=g_2.$$
(1.4)
One of the most appealing aspects of this duality is that both string theory and the BMN sector of gauge theory are simultaneously perturbatively accessible.

While some further investigation seems necessary to clarify the exact form of this correspondence, at the planar (interacting) field theory two-point function/free string level, there is increasing evidence  that the BMN operators do correspond to the free string theory. The extension of the duality beyond this limit, by considering string interactions and the non-planar sector of (interacting) gauge theory respectively, needs further clarification. Indeed, the exact notion of the Penrose limit in a CFT needs to be better understood . By focusing on a certain subclass of the BMN operators, several proposals for such an extension of the BMN correspondence have been made and were studied in . In this paper we use our interaction vertex to compute three-point functions for various string states. In particular, for the class of amplitudes studied so far in the literature the term in the cubic vertex proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ does not contribute and we recover the results of . We show that so-called impurity preserving three-point functions of states dual to a class of protected operators vanish in string theory, as would be expected by the extension of the duality recently proposed in . Further, we compute three-point functions for string states having only fermionic creation operators. Here only the $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ term contributes and these amplitudes may provide a check of any extension of the string-bit dynamical supercharges to terms bilinear in fermions, which are not known at present . We hope our results can shed some light on the BMN correspondence and that the three-string vertex can be used to investigate the duality further. Finally if the BMN duality is to be believed, D-branes in the pp-wave background  should play an important role in gauge theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the free string in the pp-wave background and set our notation. In sections 3 and 4 we construct the superstring vertex in the pp-wave background. Section 3 focuses on the exponential part of the vertex. Most of the results of this section have appeared in  and are included here for completeness. In section 4 we construct the prefactors and show that the superalgebra is satisfied with these modified generators. Using the vertex, we compute some three-point functions and compare them to field theory in the BMN limit in section 5. Several appendices, containing computational details are also included.

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

The free string in the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background in light-cone gauge is described by $`x_r^I(\sigma _r)`$ and $`\vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r)`$ in position space or by $`p_r^I(\sigma _r)`$ and $`\lambda _r^a(\sigma _r)`$ in momentum space, where $`I`$ is a transverse SO(8) vector index, $`a`$ is a SO(8) spinor index.222We will often suppress these indices in what follows. The index $`r=1,2,3`$ denotes the $`r`$th string (see Figure 1). The bosonic part of the light-cone action in the pp-wave background is

$$S_{\text{bos.}(r)}=\frac{e(\alpha _r)}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}𝑑\sigma _r\left[\dot{x}_r^2x_r^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mu ^2x_r^2\right],$$
(2.1)
where

$$\dot{x}_r_\tau x_r,x_r^{}_{\sigma _r}x_r,\alpha _r\alpha ^{}p_r^+,e(\alpha _r)\frac{\alpha _r}{|\alpha _r|}.$$
(2.2)
In a collision process $`p_r^+`$ will be positive for an incoming string and negative for an outgoing one. The mode expansions of the fields $`x_r^I(\sigma _r,\tau )`$ and $`p_r^I(\sigma _r,\tau )`$ at $`\tau =0`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x_r^I(\sigma _r)& =x_{0(r)}^I+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(x_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+x_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill p_r^I(\sigma _r)& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha _r|}\left[p_{0(r)}^I+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(p_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+p_{n(r)}^I\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
The Fourier modes can be re-expressed in terms of creation and annihilation operators as

$$x_{n(r)}^I=i\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\omega _{n(r)}}}\left(a_{n(r)}^Ia_{n(r)}^I\right),p_{n(r)}^I=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{n(r)}}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left(a_{n(r)}^I+a_{n(r)}^I\right).$$
(2.4)
Canonical quantization of the bosonic coordinates

$$[x_r^I(\sigma _r),p_s^J(\sigma _s)]=i\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{rs}\delta (\sigma _r\sigma _s)$$
(2.5)
yields the usual commutation relations

$$[a_{n(r)}^I,a_{m(s)}^J]=\delta ^{IJ}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.6)
The fermionic part of the light-cone action in the pp-wave background is

$$S_{\text{ferm.}(r)}=\frac{1}{8\pi }𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}𝑑\sigma _r[i(\overline{\vartheta }_r\dot{\vartheta }_r+\vartheta _r\dot{\overline{\vartheta }}_r)\vartheta _r\vartheta _r^{}+\overline{\vartheta }_r\overline{\vartheta }_r^{}2\mu \overline{\vartheta }_r\mathrm{\Pi }\vartheta _r],$$
(2.7)
where $`\vartheta _r^a`$ is a complex, positive chirality SO(8) spinor and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}(\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4)_{ab}$$
(2.8)
is symmetric, traceless and squares to one.333Throughout this paper we use the gamma matrix conventions of . It is convenient to use a representation of gamma matrices in which $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}=\text{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_4,\mathrm{𝟏}_4)`$. The mode expansion of $`\vartheta _r^a`$ and its conjugate momentum

$$i\lambda _r^a\frac{\delta S_{\text{ferm.}(r)}}{\delta \dot{\vartheta }_{a(r)}}=i\frac{1}{4\pi }\overline{\vartheta }_r^a,$$
(2.9)
at $`\tau =0`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r)& =\vartheta _{0(r)}^a+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\vartheta _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+\vartheta _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _r^a(\sigma _r)& =\frac{1}{2\pi |\alpha _r|}\left[\lambda _{0(r)}^a+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}+\lambda _{n(r)}^a\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\sigma _r}{|\alpha _r|}\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
The Fourier modes satisfy the reality condition

$$\lambda _{n(r)}^a=\frac{|\alpha _r|}{2}\overline{\vartheta }_{n(r)}^a,$$
(2.11)
and, due to the canonical anti-commutation relations for the fermionic coordinates

$$\{\vartheta _r^a(\sigma _r),\lambda _s^b(\sigma _s)\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{rs}\delta (\sigma _r\sigma _s),$$
(2.12)
they obey the following anti-commutation rules

$$\{\vartheta _{n(r)}^a,\lambda _{m(s)}^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.13)
It is convenient to define a new set of fermionic operators

$$\vartheta _{n(r)}=\frac{c_{n(r)}}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}\left[(1+\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi })b_{n(r)}+e(\alpha _r)e(n)(1\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi })b_{n(r)}^{}\right],$$
(2.14)
which break the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$. Here

$$\rho _{n(r)}=\rho _{n(r)}=\frac{\omega _{n(r)}|n|}{\mu \alpha _r},c_{n(r)}=c_{n(r)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho _{n(r)}^2}}.$$
(2.15)
These modes satisfy

$$\{b_{n(r)}^a,b_{m(s)}^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{nm}\delta _{rs}.$$
(2.16)
The free string light-cone Hamiltonian is

$$H_{2(r)}=\frac{1}{\alpha _r}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}\omega _{n(r)}\left(a_{n(r)}^{}a_{n(r)}+b_{n(r)}^{}b_{n(r)}\right).$$
(2.17)
In the above the zero-point energies cancel between bosons and fermions. Since the Hamiltonian only depends on two dimensionful quantities $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha _r`$, $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`p_r^+`$ should not be thought of as separate parameters. The vacuum $`|v_r`$ is defined as

$$a_{n(r)}|v_r=0,b_{n(r)}|v_r=0,n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}.$$
(2.18)
The isometries of the pp-wave superalgebra are generated by $`H`$, $`P^+`$, $`P^I`$, $`J^{+I}`$, $`J^{ij}`$ and $`J^{i^{}j^{}}`$. The latter two are angular momentum generators of the transverse $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ symmetry of the pp-wave background. The 32 supersymmetries split into kinematical supercharges $`Q^+`$, $`\overline{Q}^+`$ and dynamical ones $`Q^{}`$, $`\overline{Q}^{}`$. The latter square to the light-cone Hamiltonian and hence get corrected by interactions. A subset of the superalgebra that will be of importance throughout this paper is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [H,P^I]& =i\mu ^2J^{+I},[H,Q^+]=\mu \mathrm{\Pi }Q^+,\hfill \\ \hfill \{Q_{\dot{a}}^{},\overline{Q}_{\dot{b}}^{}\}& =2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}Hi\mu \left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{ij}+i\mu \left(\gamma _{i^{}j^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{i^{}j^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.19)
The dynamical supercharges can be expressed in terms of world-sheet fields as

$$Q_{(r)}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}_0^{2\pi |\alpha _r|}𝑑\sigma _r\left[2\pi \alpha ^{}e(\alpha _r)p_r\gamma \lambda _rix_r^{}\gamma \overline{\lambda }_ri\mu x_r\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }\lambda _r\right]$$
(2.20)
and $`\overline{Q}_{(r)}^{}=e(\alpha _r)\left[Q_{(r)}^{}\right]^{}`$. Expanding in modes one finds

$`Q_{(r)}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}\gamma (\sqrt{\mu }[a_{0(r)}(1+e(\alpha _r)\mathrm{\Pi })+a_{0(r)}^{}(1e(\alpha _r)\mathrm{\Pi })]\lambda _{0(r)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\sqrt{|n|}[a_{n(r)}P_{n(r)}^1b_{n(r)}^{}+e(\alpha _rn)a_{n(r)}^{}P_{n(r)}b_{n(r)}]),`$ (2.21)
where

$$P_{n(r)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\rho _{n(r)}^2}}(1\rho _{n(r)}\mathrm{\Pi }).$$
(2.22)
## 3 Interacting string theory

In interacting light-cone string field theory some generators of the supersymmetry algebra, such as $`J`$, $`P`$ and $`Q^+`$, are quadratic in fields. These kinematical generators correspond to symmetries which are manifest in the theory and do not receive $`g_\text{s}`$ corrections. On the other hand, dynamical generators such as $`H`$, $`Q^{}`$ and $`\overline{Q}^{}`$, depend on the interactions and hence involve higher powers of fields. For example $`H`$, the full Hamiltonian of the interacting theory, has an expansion in string coupling

$$H=H_2+g_\text{s}H_3+\mathrm{},$$
(3.1)
where $`H_3`$ creates or destroys a single string, while the $`H_2`$ conserves the number of strings.

Despite such corrections to the generators, the supersymmetry algebra has to be satisfied order by order in $`g_\text{s}`$. This consistency condition gives rise to two types of constraints: the kinematic constraints arise from demanding that (anti)commutation relations of kinematical with dynamical generators are realized at order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$; the dynamic constraints arise from the (anti)commutation relations of dynamical generators alone. The former are relatively easy to satisfy, and it is the latter relations that severely constrain the form of the dynamical generators and will be used to determine the interaction vertex below. In this section we review the exponential part of the cubic vertex which enforces the kinematic constraints.444Apart from the differences mentioned in the introduction, our expression for the exponential part of the vertex agrees with the construction first presented in . In the following section we construct the prefactor of the interaction vertex by imposing the dynamic constraints.

The bosonic contribution $`|E_a`$ to the exponential part of the three-string interaction vertex has to satisfy the kinematic constraints

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_r(\sigma _r)|E_a=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)x_r(\sigma _r)|E_a=0.$$
(3.2)
These are the same as in flat space and arise from the commutation relations of $`H`$ with $`P^I`$ (cf. equation (2.19)) and $`J^{+I}`$. They guarantee momentum conservation and continuity of the string worldsheet in the interaction. The coordinates of the three strings are parameterized by

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=\sigma \pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi \alpha _1,`$
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sigma \pi \alpha _1\hfill & \pi \alpha _1\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2),\hfill \\ \sigma +\pi \alpha _1\hfill & \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi \alpha _1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.3)
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\sigma \pi (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$ (3.4)
and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3=0`$, $`\alpha _3<0`$. The solution to the constraints in equation (3.2) can be constructed as a functional integral and is given by

$$|E_a\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n𝖹𝖹}{}a_{m(r)}^{}\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}a_{n(s)}^{}\right)|0_{123},$$
(3.5)
where $`|0_{123}=|0_1|0_2|0_3`$ is annihilated by $`a_{n(r)}`$, $`n𝖹𝖹`$. The determinant factor coming from the functional integral will be cancelled by the fermionic determinant except for the zero-mode part which is $`\left(\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{2\mu }{\pi ^3}\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _3}\right)^2`$. In the equation above the non-vanishing elements of the bosonic Neumann matrices for $`m`$, $`n>0`$ are

$`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=\delta ^{rs}\delta _{mn}2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{m(r)}\omega _{n(s)}}{mn}}}\left(A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1A^{(s)}\right)_{mn},`$ (3.6)
$`\overline{N}_{m0}^{rs}`$ $`=\sqrt{2\mu \alpha _s\omega _{m(r)}}\epsilon ^{st}\alpha _t\overline{N}_m^r,s\{1,2\},`$ (3.7)
$`\overline{N}_{00}^{rs}`$ $`=(14\mu \alpha K)\left(\delta ^{rs}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}}{\alpha _3}}\right),r,s\{1,2\},`$ (3.8)
$`\overline{N}_{00}^{r3}`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}},r\{1,2\}.`$ (3.9)
Here

$$\alpha \alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3$$
(3.10)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}A^{(r)}U_{(r)}A^{(r)T},$$
(3.11)
where

$$U_{(r)}C^1\left(C_{(r)}\mu \alpha _r\right),C_{mn}m\delta _{mn},\left(C_{(r)}\right)_{mn}\omega _{m(r)}\delta _{mn}.$$
(3.12)
The matrices $`A^{(r)}`$ arise from the Fourier transformation of the constraints in equation (3.2) and are given in appendix E. Notice that in the Neumann matrices the inverse of the infinite dimensional matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears. In contrast to flat space , in the pp-wave explicit expressions for the Neumann matrices valid for all $`\mu `$, are not known. It is however possible to obtain their large $`\mu `$ behavior using the approach of  (see also appendix E). We also define

$$\overline{N}^rC^{1/2}A^{(r)T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B,K\frac{1}{4}B^T\mathrm{\Gamma }^1B.$$
(3.13)
An explicit expression for the vector $`B`$ is given in appendix E. The quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\overline{N}^r`$ and $`K`$ manifestly reduce to their flat space counterparts, defined in , as $`\mu 0`$. The only non-vanishing matrix elements with negative indices are $`\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}`$. They are related to $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ via

$$\overline{N}_{m,n}^{rs}=\left(U_{(r)}\overline{N}^{rs}U_{(s)}\right)_{mn},m,n>0.$$
(3.14)
A very useful formula relating $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ to $`\overline{N}_m^r\overline{N}_n^s`$ is

$`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=(14\mu \alpha K)^1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _r\omega _{n(s)}+\alpha _s\omega _{m(r)}}}\left[U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r\right]_m\left[U_{(s)}^1C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]_n.`$ (3.15)
This factorization theorem can be used to verify  that $`|E_a`$ satisfies equation (3.2). It will also prove essential throughout the next section.

Analogously to the bosonic case, the fermionic exponential part of the interaction vertex has to satisfy

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{(r)}(\sigma _r)|E_b=0,\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\vartheta _{(r)}(\sigma _r)|E_b=0.$$
(3.16)
These constraints arise from the commutation relations of $`H`$ with $`Q^+`$ and $`\overline{Q}^+`$, cf. equation (2.19). The solution is

$$|E_b\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{m(r)}^{}Q_{mn}^{rs}b_{n(s)}^{}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_m^rb_{m(r)}^{}\right]|E_b^0,$$
(3.17)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _1\lambda _{0(2)}\alpha _2\lambda _{0(1)}`$ and $`|E_b^0`$ is the pure zero-mode part of the fermionic vertex

$$|E_b^0=\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{0(r)}^a\right]|0_{123}.$$
(3.18)
Here $`|0_r`$ is not the vacuum defined to be annihilated by the $`b_{0(r)}`$. Rather, it satisfies $`\vartheta _{0(r)}|0_r=0`$ and $`H_{2(r)}|0_r=4\mu e(\alpha _r)|0_r`$. In the limit $`\mu 0`$ it coincides with the flat space state that generates the massless multiplet by acting with $`\lambda _{0(r)}^a`$ on it. The fermionic Neumann matrices can be expressed in terms of the bosonic ones as

$`Q_{mn}^{rs}`$ $`=e(\alpha _r)\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha _r}}\right|}\left[P_{(r)}^1U_{(r)}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^{rs}C^{1/2}U_{(s)}P_{(s)}^1\right]_{mn},`$ (3.19)
$`Q_n^r`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))\left[P_{(r)}C_{(r)}^{1/2}C^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\right]_n.`$ (3.20)
In summary, the part of the cubic contribution to the dynamical generators satisfying the kinematic constraints is

$$|V|E_a|E_b\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\right).$$
(3.21)
## 4 The Complete $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$ Superstring Vertex

In the previous section we reviewed the exponential part of the vertex, which solves the kinematic constraints. The remaining dynamic constraints are much more restrictive and are solved by introducing a prefactor , polynomial in creation operators, in front of $`|V`$.555The prefactors are polynomials of $`𝒦,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ and $`𝒴`$, defined below, where $`𝒦,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ and $`𝒴`$ are linear in creation operators. Apart from an important factor of $`i`$ (see discussion in the introduction), the oscillator expressions for $`𝒦`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ were first derived in . The corresponding expression for $`𝒴`$ was first derived in . Within the functional formalism, the prefactor can be re-interpreted as an insertions of local operators at the interaction point  (see also appendix D). In this section we present expressions for the dynamical generators and prove that they satisfy the superalgebra up to order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$.

### 4.1 The Superalgebra and the Constituents of the Prefactors

Define the linear combinations of the free supercharges ($`\eta =e^{i\pi /4}`$)

$$\sqrt{2}\eta QQ^{}+i\overline{Q}^{},\text{and}\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q^{}i\overline{Q}^{}$$
(4.1)
which satisfy

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{Q_{\dot{a}},\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\}& =\mu \left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{ij}+\mu \left(\gamma _{i^{}j^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}J^{i^{}j^{}},\hfill \\ \hfill \{Q_{\dot{a}},Q_{\dot{b}}\}& =\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}},\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\}=2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}H.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
Since $`J^{ij}`$ and $`J^{i^{}j^{}}`$ are not corrected by the interaction, it follows that at order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$ the dynamical generators have to satisfy

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{a}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{b}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`2|H_3\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}},`$ (4.3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`2|H_3\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}},`$ (4.4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{\dot{a}(r)}|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}(r)}|Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.5)
In order to derive equations that determine the full expressions for the dynamical generators one has to compute (anti)commutators of $`Q_{\dot{a}(r)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}(r)}`$ with the constituents of the prefactors. Moreover, the action of the supercharges on $`|V`$ has to be known in terms of these constituents. Here the factorization theorem (3.15) for the bosonic Neumann matrices and the relation between the bosonic and fermionic Neumann matrices given in equations (3.19) and (3.20) prove to be essential.

So as not to destroy the constraints in equation (3.2), the bosonic part of the prefactors (that we will collectively denote by $`𝒫`$) has to satisfy

$$[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_r(\sigma _r),𝒫]=0=[\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)x_r(\sigma _r),𝒫].$$
(4.6)
Making an ansatz linear in creation oscillators and taking the Fourier transform of the above equations one finds that negative and non-negative modes decouple from each other. The resulting constraint equations on the infinite component vectors appearing in the ansatz can be solved using flat space identities ; for details, see . The solution of these constraints involving non-negatively moded bosonic creation oscillators is

$$𝒦_0+𝒦_+i\mu \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{n(r)}a_{n(r)}^{},$$
(4.7)
where

$$\alpha _1p_{0(2)}\alpha _2p_{0(1)},\alpha _3x_{0(1)}x_{0(2)},[,]=i$$
(4.8)
and in terms of the zero-mode creation oscillators

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}F_{0(r)}a_{0(r)}^{}i\mu \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{\mu \alpha _1\alpha _2}\left(\sqrt{\alpha _1}a_{0(2)}^{}\sqrt{\alpha _2}a_{0(1)}^{}\right).$$
(4.9)
The explicit expression for $`F_{n(r)}`$ is given in appendix A, equation (A.1). The solution involving negatively moded creation oscillators is

$$𝒦_{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{n(r)}a_{n(r)}^{},$$
(4.10)
where

$$F_{n(r)}=iU_{n(r)}F_{n(r)}.$$
(4.11)
The fermionic parts of the prefactor have to satisfy the conditions

$$\{\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _r(\sigma ),𝒫\}=0=\{\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}e(\alpha _r)\vartheta _r(\sigma ),𝒫\}$$
(4.12)
that are solved in a similar way to the bosonic case. The solution involving non-negatively moded creation oscillators is

$$𝒴\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_{n(r)}b_{n(r)}^{},$$
(4.13)
where the infinite component vector $`G_{n(r)}`$ can be expressed in terms of the bosonic one $`F_{n(r)}`$  (see appendix A, equation (A.2)). As in flat space , it turns out that the prefactors do not involve negatively moded fermionic creation oscillators.

Below we present the results necessary to verify equations (4.3) and (4.4), given the ansatz (4.19)-(4.21) for the cubic vertex and dynamical supercharges. We need

$$\sqrt{2}\eta \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}[Q_{(r)},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}]|V=\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},𝒦]|V=\mu \gamma (1+\mathrm{\Pi })𝒴|V,$$
(4.14)
where

$$𝒦𝒦_0+𝒦_++𝒦_{},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}𝒦_0+𝒦_+𝒦_{}$$
(4.15)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sqrt{2}\eta \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\{Q_{(r)},𝒴\}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I|V& =i\gamma ^J(12\mu \alpha K(1\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒦^J\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I|Vi\mu \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\gamma ^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })|V,\hfill \\ \hfill \sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},𝒴\}𝒦^I|V& =i\gamma ^J(12\mu \alpha K(1\mathrm{\Pi }))\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^J𝒦^I|V+i\mu \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\gamma ^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })|V.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.16)
Notice, that the above identities are only valid when both sides of the equation act on $`|V`$. The action of the supercharges on $`|V`$ is

$`\sqrt{2}\eta {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Q_{(r)}|V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}𝒦\gamma (12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒴|V,`$ (4.17)
$`\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)}|V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}\gamma (12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒴|V.`$ (4.18)
The proof of equations (4.14)-(4.18) is given in appendix A.

### 4.2 The dynamical generators at order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$

The results of the previous subsection motivate the following ansatz for the explicit form of the dynamical supercharges and the three-string interaction vertex

$`|H_3`$ $`=\left((14\mu \alpha K)\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I𝒦^J\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\delta ^{IJ}\right)v_{IJ}(Y)|V,`$ (4.19)
$`|Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^Is_{\dot{a}}^I(Y)|V,`$ (4.20)
$`|\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}𝒦^I\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{a}}^I(Y)|V.`$ (4.21)
Here

$$Y(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒴.$$
(4.22)
Substituting this into equations (4.3) and (4.4) and using equations (4.14)-(4.18), we get the following equations for $`v^{IJ}`$, $`s_{\dot{a}}^I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{a}}^I`$666Here $`(\dot{a}\dot{b})`$ denotes symmetrization in $`\dot{a}`$, $`\dot{b}`$.

$$\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}v^{IJ}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^JD^as_{\dot{b})}^I,\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}v^{IJ}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\overline{D}^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b})}^J,$$
(4.23)
which originate from terms proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_I𝒦_J`$ and are identical to the flat space equations of . Two additional equations, arising from terms proportional to $`\mu \delta _{IJ}`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}v^{II}& =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left(D^a+i\left[\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{D}\right]^a\right)s_{\dot{b})}^I,\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}v^{II}& =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left(\overline{D}^ai\left[\mathrm{\Pi }D\right]^a\right)\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b})}^I.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.24)
As in flat space  we define

$$D^a\eta Y^a+\overline{\eta }\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\frac{}{Y_a},\overline{D}^a\overline{\eta }Y^a+\eta \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\frac{}{Y_a}.$$
(4.25)
Recall first the solution of the flat space equations (4.23) . One introduces the following functions of $`Y^a`$

$`w^{IJ}`$ $`=\delta ^{IJ}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}t_{abcd}^{IJ}Y^aY^bY^cY^d+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8!}}\delta ^{IJ}\epsilon _{abcdefgh}Y^a\mathrm{}Y^h,`$ (4.26)
$`iy^{IJ}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}Y^aY^b+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{26!}}\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}\epsilon _{}^{ab}{}_{cdefgh}{}^{}Y^c\mathrm{}Y^h,`$ (4.27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{1\dot{a}}^I`$ $`=\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^IY^a+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6!}}u_{abc\dot{a}}^I\epsilon _{}^{abc}{}_{defgh}{}^{}Y^d\mathrm{}Y^h,`$ (4.28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{2\dot{a}}^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}u_{abc\dot{a}}^IY^aY^bY^c+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7!}}\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\epsilon _{}^{a}{}_{bcdefgh}{}^{}Y^b\mathrm{}Y^h.`$ (4.29)
Here

$$t_{abcd}^{IJ}\gamma _{[ab}^{IK}\gamma _{cd]}^{JK},u_{abc\dot{a}}^I\gamma _{[ab}^{IJ}\gamma _{c]\dot{a}}^J.$$
(4.30)
Notice that $`t_{abcd}^{IJ}`$ is traceless and symmetric in $`I`$, $`J`$, hence $`w^{IJ}`$ is a symmetric tensor of $`SO(8)`$, whereas $`y^{IJ}`$ is antisymmetric. The solution of equations (4.23) is

$$v^{IJ}w^{IJ}+y^{IJ},s_{\dot{a}}^I\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta s_{1\dot{a}}^I+\overline{\eta }s_{2\dot{a}}^I\right),\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{a}}^I\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\overline{\eta }s_{1\dot{a}}^I+\eta s_{2\dot{a}}^I\right).$$
(4.31)
Next consider the additional equations (4.24). Using the flat space solution, these can be rewritten as

$$0=\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left[\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{D}\right]^as_{\dot{b})}^I0=\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left[\mathrm{\Pi }D\right]^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b})}^I.$$
(4.32)
We prove in appendix B that these equations are also satisfied by equation (4.31).

The proof of equation (4.5) is more involved and provides an important consistency check of the ansatz (4.19)–(4.21). We show in appendix C that it leads to the equations

$`\delta ^{IJ}m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^{(I}D^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^{J)}=0,`$ (4.33)
$`\delta ^{IJ}m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^{(I}\overline{D}^as_{\dot{a}}^{J)}=0,`$ (4.34)
$`\sqrt{2}\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I\right)4im_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}Y_a=0,`$ (4.35)
$`\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\overline{D}_b\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^ID_bs_{\dot{a}}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}=0.`$ (4.36)
Here

$`m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}`$ $`=\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}Y^aY^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{44!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}\right)^2\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJKL}t_{abcd}^{IJKL}Y^aY^bY^cY^d`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}\right)^3\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}\epsilon _{}^{ab}{}_{cdefgh}{}^{}Y^c\mathrm{}Y^h{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2\alpha }}\right)^4\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\epsilon _{abcdefgh}Y^a\mathrm{}Y^h`$ (4.37)
and

$$t_{abcd}^{IJKL}\gamma _{[ab}^{[IJ}\gamma _{cd]}^{KL]}.$$
(4.38)
The first three equations are identical to those in flat space777In appendix C we correct some minor typos present in . and were proven in . The additional equation (4.36) is proved in appendix B.

We have not yet fixed the overall normalisation of the dynamical generators which can depend on $`\mu `$ and the $`\alpha _r`$’s. This is more difficult to do than in flat space since there is no $`J^I`$ generator in the pp-wave background. A comparison with a supergravity calculation fixes the normalisation for small $`\mu `$ to be $`(\alpha ^{}\mu ^2)/(\alpha _3^4)`$ . However, this does not completely fix the normalisation; one may still multiply by a function of $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha _r`$ that goes to one as $`\mu 0`$. On the other hand, the definition of $`Y`$ in equation (4.22) and the fact that the terms $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I𝒦^J`$ and $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ in equation (4.19) are multiplied by different powers of $`14\mu \alpha K`$ are fixed by demanding that one recovers the flat space equations (4.23), (4.33)-(4.35). In order to obtain the supergravity expressions for the dynamical generators from equations (4.19)–(4.21), one should set $`K`$ to zero, since it originates from massive string modes. Together with $`[^I,^J]=i\delta ^{IJ}`$, one can check that the supergravity vertex obtained in this way agrees with the supergravity vertex presented in section 4 of .

We would like to stress that the nontrivial relation between $`Y`$ and $`𝒴`$ in equation (4.22), as well as the part in the cubic interaction vertex proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$, were not present in  and played an essential role in the above proof of the superalgebra in the interacting string field theory. In , functional expressions for the constituents of the prefactors were used to argue that the vertex of  satisfied the superalgebra. It is well known  that these functional expressions do not in general agree with the oscillator basis expressions given in equations (4.7), (4.10) and (4.13). As explained in appendix D, it would appear that this subtlety is the origin for the absence of the $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ term in . In flat space the functional expression agrees with the one in the oscillator basis only when acting directly on $`|V`$ . In the pp-wave however, they agree only up to non-trivial functions of $`\mu `$  (see also appendix D). This leads to equation (4.22). In summary the oscillator expression (4.19), which is used in the following section to compute three-point functions, has been shown explicitly to satisfy the superalgebra at $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$.

## 5 3-string amplitudes

In this section we use $`H_3`$ to compute three-string amplitudes. For three general string states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ in the number-basis representation the amplitude is

$$g_\text{s}\mathrm{\Phi }_3|H_3|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=g_\text{s}\mathrm{\Phi }_3|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|H_3.$$
(5.1)
We restrict ourselves to the case, where either all states have bosonic excitations or fermionic ones. We compare our expressions to gauge theory results in the BMN limit. Recall that the full interacting Hamiltonian $`H/\mu `$ in string theory is identified with the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ in field theory . A comparison of matrix elements of the two operators requires an identification of the free string basis used in string theory with a dual basis in field theory. At the planar level, multi-trace BMN operators are identified with multi-string states . However, non-planar corrections lead to a mixing of single and multi trace BMN operators  and this effect has to be taken into account when comparing matrix elements of $`H_3`$ to field theory. The dual basis was proposed  to be the one, in which the matrix of two-point functions of redefined BMN operators (i.e. now mixtures of single and multi-trace) is diagonal in free field theory. As emphasized in , the required basis transformation is not unique.888We are grateful to Jan Plefka for discussions on this point.

### 5.1 Amplitudes of bosonic states

To facilitate the comparison with field theory, we change our oscillator basis to the BMN basis. For $`n>0`$ the transformation is

$$\sqrt{2}a_n=\alpha _n+\alpha _n,i\sqrt{2}a_n=\alpha _n\alpha _n,a_0=\alpha _0.$$
(5.2)
Using equation (4.11) we have

$$𝒦=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}𝒦_{n(r)}\alpha _{n(r)}^{},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_{n(r)}\alpha _{n(r)}^{},$$
(5.3)
where

$$𝒦_{n(r)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{0(r)}\hfill & ,n=0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{|n|(r)}\left(1U_{n(r)}\right)\hfill & ,n0\hfill \end{array},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_{n(r)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{0(r)}\hfill & ,n=0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{|n|(r)}\left(1+U_{n(r)}\right)\hfill & ,n0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(5.4)
In this basis the Neumann matrices are

$$\stackrel{~}{N}_{mn}^{rs}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\overline{N}_{|m||n|}^{rs}\left(1+U_{m(r)}U_{n(s)}\right)\hfill & ,m,n0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{N}_{|m|0}^{rs}\hfill & ,m0\hfill \\ \overline{N}_{00}^{rs}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5.5)
We compute amplitudes involving the string states

$$|v_r,|0_i_r\alpha _{0(r)}^i|v_r,|n_{i,j}_r\alpha _{n(r)}^i\alpha _{n(r)}^j|v_r.$$
(5.6)
The fermionic contribution to these amplitudes is simple to determine. The pp-wave vacua $`{}_{r}{}^{}v|`$ are related to $`{}_{r}{}^{}0|`$ via

$${}_{r}{}^{}v|={}_{r}{}^{}0|\left(\frac{\alpha _r}{2}\right)^2\underset{a=5}{\overset{8}{}}\vartheta _{0(r)}^a,r\{1,2\},{}_{3}{}^{}v|={}_{3}{}^{}0|\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{2}\right)^2\underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}\vartheta _{0(r)}^a.$$
(5.7)
Eight of the zero-modes in equation (5.7), namely $`\vartheta _{0(3)}^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},4`$ and, say, $`\vartheta _{0(2)}^a`$, $`a=5,\mathrm{},8`$ are saturated by $`|E_b^0`$, so, to give a non-zero contribution the remaining four zero-modes must be contracted with the $`𝒪(Y^4)`$ term in $`v_{IJ}(Y)`$. Hence, the fermionic contribution is

$$\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{2}\right)^4(14\mu \alpha K)^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ},$$
(5.8)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{IJ}t_{5678}^{IJ}=\text{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_4,\mathrm{𝟏}_4)`$; the factor $`(14\mu \alpha K)^2`$ is due to equation (4.22). The bosonic zero-mode determinant can be computed using results in appendix B of

$$\left(\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{2\mu }{\pi ^3}\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _3}\right)^2.$$
(5.9)
As discussed at the end of section 4 the overall normalisation of the cubic interaction vertex is still not completely fixed. We will take it to be

$$\frac{\pi ^7\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{\alpha ^2}(14\mu \alpha K)^2$$
(5.10)
by comparing a three-string amplitude (e.g. equation (5.13)) in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ to a known field theory result. Strictly speaking, from the comparison with supergravity and field theory we only know that equation (5.10) is correct for $`\mu =0`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. Since the function $`(14\mu \alpha K)`$ plays such a prominent role in pp-wave string field theory, we conjecture that it is the correct choice for all $`\mu `$. Combining the various contributions we conclude that for amplitudes of string states build out of bosonic oscillators acting on the $`|v_r`$, the interaction vertex is999For general amplitudes it is $`g_\text{s}|H_3=16\pi g_\text{s}\alpha ^{}\mu ^2\alpha _3^4(14\mu \alpha K)^2\left((14\mu \alpha K)𝒦^I\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^J\mu \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\delta ^{IJ}\right)v_{IJ}(Y)|V`$ .

$$g_\text{s}|H_3=\pi g_\text{s}\alpha ^{}\mu ^2(14\mu \alpha K)𝒦^I\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^J\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}|E_a\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\right).$$
(5.11)
In particular, the term proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ does not contribute, since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}`$ is traceless. Using the factorization theorem (3.15) this can be further simplified to

$$g_\text{s}|H_3=\frac{1}{2}g_2\beta (\beta +1)\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{n𝖹𝖹}{}\frac{\omega _{n(r)}}{\alpha _r}\alpha _{n(r)}^I\alpha _{n(r)}^J\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}|E_a|\alpha _3|\delta \left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _r\right).$$
(5.12)
Recall that $`g_\text{s}=g_2/(4\pi \mu ^2\alpha _3^2)`$. Here $`\beta =\alpha _1/\alpha _3`$ is related to $`r=J_1/J`$, the ratio of R-charges conventionally used in SYM, by $`\beta =r`$. For amplitudes involving two zero-mode oscillators and one massive string state we find101010To avoid clutter of notation we suppress the index $`r`$ of the $`r`$th string and the factor of $`|\alpha _3|\delta \left(_r\alpha _r\right)`$.

$`g_\text{s}n_{1,2}|H_3|0_1|0_2`$ $`=g_2\mu \alpha _1\alpha _2(\beta (\beta +1))^{3/2}\left[CU_{(3)}^1C_{(3)}\right]_n\left(\overline{N}_{|n|}^3\right)^2`$
$`=\mu g_2\lambda ^{}\sqrt{\beta (\beta +1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(316a_R)\lambda ^{}n^2+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\right],`$ (5.13)
$`g_\text{s}n_{1,1}|H_3|0_1|0_1`$ $`=2g_2\mu \alpha _1\alpha _2(\beta (\beta +1))^{3/2}\left[CU_{(3)}^1C_{(3)}\right]_n\left(\overline{N}_{|n|}^3\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mu \alpha _3}}\left[CU_{(3)}^1\right]_n\right]`$
$`=\mu g_2\lambda ^{}\sqrt{\beta (\beta +1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{\pi ^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(716a_R)\lambda ^{}n^2+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\right].`$ (5.14)
The leading order result given in equation (5.13) has also been computed in  and is in agreement with field theory . The subleading terms are predictions for the 2-loop results in field theory from which one should be able to fix the yet unknown constant $`a_R`$ (cf. appendix E). An amplitude of two massive string states and the pp-wave vacuum is

$`g_\text{s}n_{1,2}|H_3|m_{1,2}|v`$ $`=g_2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +1}{4\alpha _3^2}}\left(\alpha _1\omega _{n(3)}+\alpha _3\omega _{m(1)}\right)\left(\overline{N}_{|m||n|}^{13}\right)^2\left(1U_{m(1)}^2U_{n(3)}^2\right)`$
$`=\mu g_2\lambda ^{}(\beta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}}+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).`$ (5.15)
This amplitude has also been computed in  and agrees with the field theory result . Finally, consider amplitudes involving only zero-mode oscillators. From equation (5.12) it follows, that all amplitudes with, say, $`l`$ oscillators for the first string, $`m`$ oscillators for the second string, $`n`$ oscillators for the third string and $`l+m=n`$ vanish for all $`\mu `$. This is in agreement with the proposal of , since the operators in field theory dual to single and double string states at order $`𝒪(g_2)`$ are constructed in such a way that they do not mix in free field theory. Since the operator dual of the single string is protected this is an exact result for all $`\lambda ^{}`$, thereby matching the string theory result.

### 5.2 Amplitudes of fermionic states

As in the bosonic case, we change the oscillator basis to the BMN basis ($`n>0`$)

$$\sqrt{2}b_n=\beta _n+\beta _n,i\sqrt{2}b_n=\beta _n\beta _n,b_0=\beta _0.$$
(5.16)
and compute amplitudes of the states

$$|v_r,|0_a_r\beta _{0(r)}^a|v_r,|n_{a,b}_r\beta _{n(r)}^a\beta _{n(r)}^b|v.$$
(5.17)
In this case the cubic interaction vertex reduces to

$$g_\text{s}|H_3=4\mu g_2\frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{\alpha _3^4}(14\mu \alpha K)^2\text{tr}(v)(Y)|E_b|\alpha _3|\delta \left(\underset{r}{}\alpha _r\right).$$
(5.18)
Due to the trace over $`v_{IJ}`$ only terms of order $`𝒪(Y^0)`$ and $`𝒪(Y^8)`$ contribute. Note that these amplitudes are identically zero for the vertex constructed in , because the trace over $`v_{IJ}`$ comes from the term proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$. As an example, we consider

$$g_\text{s}n_{5,6}|H_3|0_7|0_8,g_\text{s}n_{5,6}|H_3|m_{7,8}|v,$$
(5.19)
which are fermionic analogues to the bosonic amplitudes in equations (5.13) and (5.15). For the above amplitudes to be non-zero it is essential that the fermionic exponential part of the vertex contains a term linear in zero-modes. Counting fermionic zero-modes shows that in this case only the $`𝒪(Y^0)`$ term in $`\text{tr}(v)`$ gives a contribution. We find

$`g_\text{s}n_{5,6}|H_3|0_7|0_8`$ $`=\mu \alpha _1\alpha _2g_2\left(\beta (\beta +1)\right)^{3/2}\left[CU_{(3)}^1C_{(3)}\right]_n\left(\overline{N}_{|n|}^3\right)^2`$
$`=\mu g_2\lambda ^{}\sqrt{\beta (\beta +1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(316a_R)\lambda ^{}n^2+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\right],`$ (5.20)
$`g_\text{s}n_{5,6}|H_3|m_{7,8}|v`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu g_2\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2(\beta +1)(14\mu \alpha K)^2\left[CU_{(1)}^1C_{(1)}\right]_m\left[CU_{(3)}^1C_{(3)}\right]_n\left(\overline{N}_{|m|}^1\overline{N}_{|n|}^3\right)^2`$
$`=\mu g_2\lambda ^{}(\beta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2n\pi \beta }{2\pi ^2}}+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).`$ (5.21)
Up to a sign, the first amplitude in equation (5.2) is identical to its bosonic analogue (5.13) for all $`\mu `$, whereas the second one, equation (5.2), is the same at leading order. These results reflect that the vertex constructed in section 4 satisfies the superalgebra. One can check that equations (5.2) and (5.2) are unchanged if all spinor indices are in $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$ and (up to permutations) vanish otherwise.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful for discussions with G. Arutyunov, N. Beisert, B. de Wit, M. B. Green, S. Minwalla, A. Petkou, F. Quevedo and M. Taylor. In particular, we would like to thank J. Plefka and S. Theisen for many useful comments on the manuscript and for sharing their insights. Part of this work was performed during the workshop “The quantum structure of spacetime and the geometric nature of fundamental interactions” in Leuven. We would like to thank the organizers for the stimulating atmosphere they created. This work was supported by GIF, the German-Israeli foundation for Scientific Research, FOM, the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter and the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 in which A. P. is associated to the University of Bonn.

## Appendix A Some computational details

Here we give the details leading to equations (4.14), (4.16), (4.17) and (4.18). The explicit expression for the infinite component vector $`F_{(r)}`$ appearing in the bosonic constituent of the prefactors is

$$F_{(r)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\frac{\alpha }{14\mu \alpha K}\frac{1}{\alpha _r}U_{(r)}^1C_{(r)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^r.$$
(A.1)
The fermionic quantity $`G_{(r)}`$ can be expressed in terms of $`F_{(r)}`$ as

$$G_{(r)}=\left(12\mu \alpha K(1\mathrm{\Pi })\right)\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}P_{(r)}^1U_{(r)}C^{1/2}F_{(r)}.$$
(A.2)
The following identities prove very useful ($`\alpha _3\mathrm{\Theta }\vartheta _{0(1)}\vartheta _{0(2)}`$)

$`|V`$ $`=i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\left[2K\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{r,n>0}{}}C_{n(r)}^{1/2}\overline{N}_n^ra_{n(r)}^{}\right]|V,`$ (A.3)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }|V`$ $`=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{r,n}{}}Q_n^rb_{n(r)}^{}|V.`$ (A.4)
Using the mode expansions of $`Q_{(r)}^{}`$, $`\overline{Q}_{(r)}^{}`$, $`𝒦_0+𝒦_+`$, $`𝒦_{}`$ and $`𝒴`$ given in equations (2), (4.7), (4.10) and (4.13) one gets

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\{Q_{(r)}^{},𝒴\}`$ $`=\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}C^{1/2}G_{(r)}\right]_na_{n(r)}^{},`$ (A.5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\{\overline{Q}_{(r)}^{},𝒴\}`$ $`=\gamma i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C^{1/2}G_{(r)}\right]_na_{n(r)}^{},`$ (A.6)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[Q_{(r)}^{},𝒦_0+𝒦_+]`$ $`=\mu \gamma (1+\mathrm{\Pi })\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_nb_{n(r)}^{},`$ (A.7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[Q_{(r)}^{},𝒦_{}]`$ $`=i\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}^1C^{1/2}U_{(r)}F_{(r)}\right]_nb_{n(r)}^{},`$ (A.8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\overline{Q}_{(r)}^{},𝒦_0+𝒦_+]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu \alpha }{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}}\gamma (1\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Theta }+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}C^{1/2}F_{(r)}\right]_nb_{n(r)}^{},`$ (A.9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\overline{Q}_{(r)}^{},𝒦_{}]`$ $`=i\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\alpha _r)}{\sqrt{|\alpha _r|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[P_{(r)}C^{1/2}U_{(r)}F_{(r)}\right]_nb_{n(r)}^{}.`$ (A.10)
Using equations (A.2), (A.3) and (A.4) we find equations equations (4.14) and (4.16). The action of the supercharges on $`|V`$ given in equations (4.17) and (4.18) can be proven similarly. One needs

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{N}_{nm}^{rs}+e(\alpha _s)\left(\frac{m}{n}\left|\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _s}\right|\right)^{3/2}P_{n(r)}P_{m(s)}Q_{nm}^{rs}& =\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _s}(14\mu \alpha K)^1\left[C_{(r)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\right]_n\left[U_{(s)}^1C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]_m,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{N}_{n,m}^{rs}+e(\alpha _r)\left(\frac{m}{n}\left|\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _s}\right|\right)^{1/2}P_{n(r)}P_{m(s)}Q_{nm}^{rs}& =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{N}_{nm}^{rs}e(\alpha _r)\left(\frac{m}{n}\left|\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _s}\right|\right)^{1/2}P_{n(r)}^1P_{m(s)}^1Q_{nm}^{rs}& =\mu \alpha (14\mu \alpha K)^1(1\mathrm{\Pi })\left[C_{(r)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\right]_n\left[C_{(s)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^s\right]_m,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{N}_{n,m}^{rs}e(\alpha _s)\left(\frac{m}{n}\left|\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _s}\right|\right)^{3/2}P_{n(r)}^1P_{m(s)}^1Q_{nm}^{rs}& =\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _s}(14\mu \alpha K)^1\left[P_{(r)}^2C_{(r)}^{1/2}\overline{N}^r\right]_n\left[C_{(s)}^{1/2}C\overline{N}^s\right]_m\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.12)
which follow from (3.15) and (3.19).

## Appendix B Proof of equations (4.24) and (4.36)

In this appendix we prove that

$`\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left[\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{D}\right]^as_{\dot{b})}^I`$ $`=0,`$ (B.1)
$`\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\left[\mathrm{\Pi }D\right]^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b})}^I`$ $`=0,`$ (B.2)
$`\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\overline{D}_b\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^ID_bs_{\dot{a}}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}`$ $`=0.`$ (B.3)
Equations (B.1) and (B.2) are equivalent to

$`\left(\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{1\dot{b})}^I+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^b}}s_{2\dot{b})}^I\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ $`=0,`$ (B.4)
$`\left(\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{2\dot{b})}^I{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^b}}s_{1\dot{b})}^I\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ $`=0,`$ (B.5)
The first equation has terms of order $`𝒪(Y^2)`$ and $`𝒪(Y^6)`$, whereas the second one has terms of order $`𝒪(Y^0)`$, $`𝒪(Y^4)`$ and $`𝒪(Y^8)`$. There are two contributions to the order $`𝒪(Y^2)`$ in equation (B.4), both vanish separately. The first one is

$$\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{1\dot{b})}^I\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=2\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\gamma _{c\dot{b})}^IY^bY^c\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}Y^aY^b=0,$$
(B.6)
whereas the second one is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^b}}s_{2\dot{b})}^I\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^Iu_{bcd\dot{b})}^IY^cY^d\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{(\dot{a}\dot{b})}\gamma _{a[b}^{IJ}\gamma _{cd]}^{KL}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}Y^cY^d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{(\dot{a}\dot{b})}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{cd}Y^cY^d=0.`$ (B.7)
Here we have used equations (B.19) and (B.22). From the Fourier identities

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_{1\dot{a}}(\varphi )& =\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\right)^4d^8Ys_{2\dot{a}}^I(Y)e^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\varphi Y},\hfill \\ \hfill s_{2\dot{a}}(\varphi )& =\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\right)^4d^8Ys_{1\dot{a}}^I(Y)e^{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\varphi Y},\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.8)
it follows that the terms of order $`𝒪(Y^6)`$ vanish as well. This proves equation (B.1). The $`𝒪(Y^0)`$ term in equation (B.5) is

$$\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I\gamma _{b\dot{b})}^I\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\text{tr}(\mathrm{\Pi })=0,$$
(B.9)
and the order $`𝒪(Y^8)`$ term vanishes by (B.8). The terms of order $`𝒪(Y^4)`$ in equation (B.5) are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^Iu_{cde\dot{b})}^I\left(Y^bY^cY^dY^e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\epsilon _{}^{cdeb}{}_{ghij}{}^{}Y^gY^hY^iY^j\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{(\dot{a}\dot{b})}\gamma _{a[c}^{IJ}\gamma _{de]}^{KL}\left(Y^bY^cY^dY^e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\epsilon _{}^{cdeb}{}_{ghij}{}^{}Y^gY^hY^iY^j\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\left(\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJKL}2\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\delta ^{IK}\delta ^{JL}\right)\gamma _{a[c}^{IJ}\gamma _{de]}^{KL}\left(Y^bY^cY^dY^e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\epsilon _{}^{cdeb}{}_{ghij}{}^{}Y^gY^hY^iY^j\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJKL}t_{acde}^{IJKL}\left(Y^bY^cY^dY^e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\epsilon _{}^{cdeb}{}_{ghij}{}^{}Y^gY^hY^iY^j\right)=0.`$ (B.10)
In the last step we used that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is symmetric and traceless and

$$t_{abcd}^{IJKL}=\frac{1}{24}\epsilon _{abcd}^{}{}_{}{}^{efgh}t_{efgh}^{IJKL}.$$
(B.11)
This proves equation (B.2). Finally, equation (B.3) is equivalent to

$`\left(\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{1\dot{b})}^I{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a(\dot{a}}^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^b}}s_{2\dot{b})}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}=0,`$ (B.12)
$`\left(\gamma _{a[\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{2\dot{b}]}^I+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a[\dot{a}}^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^b}}s_{1\dot{b}]}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}=0.`$ (B.13)
The first equation is symmetric in $`\dot{a}`$, $`\dot{b}`$ and contains terms of order $`𝒪(Y^2)`$ and $`𝒪(Y^6)`$. These vanish for the same reason as those in equation (B.1). The second equation is antisymmetric in $`\dot{a}`$, $`\dot{b}`$ and contains terms of order $`𝒪(Y^0)`$, $`𝒪(Y^4)`$ and $`𝒪(Y^8)`$. The $`𝒪(Y^0)`$ contribution to equation (B.13) is

$$\gamma _{a[\dot{a}}^I\gamma _{b\dot{b}]}^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}=\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\gamma _{ab}^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}=0.$$
(B.14)
From equation (B.8) it follows that the term of order $`𝒪(Y^8)`$ vanishes as well. Finally, there are two contributions to the terms of order $`𝒪(Y^4)`$, both of them vanish separately. The first one is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\gamma _{a[\dot{a}}^IY_bs_{2\dot{b}]}^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma _{a[\dot{a}}^Iu_{cde\dot{b}]}^I(1\mathrm{\Pi })_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}Y^bY^cY^dY^e=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\delta _{a[c}\gamma _{de]}^{IJ}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{[\dot{a}\dot{b}]}\gamma _{a[c}^{IJ}\gamma _{de]}^{KL}\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}Y^bY^cY^dY^e=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\gamma _{a[c}^{IK}\gamma _{de]}^{KJ}(1\mathrm{\Pi })_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}Y^bY^cY^dY^e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\gamma _{bc}^{IJ}(1\mathrm{\Pi })_{de}Y^bY^cY^dY^e=0.`$ (B.15)
In the last step we have used equation (B.20). The second contribution of order $`𝒪(Y^4)`$ then vanishes by equation (B.8). This concludes the proof of equation (B.13).

Apart from symmetry and tracelessness of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ we have used the following identities

$`\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}`$ $`=\gamma _{ba}^{IJ},`$ (B.16)
$`\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\gamma _{b\dot{b}}^I`$ $`=\delta _{ab}\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ},`$ (B.17)
$`\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{ab}`$ $`=\gamma _{ab}^{IJKL}+\delta ^{IL}\gamma _{ab}^{JK}+\delta ^{JK}\gamma _{ab}^{IL}`$
$`\delta ^{IK}\gamma _{ab}^{JL}\delta ^{JL}\gamma _{ab}^{IK}+\left(\delta ^{JK}\delta ^{IL}\delta ^{JL}\delta ^{IK}\right)\delta _{ab},`$ (B.18)
$`\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^Iu_{bcd\dot{b}}^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJ}\delta _{a[b}\gamma _{cd]}^{IJ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(\gamma ^{IJ}\gamma ^{KL}\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\gamma _{a[b}^{IJ}\gamma _{cd]}^{KL},`$ (B.19)
$`\gamma _{a[b}^{IK}\gamma _{cd]}^{JK}`$ $`=t_{abcd}^{IJ}2\delta _{a[b}\gamma _{cd]}^{IJ},`$ (B.20)
$`\gamma _{ab}^{IJ}\gamma _{cd}^{IJ}`$ $`=8\left(\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}\right),`$ (B.21)
$`\gamma _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{IJKL}\left(\gamma ^{KL}\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma ^{IJ}\right)_{[ab]}`$ $`=0.`$ (B.22)
## Appendix C $`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}\}`$ at order $`𝒪(g_\text{s})`$

Here we demonstrate that equation (4.5) leads to the constraints (4.33)–(4.36) given in section 4. To this end, we adopt a trick introduced in . Namely, we associate the world-sheet coordinate dependence with the oscillators as

$`a_{n(r)}`$ $`e^{i\omega _{n(r)}\tau /\alpha _r}\left(a_{n(r)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}a_{n(r)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}\right),`$ (C.1)
$`a_{n(r)}`$ $`e^{i\omega _{n(r)}\tau /\alpha _r}\left(a_{n(r)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}+a_{n(r)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}\right),`$ (C.2)
$`b_{n(r)}`$ $`e^{i\omega _{n(r)}\tau /\alpha _r}\left(b_{n(r)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}b_{n(r)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}\right),`$ (C.3)
$`b_{n(r)}`$ $`e^{i\omega _{n(r)}\tau /\alpha _r}\left(b_{n(r)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}+b_{n(r)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{n\sigma _r}{\alpha _r}}\right).`$ (C.4)
Then we integrate the constraint equation (4.5) over the $`\sigma _r`$. In dealing with the resulting expressions we can integrate by parts since the integrand is periodic. In addition to the identities in equations (4.16),111111In fact, here we need the analogue of equation (4.16) with $`𝒦\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$. (4.17) and (4.18) we have to calculate the commutator of $`_rQ_{(r)}`$ with $`𝒦`$ and and its tilded counterpart. We get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sqrt{2}\eta & \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}[Q_{(r)},𝒦]|V=2i(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}\gamma \left[\dot{Y}+Y^{}+\frac{i}{2}\mu (1\mathrm{\Pi })\left(Y2Y_0\right)\right]|V,\hfill \\ \hfill \sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }& \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}]|V=2i(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}\gamma \left[\dot{Y}Y^{}+\frac{i}{2}\mu (1\mathrm{\Pi })\left(Y2Y_0\right)\right]|V.\hfill \end{array}$$
(C.5)
Here $`Y_0`$ is the zero-mode part of $`Y`$, we suppressed the $`\tau `$, $`\sigma _r`$ dependence and

$$\dot{Y}_\tau Y,Y^{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}_{\sigma _r}Y.$$
(C.6)
The fact that the above equations have a term which only depends on the zero mode $`Y_0`$ is important. Combining the various contributions to equation (4.5) yields

$`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}d\sigma _r(\sqrt{2}(14\mu \alpha K)^1[(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I)\dot{Y}^a+(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I)Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2}}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1\left[\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\overline{D}_b\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^ID_bs_{\dot{a}}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}+2i\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}Y_0^b\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}[𝒦^I𝒦^J\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^JD^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^J\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^J\overline{D}^as_{\dot{b}}^I])|V=0.`$ (C.7)
Next we remove the $`\sigma _r`$ derivatives from $`Y`$ by partial integration. This requires the identity 121212There are some minor typos in appendices D and E of  which we correct for the interested reader to facilitate the comparison with this paper. The right-hand-side of equation (D.25) in  should be multiplied by $`\frac{1}{2\alpha }`$; on the r.h.s. of equations (D.26) and (D.27) it should be $`\frac{1}{2^{3/2}}`$ instead of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$; the r.h.s. of equation (E.8) should be multiplied by $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$. This corrections modify equation (E.9) of  slightly, which is now in agreement with equations (4.33)–(4.35) of this paper. These typos do not affect the proof presented in appendix E of .

$$\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I\right)Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{2^{3/2}\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^{}$$
(C.8)
and

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}_{\sigma _r}|V=\frac{i}{4}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }\left((14\mu \alpha K)\left(𝒦^2\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^2\right)+4\left(Y\dot{Y}+i\mu (1\mathrm{\Pi })YY_0\right)\right)|V.$$
(C.9)
Using the above identities equation (C.7) becomes after integrating by parts

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}d\sigma _r(& (14\mu \alpha K)^1\left[\sqrt{2}\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\eta \stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^I\overline{\eta }s_{\dot{a}}^I\right)4im_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}Y_a\right]\left(\dot{Y}^a\dot{Y}_0^a\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1\left(\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I\overline{D}_b\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^ID_bs_{\dot{a}}^I\right)(1\mathrm{\Pi })^{ab}\hfill \\ & i𝒦^I𝒦^J[\delta ^{IJ}m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\sqrt{2}\alpha }\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^JD^a\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{b}}^I]+i\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^I\stackrel{~}{𝒦}^J[\delta ^{IJ}m_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\sqrt{2}\alpha }\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^J\overline{D}^as_{\dot{a}}^I])|V=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(C.10)
## Appendix D The Functional Approach to the Prefactor

The bosonic constituents of the prefactor can be obtained via the operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X(\sigma )& =4\pi \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha ^{}}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\stackrel{`}{x}_1(\sigma )+\stackrel{`}{x}_1(\sigma )\right),\hfill \\ \hfill P(\sigma )& =2\pi \sqrt{\alpha }(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(p_1(\sigma )+p_1(\sigma )\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(D.1)
Acting on the exponential part of the vertex these satisfy

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}K(\sigma )|V& \underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}\left(P(\sigma )+\frac{1}{4\pi }X(\sigma )\right)|V=f(\mu )𝒦|V,\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}\stackrel{~}{K}(\sigma )|V& \underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}\left(P(\sigma )\frac{1}{4\pi }X(\sigma )\right)|V=f(\mu )\stackrel{~}{𝒦}|V.\hfill \end{array}$$
(D.2)
Here we defined

$$f(\mu )2\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\alpha _1}\underset{e0}{lim}\epsilon ^{1/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nn\mathrm{cos}(n\epsilon /\alpha _1)\overline{N}_n^1$$
(D.3)
which is equal to one for $`\mu =0`$ . For the fermionic constituent of the prefactor one considers

$$Y(\sigma )=2\pi \frac{\sqrt{2\alpha }}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}(\pi \alpha _1\sigma )^{1/2}\left(\lambda _1(\sigma )+\lambda _1(\sigma )\right)$$
(D.4)
which satisfies

$$\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V=f(\mu )(14\mu \alpha K)^1(12\mu \alpha K(1+\mathrm{\Pi }))𝒴|V.$$
(D.5)
Comparing this identity with equation (4.22), we see that

$$\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}Y(\sigma )|V=Y|V,f(\mu )=(14\mu \alpha K)^{1/2}.$$
(D.6)
We conjecture that this is indeed the case. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no way of proving this conjecture, at least for large-$`\mu `$, without knowing $`\overline{N}^r`$ for all $`\mu `$. This is because in equation (D.3), the large-$`\mu `$ expansion does not commute with the infinite sum over $`n`$.

One can write the functional equivalent of equations (4.19), (4.20) and (4.21) as

$`H_3`$ $`=\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _3\left(\stackrel{~}{K}^I(\sigma )K^J(\sigma )\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}\delta ^{IJ}\right)v_{IJ}(Y(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Phi }(1)\mathrm{\Phi }(2)\mathrm{\Phi }(3)},`$ (D.7)
$`Q_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _3\stackrel{~}{K}^I(\sigma )s_{\dot{a}}^I(Y(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Phi }(1)\mathrm{\Phi }(2)\mathrm{\Phi }(3)},`$ (D.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{3\dot{a}}`$ $`=\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _3K^I(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{s}_{\dot{a}}^I(Y(\sigma ))\mathrm{\Phi }(1)\mathrm{\Phi }(2)\mathrm{\Phi }(3)}.`$ (D.9)
Here

$$d\mu _3\left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}d\alpha _rD^8\lambda _r(\sigma )D^8p_r(\sigma )\right)\delta \left(\underset{s}{}\alpha _s\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^8\left[\underset{s}{}\lambda _s(\sigma )\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^8\left[\underset{s}{}p_s(\sigma )\right]$$
(D.10)
is the functional expression leading to the exponential part of the vertex .

Finally, let us mention the following subtlety. Using equation (2.20) it is easy to see that for example

$$\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}K(\sigma )]|V=\mu \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }Y|V.$$
(D.11)
However, this is not equal to the commutator of $`_r\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)}`$ with $`f(\mu )𝒦`$. To see this, rewrite

$`\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},f(\mu )𝒦]|V=\sqrt{2}\overline{\eta }{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{(r)},\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}K(\sigma )]|V`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }}\gamma Y(14\mu \alpha K)f^1(\mu )[\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}K(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{K}]|V=\mu \gamma \mathrm{\Pi }Y|V+\mu \gamma Y|V=\mu \gamma (1+\mathrm{\Pi })Y|V.`$ (D.12)
Here we used equation (4.18) and

$$[\underset{\sigma \pi \alpha _1}{lim}K(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{K}]|V=\frac{\mu \alpha }{\alpha ^{}}(14\mu \alpha K)^1f(\mu )|V.$$
(D.13)
Equation (D.12) is equivalent to equation (4.14) of section 4. It is this appearance of the matrix $`1+\mathrm{\Pi }`$ as opposed to just $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, that is responsible for the term proportional to $`\mu \delta ^{IJ}`$ in the cubic interaction vertex.

## Appendix E Large-$`\mu `$ Expansions

In this appendix we collect some results on the large-$`\mu `$ expansion. We need the explicit expressions for the matrices $`A^{(r)}`$ and the vector $`B`$. For $`m,n>0`$ they are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_{mn}^{(1)}& =(1)^n\frac{2\sqrt{mn}\beta }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2\beta ^2n^2},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{mn}^{(2)}& =\frac{2\sqrt{mn}(\beta +1)}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta }{m^2(\beta +1)^2n^2},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{mn}^{(3)}& =\delta _{mn},\hfill \\ \hfill B_m& =\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}m^{3/2}\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(E.1)
Writing

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\frac{1}{2}CC_{(3)}^1+R$$
(E.2)
it was shown in  that

$$R=a_R\frac{\pi }{(\mu \alpha _3)^4}\left(\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _3}\right)^2C^3BB^TC^3+\mathrm{}$$
(E.3)
with $`a_R`$ an undetermined number. The next term in the expansion would be of order $`\mu ^6`$. It follows that

$$\overline{N}^3=\frac{1}{\mu \alpha _3}\left[\frac{1}{2}C^{1/2}+\frac{1}{(\mu \alpha _3)^2}\left(\frac{1}{4}a_R\right)C^{5/2}+\mathrm{}\right]B.$$
(E.4)
Furthermore the large-$`\mu `$ expansion of $`14\mu \alpha K`$ is

$$14\mu \alpha K=\frac{a_K}{\pi \mu \alpha _3}\frac{1}{\beta (\beta +1)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(E.5)
The next term in the expansion would be of order $`\mu ^3`$. Here, $`a_K`$ is undetermined as well, however it was shown in  that

$$a_Ra_K=\frac{1}{64}.$$
(E.6)
From the definition of $`\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}`$ it is easy to see that

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{r3}\frac{2}{\pi }(1)^{(m+1)r}\left(\frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}\right)^{3/2}\frac{n\mathrm{sin}n\pi \beta }{n^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _r}{\alpha _3}}\right)^2m^2}$$
(E.7)
at leading order. Here and below $`r`$, $`s\{1,2\}`$. Using the factorization theorem equation (3.15), the above formulae are sufficient to determine the leading large-$`\mu `$ behavior of all the other Neumann matrices as well. We find

$$\overline{N}_n^r(1)^{(n+1)r}\frac{a_K}{\pi }\frac{1}{\mu ^2\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _r}$$
(E.8)
and therefore

$$\overline{N}_{mn}^{rs}(1)^{(m+1)r+(n+1)s}\frac{2a_K}{\pi \mu \sqrt{\alpha _r\alpha _s}},\overline{N}_{mn}^{33}\frac{2a_K}{\pi (\mu \alpha _3)^3}\left(m\mathrm{sin}m\pi \beta \right)\left(n\mathrm{sin}n\pi \beta \right).$$
(E.9)


format: text

text:
# Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling

## Abstract

We investigate the charge fluctuations of a grain coupled to a lead via a small quantum dot in the Kondo regime. We show that the strong entanglement of charge and spin flips in this setup can result in a stable SU(4) Kondo fixed point, which considerably smears out the Coulomb staircase behavior already in the weak tunneling limit. This behavior is robust enough to be experimentally observable.

Recently, quantum dots have attracted a considerable interest due to their potential applicability as single electron transistors or as basic building blocks (qubits) in the fabrication of quantum computers Loss . One of their most important features is the Coulomb blockade phenomenon, i.e., as a result of the strong repulsion between electrons, the charge of a quantum dot is quantized in units of the elementary charge $`e`$. Even when the quantum dot is weakly-coupled to a bulk lead, so that electrons can hop from the lead to the dot and back, the dot charge remains to a large extent quantized. This quantization has been thoroughly investigated both theoretically Matv1  and experimentally Grabert . The quantity of interest here is the average dot charge as a function of the voltage applied to a back-gate. For a weakly-coupled dot, at low temperatures, this function generally exhibits sharp steps, resulting in the “Coulomb staircase”. We emphasize the fact that a direct measurement of the average dot charge can be performed with sensitivity well below a single charge Berman .

In this Letter, we investigate the shape of the steps of the Coulomb staircase in the presence of spin-flip assisted tunneling. The setup we examine consists of a (large) dot or grain coupled to a reservoir through a smaller dot (Fig.1). We assume that the smaller dot contains an odd number of electrons and acts as an S=1/2 Kondo impurity Glazman . A different limit where the small dot rather acts as a resonant level has been partially studied in Ref. Gramespacher,  where it was shown that the resonant level can smear the Coulomb blockade (nevertheless, for a narrow resonance at the Fermi energy, the effect is weak). Furthermore, the charge of the grain in such a device can be used to measure the occupation of the dot Gramespacher .

In the following analysis, we focus on the regime where the back-gate voltage is such that the charging states of the grain with 0 or 1 electron are degenerate. We show below that in this case, the charge degrees of freedom of the grain become strongly entangled with the spin degrees of freedom of the small dot resulting in a stable fixed point with an SU(4) symmetry. The major consequence of this enlarged symmetry in our setup is that the dot’s capacitance exhibits instead of a logarithmic singularity Matv1 \- a strongly reduced peak as a function of the back-gate voltage, smearing charging effects in the grain considerably. The Coulomb staircase behavior becomes smeared out already in the weak tunneling limit due to the prominence of spin-flip assisted tunneling. The possibility of a strongly correlated ground state possessing an SU(4) symmetry has also been discussed very recently in the (very) different context of two small dots coupled with a strong capacitive inter-dot coupling Zarand .

The model we consider is described by the Anderson-like Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_ka_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}ϵ_pa_{p\sigma }^{}a_{p\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Q}^2}{2C}}+\phi \widehat{Q}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}ϵa_\sigma ^{}a_\sigma +Un_{}n_{}`$
$`+`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}(a_{k\sigma }^{}a_\sigma +h.c.)+t{\displaystyle \underset{p\sigma }{}}(a_{p\sigma }^{}a_\sigma +h.c.),`$
where $`a_{k\sigma }`$, $`a_\sigma `$, $`a_{p\sigma }`$ are the annihilation operators for electrons of spin $`\sigma `$ in the lead, the small dot, and the grain, respectively, and $`t`$ is the tunneling matrix element which is assumed not to depend on $`k`$. We assume in the sequel that the junctions are symmetric and narrow enough, i.e., contain one channel only. The energy spectrum in the grain is assumed to be continuous, which implies that the grain is sufficiently large (at the micron scaleBerman ). $`\widehat{Q}`$ denotes the charge operator of the grain, $`C`$ is the capacitance between the grain and the gate electrode, and $`\phi `$ is related to the back-gate voltage $`V_g`$ through $`\phi =V_g`$. $`ϵ<0`$ and $`U`$ stand for the energy level and charging energy of the small dot, and $`n_\sigma =a_\sigma ^{}a_\sigma `$. The inter-dot capacitive coupling is weak and neglected here. We consider the situation where the small dot is in the Kondo regime (which requires the last level to be singly occupied and the condition $`t(ϵ,U+ϵ)`$ to be satisfied).

After a standard Schrieffer-Wolff transformationHewson , the system is described by the Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_ka_k^{}a_k+{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}ϵ_pa_p^{}a_p+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Q}^2}{2C}}+\phi \widehat{Q}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+V)a_m^{}a_n.`$
To simplify notation, the spin indices have been omitted and hereafter. $`m,n`$ take values in the two sets “lead” (k) or “grain” (p), the spin $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ is the spin of the small dot, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are Pauli matrices acting on the spin space of the electrons and $`J=2t^2[1/(ϵ)+1/(U+ϵ)]`$ is the related Kondo coupling. A direct hopping term $`V=t^2/2[1/(ϵ)1/(U+ϵ)]`$ is also present. We have neglected the charging energy of the grain $`E_c=e^2/(2C)(|ϵ|,U)`$.

We would like to compute the corrections to the average charge on the grain due to the $`J`$ and $`V`$ couplings at zero temperature bearing in mind that when the tunneling amplitude $`t0`$, i.e., $`J=0`$ and $`V=0`$, the average grain charge exhibits perfect Coulomb staircase behavior as a function of $`V_g`$. We confine ourselves to values of $`\phi `$ in the range $`e/(2C)\phi <e/(2C)`$, which corresponds to the unperturbed (charge) value $`Q=0`$. A first intuitive approach is to assume that $`(J,V)`$ are very small compared to the charging energy $`E_c=e^2/(2C)`$ of the grain and to calculate the corrections to $`Q=0`$ in perturbation theory. At second order in perturbation theory, we find

$$\widehat{Q}=e(\frac{3}{8}J^2+2V^2)\mathrm{ln}\text{(}\frac{e/2C\phi }{e/2C+\phi }\text{)}.$$
(3)
The density of states in the lead and in the grain have been assumed to be equalMatv1  and taken to be 1 for simplicity. This result generalizes that of a grain directly coupled to a lead Matv1 .

There are two reasons that may suggest this perturbative approach is divergent. Higher-order terms (already at cubic orders) involve logarithmic divergences associated with the Kondo coupling, but also other logarithms indicating the vicinity of a degeneracy point in the charge sector. Note that the (degeneracy) point where the grain charging states with $`Q=0`$ and $`Q=e`$ are degenerate corresponds explicitly to $`\phi =e/2C`$. Below, we will be primarily interested in the situation close to this degeneracy point, i.e., in the height of the capacitance peaks at low temperature, where none of the perturbative arguments above can be applied. The Hamiltonian (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling) can be mapped onto some Kondo Hamiltonian following Ref. Matv1 . We introduce the projectors $`\widehat{P}_0`$ and $`\widehat{P}_1`$ which project on the states with $`Q=0`$ and $`Q=e`$ in the grain. The truncated Hamiltonian (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling) then reads:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,\tau =0,1}{}}ϵ_ka_{k\tau }^{}a_{k\tau }(\widehat{P}_0+\widehat{P}_1)+eh\widehat{P}_1`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}\text{[}\text{(}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S}+V\text{)}(a_{k1}^{}a_{k^{}0}\widehat{P}_0+a_{k^{}0}^{}a_{k1}\widehat{P}_1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =0,1}{}}\text{(}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S}+V\text{)}a_{k\tau }^{}a_{k^{}\tau }\text{]},`$
where now the index $`\tau =0`$ indicates the reservoir and $`\tau =1`$ indicates the grain. We have also introduced the small parameter $`h=e/(2C)+\phi e/C`$ which measures deviations from the degeneracy point. Considering $`\tau `$ as an abstract orbital index, the Hamiltonian can be rewritten in a more convenient way by introducing another set of Pauli matrices for the orbital sector Matv1 ; Georg :

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,\tau }{}}ϵ_ka_{k\tau }^{}a_{k\tau }ehT^z`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}\text{[}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ,\tau ^{}}{}}\text{(}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S}+V\text{)}(\tau ^xT^x+\tau ^yT^y)_{\tau ,\tau ^{}}a_{k\tau }^{}a_{k^{}\tau ^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}\text{(}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{S}+V\text{)}a_{k\tau }^{}a_{k^{}\tau }\text{]}.`$
In this equation, the operators $`(S,\sigma )`$ act on spin and the $`(T,\tau )`$ act on the (charge) orbital degrees of freedom. Here, $`h`$ mimics a magnetic field acting in orbital space. An important consequence of this mapping is that the average grain charge $`\widehat{Q}`$ can be identified as $`\widehat{Q}=e(\frac{1}{2}T^z).`$ The grain capacitance $`C=\widehat{Q}/h`$ is thus equivalent to the local susceptibility $`\chi _T=T^z/h`$. Naturally, to compute the latter, we have to determine the nature of the Kondo ground state exactly.

Typically, when only “charge flips” are involved through the $`V`$ term, the model can be mapped onto a two-channel Kondo model, and the capacitance always exhibits a logarithmic divergence Matv1 . Here, we have a combination of spin and charge flips. Can we then expect two distinct energy scales for the spin and orbital sectors? To answer this question, we perform a perturbative scaling analysis following that of a related model in Ref. Zarand2 . We first rewrite the interacting part of the Hamiltonian in real space as:

$`H_K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\stackrel{}{S}(\psi ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\psi )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_z}{2}}T^z(\psi ^{}\tau ^z\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{}}{2}}[T^+(\psi ^{}\tau ^{}\psi )+h.c.]`$
$`+`$ $`Q_zT^z\stackrel{}{S}(\psi ^{}\tau ^z\stackrel{}{\sigma }\psi )+Q_{}\stackrel{}{S}[T^+(\psi ^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\psi )+h.c.],`$
where $`\psi _{\sigma \tau }=_ka_{k\sigma \tau }`$, $`J`$ refers to pure spin-flip processes involving the S=1/2 spin of the small dot, $`V_{}`$ to pure charge flips which modify the grain charge, and $`Q_{}`$ describes exotic spin-flip assisted tunneling. This Hamiltonian exhibits a structure which is very similar to the one introduced by Borda et al. in order to study a symmetrical double (small) quantum dot structure with strong capacitive coupling Zarand . However, since the physical situation that led us to this Hamiltonian is very different from Ref. Zarand , our bare values for the coupling parameters are also very different (for $`J1`$ and $`V/J`$ not too small, i.e., $`2ϵ+U`$ not too close to 0):

$$V_{}=V,V_z=0,Q_z=0,Q_{}=J/4.$$
(7)
We have ignored the potential scattering $`V\psi ^{}\psi `$ which does not renormalize at low energy.

By integrating out conduction electrons with energy larger than an energy scale $`E\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ being the level spacing of the small dot, i.e., the ultraviolet cutoff), we obtain at second order the following renormalization group (RG) equations for the five dimensionless coupling constants:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`J^2+Q_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_z}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+3Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}V_z+3Q_{}Q_z`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_z}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`2JQ_z+2V_{}Q_{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`2JQ_{}+V_zQ_{}+V_{}Q_z,`$
with $`l=\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{\Delta }_d/E]`$ being the scaling variable. This RG analysis is applicable only very close to the degeneracy point $`\phi =e/(2C)`$ where the effective Coulomb energy in the grain or $`h`$ vanishes and obviously only when all coupling constants stay $`1`$. Higher orders in the RG have been neglected. We have integrated the RG equations (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling) numerically. It is noteworthy that even though we started with completely asymmetric bare values of the coupling constants, due to the presence of the spin-flip assisted tunneling terms $`Q_{}`$ and $`Q_z`$, all couplings diverge at the same Kondo temperature scale (again, assuming the bare ratio $`V/J`$ not too small) $`T_K\mathrm{\Delta }_de^{1/4J}`$. For example, we have checked numerically that all coupling ratios converge to one in the low energy limit provided the RG equations can be extrapolated in this regime. Therefore, this RG analysis suggests that, as in Ref. Zarand , our model becomes equivalent at low energy to an SU(4) symmetrical exchange model $`(J1)`$:

$`H_K`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\psi ^{}t^A\text{[}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}(S^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(T^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\text{]}^A\psi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}M^A{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\psi _\mu ^{}t_{\mu \nu }^A\psi _\nu ,`$
where we have introduced the “hyper-spin” $`M^A\{2S^\alpha ,2T^\alpha ,4S^\alpha T^\beta \}`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta =x,y,z`$. The operators $`M^A`$ can be regarded as the 15 generators of the SU(4) group. Moreover, this conclusion is reinforced by the numerical renormalization group analysis (whose range of validity is broader than Eqs. (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling)) of a model analogous to Eq. (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling) developed in Ref. Zarand . Notice that the irreducible representation of SU(4) written in Eq. (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling) has been used previously for spin systems with orbital degeneracy Li . The electron operator $`\psi `$ now transforms under the fundamental representation of the SU(4) group, with generators $`t_{\mu \nu }^A`$ $`(A=1,\mathrm{},15)`$, and the index $`\mu `$ labels the four combinations of possible spin and orbital indices. The emergence of such a strongly-correlated SU(4) ground state here clearly reflects the strong entanglement between the charge degrees of freedom of the grain and the spin degrees of freedom of the small dot at low energy due to the prominence of spin-flip assisted tunneling.

The (one-channel) SU(N) Kondo model has been extensively studied in the literature (see, e.g., Ref.Bickers ). Mostly, the strong coupling regime corresponds to a dominant Fermi liquid fixed point induced by the complete screening of the hyper-spin $`M^a`$, implying that all the generators of SU(4) yield a local susceptibility with a behavior in $`1/T_K`$Parcollet . $`T^z`$ being one of these generators, we deduce that $`\chi _T=T^z/h`$ and then the capacitance of the grain $`C=\widehat{Q}/h`$ evolve as $`1/T_K`$Parcollet . Consequently, for $`he/C`$, we obtain a linear dependence of the average grain charge as a function of $`V_g=\phi `$:

$$\widehat{Q}e/2=eh/T_K=e[\frac{e}{2C}+\phi ]/T_K.$$
(10)
This is the main result of this paper. The hallmark of the formation of the SU(4) Fermi liquid in our setup is clear. The (grain) capacitance peaks are completely smeared out by the mixing of spin and charge flips and Matveev’s logarithmic singularity Matv1  has been completely destroyed.

We now discuss the robustness of our SU(4) liquid. First, $`S^z`$ and $`T^z`$ are marginal operators which guarantees the stability of the SU(4) fixed point at finite magnetic field $`BT_K`$ and not too close to the degeneracy point $`hT_K`$Zarand . The SU(4) symmetry should be still robust for wider junctions characterized by $`n>1`$ transverse channelsParcollet ; longv ; even when the transmission amplitudes for the $`n`$ modes are equal (extending results of Ref. Zarand3, , an SU(4) Kondo singlet would occur at the renormalized Kondo temperature scale $`T_K[n]\mathrm{\Delta }_de^ne^{1/4J}`$).

Applying a strong magnetic field $`BT_K`$ inevitably destroys the SU(4) symmetry. However, we expect the behavior of charge fluctuations close to the degeneracy points to remain qualitatively similar. Indeed, in a large magnetic field spin flips are suppressed, i.e., $`Q_{}=Q_z=J=0`$, and the orbital degrees of freedom, through $`V_{}`$ and $`V_z`$, develop a standard one-channel Kondo model (the electrons have only spin-up or spin down), which also results in a Fermi-liquid ground state with a linear dependence of the average grain charge as in Eq. (10). Yet, the emerging Kondo temperature will be much smaller, $`T_K[B=\mathrm{}]\mathrm{\Delta }_de^{1/2V}`$, which affects the slope in (10). Finally, for $`hT_K`$, the orbital Kondo effect is destroyed and the results of ref. Gramespacher,  should applylongv .

In the following paragraph, we briefly analyze the conductance of the Kondo dot-grain (KDG) system by connecting a lead to the right of the grain in Fig 1. We therefore add the following term to the Hamiltonian (Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling):

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{k^{}}{}ϵ_k^{}a_{k^{}\sigma }^{}a_{k^{}\sigma }+t^{}\underset{k^{}\sigma }{}(a_{k^{}\sigma }^{}a_{p\sigma }+h.c.),$$
(11)
where $`a_{k^{}\sigma }`$ are the annihilation operators for electrons in the right lead. For a realistic geometry the charge flips between the right lead and the grain are inevitably the most prominent ones (since $`Jt^2t^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d\widehat{Q}^2/2C`$). This leads to the complete screening of the orbital spin $`T^z`$ already at a temperature scale $`T_K^oE_ce^{1/t^{}}T_K`$Matv1 , and to an underlying two-channel Kondo model:

$$\widehat{H}_K^c=\frac{1}{2}t^{}\stackrel{}{T}\psi ^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi .$$
(12)
The two orbital states here correspond to $`\tau =1`$ for the grain and $`\tau =2`$ for the right lead. The transmission between the grain and the right lead becomes perfect and the associated conductance is $`2e^2/h`$. As a result, the renormalization of the charge flip term $`V_{}`$ between the grain and the left lead becomes completely cut off by the screening of the orbital impurity. Therefore, the direct hopping term between the left lead and the grain remains small implying that even for $`\phi =e/2C`$, the conductance through the KDG structure should be (very small) proportional to $`2V^2e^2/h`$ note2 . Nevertheless, the spin flip term $`J`$ will continue to flow to strong coupling, making the ratio $`Q_{}(l)/J(l)1`$ at low energy. As a consequence, another non trivial two-channel Kondo model appears in the spin sector and the SU(4) symmetry is explicitly broken. This emergence of two distinct two-channel Kondo models, both in the orbital and in the spin sectors deserves further investigation longv .

To summarize, we have determined exactly the shape of the steps of the Coulomb staircase for a grain coupled to a bulk lead through a small quantum dot in the Kondo regime. We have shed light on the possibility of a stable SU(4) Fermi liquid fixed point, where a Kondo effect appears simultaneously both in the spin and the orbital sectors. This requires the condition $`2ϵ+U0`$ on the small dot so that the bare $`V_{}/J`$ isnot too small. In fact, due to the importance of spin-flip assisted tunneling, charge degrees of freedom of the grain become entangled with the spin degrees of freedom of the small dot, which explains this enlarged symmetry (see Eq.(Smearing of charge fluctuations in a grain by spin-flip assisted tunneling)). This implies the destruction of the logarithmic peak present in the Coulomb blockade already in the weak-tunneling limit. Such unusual behavior of charge fluctuations in the grain close to the degeneracy points should be observable via capacitance measurements assuming the level spacing of the grain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ is small enough, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g/E_c0`$. $`T_K`$ should not be too far from the Kondo scale in the conductance experiments through a single small quantum dot ($`1K`$) wdv ), and capacitance measurements can be performed much below $`100mK`$Berman . Clearly, this effect is far more pronounced than the smearing of the Coulomb blockade by a resonant impurity level (e.g., when $`ϵ0`$, which can be tuned via the gate voltage $`V_d`$ of the small dot) which remains weak even if the transmission through the impurity at the Fermi energy is perfect Gramespacher . This should be even more striking by measuring the charge of the grain as a function of the two gate voltages $`V_g`$ and $`V_d`$ note3 . More generally, as in Ref. Zarand , these results bring novel insight on the realization of Kondo ground states with SU(N) $`(N2)`$ symmetry at the mesoscopic scale.

The authors acknowledge D. Sénéchal, A.-M. Tremblay, and G. Zaránd for useful discussions and B. Coish for a careful reading of the manuscript. K.L.H. is supported by NSERC and P.S. by the Swiss NSF, NCCR, and the EU RTN Spintronics No HPRN-CT-2002-00302.