J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 Published for SISSA by Springer Received: June 30, 2014 Revised: September 12, 2014 Accepted: September 14, 2014 Published: October 3, 2014 Spectrum generating algebra for the pure spinor superstring Renann Lipinski Jusinskas ICTP South American Institute for Fundamental Research, Instituto de F́ısica Teórica, UNESP — Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rua Dr. Bento T. Ferraz 271, 01140-070, São Paulo, SP, Brasil E-mail: renannlj@ift.unesp.br Abstract: In this work, a supersymmetric DDF-like construction within the pure spinor formalism is presented. Starting with the light-cone massless vertices, the creation/annihilation algebra is derived in a simple manner, enabling a systematic con- struction of the physical vertex operators at any mass level in terms of SO(8) superfields, in both integrated and unintegrated forms. Keywords: Superstrings and Heterotic Strings, Superspaces ArXiv ePrint: 1406.1902 Open Access, c© The Authors. Article funded by SCOAP3. doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)022 mailto:renannlj@ift.unesp.br http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2014)022 J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 SO(8) superfields 3 3 DDF operators: definition and algebra 5 4 Physical spectrum 7 5 Perspectives 10 1 Introduction The pure spinor formalism debuted more than a decade ago [1] and remains the only one that allows Lorentz covariant computations with manifest supersymmetry. Its fundamental piece is a BRST-like charge QBRST = 1 2πi ∮ (λαdα) (1.1) that is nilpotent whenever λα is a pure spinor (λγmλ = 0). Here, dα = pα + 1 2 ∂Xm (γmθ)α + i 8 (θγm∂θ) (γmθ)α , (1.2) Πm = ∂Xm + i 2 (θγm∂θ) , (1.3) are the invariants defined by the supersymmetry charge qα = 1 2π ∮ { −pα + 1 2 ∂Xm (γmθ)α + i 24 (θγm∂θ) (γmθ)α } , (1.4) and satisfy Πm (z)Πn (y) ∼ − ηmn (z − y)2 , (1.5a) dα (z)Π m (y) ∼ − γmαβ∂θ β (z − y) , (1.5b) dα (z) dβ (y) ∼ i γmαβΠm (z − y) . (1.5c) As usual, m = 0, . . . , 9 and α = 1, . . . , 16 are the spacetime vector and chiral spinor indices, respectively. Observe that the fundamental length of the string is being fixed through α′ = 2 but it can be easily recovered by dimensional analysis. – 1 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 In spite of its unknown origin, the power of the formalism resides on the simple form of QBRST, which enables an elegant treatment of the cohomology in terms of superfields. For example, the massless open superstring states are in the cohomology of QBRST at ghost number one, represented by U = λαAα (X, θ). Denoting the supersymmetric derivative as Dα = i∂α − 1 2 ( γmαβθ β ) ∂m, the condition {QBRST, U} = 0 implies DγmnpqrA = 0, which is the linearized equation of motion for the super Yang-Mills field Aα. The gauge transformation δAα = DαΛ is trivially reproduced in terms of BRST-exact states. The integrated form of the vertex U is given by V = 1 2πi ∮ {ΠmAm + i∂θαAα + idαW α +NmnFmn} , (1.6) where the superfields Am, Wα and Fmn are defined as Am ≡ 1 8i ( Dαγ αβ m Aβ ) , (1.7a) (γmW )α ≡ (DαAm + ∂mAα) , (1.7b) Fmn ≡ 1 2 (∂mAn − ∂nAm) (1.7c) = i 16 (γmn) α β DαW β. Both U and V were successfully used in loop amplitude computations and the results were shown to agree with the RNS superstring up to two loops [2]. On the other hand, the construction of the massive states is quite hard and only the first level of the open superstring has been studied in detail [3]. In fact, the proof that the pure spinor cohomology is equivalent to the light-cone Green-Schwarz spectrum was obtained in [4] through a complicated procedure, where the pure spinor variable was written in terms of SO(8) variables, involving an infinite chain of ghost-for-ghosts. Later, the equivalence of the pure spinor spectrum with the traditional superstring formalisms was demonstrated in different ways [5, 6], involving field redefinitions and similarity transformations, but an explicit superfield description of the massive states was still lacking. Inspired on the work of Del Giudice, Di Vecchia and Fubini (DDF) for the bosonic string [7], this work presents a generalization of the spectrum generating algebra to the pure spinor superstring. A DDF construction within the pure spinor formalism was already discussed in [8]. However, the approach of Mukhopadhyay has two main differences. First, the gauge (Wess-Zumino) used there to build the DDF operators introduces unusual terms in the creation/annihilation algebra, demanding an extended argument for proving the validity of the construction, related to the orthonormality of the transverse Hilbert space. Second, the lack of an explicit expression for the DDF operators in [8], although sufficient for studying the D-Brane boundary states, makes the superfield description of the massive states incomplete. Here, a way to systematically obtain the pure spinor vertex operators at any mass level in terms of SO(8) superfields will be presented. Starting with the massless states in a particular light-cone gauge, which renders the massless vertices independent of half of the θα components, the spectrum generating algebra will be shown to reproduce the expected superstring spectrum. As a by-product of this construction, Siegel’s proposal – 2 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 for the massless superstring vertex [9] will be shown to give origin to a tachyonic state, reinforcing its quantum inequivalence with the massless vertex of the RNS string. In parallel, some particularities of the pure spinor approach will be discussed. 2 SO(8) superfields It will be useful to establish the notation used here for the SO(8) decomposition. For any SO(1, 9) vector Nm, the light-cone directions are represented by √ 2N± ≡ ( N0 ±N9 ) while the remaining spatial directions will be written as N i, with i = 1, . . . , 8. The scalar product between Nm and Pm is simply NmPm = −N+P− −N−P+ +N iPi. For a rank- 2 antisymmetric tensor Nmn, the SO(8) components are defined to be N ij , N i ≡ N−i, N i ≡ N+i and N ≡ N+−. The map between SO(1, 9) and SO(8) spinor indices is given generically by ξα = Pα a ξ a + Pα ȧ ξ ȧ, ξa = P a αξ α, ξȧ = P ȧ αξ α, χα = P a αχa + P ȧ αχȧ, χa = Pα a χα, χȧ = Pα ȧ χα, where the SO(8) spinor indices are a, b, . . . and ȧ, ḃ, . . . (chiral and antichiral, respectively) running from 1 to 8, and { Pα a , P α ȧ , P a α , P ȧ α } form a complete basis of projectors satisfying Pα a P b α = δba, Pα ȧ P ḃ α = δḃȧ, Pα a P ȧ α = 0, δαβ = Pα a P a β + Pα ȧ P ȧ β . In this language, the pure spinor constraint is translated to λaλa = λȧλȧ = λaλȧσi aȧ = 0, (2.1) where σi aȧ are the SO(8) analogues of the Pauli matrices and satisfy σi aȧσ j bȧ + σi bȧσ j aȧ = 2ηijηab , (2.2a) σi aȧσ j aḃ + σi bȧσ j aȧ = 2ηijη ȧḃ , (2.2b) σi aȧσ i bḃ + σi bȧσ i aḃ = 2ηabηȧḃ . (2.2c) Here, ηij , ηab and η ȧḃ are the SO(8) metrics of the vector and spinor indices. Since they are flat metrics with + signature, upper and lower SO(8) indices will not be distinguished in this work. Finally, the SO(1, 9) gamma matrices will be written as ( γi )αβ ≡ Pα a σ i aȧP β ȧ + P β a σ i aȧP α ȧ , ( γi ) αβ ≡ P a ασ i aȧP ȧ β + P a βσ i aȧP ȧ α , ( γ− )αβ ≡ √ 2Pα a P β a , ( γ− ) αβ ≡ − √ 2P ȧ αP ȧ β , ( γ+ )αβ ≡ √ 2Pα ȧ P β ȧ , ( γ+ ) αβ ≡ − √ 2P a αP a β , and can be shown to satisfy {γm, γn} = 2ηmn. Observe that the spinor projectors are being defined implicitily so their explicit form will never be required. – 3 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 In the construction to be presented, left and right-moving fields will be split. The only subtlety comes from the worldsheet scalars Xm, which will be written as Xm (z, z) = Xm L (z) +Xm R (z) . (2.3) This will be useful in studying holomorphic and anti-holomorphic sectors in an independent manner. The difference between open and closed strings will be discussed later, in the analysis of the spectrum. Suppose one starts analyzing the unintegrated massless vertex with a definite momen- tum Pm = 1 2π ∮ ∂Xm. From the Lorentz covariance of the theory, an equivalent state can be constructed with momentum P+ = √ 2k and P− = 0 in another frame. The gauge transformation can be used to set Aȧ to zero and to eliminate the θa-dependence [10], in such a way that λαAα can be rewritten as λaAa = aiUi + χaYa, where ai and χa are the polarizations of the massless vector and spinor, respectively, and Ui (z; k) ≡ e−ik √ 2X− L { Λi + ( k 3! ) θijΛj + ( k2 5! ) θijθjkΛk + ( k3 7! ) θijθjkθklΛl } , (2.4a) Ya (z; k) ≡ e−ik √ 2X− L ( σiθ ) a {( 1 2! ) Λi+ ( k 4! ) θijΛj+ ( k2 6! ) θijθjkΛk+ ( k3 8! ) θijθjkθklΛl } + e−ik √ 2X− L ( λa k ) . (2.4b) Here, Λ i ≡ ( λaσi aȧθ ȧ ) , θ ij ≡ ( θȧσ ij ȧḃ θḃ ) and σij ≡ σ[iσj]. To show the BRST-closedness of (2.4) note that [ QBRST, θ ij ] = 2iΛ ij , (2.5) (σiλ)a θ ij = − (σiθ)a Λ ij + 3Λ ( σjθ ) a , (2.6) ΛijΛj = −3ΛiΛ, (2.7) with Λ ≡ ( λȧθȧ ) and Λ ij ≡ ( λȧσ ij ȧḃ θḃ ) . All of relevant properties follow from the SO(8) Fierz identities derived from (2.2), e.g. σi aȧσ ij ḃċ = −σi aḃ σ ij ȧċ + 2η ȧḃ σ j aċ − η ḃċ σ j aȧ − ηȧċσ j aḃ . (2.8) In complete analogy, one is able to construct the massless light-cone vertices with momentum P− = √ 2k and P+ = 0. The result is: U i (z; k) ≡ e−ik √ 2X+ L { Λi + ( k 3! ) θijΛj + ( k2 5! ) θijθjkΛk + ( k3 7! ) θijθjkθklΛl } , (2.9a) Y ȧ (z; k) ≡ e−ik √ 2X+ L ( θσi ) ȧ {( 1 2! ) Λi+ ( k 4! ) θijΛj+ ( k2 6! ) θijθjkΛk+ ( k3 8! ) θijθjkθklΛl } + e−ik √ 2X+ L ( λȧ k ) , (2.9b) – 4 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 where Λi ≡ ( θaσi aȧλ ȧ ) and θij ≡ ( θaσ ij abθ b ) . Introducing the polarizations of the massless vector, ai, and spinor, ξȧ, the unintegrated vertex operator in this case can be cast as λȧAȧ = aiU i + ξȧY ȧ, with Aȧ= e−ik √ 2X+ L { δil+ ( k 3! ) θil+ ( k2 5! ) θijθjl + ( k3 7! ) θijθjkθkl } ai ( σlθ ) ȧ +e−ik √ 2X+ L ( ξȧ k ) + e−ik √ 2X+ L {( 1 2! ) δil+ ( k 4! ) θil+ ( k2 6! ) θijθjl+ ( k3 8! ) θijθjkθkl } ( ξσiθ )( σlθ ) ȧ . (2.10) The next step is to derive the expressions for the superfields of (1.7). Since the con- struction is very similar for P+ 6= 0 and P− 6= 0, the latter will be used in order to illustrate the procedure. It may be useful to emphasize that Aa = 0 and DȧAḃ = 0 (the dependence on θȧ was removed) due to a gauge choice. Besides, DaAȧ = iAiσ i aȧ. This can be seen from the Fierz decomposition of DaAȧ, given by − i (DaAȧ) = Aiσ i aȧ +Aijkσ ijk aȧ . (2.11) The last term is proportional to the linearized equation of motion for Aα, ( Dγ+−ijkA ) = 0, so Aijk = 0. The first term, Ai, represents the non-vanishing vector components of the superfield given in (1.7a): Ai = e−ik √ 2X+ L { δij + ( k 2! ) θji + ( k2 4! ) θjkθki + ( k3 6! ) θjlθlkθki + ( k4 8! ) θjmθmkθklθli } aj + e−ik √ 2X+ L { δij + ( k 3! ) θji + ( k2 5! ) θjkθki + ( k3 7! ) θjlθlkθki } ( ξσjθ ) . (2.12) For Wα, the SO(8) decomposition of (1.7b) gives W a = 0 and W ȧ = −ikAȧ. At last, the non-vanishing components of the super field strength are √ 2F+i = − √ 2Fi+ = −ikAi, completing all the blocks needed for the construction of the integrated massless vertex. Notice that the particular gauge of the approach presented here enables the simple component expansion of the SO(8) superfields of (2.10) and (2.12), which were already discussed in the work of Brink, Green and Schwarz [11]. 3 DDF operators: definition and algebra The gauge fixed version of (1.6) is given by V L.C. ( k; ai, ξȧ ) = 1 2πi ∮ {( Πi − i √ 2kN i ) Ai + ( i∂θȧ + kdȧ ) Aȧ } , (3.1) where N i ≡ N+i = − 1√ 2 ωȧλaσi aȧ. (3.2) As a consistency check, observe that [ QBRST, V L.C. ] = − 1 2πi ∮ { ∂ ( λȧAȧ ) + √ 2k2N i ( λaσi aȧA ȧ )} . (3.3) – 5 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 The first term inside the curly brackets is a total derivative whereas the last one vanishes due to the pure spinor constraint λaλa = 0, cf. equation (2.1), as N i ( λσi ) ȧ = − 1√ 2 ωḃλaλb ( σi aȧσ i bḃ ) = − 1 2 √ 2 ωḃλaλb ( σi aȧσ i bḃ + σi aḃ σi bḃ ) = − 1√ 2 ωȧ (λ aλa) . Hence [ QBRST, V L.C. ] = 0. It might be helpful to point out that ∂ = Π+∂+ − i∂θaDa whenever acting on superfields that depend only on X+ and θa. Defining the DDF operators V i and W ȧ through V L.C. ( k; ai, ξȧ ) ≡ aiV i (k)− iξȧW ȧ (k) , (3.4) it will be demonstrated that [ V i (k) , V j (p) ] = √ 2kδijδp+kP +, (3.5a) [ V i (k) ,W ȧ (p) ] = 0, (3.5b) { W ȧ (k) ,W ḃ (p) } = √ 2δ ȧḃ δp+kP +, (3.5c) which consists of a creation/annihilation algebra whenever acting on states with P+ 6= 0. Although the following demonstration does not rely on the explicit computation of the (anti)commutators in (3.5), the explicit form of the DDF operators will be presented here for completeness: V i (k) = 1 2πi ∮ { Πi − i √ 2kN i+ ( i∂θȧ+kdȧ ) (σiθ)ȧ } (3.6a) + 1 2πi ∮ {( k 2! ) θij+ ( k2 4! ) θikθkj+ ( k3 6! ) θilθlkθkj+ ( k4 8! ) θimθmkθklθlj } Πje −ik √ 2X + L − k√ 2π ∮ {( k 2! ) θij+ ( k2 4! ) θikθkj+ ( k3 6! ) θilθlkθkj+ ( k4 8! ) θimθmkθklθlj } N je −ik √ 2X + L + 1 2πi ∮ {( k 3! ) θil+ ( k2 5! ) θijθjl+ ( k3 7! ) θijθjkθkl } ( i∂θȧ+kdȧ ) ( σlθ ) ȧ e−ik √ 2X + L , W ȧ (k) = 1 2π ∮ { −dȧ+ √ 2∂X+θȧ+Πi ( σiθ ) ȧ + i 2 ( σiθ ) ȧ ( ∂θċσi cċθ c ) } e−ik √ 2X + L (3.6b) + 1 2π ∮ {( k 3! ) θji+ ( k2 5! ) θjkθki+ ( k3 7! ) θjlθlkθki } ( σjθ ) ȧ Πie −ik √ 2X + L + k √ 2 2πi ∮ { δij+ ( k 3! ) θji+ ( k2 5! ) θjkθki+ ( k3 7! ) θjlθlkθki } ( σjθ ) ȧ N ie −ik √ 2X + L − 1 2πi ∮ {( k 4! ) θil+ ( k2 6! ) θijθjl+ ( k3 8! ) θijθjkθkl } ( σiθ ) ȧ ( ∂θċσl cċθ c ) e−ik √ 2X + L + k 2π ∮ {( 1 2! ) δil+ ( k 4! ) θil+ ( k2 6! ) θijθjl+ ( k3 8! ) θijθjkθkl } ( σiθ ) ȧ ( dċσl cċθ c ) e−ik √ 2X + L . Observe that V j (k) † = V j (−k) and W ȧ (k) † = W ȧ (−k), as expected. Besides V j (0) = −iPj and W ȧ (0) = qȧ. – 6 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 Given two vertices VL.C. with polarizations ( ai, ξȧ ) and ( bi, χȧ ) , their commutator is computed to be [ V L.C. ( k; ai, ξȧ ) , V L.C. ( p; bi, χȧ )] = − k 2πi ∮ {Aȧ (k, a, ξ) ∂Aȧ (p, b, χ)} + 1 2πi ∮ { Ai (k, a, ξ) ∂A i (p, b, χ) } − ik 2πi ∮ {Aȧ (k, a, ξ) ∂θ aDaAȧ (p, b, χ)} , (3.7) and vanishes for (k + p) 6= 0 , as the integrand is a total derivative: Ai (k) ∂Ai (p)− kAȧ (k) ∂Aȧ (p)− ikAȧ (k) ∂θ a [DaAȧ (p)] = = p k + p ∂ {Ai (k)Ai (p)− kAȧ (k)Aȧ (p)} . (3.8) Setting (k + p) to zero (with k 6= 0), the expression inside the curly brackets in (3.8) is a constant written in terms of the polarizations, directly shown to be Ai (k, a, ξ)Ai (−k, b, χ)− kAȧ (k, a, ξ)Aȧ (−k, b, χ) = aibi + ( 1 k ) ξȧχȧ . (3.9) Note also that Ai (k) ∂θ aDaAi (−k) = −ik (θa∂θa) (Ai (k)Ai (−k)− kAȧ (k)Aȧ (−k)) − i k 2 (∂θij) ( Ai (k)Aj (−k) + k 4 Aȧ (k)Aḃ (−k)σij ȧḃ ) . (3.10) The second line of this equation is a total derivative and using this result together with (3.8) and (3.9), the right-hand side of (3.7) is rewritten in a very simple manner, [ V L.C. ( k; ai, ξȧ ) , V L.C. ( p; bi, χȧ )] = δp+k √ 2 (kaibi + ξȧχȧ)P +, (3.11) which implies the DDF algebra of (3.5) according to the definition (3.4). In [8], using a different gauge for the massless vertices, the DDF-algebra was deter- mined up to O ( θ2 ) . The DDF operators are BRST-closed by construction, so are their (anti)commutators. Since there is no other candidate to compose the massless pure spinor cohomology, O ( θ2 ) must be BRST-exact and decouples naturally in the definition of the orthonormal basis presented by Mukhopadhyay. Another way to present this argument is recording that the difference between the DDF-operators of (3.4) and the ones pre- sented in [8] is a simple BRST transformation (a gauge choice), implying that O ( θ2 ) is BRST-trivial. 4 Physical spectrum The closed string case will be discussed first. To understand the action of the operators V i and W ȧ, consider the commutator [ V i (p) , Uj (z; k) ] . The OPE e−ip √ 2X+ L (y) e−ik √ 2X− L (z) ∼ (y − z)−2(k·p) : e−i √ 2(pX+ L +kX− L ) : + . . . (4.1) – 7 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 will always appear and it is directly related to the mass levels of the superstring. Single- valuedness of (4.1) will imply the discretization of p in terms of k: 2 (k · p) ∈ Z. This will be required in order for the operators to have any meaning at all,1 determining an acceptable operation for V i and W ȧ when commuting with Uj and Ya. Note also that whenever k · p ≤ 0, the commutator vanishes, as there are only simple poles coming from the contractions of dȧ with the superfields Uj and Ya. From the state-operator map, the ground states associated to the algebra (3.5) will be denoted by |i; k〉 and |a; k〉. They correspond, respectively, to the operators U i (z; k) and Ya (z; k) defined in (2.4). Then, the DDF-operators V i ( n 2k ) and W ȧ ( n 2k ) , where n ∈ Z +, will generate the excited configurations. For example, V i ( 1 2k ) |j; k〉 , W ȧ ( 1 2k ) |a; k〉 , V i ( 1 2k ) |a; k〉 , W ȧ ( 1 2k ) |j; k〉 , are the first massive level of the holomorphic sector of the closed string. Clearly, the physical states are the direct (level-matched) product of the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic sectors, and the full vertex operators generated through this procedure will have momentum P+ = − √ 2k and P− = − N√ 2k (with N ∈ Z ∗), satisfying the mass-shell condition m2 closed = 2P+P− = 2N. (4.2) Concerning supersymmetry, it is easy to demonstrate that {qa, Ui (k)} = 0, [ qa, V i (k) ] = −ikσi aȧW ȧ (k) , { qȧ, U i (k) } = kσi aȧY a (k) , [ qȧ, V i (k) ] = 0, [qa, Yb (k)] = 0, { qa,W ȧ (k) } = iσi aȧV i (k) , [qȧ, Ya (k)] = σi aȧUi (k) , { qȧ,W ḃ (k) } = √ 2η ȧḃ δkP +, (4.3) and the supersymmetric structure of the spectrum is trivially shown. For the open string, the steps are almost the same. The difference arises in the defini- tion of the integrated vertex operators, which will now be given in terms of an integral on the boundary of the disk. The analogue of the OPE (4.1) is eip √ 2X+ L (z) eik √ 2X− L (y) ∼ (z − y)−4(k·p) ∗ ∗e i √ 2(pX+ L +kX− L )∗∗ + . . . , (4.4) where the operators are now boundary normal ordered ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗. The single-valuedness condition will now be 8 (k · p) ∈ Z, as only half of the complex plane appears in the definition of the 1This is of course frame independent, but the light-cone frame used here is much easier to deal with, as unphysical polarizations (BRST-exact states) are straightforward to identify. The physical meaning of this quantization is deeply related to the Virasoro conditions, as it is clear in the bosonic string, for example. However, the gauge-fixing mechanism that provides the pure spinor formalism its BRST-like charge was just recently discovered [14], where a twistor like constraint replaces the usual Virasoro ones. That is why this quantization condition seems to be technical rather than fundamentally based. – 8 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 line integral. In other words, while the worldsheet coordinate σ ∈ [0, 2π) for the closed string, in the open string σ ∈ [0, π]. Then, the mass levels of the open string will be m2 open = 2P+P− = N 2 . (4.5) Therefore, the light-cone unintegrated vertex operators in the pure spinor superstring at any mass level can all be manufactured from chains of commutators between the DDF operators with p = n 2k (n > 0) and the massless (ground) operators U i (z; k) or Ya (z; k). Being BRST-closed by construction, this shows that the cohomology includes the light- cone superstring spectrum. An interesting observation is that the generated states contain only half of the λα components, namely λa, as it is the one that appears in U i and Ya, and the pure spinor contribution to V i (p) and W ȧ (p) comes from the Lorentz current N i = − 1√ 2 λaωȧσi aȧ. Clearly, if the ground states were chosen to be U i (z; k) and Y ȧ (z; k) in (2.9), the DDF operators would have been built out of the massless integrated vertices with P+ 6= 0 and the light-cone spectrum would only depend on λȧ. The versatility of the spectrum generating algebra also extends to the integrated vertex operators. In order to see that, the P+ 6= 0 version of the DDF-operators will be needed and denoted by Vi (k) and Wa (k). The procedure is completely analogous to the one presented above, just replacing U i (z; k) and Ya (z; k) by Vi (k) and Wa (k), respectively. Note that their explicit form can be easily recovered from (3.1), by defining VL.C. ( k; ai, ξa ) = 1 2πi ∮ {( Πi − i √ 2kNi ) Ai + (i∂θa + kda)Aa } (4.6a) ≡ aiVi (k)− iξaWa (k) , (4.6b) where Ai and Aa are the SO(8)-covariant superfields in the frame P− = P i = 0 and P+ = √ 2k constructed out of (2.4). There is now a subtlety that comes from the op- erators V i (−1 2k ) and W ȧ (−1 2k ) , since the simple pole argument used for the annihilation of the unintegrated vertices when k · p < 0 does not work anymore. In other words, the commutators [ V i (−1 2k ) , Vj (k) ] , [ W ȧ (−1 2k ) , Vj (k) ] , [ V i (−1 2k ) ,Wa (k) ] , { W ȧ (−1 2k ) ,Wa (k) } , (4.7) are no longer guaranteed to vanish, which is potentially dangerous as they would imply physical vertices corresponding to states with m2 < 0, that is, tachyonic states. In the pure spinor formalism, the vanishing of the vertices (4.7) is related to the level of the ghost Lorentz algebra. Basically, the relevant OPE that will appear in the computation is N i (z)N j (y) ∼ −3 ηij (z − y)2 − N ij − ηijN (z − y) , (4.8) and precisely the factor of −3 ensures the absence of tachyons in this DDF description. In other words, the level of the ghost Lorentz algebra implies that there is no simple pole in the OPE between the integrands of VL.C. and V L.C. when (4.7) is concerned. It is – 9 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 interesting to note that the pure spinor ghosts play no role at all in the derivation of the DDF algebra (3.5), which means that the light-cone version of the massless vertex proposed by Siegel obeys the same algebra and the vertices suggested in (4.7) would exist. Roughly speaking, the “incompleteness” of the vertex VSiegel = 1 2πi ∮ {ΠmAm + i∂θαAα + idαW α} , (4.9) leads to the existence of a tachyon in the physical spectrum. Perhaps a clearer example is the DDF construction in the bosonic string. Defining V i bos (k) ≡ 1 2πi ∮ ∂Xie −ik √ 2X− L , (4.10a) V i bos (k) ≡ 1 2πi ∮ ∂Xie −ik √ 2X+ L , (4.10b) it is easy to see the emergence of the tachyon vertex operator: [ V i bos (−1 2k ) , V j bos (k) ] = − ηij 2πi ∮ exp { −ik √ 2X− L + i√ 2k X+ L } ︸ ︷︷ ︸ ∝ Vtachyon . (4.11) The level of the Lorentz current can be argued to be an evidence of the quantum equivalence of the pure spinor vertex operator (1.6) with the RNS massless one [1]. The spectrum generating algebra presented here, more than supporting this equivalence, shows through a simple construction that the light-cone spectrum of the pure spinor superstring coincides with the ones of the RNS and the Green-Schwarz formalisms. It must be pointed out that this is not a demonstration that the DDF-states span the pure spinor cohomology. For further details, see [10]. 5 Perspectives In a deeper analogy with the RNS string [12], it might be interesting to investigate whether a full DDF algebra will also exist here. If this is the case, it is expected that Siegel’s like constraints will appear as symmetry generators for the operators V i and W ȧ (re- sembling, for example, the action of V − bos in the usual bosonic construction, that satisfy [ V − bos (p) , V i bos (k) ] ∝ V i bos (p+ k)). A better understanding of the cohomology structure of the pure spinor formalism may help clarify its equivalence with the RNS and Green- Schwarz superstrings, which is now far from evident. The flat space construction of the spectrum generating algebra is also very appealing for it allows the determination of the whole physical spectrum by knowing just the massless vertex operators. It would be great if this same procedure could shed some light in the current knowledge about the superstring spectrum in curved backgrounds. Recently, the massless cohomology of the pure spinor superstring in AdS5 × S5 was determined in the limit close to the AdS boundary [13], providing some ground for further studies on the generalization of the results presented here. – 10 – J H E P 1 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 0 2 2 Acknowledgments This work was motivated by a parallel research project on a light-cone analysis of the pure spinor formalism [10]. I would like to thank Nathan Berkovits for very useful sugges- tions. I would like to thank also FAPESP grants 2009/17516-4 for financial support and 2011/11973-4 (ICTP-SAIFR) for providing a stimulating research environment. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References [1] N. Berkovits, Super Poincaré covariant quantization of the superstring, JHEP 04 (2000) 018 [hep-th/0001035] [INSPIRE]. [2] N. Berkovits and C.R. Mafra, Equivalence of two-loop superstring amplitudes in the pure spinor and RNS formalisms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 011602 [hep-th/0509234] [INSPIRE]. [3] N. Berkovits and O. Chand́ıa, Massive superstring vertex operator in D = 10 superspace, JHEP 08 (2002) 040 [hep-th/0204121] [INSPIRE]. [4] N. Berkovits, Cohomology in the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, JHEP 09 (2000) 046 [hep-th/0006003] [INSPIRE]. [5] N. Berkovits, Relating the RNS and pure spinor formalisms for the superstring, JHEP 08 (2001) 026 [hep-th/0104247] [INSPIRE]. [6] N. Berkovits and D.Z. Marchioro, Relating the Green-Schwarz and pure spinor formalisms for the superstring, JHEP 01 (2005) 018 [hep-th/0412198] [INSPIRE]. [7] E. Del Giudice, P. Di Vecchia and S. Fubini, General properties of the dual resonance model, Annals Phys. 70 (1972) 378 [INSPIRE]. [8] P. Mukhopadhyay, DDF construction and D-brane boundary states in pure spinor formalism, JHEP 05 (2006) 055 [hep-th/0512161] [INSPIRE]. [9] W. Siegel, Classical superstring mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B 263 (1986) 93 [INSPIRE]. [10] N. Berkovits and R. Lipinski Jusinskas, Light-cone analysis of the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, JHEP 08 (2014) 102 [arXiv:1406.2290] [INSPIRE]. [11] L. Brink, M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Ten-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with SO(8)-covariant light-cone superfields, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 125 [INSPIRE]. [12] R.C. Brower and K.A. Friedman, Spectrum generating algebra and no ghost theorem for the Neveu-Schwarz model, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 535 [INSPIRE]. [13] N. Berkovits and T. Fleury, Harmonic superspace from the AdS5 × S5 pure spinor formalism, JHEP 03 (2013) 022 [arXiv:1212.3296] [INSPIRE]. [14] N. Berkovits, Twistor origin of the superstring, arXiv:1409.2510 [INSPIRE]. – 11 – http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/018 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0001035 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0001035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011602 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509234 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0509234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/040 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0204121 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0204121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/09/046 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0006003 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0006003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2001/08/026 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104247 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0104247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/01/018 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412198 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0412198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(72)90272-2 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+AnnalsPhys.,70,378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/055 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512161 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0512161 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90029-5 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B263,93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)102 http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2290 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1406.2290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(83)90096-2 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B223,125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.535 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Rev.,D7,535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2013)022 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3296 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1212.3296 http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2510 http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1409.2510 Introduction SO(8) superfields DDF operators: definition and algebra Physical spectrum Perspectives