1: \documentclass{JHEP3}
2: %\documentclass[draft]{JHEP3}
3:
4:
5: \usepackage{amsfonts}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage{latexsym}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: %%% Packages %%%
11:
12: %\usepackage{showkeys} %% comment to switch off the label display
13:
14: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
15:
16:
17: \def\hR{\textbf R}
18: \def\hA{\textbf A}
19: \def\ze{{\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4}}
20: \def\B{\textrm{B}}
21: \def\sg{\hat\sigma}
22: \def\Pinf{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^\infty}
23: \def\PP{\tilde P}
24: \def\ZZ{{\mathbb Z}}
25: \def\IC{{\mathbb C}}
26: \def\IR{{\mathbb R}}
27: \def\intnu{ \int_{\cal T} \prod_{i=1}^3
28: {d^2\nu^{(i)}\over \tau_2}}
29: \def\pnote#1{{\bf PV: #1}}
30: \def\P{{\tilde P}}
31: \def\Pinf{\hat{\mathcal P}^\infty}
32: \def\D{\textrm{D}}
33: \def\ap{{\alpha'}}
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
36: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
37: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
38: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
39: \def\p{\partial }
40: \def\vp{\varphi }
41: \def\a{\alpha }
42: \def\g{\gamma }
43: \def\td{\tilde }
44: \def\s{\sigma }
45: \def\sg{\sigma }
46: \def\kp{\kappa_{11} }
47: \def\quart{{\scriptstyle {1\over 4}}}
48: \def\threeh{{\scriptstyle {3 \over 2}}}
49: \def\fiveh{{\scriptstyle {5 \over 2}}}
50: \def\non{\nonumber }
51: \def\calH{{\cal H}}
52: \def\calE{{\cal E}}
53: \def\calI{{\cal I}}
54: \def\calQ{{\cal Q}}
55: \def\calW{{\cal W}}
56: \def\hK{\hat K}
57: \def\0chi{{0_\chi}}
58: \def\Vlambda{{V^\Lambda}}
59: \def\calT{{\cal T}}
60: \def\calGy{{\cal G}}
61: \def\calR{{\cal R}}
62: \def\calF{{\cal F}}
63: \def\calS{{\cal S}}
64: \def\calD{{\cal D}}
65: \def\calP{{\cal P}}
66: \def\calL{{\cal L}}
67: \def\calV{{\cal V}}
68: \def\rr{R_{11} }
69: \def\nn{\nonumber}
70: \def\half{{\scriptstyle {1 \over 2}}}
71: \def\third{{\scriptstyle {1 \over 3}}}
72: \def\threeq{{\scriptstyle {3 \over 4}}}
73: \def\sevenh{{\scriptstyle {7 \over 2}}}
74: \def\i{h}
75:
76: \textwidth=16cm
77: \setcounter{tocdepth}{1}
78:
79:
80: \preprint{
81: DAMTP-2008-54,
82: IPhT-T-08-100,
83: UB-ECM-PF-08/13}
84:
85:
86: \title{Modular properties of two-loop maximal supergravity
87: and connections with string theory}
88: \author{Michael B. Green\\
89: Department of Applied Mathematics and
90: Theoretical Physics\\
91: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK\\
92: \email{\tt M.B.Green@damtp.cam.ac.uk}}
93: \author{Jorge G. Russo\\
94: Instituci\' o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan\c{c}ats (ICREA)\\
95: Department ECM, Facultat de Fisica, University of Barcelona\\
96: Av. Diagonal, 647, Barcelona 08028 SPAIN\\
97: \email{\tt jrusso@ub.edu}}
98: \author{Pierre Vanhove\\
99: Institut de Physique Th\'eorique,\\
100: CEA, IPhT, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\\
101: CNRS, URA 2306, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\\
102: and\\
103: Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen,\\
104: Blegdamsvej 17, DK--2100 Copenhagen \O, Denmark\\
105: \email{pierre.vanhove@cea.fr}}
106:
107:
108: \abstract{ The low-momentum expansion of the two-loop four-graviton
109: scattering amplitude in eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified
110: on a circle and a two-torus is considered up to terms of order
111: $S^6\, \calR^4$ (where $S$ is a Mandelstam invariant and $\calR$ is
112: the linearized Weyl curvature). In the case of the toroidal
113: compactification the coefficient of each term in the low energy
114: expansion is generically a sum of a number of $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant
115: functions of the complex structure of the torus. Each such function
116: satisfies a separate Poisson equation on moduli space with
117: particular source terms that are bilinear in coefficients of lower
118: order terms, consistent with qualitative arguments based on
119: supersymmetry. Comparison is made with the low-energy expansion of
120: type II string theories in ten and nine dimensions. Although the
121: detailed behaviour of the string amplitude is not generally expected
122: to be reproduced by supergravity perturbation theory to all orders,
123: for the terms considered here we find agreement with direct results
124: from string perturbation theory. These results point to a
125: fascinating pattern of interrelated Poisson equations for the IIB
126: coefficients at higher orders in the momentum expansion which may
127: have a significance beyond the particular methods by which they were
128: motivated. }
129:
130:
131:
132: \date{\Date}
133: %\maketitle
134:
135: \keywords{Supergravity, Superstring}
136:
137: \newpage
138: \begin{document}
139:
140:
141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
142: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
144:
145: The rich network of string theory dualities provides powerful
146: constraints on the structure of M-theory. These are particularly
147: restrictive for maximally supersymmetric backgrounds although the full
148: power of maximal supersymmetry has proved difficult to exploit.
149: The purpose of this paper is to further investigate the small corner of string
150: theory associated with the low-energy expansion of the
151: four-graviton scattering in nine or ten dimensions and its
152: connection to eleven-dimensional supergravity.
153: In terms of an effective action, this corresponds to an investigation of terms
154: involving derivatives acting
155: on four powers of the linearized Riemann curvature.
156:
157: More precisely, our aim is to further develop the connections between
158: multi-loop eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on $\calS^1$ and $\calT^2$ and the type II
159: superstring theories, making use of the conjectured relationships
160: between M-theory and type IIA and IIB superstring theories
161: \cite{Hull:1994ys,Witten:1995ex,Schwarz:1995jq,Aspinwall:1995fw}. In earlier
162: work, a number of terms in the low-energy expansion of the type II string theory amplitudes
163: were determined from the compactified one-loop and two-loop supergravity amplitudes \cite{ggv:oneloop,
164: Russo:1997mk,gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}. The fact that the full, nonperturbative moduli dependence of
165: the string amplitudes was reproduced is presumably a consequence of the constraints of maximal
166: supersymmetry on `protected' terms.
167: In the absence of a complete understanding of which terms are protected it is of interest to
168: pursue the connections with quantum supergravity further.
169: Here we will develop the low-energy expansion of the two-loop
170: supergravity amplitude
171: in a more systematic fashion and determine several orders beyond those considered previously.
172: We will, furthermore, investigate the extent to which this makes contact with the type II string theories in
173: nine and ten dimensions.
174: We will find that the scalar-field dependent coefficients of the higher-derivative terms
175: in the expansion satisfy a suggestive pattern of differential equations on moduli space.
176: Comparing these coefficients with known `data' from the low-energy expansion of tree-level and
177: genus-one perturbative string theory in nine and ten dimensions
178: \cite{gv:stringloop,grv:oneloop} shows a surprising degree of agreement.
179: Although it is obvious that there is far more to M-theory than perturbative supergravity, these results
180: suggest patterns that could persist to all orders in the low-energy expansion.
181:
182: \subsection{Overview of low orders in the momentum expansion}
183:
184:
185: In ten dimensions
186: there is a clear distinction between type IIA and type IIB superstring theories even though it is known that they
187: have identical four-graviton amplitudes at least up to, and including,
188: genus-four in string perturbation theory \cite{Berkovits2006}.
189: The IIA theory has a single real modulus, and at strong coupling this is
190: identified with the radius of a single compact dimension in
191: eleven-dimensional supergravity \cite{Witten:1995ex}.
192: The ten-dimensional IIB theory has a complex modulus (a complex scalar coupling constant) that is identified with the
193: complex structure of the torus in the $\calT^2$ compactification of eleven-dimensional
194: supergravity in the limit in which the torus volume vanishes \cite{Schwarz:1995dk,Aspinwall:1995fw}.
195: Invariance of M-theory under large diffeomorphisms of $\calT^2$ implies that the IIB theory
196: possesses a $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality symmetry \cite{Hull:1994ys} that relates strong and weak coupling in a
197: manner that involves both the perturbative and
198: non-perturbative ($D$-instanton) interactions.
199: After compactification to nine dimensions
200: on a circle the two string theories are identified by the action of T-duality, which inverts
201: the radius of the compact dimension and transforms the dilaton
202: appropriately.
203: The nine-dimensional duality group is $SL(2,\ZZ)\otimes \IR^+$.
204:
205: Although the explicit calculations in this paper concern the four-graviton amplitude, maximal supersymmetry ensures that
206: the conclusions apply equally to the scattering of any four states in the supermultiplet. In fact, maximal supersymmetry guarantees that
207: the general type IIA or IIB amplitude has the structure\footnote{We are grateful to Nathan Berkovits for emphasizing the generality
208: of this structure.}
209: \be
210: \hA_\ze= F(s,t,u)\,\hR_\ze^4\,,
211: \label{eLoopa}
212: \ee
213: where we have labeled each external massless particle by its superhelicity $\zeta_r$, which takes 256 values (the dimensionality
214: of the maximal supergravity
215: multiplet) and its momentum $p_r$ ($r=1,2,3,4$), where $p_r^2 =0$.
216: $F(s,t,u)$ is a function of the Mandelstam invariants\footnote{
217: The (dimensionless) Mandelstam invariants, $s=-\ap\,(p_1+p_2)^2$,
218: $t=-\ap\,(p_1+p_4)^2$ and $u=-\ap\,(p_1+p_3)^2$,
219: are subject to the mass-shell condition $s+t+u=0$ and
220: $\sqrt{\alpha'}=l_s$ is the string length scale.}
221: $s$, $t$, $u$.
222: The kinematical factor in (\ref{eLoopa})
223: is given by (see (7.4.57) of \cite{Green:1987mn})
224: \begin{equation}
225: \hR_\ze^4(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4})= \zeta_{1}^{AA'} \zeta_{2}^{BB'}
226: \zeta_{3}^{CC'}\zeta_{4}^{DD'}\, K_{ABCD}\,\tilde K_{A'B'C'D'}\,,
227: \label{kinfact}
228: \end{equation}
229: where the indices $A, B$ on the polarization tensors $\zeta_r^{AB}$ run over both
230: vector and spinor values (for example, the graviton polarization is $\zeta^{\mu\nu}$,
231: where $\mu,\nu = 0,1,\dots,9$) and the tensor $K\, \tilde K$ is defined in
232: \cite{Green:1987mn}. For the purposes of this paper we will consider the case of external gravitons
233: for which $\hR$ reduces to the the momentum-space form of the linearized Weyl tensor,
234: \be
235: \label{riemdef}
236: \calR_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = -4\, p_{[\mu} \zeta_{\nu][\sigma} p_{\rho]}\, \, ,
237: \ee
238: where the symmetric traceless polarization tensor satisfies
239: $p^\mu \zeta_{\mu\nu}=0$.
240: The kinematic factor $\hR_\ze^4$ in (\ref{eLoopa}) becomes $\calR^4$, which denotes
241: the product of four Weyl curvatures
242: contracted into each other by a well-known sixteen-index tensor (often denoted $t_{8}t_{8}$).
243:
244: The low-energy expansion of the four-particle amplitude requires the expansion of the function $F(s,t,u)$ in (\ref{eLoopa}) for
245: small $s,t,u$. This can be expressed as a complicated mixture of terms that are analytic and
246: nonanalytic functions of the Mandelstam invariants.
247: The analytic terms may be expanded as power series' in integer powers of $s$, $t$ and $u$
248: in a straightforward manner. The lowest-order terms contain the poles and contact terms characteristic of the supergravity tree diagrams.
249: A great deal is also known about higher-order analytic terms up to order ${\alpha'}^6$.
250: The nonanalytic terms contain massless threshold
251: singularities whose form is determined by unitarity and depends on the number of
252: noncompact space-time dimensions.
253: Generically, there
254: are fractional powers or logarithmic branch points, giving rise to
255: non-integer powers of $s$ or $\log s$ factors.
256:
257: In what follows we shall separate the low-energy expansion of the ten-dimensional amplitude in either type II theory
258: into the sum of an analytic part and a non-analytic part,
259: \be
260: A_{II} = i{\alpha'}^4\, ( A_{II}^{an} + A_{II}^{nonan})\,,
261: \label{annonan}
262: \ee
263: where $A_{II}$ has been normalized to be dimensionless.
264: In the IIB theory the coefficients
265: in the series in the analytic term $A_{II}^{an}$ in (\ref{annonan}) are $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant functions of the
266: complex coupling and the series has the form
267: \be
268: A_{IIB}^{an} = \sum_{p\ge 0,q\geq -1} g_B^{p+\threeh q-\half}
269: \,\calE_{(p,q)}(\Omega)\,
270: \hat\sigma_2^p\hat\sigma_3^q\, \calR^4\,,
271: \label{gtensum}
272: \ee
273: where
274: \be
275: \label{sigmadefs}
276: \hat \sigma_n = \frac{s^n + t^n +u^n}{4^n}\, .
277: \ee
278: The factors $\hat \sigma_2^p\,
279: \hat\sigma_3^q$ are the most general scalars that are symmetric monomials in
280: $s$, $t$, $u$ of order $2p+3q$. The functions $\calE_{(p,q)}$'s are modular functions of
281: the complex scalar, $\Omega=\Omega_1 + i \Omega_2$, where
282: \be
283: \Omega_1 = C^{(0)}\,,\qquad \Omega_2 = e^{-\phi_B} = g_B^{-1}\,,
284: \label{omdef}
285: \ee
286: and $C^{(0)}$ is the Ramond--Ramond scalar, $\phi_B$ is the type IIB dilaton and $g_B$ is the
287: type IIB coupling constant. The expression (\ref{gtensum}) includes the Born term with its
288: poles and the coefficient $\calE_{(0,-1)} = 1$. The nonanalytic contribution
289: is a series that contains multi-particle thresholds of
290: symbolic form
291: \be
292: A_{IIB}^{nonan} = \left( s\log (-s) +
293: g_B^{\threeh}\, \calF_4(\Omega)\, s^4 \log(-s) +
294: g_B^2\, \calF_5(\Omega)\,s^5 \log(-s) + \dots
295: \right)\, \calR^4\,,
296: \label{nonansum}
297: \ee
298: where the $\calF_r(\Omega)$'s are modular functions of
299: $\Omega$, which begin with terms that are genus-one or higher.
300:
301:
302: The coefficients in the expansion are known up to terms of order $\hat\sigma_3\, \calR^4$,
303: \bea
304: A_{\rm IIB}&=& e^{-2\phi}\frac{1}{3\hat \sigma_3}\, \calR^4 +
305: e^{-\phi_B/2}\, E_{3\over 2} (\Omega)\, \calR^4 +
306: e^{\phi_B/2}{1\over 2}\, E_{5\over 2}(\Omega)\, \hat \sigma_2\, \calR^4\nn\\
307: && \qquad +
308: e^{\phi_B}{1\over 6}\, \calE_{(3/2,3/2)} (\Omega)\,\hat\sigma_3\, \calR^4 +\cdots
309: \,,
310: \label{unzy}
311: \eea
312: The terms in (\ref{unzy}) are analytic in $s,t$ and $u$ and translate into
313: local higher-derivative interactions in a
314: $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant effective action,
315: \bea
316: S_{\rm IIB}&=& {1\over {\alpha'}^4 \, 2^7\pi^6}\,\int d^{10}x \sqrt{-g}\, \bigg[
317: e^{-2\phi}\, R^{(10)}+ {\alpha'}^3 \,e^{-\phi_B/2}\, E_{\threeh} (\Omega)\, \calR^4 +
318: {{\alpha'}^5\over 2} e^{\phi_B/2}\, E_{\fiveh}(\Omega )\, D^{4}\calR^4\nn\\
319: && \qquad +{{\alpha'}^6\over6}
320: e^{\phi_B}\, \calE_{(\threeh,\threeh)} (\Omega )\,D^6\calR^4\bigg]+\cdots \, ,
321: \label{unzyact}
322: \eea
323: where $R^{(10)}$ is the curvature scalar, $g$ the ten-dimensional type IIB string metric and
324: the coefficients $E_s(\Omega)$ and $E_{(\threeh,\threeh)}(\Omega)$ will be described below.
325: The derivatives in (\ref{unzyact}) are
326: contracted so that the four-point amplitude contributions arise in a
327: manner that is defined by the pattern of Mandelstam invariants in (\ref{unzy}).
328: From (\ref{unzy}) it follows that the coefficients in (\ref{gtensum}) are given by
329: \bea
330: \calE_{(0,0)}(\Omega)=E_{\threeh}(\Omega), \qquad
331: \calE_{(1,0)} (\Omega) ={1\over 2}\,E_{\fiveh}(\Omega)\,, \qquad
332: \calE_{(0,1)}(\Omega)= {1\over 6}\calE_{(\threeh,\threeh)}(\Omega)\,.
333: \eea
334:
335: The quantities $E_s$ in (\ref{unzy}) and (\ref{unzyact}) are
336: Eisenstein series that solve the Laplace eigenvalue equations
337: on the fundamental domain of $SL(2,\ZZ)$,
338: \be
339: \Delta_{\Omega} E_s\equiv \Omega_2^2 \,\left( {\partial^2\over \partial \Omega_1^2}
340: + {\partial^2\over \partial \Omega_2^2}\right)\, E_s = s(s-1) E_s\, .
341: \label{lapeig}
342: \ee
343: Given the fact that the $E_s$ is a $SL(2,\ZZ)$ function that can have
344: no worse than power growth as $\Omega_{2}\to \infty$ (which is required for consistency
345: with string perturbation theory at weak coupling) the solution of this equation is uniquely
346: given by
347: \be
348: E_s= \sum_{(m,n)\ne (0,0)}\frac{\Omega_2^s}{|m+n\Omega|^{2s}}\,,
349: \label{esdef}
350: \ee
351: which can be expanded at weak coupling in the form
352: \bea
353: \label{zexpand}
354: E_s (\Omega) & =& 2
355: \zeta(2s) \Omega_2^{s} + 2\sqrt \pi \Omega_2^{1 - s }
356: {\Gamma(s-\half)\zeta(2s -1)\over \Gamma(s)}\nn\\
357: && + {2\pi^{s}\over \Gamma(s)} \sum_{k\ne
358: 0} \mu(k,s)
359: e^{-2\pi(|k|\Omega_2 - i k \Omega_1)}
360: |k|^{s-1}
361: \left(1+{s(s-1) \over 4\pi |k| \Omega_2} +\dots\right)\, .
362: \eea
363: The two power-behaved terms in this expansion correspond to the tree-level and
364: genus-$(s-1/2)$ contributions in string theory\footnote{In order to avoid confusion, we will refer to the
365: number of `loops' (denoted by $L$) in the context of the supergravity Feynman rules, and the `genus'
366: (denoted by $h$) in the
367: context of the string theory perturbative expansion.}, as can be seen by taking into account
368: the powers of $e^{\phi_B}$ in (\ref{unzy}) and identifying $\Omega_2^{-1}$ with the IIB string
369: coupling, $g_B$. The exponential terms correspond to the infinite set of $D$-instanton
370: contributions.
371:
372: The fact that $\calE_{(0,0)}(\Omega) = E_{3/2}(\Omega )$ is the coefficient
373: associated with the $\calR^4$ term in (\ref{unzy})
374: was initially deduced via indirect arguments \cite{gg:dinstanton,ggv:oneloop}.
375: One of these made use of properties of loop amplitudes
376: of eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on a circle or on a two-torus, combined
377: with dualities that relate M-theory to type II string theory in nine
378: dimensions. In this way the function $E_{3/2}(\Omega)$ describes the
379: dependence of the low-energy limit of the one-loop ($L=1$) four-graviton scattering amplitude on the modulus
380: of the compactification torus \cite{ggv:oneloop}. The ultraviolet divergence, which behaves as
381: $\Lambda^3 \calR^4$, where $\Lambda$ is a momentum cutoff, is independent of $\Omega$
382: and can be subtracted by a local counterterm. The coefficient of this counterterm
383: is fixed by requiring the IIA and IIB amplitudes to be equal, as they are known to be.
384: The modular function $E_{3/2}$ can also be derived as a consequence of supersymmetry
385: combined with $SL(2,\ZZ)$-duality \cite{Green:1998by}.
386: Although it is suspected that the other modular functions appearing in
387: higher derivative terms (at least up to the order shown in
388: (\ref{unzy})) should also be determined by supersymmetry combined with non-perturbative
389: dualities, there is no systematic procedure for doing this (a sketchy outline is given in section~\ref{sec:modular}
390: of this paper).
391:
392: Expanding the $L=1$ supergravity
393: amplitude in powers\footnote{
394: The dimensionless Mandelstam invariants of eleven-dimensional supergravity are denoted by upper case
395: letters $S=-l_{11}^2\,(p_1+p_2)^2$, $T=-l_{11}^2\,(p_1+p_4)^2$,
396: $U=-l_{11}^2\,(p_1+p_3)^2$, where $l_{11}$ is the
397: eleven-dimensional Planck length, and related to the invariants in the ten-dimensional string frame
398: by $S=R_{11}\,s\, \dots$, where $R_{11}$ is the radius of the eleventh
399: dimension.} of $S$, $T$ and $U$
400: leads to higher-order terms in the derivative
401: expansion of the form \cite{Russo:1997mk,gkv:twoloop}. This results in an infinite set
402: of analytic terms that are interpreted in IIB string coordinates
403: as modular invariant coefficients multiplying powers of order $r_B^{1-2k}\, s^k$,
404: \be
405: A_{L=1}= r_B\,\big(g_B^{-{1\over
406: 2}}E_{3\over 2}(\Omega)\calR^4+
407: \sum_{k=2}^\infty h_k \, r_B^{-2k}g_B^{k-{1\over 2}}
408: E_{k-{1\over 2}}(\Omega)\, \calS^{(k)}\, \calR^4\big) +\cdots\, ,
409: \label{loopone}
410: \ee
411: where the ellipsis stand for the non-analytic contributions~\cite{gkv:twoloop} and $h_k$ are simple constants and $\calS^{(k)}$ is a polynomial in
412: $\hat\sigma_2$ and $\hat\sigma_3$ of order $k=2p+3q$ in the
413: Mandelstam invariants.
414: All contributions with $k\geq 2$ vanish in the ten-dimensional type
415: IIB limit where the two-torus volume, $\calV_2$, vanishes.
416: So we see that in the ten-dimensional limit the compactified one-loop ($L=1$) eleven-dimensional supergravity amplitude
417: contributes only at order $\calR^4$.
418: In order to obtain higher-derivative interactions
419: one has to consider eleven-dimensional supergravity at higher loops ($L>1$).
420: The coefficient
421: $\calE_{(1,0)}= E_{5/2}(\Omega)/2$ of the ten-dimensional IIB theory
422: indeed arises from a one-loop subdivergence of the
423: low-energy limit of the two-loop amplitude of eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified
424: on a two-torus in the limit in the limit $\calV_2\to 0$
425: \cite{gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}.
426:
427: The function
428: $\calE_{(0,1)}\, (\Omega )$ in (\ref{gtensum}) is obtained by expanding the two-loop
429: supergravity amplitude to the next order in $S$, $T$, $U$ and compactifying on a two-torus
430: \cite{gv:D6R4}. It
431: satisfies the Poisson equation
432: \be
433: \Delta_\Omega \calE_{(0,1)} =
434: 12 \calE_{(0,1)} -E_\threeh\, E_\threeh\, ,
435: \label{poiss}
436: \ee
437: in which the source term on the right-hand side is quadratic in the $O({\alpha'}^3)$
438: modular function $E_{3/2}$. We will denote the solution to this equation by
439: $\calE_{(0,1)}=\calE_{(3/2,3/2)}/6$, as in \cite{gv:D6R4}.
440: This source term makes the equation quite different from the Laplace
441: eigenfunction equation (\ref{lapeig}). Its
442: structure was argued in \cite{gv:D6R4} to follow, at
443: least qualitatively, from the constraints of supersymmetry.
444: The solution of (\ref{poiss}) is complicated, but the zero-mode of $\calE_{(0,1)}$, which contains the
445: perturbative terms, is found to have the form
446: \be
447: \int_{-\half}^\half \Omega_2^{-1}\, \calE_{(0,1)}\, d\Omega_1 = {2\over 3}\zeta(3)^2 \Omega_2^{2} +{4\over 3} \zeta(2)\zeta(3) + {8\over 5}\zeta (2)^2 \Omega_2^{-2} +
448: {4\over 27}\zeta(6) \Omega_2^{-4} +O(\exp(-4\pi\Omega_2))\, ,
449: \label{ethreehthreeh}
450: \ee
451: so it contains tree-level, genus-one, genus-two
452: and genus-three perturbative string theory terms as well an infinite series of
453: $D$-instanton -- anti-$D$-instanton pairs. The tree-level and genus-one terms agree precisely with direct string theory
454: calculations, while the genus-two term has not yet been extracted directly from string theory. The
455: genus-three term cannot yet be computed in string perturbation theory but it is gratifying that the
456: value of its coefficient agrees, as it should,
457: with that of the genus-three term in the IIA theory that is predicted
458: from one loop in eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on $\calS^1$. This agreement is
459: striking since extracting the coefficient in the IIB theory from the $L=2$ amplitude involves the use
460: of a Ramanujan identity (see appendix~\ref{sec:betaterm}), whereas the coefficient in the IIA theory
461: obtained from the $L=1$ amplitude
462: arises from a simple integral.
463: Although there is no proof that $\calE_{(0,1)}(\Omega)$ is the exact modular function, these
464: agreements strongly suggest that it is. It is notable that the terms in the expression (\ref{ethreehthreeh})
465: are not of uniform transcendental weight. Whereas, there is a correlation of the power of $\Omega_2$ and the
466: weight of the $\zeta$ values for the first three terms, this breaks down for the genus-three term. We will see
467: an analogous lack of transcendentality in many of the examples to be described later in this paper.
468:
469:
470: The first nonanalytic term beyond the Born (pole) term arises at order ${\alpha'}^4$
471: and comes from the ten-dimensional supergravity one-loop
472: diagrams.
473: It has the symbolic form given by the first term on the right-hand side of
474: (\ref{nonansum}). Its precise expression, reviewed in \cite{grv:oneloop},
475: has a much more complicated threshold structure but it
476: has the notable property that the scale of
477: the logarithm cancels, using $s+t+u=0$.
478:
479:
480: Obviously the analysis of Feynman diagrams of eleven-dimensional
481: supergravity has limited use since it does not capture the full
482: content of quantum string theory, or M-theory. To begin with,
483: eleven-dimensional supergravity is not renormalizable. Our procedure
484: is to regulate the ultraviolet divergences by introducing a momentum
485: cutoff and subtracting the divergences with counterterms. The result
486: is finite but the counterterms contribute arbitrary coefficients that
487: parameterize our ignorance of the short-distance physics. However, at
488: low orders the values of some of these coefficients are known to be
489: determined by supersymmetry if we also assume the result
490: should be in accord with string dualities. One of the aims here is to
491: investigate the extent to which this continues at higher orders.
492:
493: A related issue is that the Feynman diagrams describe a semi-classical approximation to the theory in a
494: particular classical background space-time. This can only be motivated
495: in the limit in which the radii of the compact dimensions are much larger than
496: the eleven-dimensional Planck length. This means $R_{11} \gg 1$ for the $\calS^1$ compactification
497: (where $R_{11}$ is the dimensionless radius of the eleventh dimension in Planck units).
498: This is the limit of large IIA string coupling, $g_A = R_{11}^{3/2}
499: \gg1$. Bearing in mind that this is
500: far from the regime of string perturbation theory, we will see to what
501: extent there
502: is agreement between the compactified two-loop Feynman diagrams and corresponding
503: perturbative string theory results. For
504: the $\calT^2$ compactification the analogous condition is $\calV_2=R_{10}R_{11} \gg 1$ (where $\calV_2$ is the
505: dimensionless volume of $\calT^2$ in Planck units). In IIA string theory compactified to nine dimensions
506: this is the limit in which
507: $r_A =1/r_B \gg g_A^{-\third}$, where $r_A$ is the radius of the compact dimension (in string units).
508: Nevertheless, the
509: coefficients of the $\calR^4$, $\calD^4\, \calR^4$ and $\calD^6\, \calR^4$ terms reviewed above
510: give the correct values in the $r_B \to \infty$ limit -- presumably the extrapolation from small $r_B$
511: to large $r_B$ works because these terms are protected by supersymmetry.
512: The low energy
513: limit we are considering is one in which $S\, R_{11}^2\ll 1$. Since the supergravity loop diagrams are
514: ultraviolet divergent we will also introduce a dimensionless momentum cutoff
515: $\Lambda \gg R_{11}^{-1} \gg 1$ measured in units of $l_{11}$ the
516: eleven-dimensional Planck length.
517: We will see that the low energy expansion of
518: the Feynman diagrams possesses a very rich structure. In particular, the coefficients that depend
519: on the scalar fields satisfy a series of mathematically intriguing Poisson equations that are nontrivial
520: extensions of (\ref{poiss}) satisfied by $\calE_{(0,1)}$, as we will see.
521:
522:
523: \subsection{Outline of paper}
524:
525: In this paper we will consider the higher-order terms in the
526: low-energy expansion of the four-graviton amplitude that are
527: obtained by expanding the two-loop amplitude of
528: eleven-dimensional supergravity, compactified to ten dimensions on
529: $\calS^1$ and nine dimensions on $\calT^2$ to several higher orders in the Mandelstam invariants.
530:
531: The four-graviton amplitude (\ref{annonan})
532: at two loops ($L=2$) in maximal supergravity has the form \cite{BernDunbar}
533: \be
534: A_{sugra}^{an} + A_{sugra}^{nonan} = \! i{\kappa_{11}^6\over 2\,(2\pi)^{22}\,l_{11}^{12}}\; \calR^4\, \calI(S,T,U)\,,
535: \label{eberndun}
536: \ee
537: where the scalar function $\calI(S,T,U)$ has the structure
538: \be
539: \calI(S,T,U) =S^2 I^{(S)}(S;T,U) + T^2 I^{(T)}(T;U,S) + U^2 I^{(U)}(U;S,T)\,.
540: \label{calidef}
541: \ee
542: The terms in brackets are sums of $\varphi^3$ scalar field theory two-loop planar and non-planar ladder diagrams,
543: \be
544: I^{(S)} (S;T,U)=I^P(S;T,U) + I^P(S;U,T)+ I^{NP}(S;T,U) +I^{NP}(S;U,T)\, ,
545: \label{sumall}
546: \ee
547: with analogous expressions for $I^{(T)}$ and $I^{(U)}$.
548: The expression (\ref{eberndun}) has an overall prefactor of $\calR^4$,
549: which has eight powers of the external momenta, together with
550: four more powers from the factors of $S^2$, $T^2$ or $U^2$. This means
551: that the loop integrals, $I^{(P)}$ and $I^{(NP)}$, are much less divergent than they would
552: naively appear.
553: We will be interested in the compactified amplitude, so that
554: $\calI(S,T,U)$ is a function of the moduli of the compact space.
555: Ignoring for the moment the nonanalytic pieces, we shall expand
556: the analytic part of $\calI(S,T,U)$ in a power series,
557: \be
558: \calI^{an}(S,T,U) = \sum_{p,q\geq0}\,n_{(p,q)} \sigma_2^p\, \sigma_3^q\,I_{(p,q)}\,,
559: \label{ipqdef}
560: \ee
561: %
562: where $I_{(p,q)}$ is a function of the moduli that will be defined by the integral (\ref{e:DefIn}) and the constant
563: coefficients $n_{(p,q)}$ can be read off from~(\ref{eberz}). Note that $I_{(0,0)}=0$ since the
564: well-known $\calR^4$ term
565: only arises at one loop. The dependence on the Mandelstam invariants in (\ref{ipqdef}) is contained in the
566: $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$, which are defined by
567: %
568: \be \sigma_n= S^n+T^n+U^n
569: \label{msigdef}
570: \ee
571: (whereas in the string variables we used the symbol $\hat \sigma_n$ in (\ref{sigmadefs})).
572: The coefficients $I_{(p,q)}$ in (\ref{ipqdef}) depend on the $\calT^n$ moduli in a
573: manner to be determined.
574: The infrared massless threshold effects give rise to nonanalytic terms that we will also need to discuss.
575:
576: In section~\ref{sec:expand} we will show how the expression for $\calI(S,T,U)$ can be
577: reexpressed in a useful form that would also arise naturally in a world-line functional integral
578: describing the two-loop process.
579: This involves attaching vertex operators for external
580: states of momentum $p_r$ ($r=1,2,3,4$) to points $t_r$ on the three world-lines, of length $L_k$ ($k=1,2,3$),
581: of the two-loop vacuum diagram. The amplitude involves the
582: the usual factor of $\exp( -\sum_{r,s}\, p_r\cdot p_s\, G_{rs})$,
583: where $G_{rs}$ is the
584: Green function connecting pairs of points on these world-lines, as discussed in \cite{Dai:2006vj}.
585: This provides a very compact expression for the sum of all diagrams as an integral over all insertion points
586: $t_r$ and over the lengths $L_k$ of the three world-lines, with an appropriate measure.
587: The low energy expansion is obtained, formally, by expanding the integrand in powers of the Green
588: function
589: \be
590: \exp(-\sum_{r,s=1}^4\, p_r \cdot p_s\, G_{rs}) = \sum_{N=0}^\infty {1\over
591: N!}\,(-\sum_{r,s=1}^4\, p_r \cdot p_s\, G_{rs})^N\,,
592: \label{gexpand}
593: \ee
594: which are to be integrated over the positions $t_r$ with a specific measure.
595:
596: We will discuss a `hidden' modular
597: invariance that acts on the three Schwinger parameters, $L_k$.
598: This symmetry is particularly useful in evaluating the compactification of the
599: amplitude on a spatial $n$-torus and was used in
600: \cite{gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4} in evaluating terms of order $\calD^4\, \calR^4$ and $\calD^6\, \calR^4$.
601: This becomes more explicit after a change of variables from the Schwinger parameters, $L_k$, to
602: variables $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $V$. The quantity $\tau=\tau_1+i\tau_2$ enters in a manner analogous to
603: the modulus of a world-sheet torus embedded in the target space in genus-one string theory.
604: After the above redefinition of variables we will see that
605: the coefficient $I_{(p,q)}$ in (\ref{ipqdef}) has the schematic form
606: (the precise coefficients will be included later)
607: \be
608: I_{(p,q)}= \int dV V^{5-2p-3q}\, \int {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\,
609: B_{(p,q)} (\tau)\, \Gamma_{(n,n)}(G_{IJ}; V,\tau)\,,
610: \label{caliform}
611: \ee
612: where $\Gamma_{(n,n)}$ is a lattice factor that contains the
613: information about the compactified target space with metric $G_{IJ}$
614: ($I,J=1,\cdots,n$).
615: It will be important that the integrand is invariant under $SL(2,\ZZ)$, when
616: suitably extended outside the fundamental domain.
617: This integral has ultraviolet and infrared divergences, depending
618: on the values of $p$ and $q$. These will require a careful treatment of the
619: integration limits, which will be discussed in detail in
620: section~\ref{sec:limits}.
621:
622: An important property of the coefficients, $B_{(p,q)}(\tau)$ in the
623: integrand is that they can be written as sums of
624: components $b_{(p,q)}^r(\tau)$,
625: \be
626: B_{(p,q)}(\tau) = \sum_{i=0}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil} b_{(p,q)}^{3N-2i}(\tau)
627: \label{sumsbi}
628: \ee
629: where $N=2p+3q-2$ and the components satisfy Green function equations
630: in $\tau$ of the form
631: \be
632: (\Delta_\tau - r(r+1))\, b_{(p,q)}^r = \tau_2\, c_{(p,q)}^r(\tau_2)\, \delta(\tau_1)\,,
633: \label{genpoisson}
634: \ee
635: %
636: where $\Delta_\tau =\tau_2^2\,(\partial_{\tau_1}^2+\partial_{\tau_1}^2)$, $c_{(p,q)}^r$ is a
637: polynomial in $\tau_2+\tau_2^{-1}$ of degree $N-1$
638: (see appendix~\ref{sec:Modular} for details)\footnote{We would like to thank Don Zagier for
639: explaining the mathematical significance of this decomposition}. This property will be used
640: extensively to determine $I_{(p,q)}$.
641:
642: The $\calS^1$ compactification to ten dimensions
643: will be described in section~\ref{sec:sone}, together with appendix~\ref{sec:s1compact}.
644: This will lead to coefficients for higher-momentum terms in the type
645: IIA theory up to order $S^6\, \calR^4$.
646: Although this reproduces the terms considered in earlier work,
647: important new issues are encountered
648: at order $S^4\, \calR^4$ ($k=4$) where further
649: non-analytic terms arise. Such nonanalytic behaviour arises from infrared threshold effects that are not
650: captured by the power series expansion (\ref{gexpand}), so we will be
651: careful to regulate the infrared limit of the integrals.
652: In ten dimensions unitarity implies that such thresholds are logarithmic and arise
653: at this order in $\alpha'$ at genus-one and genus-two. Further logarithmic singularities arise
654: at genus-two at order $s^5\, \calR^4$, and at
655: genus-one and genus-three at order $s^6\, \calR^4$, with a complicated
656: pattern of thresholds at all orders in $\alpha'$ thereafter.
657: Unlike in the case of the lowest-order nonanalytic term (\ref{nonansum}),
658: the scales of the logarithms, which we will not evaluate, do not cancel.
659: The translation of these supergravity results into the language of type IIA superstring theory
660: is summarized in section~\ref{connectten}.
661:
662: Compactification to nine dimensions on a two-torus
663: will be considered in section~\ref{sec:ttwo}. The coefficients in the expansion
664: now have a richer structure since they depend on the three moduli of
665: $\calT^2$, or the complex coupling, $\Omega$, and
666: the radius of the compact dimension, $r_B$, in the type IIB string
667: theory language. Each term with a distinct kinematic structure must have a
668: coefficient that is an independent function that is invariant under the nine-dimensional
669: duality group, $SL(2,\ZZ)\times \IR^+$.
670: We will determine certain analytic terms in the double
671: expansion of the amplitude up to order $S^6\, \calR^4$ that are associated with particular inverse powers
672: of $r_B$. In order for the Feynman diagram approximation to have a chance of being a
673: sensible approximation it is necessary that $r_B\ll 1$, or $r_A \gg 1$.
674: The
675: coefficients will be modular functions of $\Omega$.
676: In fact, we will see that each coefficient is generally
677: a sum of a number of modular functions
678: that satisfy independent Poisson equations analogous to
679: (\ref{poiss}).
680: The structure of these equations, which generalizes
681: (\ref{lapeig}), is summarized by (\ref{ipoisso}), which is
682: one of the most intriguing results of this paper.
683:
684: In nine dimensions almost all
685: the low-order nonanalytic terms have branch points that are non-integer
686: powers of the Mandelstam invariants rather than logarithms, and so they can
687: be separated from the analytic part unambiguously -- the exception is the term of order $S^5 \,\log(-S)$,
688: which is the contribution from nine-dimensional supergravity
689: and can be obtained by dimensional
690: regularization, as summarized in appendix~\ref{sec:ninereg}.
691: However, there are terms that are power-behaved in $r$ as well as terms containing,
692: factors such as $\log r^2$, which is nonanalytic in $r$, and exponentially suppressed terms
693: of the form $e^{-cr}$. A series of terms that are power behaved in $r_B$ was
694: seen to arise from the expansion of the $L=1$ supergravity amplitude in (\ref{loopone}).
695: Similarly, we will find that the momentum expansion of the $L=2$
696: amplitude gives a sum of higher-momentum modular invariant terms,
697: \be
698: A_{L=2}^{an} = \sum_{q\geq1}\sum_{p\geq 0} \sum_l r_B^{1-l}
699: g_B^{\half N +\half +{l\over 4}}\calE_{(p,q)}^{(l)}
700: (\Omega)\,
701: \hat\sigma_2^p\hat\sigma_3^q\, \calR^4\,,
702: \label{analytr}
703: \ee
704: for various values of $l$ that will be specified later.
705: Terms proportional to $r$ reproduce the $d=10$ expansion, so that $\calE_{(p,q)}^{(0)}\equiv \calE_{(p,q)}$.
706: All contributions with $l\geq 0$
707: vanish in the ten-dimensional type IIB limit,
708: but they give rise to well defined modular functions in
709: nine dimensions. In addition to terms that are power-behaved in the radius $r_A$ or $r_B$,
710: there are also terms proportional to $\log r_A$ or $\log r_B$. Such terms arise
711: explicitly at genus-one in nine-dimensional string theory \cite{grv:oneloop}.
712: For example, there is a term of the form $r \log r\times\, s^4 \, \calR^4$, which is intimately related to the
713: presence of the genus-one $s^4 \log s\, \calR^4$ term in ten
714: dimensions determined in~\cite{grv:oneloop}.
715: We will see in the following that this dependence on $r$ can also be seen from the $\calT^2$
716: reduction of two-loop ($L=2$) eleven-dimensional supergravity.
717: Terms of the form $e^{-cr_B}$ that arise in string theory when $2p+2q\ge 4$ are not reproduced
718: by Feynman diagrams at any number of loops.
719:
720: Perturbative contributions to
721: the string amplitude are obtained from the weak-coupling
722: expansion of these modular functions (making use of the methods described in
723: appendix~\ref{sec:Diff}). Each term in the momentum expansion derived in this manner
724: is accompanied by a particular inverse power of the radius $r_B$ and the new terms do
725: not contribute in the large-$r_B$ limit. However, after T-duality to the IIA theory, we
726: are able to compare a number of coefficients with those derived explicitly from genus-one
727: in string theory compactified on a circle \cite{grv:oneloop} and find precise agreement.
728: Special issues concerning the terms that contain $\log r$ factors will also be discussed.
729: The issue of the pattern of logarithms is intimately related to the threshold behaviour
730: in maximal supergravity in various dimensions.
731: In appendix~\ref{sec:DimReg} we will evaluate the supergravity amplitude in nine, ten and
732: eleven dimensions, making use of dimensional regularization. These expressions are of
733: relevance to various pieces of the argument in the body of the paper.
734: For example, in ten dimensions the pole
735: term gives rise to a term of order $S^5\, \log S\, \calR^4$ that is identified with a genus-two
736: contribution to $s^5\, \log s\,\calR^4$ in ten-dimensional string theory.
737: In section~\ref{sec:modular} we will sketch the way in which
738: supersymmetry constrains higher derivative terms and argue that
739: the structure of the Poisson equations satisfied by the coefficients
740: of the terms in the derivative expansion of the
741: nine-dimensional IIB theory can be motivated by supersymmetry.
742:
743:
744:
745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
746: \section{ Properties of the two-loop supergravity amplitude}
747: \label{sec:expand}
748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
749:
750: It has been known for a long time that the sum of one-loop Feynman diagrams that
751: contribute to four-graviton scattering in maximal supergravity in any dimension has the
752: form of a box diagram of $\varphi^3$ scalar field theory multiplying
753: $\calR^4$, where
754: $\calR$ is the linearized Weyl curvature, as discussed in the introduction. Similarly,
755: the sum of all two-loop diagrams,
756: $A(S,T,U)$, is very economically expressed in terms of
757: two particular diagrams of $\varphi^3$ scalar field theory
758: \cite{BernDunbar}. These are the planar double-box
759: diagram, $I^P(S,T)$ of figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}(a), and the non-planar double box
760: diagram, $I^{NP}(S,T)$ of figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}(b), together
761: with the other diagrams obtained by permuting the external particles. In
762: addition, one must include the one-loop triangle
763: diagram of figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}(c)
764: containing a one-loop counterterm
765: at one vertex (indicated by the blob),
766: which subtracts the one-loop sub-divergences from the two-loop diagrams. In addition there are
767: two-loop primitive divergences (that are indicated by the double-blob in
768: figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}(d)).
769: \begin{figure}[ht]
770: \centering
771: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{twoloop6}
772: \caption{The two-loop four-graviton amplitude in eleven dimensions.
773: (a) The $S$-channel planar diagram reduces to
774: $S^2\, \calR^4$ multiplying a scalar field theory double-box diagram.
775: (b) The $S$-channel nonplanar diagram reduces to
776: $S^2\, \calR^4$ multiplying a nonplanar scalar field theory two-loop diagram.
777: (c) The triangle diagram with a one-loop counterterm at one vertex that subtracts
778: a sub-divergence.
779: (d) A new two-loop primitive divergence.}
780: \label{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}\end{figure}
781:
782: The two-loop integrals appearing in the amplitude are sums of planar
783: and non-planar pieces, (\ref{sumall}). We are interested in
784: compactifying these expressions on the $n$-torus $\calT^n$ with $n=1$
785: or $2$. After manipulations that are given in \cite{gkv:twoloop} the
786: loop integrals can be expressed as integrals over seven Schwinger
787: parameters, one for each propagator. The integrations over loop
788: momenta in the compact directions are replaced by sums over the
789: Kaluza--Klein integers in each loop $m_I$ and $n_I$, where $I=1,\dots,
790: n$. After performing the integration over the continuous
791: $(11-n)$-dimensional loop momenta, the planar and non-planar diagrams
792: reduce to
793: \bea
794: I^P(S;T,U) &=& {\pi^{11-n}\over \calV_n^2}\,
795: \int_0^\infty d L_1 d L_2 dL_3\, \Gamma_{(n,n)} \, \int_0^{L_3}\!\! dt_4\int_0^{t_4}\!\!
796: dt_3\int_0^{L_1}dt_2 \int_0^{t_2}dt_1
797: \, \Delta^{n-11\over 2}
798: \, e^{h_P} \,,
799: \label{iplanar}
800: \eea
801: and\footnote{ In this section we ignore the ultraviolet and
802: infrared divergences. A treatment of these divergences and a proper
803: definition of the integration limits of the integrals will
804: be discussed in section~\ref{sec:limits}.}
805: \bea
806: I^{NP}(S;T,U) &=& {\pi^{11-n}\over \calV_n^2}\,
807: \int_0^\infty\!\! d L_1 d L_2 dL_3 \, \Gamma_{(n,n)}
808: \int_0^{L_3} \!\! dt_3 \int_0^{L_2}\!\! dt_4 \int_0^{L_1}\!\! dt_2\int^{t_2}_0\!dt_1 \Delta^{n-11\over 2}
809: \, e^{h_{NP}} \,,
810: \label{inonplanar}
811: \eea
812: where
813: \be
814: \Delta= L_1 L_2+ L_3 L_1+ L_2 L_3\,.
815: \label{deltadef}
816: \ee
817: The lattice factor $\Gamma_{(n,n)}$ is defined by
818: \be
819: \Gamma_{(n,n)}(G^{IJ};\{L_k\}) = \sum_{(m_I,n_I)\in \ZZ^{2n}} e^{-\pi G^{IJ} \left( L_1 m_Im_J + L_3 n_I n_J +
820: L_2 (m+n)_I (m+n)_J \right)}\,.
821: \label{latdef}
822: \ee
823: %
824: where $G^{IJ}$ is the inverse metric on $\calT^n$ and $\calV_n=\sqrt{\det G_{IJ}}$ is its
825: volume. The quantities $h_P$ and $h_{NP}$ are given by\footnote{The variables in this
826: section are related to those of \cite{gkv:twoloop}
827: by $L_1 =\lambda$,
828: $L_2=\rho$, $L_3=\sigma$, $t_1=L_1 w_1$, $t_2=L_1 w_2$, $t_3 = L_3 v_1$ and in the planar
829: case, $t_4 = L_3 v_2$, while in the non-planar case, $t_4= L_2 u_1$.}
830: \bea
831: h_P &=& T{ L_2\over
832: \Delta}(t_4-t_3)(t_2-t_1)\\
833: &+&S\, \left[{L_2\over L_1 L_3 \Delta}
834: (L_1 t_3- L_3 t_1)(L_1 t_4- L_3 t_2)+ {1\over L_3} t_3(L_3-t_4)+ {1\over L_1} t_1(L_1-t_2)
835: \right]\nn\\
836: &=& {1\over \Delta} \left(-S (t_1t_2 (L_2+L_3) + t_3t_4(L_2+L_1))
837: +T (t_2t_4+t_1 t_3) L_2
838: +U (t_1 t_4 + t_2 t_3)L_2\right)\nn\\
839: \nn &&\qquad + S\, t_3+ S\, t_1
840: \,,
841: \label{hpdef}
842: \eea
843: and
844: \bea
845: h_{NP}&=& T{ 1\over
846: \Delta}(L_2 t_3- L_3 t_4)(t_2-t_1)\\
847: &+&S\, \left({ 1\over L_1\Delta}
848: (L_1 t_4- L_2t_1)(L_1 t_3- L_3t_2)+ {1\over L_1} t_1(L_1-t_2) \right)\nn\\
849: &=&{1\over \Delta} \left(S (-t_1t_2 (L_2+L_3) + t_3t_4 L_1)
850: + T(t_1t_4 L_3 + t_2t_3 L_2) +U(t_1t_3 L_2 + t_2t_4 L_3) \right)
851: + S\, t_1 \,.\nn
852: \label{hnpdef}
853: \eea
854: In writing these expressions we have ignored the ultraviolet divergences, which are manifested
855: as divergences at the $L_k=0$ endpoints ($k=1,2,3$) that will be regulated by a cutoff
856: in subsection~\ref{sec:counter} (as in \cite{gkv:twoloop}).
857: The complete expression, $\calI(S,T,U)$ in (\ref{calidef}) is obtained by summing the $S$-channel,
858: $T$-channel and $U$-channel diagrams.
859:
860: \subsection{World-line presentation of the two-loop amplitude}
861: \label{sec:worldpres}
862:
863: The above
864: structure of the two-loop amplitude can, in principle, be deduced by considering the quantum mechanics
865: functional integral associated with the world-lines for the internal propagators in the two-loop
866: diagrams. This has a structure that bears a close resemblance to the world-sheet description of
867: the genus-two string theory amplitude (although that is formulated in ten-dimensional space-time).
868: We will here rewrite the expressions for the two-loop Feynman diagrams of the previous subsection in
869: order to make this explicit.
870: The advantage of this description is that it naturally packages together
871: the planar and nonplanar diagrams of the $S$, $T$ and $U$ channels.
872:
873: \begin{figure}[ht]
874: \centering
875: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{skeleton}
876: \caption{(a) A planar diagram is represented by the
877: skeleton with a pair of external states connected to
878: each of two internal lines.
879: (b) The nonplanar configuration in which one pair of external states is attached to a single line
880: and the other states are each attached to separate lines. Integrating
881: the positions of the four states over the whole network generates
882: the sum of all Feynman diagrams.
883: }
884: \label{fig:skeleton}\end{figure}
885: The `skeleton', or vacuum diagram, has
886: three scalar propagators joining the junction $A$ to junction $B$
887: in figure~\ref{fig:skeleton}.
888: The lengths of these lines, $L_k$
889: ($k=1,2,3$), are moduli that are to be integrated between $0$ and $\infty$.
890: The scattering particles with momenta $p_r^\mu$ ($r=1,2,3,4$) are
891: associated with plane-wave vertex operators that are inserted at
892: positions $t_r$ on any of the three lines of the skeleton, as
893: shown in figure~\ref{fig:skeleton}. These positions are then to be
894: integrated over the whole network. Since there are four vertex operators and only three lines,
895: at any point in the integration
896: domain one pair of vertex operators is
897: attached to one line, say line $1$, while the other two may both be
898: attached to one of the other two lines (line $2$ or $3$), which is the planar situation, or else the
899: other two lines may have only one vertex operator attached, which is the non-planar situation.
900: The labelling of the positions $t_r$ of the vertex operators is
901: arbitrary, but it is convenient to choose coordinates $t_r^{(k_r)}$
902: for particle $r$ on line $k_r$ such that
903: \be
904: t_r = t_r^{(k_r)}\,,
905: \label{coordpart}
906: \ee
907: where $0\le t_r^{(k_r)}\le L_{k_r}$, and $t_1^{(k_1)}=0$, $t_2^{(k_2)}=0$, $t_3^{(k_3)}=0$ and
908: $t_4^{(k_4)}=0$ coincide at the junction $A$.
909: In other words, the integral
910: over the whole network decomposes into sectors labeled by $\{k_r\}$,
911: \be
912: \oint \prod_{r=1}^4 dt_r \equiv \sum_{\{k_r\}}\int_0^{L_{k_1}} dt_1^{(k_1)}
913: \cdots \int_0^{L_{k_4}} dt_4^{(k_4)}
914: \label{measureone}
915: \ee
916:
917: The expression for the Feynman diagrams can be written in a compact form in terms of the Green function,
918: $G_{rs}$, between two vertices at points $t_r$ and $t_s$ on the skeleton diagram. Following
919: \cite{Dai:2006vj} this is written in terms of two-vectors
920: \be
921: {\bf v^{(k_r)}} = t_r^{(k_r)}\, {\bf u}^{(k_r)}\, \quad {\rm or,\ in\ components,} \quad v_I^{(k_r)} = t_r^{(k_r)}\, u_I^{(k_r)}\,,
922: \label{vdefs}
923: \ee
924: where $I=1,2$ labels the loop and $u_I^{(k)}$ are constant vectors
925: \be
926: {\bf u^{(1)}}= \begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}\,\qquad {\bf u^{(2)}}=
927: \begin{pmatrix} -1\\ 1 \end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad {\bf u^{(3)}}= \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}
928: \label{udefs}
929: \ee
930:
931: With this notation the sum of all two-loop contributions to the amplitude
932: defined in (\ref{eberndun}) and (\ref{calidef}) is given by
933: \bea
934: \calI(S,T,U)&=& {\pi^{11-n}\over \calV_n^2}\, \int_0^\infty dL_1\, dL_2\, dL_3\,
935: \,\Gamma_{(n,n)} \, \oint \prod_{r=1}^4 dt_r\, W^2\, \Delta^{\frac{n-11}{2}}\,
936: \, e^{-\sum_{r,s=1}^4 p_r \cdot p_s
937: \, G_{rs}}\, ,
938: \label{funcint}
939: \eea
940: where $G_{rs}$ is the one-dimensional Green function for the
941: Laplace operator evaluated between the points $t_r$ and $t_s$ on the
942: skeleton diagram, to be discussed below. The lattice factor is defined
943: in (\ref{latdef}).
944:
945: The function $W$ appearing in the measure in (\ref{funcint}) is
946: defined by\footnote{The world-line formulation of the
947: two-loop four-graviton amplitude in ten dimensions would arise from a field theory limit of four-graviton genus two
948: amplitude in type~II superstring theory. The function $W$, used here,
949: is the field theory limit of the function $\mathcal{Y}_S$ that enters the string amplitude derived in~\cite{D'Hoker:2005jc}.}
950: \bea
951: 3W &=& (T-U)\,
952: \Delta_{12}\Delta_{34} + (S-T)\, \Delta_{13}\Delta_{24} +(U-S)\,
953: \Delta_{14}\Delta_{32} \nn\\
954: &=& \ \ \, S( u_1^{(k_1)} u_1^{(k_2)} u_2^{(k_3)} u_2^{(k_4)}
955: +u_2^{(k_1)} u_2^{(k_2)} u_1^{(k_3)} u_1^{(k_4)})\nn\\
956: && +T( u_1^{(k_1)} u_2^{(k_2)} u_2^{(k_3)} u_1^{(k_4)}
957: +u_2^{(k_1)} u_1^{(k_2)} u_1^{(k_3)} u_2^{(k_4)})\nn\\
958: &&+U( u_1^{(k_1)} u_2^{(k_2)} u_1^{(k_3)} u_2^{(k_4)} +u_2^{(k_1)}
959: u_1^{(k_2)} u_2^{(k_3)} u_1^{(k_4)})\,
960: \label{ydef}
961: \eea
962: where
963: \be
964: \Delta_{rs} = \epsilon^{IJ}\, u_I^{(k_r)}\, u_J^{(k_s)}\,.
965: \label{wdef}
966: \ee
967: Note, in particular, that $\Delta_{rs} =0$ if $k_r= k_s$ (i.e., $t_r$ and $t_s$ are on the same line).
968: Furthermore $W=0$ if three of the vertices on the same line (using $S+T+U=0$),
969: so that the only non-zero contributions
970: come from the planar and non-planar diagrams of figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}.
971: It is easy to see that in any region in which $t_r$ and $t_s$ are on the same line,
972: $W = -6 k_r\cdot k_s$, so that
973: \begin{itemize}
974: \item{ $W^2= S^2$\ \ \ if $k_1=k_2$ and/or $k_3=k_4$\,;}
975: \item{$W^2= T^2$\ \ \ if $k_1=k_4$ and/or $k_2=k_3$\,;}
976: \item{$W^2= U^2$\ \ \ if $k_1=k_3$ and/or $k_2=k_4$\, .}
977: \end{itemize}
978:
979:
980: This setup makes contact with the discussion in \cite{Dai:2006vj}, where the Green function for an
981: arbitrary Feynman diagram of $\varphi^3$ scalar field theory was described. Our case differs only due to
982: the presence of a measure factor $W^2$ in (\ref{funcint}) which encodes the fact that we are
983: discussing maximal supergravity. However, the exponential factor involves the same Green function
984: as in \cite{Dai:2006vj}, which has the form
985: \be
986: G_{rs} = -\frac{1}{2} d_{t^{(k_r)}_r t^{(k_s)}_s} +
987: \frac{1}{2} ({\bf v^{(k_r)\,T}- v^{(k_s)\, T}})\, K^{-1} \, ({\bf v^{(k_r)}- v^{(k_s)}})\,,
988: \label{genform}
989: \ee
990: %
991: where $d_{t^{(k_r)}_r t^{(k_s)}_s}$ is the modulus of the distance
992: between $t_r$ on line $k_r$ and $t_s$ on line $k_s$. If $k_r=k_s$ then
993: $d_{t_r^{(k_r)} t_s^{(k_r)}} = |t_r^{(k_r)}-t_s^{(k_r)}|$, if $k_r\ne
994: k_s$ then $d_{t_r^{(k_r)} t_s^{(k_s)}} =
995: (t_r^{(k_r)}+t_s^{(k_s)})$.
996: The matrix $K^{-1}$ (analogous to the inverse of the imaginary part of
997: the period matrix in the genus-two string calculation) is defined by
998: \be K^{-1}=\frac{1}{\Delta}
999: \begin{pmatrix}
1000: L_3+L_2 & L_2\\
1001: L_2 & L_1+L_2
1002: \end{pmatrix}\, ,
1003: \label{periodinv}
1004: \ee
1005: where $\Delta$ is defined in (\ref{deltadef}).
1006: The function $G_{rs}$ is constructed to be the Green function of the one-dimensional Laplace operator
1007: that satisfies
1008: \be
1009: \frac{d^2}{dt_r^2}\, G_{rs}= -\delta(t_r-t_s) + \rho\,,
1010: \label{greeneq}
1011: \ee
1012: and $G_{r,r}=0$,
1013: where
1014: \be
1015: \oint \rho dt \equiv \sum_{k=1}^3 \int_0^{L_k} \rho^{(k)}\, dt^{(k)} = 1\,,
1016: \label{rhocon}
1017: \ee
1018: and $\rho^{(k)}$ is a constant on line $k$. The presence of $\rho$ in (\ref{greeneq})
1019: ensures $\oint \ddot{G}_{rs} \, dt_s=0$, which is required by Gauss' law on the compact one-dimensional
1020: network.
1021:
1022:
1023: The Green function (\ref{genform})
1024: satisfying the conditions (\ref{greeneq}) and (\ref{rhocon}) has a functional form
1025: that depends on whether the points $t_r$ and $t_s$ are on the same line or on different lines.
1026: If $t_r$ and $t_s$ are on the same line ($k_r=k_s$)
1027: \be
1028: G_{rs} = -\frac{1}{2}\, |t^{(k_r)}_r-t^{(k_r)}_s| +\frac{1}{2\Delta}\,
1029: (L_l+L_m)\, (t_r^{(k_r)}- t_s^{(k_r)})^2\,,
1030: \label{greensame}
1031: \ee
1032: where $l\ne m\ne k_r=k_s$. If they are on different lines ($k_r\ne k_s$)
1033: the Green function is given by
1034: \bea
1035: G_{rs} &=& -\frac{1}{2}\, (t^{(k_r)}_r+t^{(k_s)}_s) + \frac{ \left(
1036: (L_l + L_{k_s})\, (t^{(k_r)}_r)^2+ (L_l+L_{k_r})\, (t^{(k_s)}_s)^2 + 2t_r^{(k_r)}\, t_s^{(k_s)}\,
1037: L_l\right)}{2\Delta}\,,
1038: \label{greensameb}
1039: \eea
1040: where $l\ne k_r\ne k_s$. In verifying the conditions (\ref{greeneq}) and (\ref{rhocon})
1041: we find that $\rho^{(k)} = (L_l+L_m)/\Delta$, where $k\ne l\ne m$.
1042: The terms quadratic in a single $t_r$ or $t_s$ in $G_{rs}$ do not contribute to the exponent in
1043: (\ref{funcint}) due to the condition $S+T+U=0$ so the exponential factor ends up being extremely
1044: simple.
1045:
1046: The integral over the vertex operator positions, $t_r^{(k_r)}$, separates into the two distinct classes
1047: described above, namely:
1048: (a) Planar configurations in which one pair is attached to one of the three internal lines, and the other
1049: pair is attached to one of the other lines;
1050: (b) Non-planar configurations in which one pair is attached to one of the
1051: internal lines while the other vertices are each attached to the other two internal lines.
1052: It is straightforward to see that these contributions are identical to those given by
1053: the integrals (\ref{iplanar}) and (\ref{inonplanar}).
1054:
1055: The complete integral over the $t_r$'s in (\ref{funcint})
1056: automatically adds contributions that permute the lines and the
1057: positions of the four states attached to them.
1058: Using these expressions for $G_{rs}$ and $W$ the expression (\ref{funcint})
1059: reproduces the sum of terms inside the square bracket in the last line of (\ref{eberndun}),
1060: which is the sum of planar and nonplanar diagrams in the $S$, $T$ and $U$ channels.
1061: The expression (\ref{funcint}) has an obvious discrete symmetry under the shift $k_r \to k_r+1$,
1062: fixing all $k_s$ with
1063: $s\ne r$ (and with the identification $u_I^{(4)} \equiv u_I^{(1)}$), which
1064: moves a vertex operator from one line of the skeleton to the next. This can be thought of as a discrete
1065: remnant of the reparametrization invariance of the world-line functional integral that corresponds to
1066: cutting two of the lines of the skeleton to produce four endpoints, and regluing the endpoints in
1067: a different order.
1068: One important insight one gains from this symmetry is that the planar and nonplanar diagrams in all
1069: channels are required and their relative normalizations are fixed.
1070:
1071:
1072: It is important to exploit the symmetries of the complete integral (\ref{funcint}),
1073: which automatically combines
1074: the planar and nonplanar diagrams and symmetrizes
1075: (\ref{iplanar}) and (\ref{inonplanar}) over permutations
1076: of $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_3$.
1077:
1078: Formally, if we ignore divergences, the low energy expansion of
1079: (\ref{funcint}) can be written as
1080: a power series in symmetric monomials of the Mandelstam invariants, as in
1081: (\ref{ipqdef}), by expanding the factor of $e^{-\sum p_r\cdot p_s G_{rs}}$.
1082: The resulting coefficients in (\ref{ipqdef}) may be written as
1083: \be
1084: \tilde I_{(p,q)}={\pi^{11-n}\over N!}\,
1085: \int \prod_{k=1}^3 d L_{k}\, \Delta^{-{1\over2} + p + \threeh q}\,
1086: \tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1,L_3/L_1)\, \Gamma_{(n,n)}\,,
1087: \label{ibdef}
1088: \ee
1089: where $\tilde B_{(p,q)}$ is the coefficient of $\sigma_2^p\sigma_3^q$
1090: (which is of order $N+2$ in the Mandelstam
1091: invariants, with $N=2p+3q-2$) in the expansion of the exponential in the integrand of
1092: (\ref{funcint}) and is given by
1093: \be
1094: \sum_{2p+3q=N+2} \sigma_2^p\sigma_3^q\, \tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1,L_3/L_1) = \Delta^{-2 - \half N} \,
1095: \oint \prod_{r=1}^4 d t_r\, W^2\,
1096: \left(-\sum_{r,s=1}^4 p_r \cdot p_s\, G_{rs}\right)^N\, .
1097: \label{bndefs}
1098: \ee
1099: We will need to evaluate the coefficients $\tilde B_{(p,q)}$ in order to evaluate $\calI(S,T,U)$ in
1100: (\ref{ipqdef}). The first two
1101: cases are known. The zeroth order term has
1102: $N=0$ ($p=1, q=0$) and is given by
1103: \be
1104: \tilde B_{(1,0)} = \Delta^{-2}\,\sum_{\{k_r\}\in\{L_r\}}
1105: \int_0^{L_{k_1}}dt_1^{(k_1)}\dots \int_0^{L_{k_4}}\, dt_4^{(k_4)} = 1\,,
1106: \label{bzerodef}
1107: \ee
1108: which agrees with \cite{gkv:twoloop}.
1109: For $N=1$ ($p=0$ and $q=1$), substituting the expression
1110: for $G_{rs}$ leads to
1111: \bea
1112: \sigma_3\,\tilde B_{(0,1)}&=&
1113: {\Delta^{-\fiveh}\over3}\, \sum_{\{k_r\}\in\{L_r\}}\left(\prod_{r=1}^4\int_0^{L_{k_r}}
1114: d t_r^{(k_r)}\right)\, W^2 \, \left(S(G_{12} + G_{34})+T(G_{14}+G_{23}) +
1115: U(G_{13}+G_{24})\right)
1116: \nn\\
1117: &=& \frac{\sigma_3}{12}\, \left({L_1+ L_2 + L_3\over\Delta^\half} +
1118: 5{L_1 L_2L_3\over \Delta^{\threeh}}\right)\,,
1119: \label{bonedef}
1120: \eea
1121: in agreement with \cite{gv:D6R4} (allowing for the extra normalization factor of $1/12$).
1122: In evaluating the integrals over $L_k$ in (\ref{ibdef}) care must be taken to subtract the
1123: ultraviolet divergent parts, as we will review later. There are also singular infrared
1124: effects associated with the occurrence of massless particle thresholds, giving
1125: rise to nonanalytic behaviour that is not captured by the
1126: expansion (\ref{ipqdef}), as will also be seen later.
1127:
1128: First we will describe a change of integration variables that is very useful for evaluating the
1129: integral.
1130:
1131:
1132: \subsection{Redefinition of the integration parameters}
1133:
1134: As in \cite{gv:D6R4} it is very useful to redefine the Schwinger parameters by replacing
1135: $L_1$, $L_2$, $L_3$, by the variables $V$ and $\tau = \tau_1+i\tau_2$,
1136: defined by
1137: \be
1138: \tau_1={L_1\over L_2+ L_1 }\ ,\qquad \tau_2={\sqrt{\Delta}\over L_2+ L_1 }\ ,\qquad
1139: V= \Delta^{-\half}\,.
1140: \label{paramdefs}
1141: \ee
1142: The integration measure transforms as
1143: \be
1144: d L_1\, d L_2\, d L_3 = 2 {dV\over V^4}\, {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\,.
1145: \label{meastrans}
1146: \ee
1147: The ranges of the new variables are
1148: \be
1149: 0\le \tau_1 \le 1\, , \qquad |\tau-\half| \ge \half\,,\qquad 0\le V \le \infty\,,
1150: \label{newrange}
1151: \ee
1152: which is the shaded region shown in figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(a).
1153: This is a fundamental domain of the
1154: group $\Gamma_0(2)$.
1155: The three segments of the boundary of this region are:
1156: $\tau_1 = 0$ that comes from $L_1\to 0$ with $
1157: L_2,L_3$ fixed;
1158: $\tau_1 =1$ that comes from $ L_2\to 0$ with $
1159: L_1, L_3$ fixed and $|\tau|^2 -\tau_1=0$ that comes from
1160: $ L_3\to 0$. with $ L_2, L_3$ fixed. It follows that
1161: that the ultraviolet divergences, arise at the
1162: boundary of this region. From its construction it is evident that the sum of two-loop integrals is invariant under the action of the
1163: symmetric group, $\mathfrak{S}^3$ on the three parameters $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_3$, which maps the six regions in
1164: the shaded domain in figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(a) into each other.
1165: The action of the two-cycles in $\mathfrak{S}^3$ on the Schwinger parameters is given by the following
1166: actions on $\tau$,
1167: \be
1168: L_1 \leftrightarrow L_2\ :\quad \tau\to 1-\tau^*\,,\quad
1169: L_1 \leftrightarrow L_3\ :\quad \tau\to \frac{1}{\tau^*}\,,\quad
1170: L_2 \leftrightarrow L_3\ :\quad \tau\to \frac{\tau^*}{\tau^*-1}\,.
1171: \label{symmthree}
1172: \ee
1173: \begin{figure}[h]
1174: \centering
1175: \includegraphics[width=11cm]{fundregion}
1176: \caption{(a) The region of integration of $\tau=\tau_1+i\tau_2$ is equivalent to a fundamental
1177: domain of $\Gamma_0(2)$. Ultraviolet divergences arise on the boundary of
1178: this region. (b) The integrand can be mapped into a
1179: threefold cover of the
1180: fundamental domain, $\calF$, of $SL(2,\ZZ)$. The ultraviolet divergences arise from the $\tau_1=0$
1181: axis.}
1182: \label{fig:ModularRegions}\end{figure}
1183: where $\tau^*=\tau_1-i\tau_2$ is the complex conjugate of $\tau$
1184:
1185:
1186: It is also easy to see that the integrand is invariant under the $T$ and $S$ transformations defined by
1187: \be
1188: T\, : \qquad\quad L_1\to 2L_1+ L_2\, , \ \quad\qquad L_2\to -L_1\,,
1189: \qquad L_3\to 2 L_1 + L_3\,,
1190: \label{tdef}
1191: \ee
1192: and
1193: \be
1194: S\, : \qquad\quad L_1\to -L_1\, ,
1195: \qquad L_2\to 2L_1+L_3\,, \qquad L_3\to 2L_1+ L_2\,.
1196: \label{sdef}
1197: \ee
1198: Invariance under the these transformations depends on the invariance of the lattice factor
1199: $\Gamma_{(n,n)}$.
1200: For example, consider the $\calS^1$ compactification, where the lattice factor
1201: $\Gamma_{(1,1)}(\{L_r\})$ is given as a sum over $m$ and $n$ in (\ref{latdef}).
1202: The $T$ transformation is an invariance when accompanied by the shift $m \to m+n$.
1203: Likewise, the $S$ transformation is an invariance when
1204: accompanied by the transformation $m\to -n$, $n\to m$.
1205: In terms of the new variables these transformations become
1206: \be
1207: T\, : \quad \tau\to \tau+1\,,\qquad
1208: S\, : \quad \tau \to -\frac{1}{\tau}\,.
1209: \label{staudef}
1210: \ee
1211: Note that the cyclic permutation of the Schwinger parameters is generated by
1212: \be
1213: T\, S\,:\qquad\quad L_1 \to L_3\,,\qquad L_2\to L_1\, , \qquad L_3\to L_2\,,
1214: \label{sttrans}
1215: \ee
1216:
1217: We may now use the $S$ and $T$ transformations to map the shaded domain in
1218: figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(a) into a three-fold cover of the shaded area in figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(b).
1219: This is $\calF$, the fundamental domain of $SL(2,\ZZ)$, which is defined by $\{-\half\le \tau_1\le \half$,
1220: $|\tau > 1\}$. The boundaries at $\tau_1=0$, $\tau_1=1$ and $|\tau| =\half$ in
1221: figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(a) map into the
1222: line $\tau_1=0$ in $\calF$. In other words the integral over the domain (\ref{newrange}) is
1223: three times the integral over $\calF$.
1224:
1225:
1226: In terms of $\tau$ and $V$ the matrix $K^{-1}$ in (\ref{periodinv}) takes the
1227: $SL(2,\ZZ)$-covariant form
1228: \be
1229: K^{-1}= \frac{V}{\tau_2}
1230: \begin{pmatrix}
1231: |\tau|^2 & \tau_1\\
1232: \tau_1 & 1
1233: \end{pmatrix}
1234: \, ,
1235: \label{invtau}
1236: \ee
1237: while (\ref{genform}) becomes
1238: \be
1239: G_{rs} = -\frac{1}{2} d_{ t_r t_s} +\frac{V}{2\tau_2}|
1240: v^{(k_r)}_2- v^{(k_s)}_2 + \tau (v^{(k_r)}_1- v^{(k_s)}_1)|^2\,.
1241: \label{genress}
1242: \ee
1243:
1244: For much of what follows it will be useful to perform Poisson resummations on the Kaluza--Klein
1245: modes $(m_I, n_I)$ to express the lattice factor in terms of winding numbers $(\hat m^I,\hat n^I)$,
1246: just as in \cite{gkv:twoloop}\footnote{Recall that a Poisson resummation that
1247: replaces a sum over a Kaluza--Klein
1248: charge $m$ by a sum over a winding number $\hat m$ is expressed by the identity
1249: $\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty e^{-\pi A m^2 + 2m\pi A s} = A^{-\half} e^{\pi A s^2}
1250: \sum_{\hat m=-\infty}^\infty e^{-\pi A^{-1}
1251: \hat m^2 - 2i\pi \hat m s}$.},
1252: \be
1253: \Gamma_{(n,n)}(G_{IJ};V,\tau) = \calV_n^2\, \Delta^{-{n\over 2}}\, \hat\Gamma_{(n,n)}(G_{IJ};V,\tau)\,,
1254: \label{latticetrans}
1255: \ee
1256: so that the $n$-dimensional lattice factor in (\ref{iplanar}), (\ref{inonplanar})
1257: and (\ref{latdef}) is given in terms of sums over winding numbers by
1258: \bea
1259: \hat\Gamma_{(n,n)}(G_{IJ};V,\tau)= \sum_{( \hat m^I, \hat n^I)\in\ZZ^{2n}}
1260: e^{-\pi \, {G_{IJ}\over \tau_2\, V}
1261: ( \hat m^I+ \hat n^I\tau)(\hat m^J+ \hat n^J\bar\tau)}=
1262: \sum_{( \hat m^I, \hat n^I)\in\ZZ^{2n}} e^{-\pi \hat E}\,,
1263: \label{latticefact}
1264: \eea
1265: where we have defined
1266: \be
1267: \hat E(G_{IJ};V,\tau) = {G_{IJ}\over \tau_2\, V}
1268: ( \hat m^I+ \hat n^I\tau)(\hat m^J+ \hat n^J\bar\tau)\,.
1269: \label{edhatdef}
1270: \ee
1271: This expression is familiar in string theory as the partition function for the
1272: mapping of a world-sheet torus with complex structure $\tau$
1273: into a target space torus with metric $G_{IJ}$.
1274: This will prove to be important in evaluating the integrals (as it was in \cite{gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}).
1275: Note that the factor $\calV_n^{-2}\Delta^{n/2}$
1276: in the measure of $I^P$ and $I^{NP}$ cancels in the winding number basis.
1277: In terms of the new variables the expression (\ref{funcint}) has the form
1278: \be
1279: \calI(S,T,U)= \int_0^\infty dV V^3\,\int_\calF \frac{d^2\tau}{\tau_2^2}
1280: \, \oint \prod_{r=1}^4 dt_r \, W^2 \,e^{-p_r\cdot p_s\, G_{rs}}\, \hat\Gamma_{(n,n)} \,.
1281: \label{funcintnew}
1282: \ee
1283: In section~\ref{sec:counter} we will discuss how the ultraviolet cutoff on
1284: the loop momentum can be imposed by suitable choice of limits on these
1285: integrals.
1286:
1287: In order to evaluate the low energy expansion of the amplitude we need
1288: to evaluate the coefficients $I_{(p,q)}$ in (\ref{ipqdef}), which
1289: arise as the coefficients of the terms in the expansion of the
1290: integrand in (\ref{funcintnew}). Since we want to express the integral in terms of the
1291: new variables $\tau$ and $V$, we need to change variables in the functions $\tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1,L_3/L_1)$,
1292: defined in (\ref{ibdef}). In the process of changing variables from $(L_1,L_2,L_3)$ to $(\tau_1,\tau_2,V)$
1293: it will turn out to be convenient to redefine the normalization of
1294: $\tilde B_{(p,q)}$ by a multiplicative constant
1295: factor in order to arrive at final equations with simple coefficients. We therefore define the
1296: rescaled coefficients $B_{(p,q)}(\tau)$ by
1297: \be
1298: B_{(p,q)}(\tau)=d_{(p,q)}\, \tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1,L_3/L_1)\,,
1299: \label{ddef}
1300: \ee
1301: where, up to the order considered in this paper, the integer coefficients $d_{(p,q)}$ are arbitrarily chosen
1302: to be
1303: \bea
1304: d_{(1,0)} &=&1\,,\quad d_{(0,1)} = 12\,,\quad d_{(2,0)} = 144\,,\nn\\
1305: d_{(1,1)} &=& 15120\,,\quad
1306: d_{(3,0)} = 302400\,,\quad
1307: d_{(0,2)} = {3\over 4}\, 302400\,.
1308: \label{bbtildef}
1309: \eea
1310: The simplest examples of the $B_{(p,q)}$'s are
1311: $B_{(1,0)}=1$, obtained in (\ref{bzerodef}) and \cite{gkv:twoloop}, and
1312: $B_{(0,1)}$ obtained in (\ref{bonedef})
1313: and \cite{gv:D6R4}, which is given in terms of $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ by
1314: \be
1315: B_{(0,1)}(\tau) = {1\over \tau_2} (|\tau|^2 - |\tau_1 |+1)
1316: +{5\over\tau_2^3} (\tau_1^2-|\tau_1|)(|\tau|^2-|\tau_1|)
1317: \,.
1318: \label{bonedefb}
1319: \ee
1320: A most important feature of $B_{(0,1)}$ is that it
1321: satisfies the Poisson equation
1322: \be
1323: (\Delta_\tau-12)B_{(0,1)} (\tau)=-12\tau_2\delta(\tau_1)\, ,
1324: \label{laplaceA}
1325: \ee
1326: where the laplacian can be written in terms of the original Schwinger parameters as\footnote{
1327: The symbol $\Delta = L_1L_2+L_2L_3+L_1L_2$ should not be confused with $\Delta_\tau$.}
1328: \be
1329: \Delta_\tau \equiv \tau_2^2 (\partial^2_{\tau_1} + \partial^2_{\tau_2}) =
1330: \Delta\, \partial_{L_k}\,\partial_{L_k} -2L_k\, \partial_{L_k}\, .
1331: \ee
1332: This property is very useful for determining properties of the
1333: coefficients $I_{(p,q)} (S,T,U)$,
1334: in the low energy expansion in (\ref{ibdef}).
1335:
1336: As we will show in appendix~\ref{sec:Modular}, the higher-order coefficients satisfy
1337: generalizations of this Poisson equation. In general these coefficients are sums of the form
1338: $B_{(p,q)}(\tau) = \sum_{i} b_{(p,q)}^i(\tau)$,
1339: where the components $b_{(p,q)}^i$ individually satisfy Poisson equations that generalize (\ref{laplaceA}).
1340: The functions $B_{(2,0)}\,, B_{(1,1)}\,, B_{(3,0)}\,, B_{(0,2)}$ are described in detail
1341: in appendix~\ref{sec:Modular} together with the detailed Poisson equations of the form (\ref{poissoeq})
1342: satisfied by the $b_{(p,q)}^i$'s.
1343: These Poisson equations are again the key to understanding the
1344: structure of the coefficients $I_{(p,q)}$.
1345:
1346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1347: \subsection{Integration limits}\label{sec:limits}
1348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1349:
1350: Up to now we have ignored the fact that the Feynman integrals are ultraviolet divergent and therefore need to be
1351: regulated in a systematic manner, such as by introducing a momentum cutoff.
1352: We will implement this by introducing a lower cutoff on the Schwinger
1353: parameters, $L_k$, that are conjugate to the loop momentum \cite{ggv:oneloop}, as will be discussed
1354: in the nest two subsections. Although this is feasible
1355: at one and two loops ($L=1$ and $L=2$) it is
1356: unlikely to be convenient, and may not even be
1357: consistent, for $L>2$. In addition, although the loops are not infrared
1358: divergent, they contain infrared singularities due to the presence of massless intermediate states.
1359: Such nonanalytic terms cannot be expanded in a power series in $S$, $T$ and $U$ and need separate consideration,
1360: as described in subsection~\ref{sec:infracut}.
1361:
1362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1363: \subsubsection{Ultraviolet divergences and counter-terms}
1364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1365: \label{sec:counter}
1366:
1367: The nonrenormalizable divergences of eleven-dimensional supergravity
1368: may be subtracted by the addition of local counterterms but this results in an increasing number of
1369: apparently arbitrary coefficients as the number of loops is increased. However, some of these
1370: coefficients are fixed by imposing extra conditions implied by the correspondence of the compactified
1371: theory with string theory. Investigating the extent
1372: to which coefficients can be determined in this manner is one of the
1373: main motivations of this work\footnote{
1374: We cannot make use of dimensional regularization since this cannot be
1375: consistently applied to a nonrenormalizable theory. In particular, standard
1376: dimensional regularization would set to zero all the dimensional terms
1377: associated with power divergences that we will need to keep.
1378: Nevertheless it is extremely useful
1379: for evaluating a subset of the nonanalytic terms, as we will see
1380: in appendix~\ref{sec:DimReg}}.
1381:
1382:
1383: The most basic example arises at one loop. The sum of Feynman
1384: diagrams in that case has the form of a prefactor of $\calR^4$
1385: multiplying a $\varphi^3$ scalar field theory box diagram with
1386: eleven-dimensional loop momentum $p$. The presence of eight factors
1387: of momentum in the prefactor implies that the loop amplitude has a
1388: $\Lambda^3$ ultraviolet divergence in the presence of a cutoff at
1389: $|p|=\Lambda$. Since the loop momentum enters the integral over with
1390: a factor $e^{-p^2 L}$, where $L$ is the Schwinger parameter, the
1391: momentum cutoff may implemented in a gaussian manner by introducing
1392: the cutoff $L\ge \Lambda^{-2}$, instead of a step function momentum
1393: cutoff. Upon compactification, this short-distance divergence arises
1394: entirely in the sector with zero winding number. This dependence on
1395: $\Lambda$ can be subtracted by introducing a local counterterm,
1396: $\delta_1 A = c_1\, \calR^4$, which replaces $\Lambda^3$ by a specific
1397: finite value. The value of $c_{1}$ was precisely determined in
1398: \cite{ggv:oneloop,gkv:twoloop} to be
1399: %
1400: \be\label{e:c1} c_{1}=
1401: {2\pi^2\over3}- {4\pi\over3} \,\Lambda^3\, , \ee
1402: %
1403: which followed from the fact that the one-loop terms in the
1404: four-graviton scattering amplitude in the type IIA and type IIB
1405: theories are equal (and equal to the genus-one term in the
1406: perturbative expansion of $E_{3/2}$).
1407:
1408: At two loops ($L=2$) there are new issues. Firstly, there are new primitive divergences. The
1409: naive degree of divergence is $\Lambda^{20}$ but
1410: there is now a prefactor of order $S^2\, \calR^4$ \cite{BernDunbar},
1411: which has twelve powers of momentum. This means that the naive
1412: primitive divergence is reduced from $\Lambda^{20}$ to $\Lambda^8$.
1413: But upon compactification on $\calT^n$ powers of $\Lambda$ may be traded in for inverse powers of the radii of
1414: the compact dimensions. In addition, there are one-loop sub-divergences behaving as $\Lambda^3$. We would
1415: like to impose a cutoff on the two-loop Schwinger parameters, $L_k$, in a manner that is consistent with that
1416: imposed at one loop. In particular, the two-loop amplitude has massless intermediate two-particle thresholds
1417: arising in the $S$-channel from intermediate states with
1418: $m_I=0$ (or $n_I=0$) in (\ref{iplanar}) and (\ref{inonplanar}).
1419: The discontinuity across this threshold is obtained by
1420: setting $m_I=0$ and is proportional to the one-loop four-point amplitude
1421: multiplied by the tree-level amplitude. It
1422: is evident from (\ref{iplanar}) and (\ref{inonplanar}) that the Schwinger parameter for the one-loop
1423: sub-amplitude
1424: is $L_1+L_2$. Therefore, in order to reproduce the same $\Lambda$-dependence as in the one-loop calculation
1425: we must introduce a cutoff $L_1+L_2\ge \Lambda^{-2}$.
1426: By symmetry the individual Schwinger parameters satisfy $L_k\geq \Lambda^{-2}/2$,
1427: which means, using (\ref{paramdefs}), that $V$ is integrated over the range
1428: \be
1429: 0\le V\le \Vlambda\equiv {2\over\sqrt 3}\,\Lambda^2\,,
1430: \label{taulimdef}
1431: \ee
1432: Only the fact that the upper cutoff is linear in $\Lambda^2$ will prove to be relevant in this paper, whereas
1433: the precise coefficient of $2/\sqrt 3$ will be irrelevant. The cutoff on $L_1+L_2$ implies
1434: \be
1435: V\tau_2\le \Lambda^2\,,
1436: \label{tautwo}
1437: \ee
1438: which imposes the same ultraviolet cutoff on $\tau_2$ as in \cite{gkv:twoloop},
1439: so that $\tau = \tau_1 + i\tau_2$ is integrated over the cutoff fundamental domain,
1440: \be
1441: \calF_\Lambda: \qquad\{ 1\le |\tau|\,, \qquad \tau_2 \le \tau_2^\Lambda=\Lambda^2/V\,, \qquad -1/2 \le \tau_1 \le 1/2\}\,.
1442: \label{cutoffdom}
1443: \ee
1444:
1445:
1446: Primitive divergences and sub-divergences
1447: will be subtracted by diagrams containing counterterms, as illustrated in
1448: figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}.
1449: In order to subtract the $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergences we need to include
1450: the one-loop `triangle' diagram in which there are two supergravity vertices and one $\calR^4$ contact interaction,
1451: which is the counterterm that cancels
1452: the $\Lambda^3$ one-loop $\calR^4$ divergence and replaces it with a specific finite constant (see
1453: figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram}(c)).
1454: The contribution of the
1455: diagram (denoted by $\delta A$ in section~4.3 of reference~\cite{gkv:twoloop}) is given by
1456: \begin{equation}\label{diag:counter}
1457: A_{sugra\, \triangleright}(S,T,U)=i c_{1}
1458: {\kappa_{11}^6\over (2\pi)^{22}}\, {\pi^3\over 2l_{11}^{12}}\, \left(S^2 \, I_{\triangleright}(S)+ T^2\,
1459: I_{\triangleright}(T)+U^2\, I_{\triangleright}(U)\right)\, \calR^4\ ,
1460: \end{equation}
1461: %
1462: where
1463: \begin{equation}\label{e:triangle}
1464: I_{\triangleright}(S)=\pi^{11-n}\int_{\Lambda^{-2}}^\infty dL\, L^{n-7\over2}\int_0^1 du_2\int_0^{u_2}du_1
1465: \, e^{-L u_1 (1-u_2)\, S}\,\sum_{m\in\ZZ^n} e^{-\pi\, L\, G^{IJ} m_I n_J}
1466: \end{equation}
1467: In addition to the sub-divergences there
1468: are local `primitive' divergences of the form $\Lambda^8 \,S^2\,\calR^4$ and
1469: $\Lambda^6 \,S^3\, \calR^4$, as well
1470: as `overlapping' divergences that lead to an extra $\Lambda^6 \,S^3\, \calR^4$
1471: term. All of these need to be subtracted by additional local counterterms.
1472: \be\label{e:c2}
1473: \delta_{2} A_{sugra}= - \, {\kappa_{11}^6\over (2\pi)^{22}\, l_{11}^{12}} \, (a\,
1474: \Lambda^8\, S^2\,\calR^4+ (b \Lambda^6 - c\, \Lambda^3 - d)\, S^3\,\calR^4+\cdots)
1475: \ee
1476: where $a,b,c$ and $d$ are constants.
1477: Obviously, a local counterterm has to be independent of the moduli of the compact space.
1478:
1479: \subsubsection{Examples of renormalized interactions}
1480:
1481: One can anticipate the kinds of cutoff-dependent terms that arise upon compactification on $\calT^n$ by simple
1482: dimensional considerations. Such terms translate into particular perturbative terms in type IIA string theory
1483: by use of the dictionary that translates between $M$-theory parameters and string theory parameters.
1484: Such terms will be analyzed in detail later in this paper, but here we will sketch some features
1485: that arise.
1486:
1487: The following are examples of terms that will arise after compactification on a circle of radius
1488: $R_{11}$. In this case the translation of the supergravity results to IIA string theory makes
1489: the identifications $S=R_{11}\, s$, $R_{11}^3 = g_A^2$, and the implicit momentum conservation
1490: delta function, $\delta^{(10)}(\sum_r p_r^\mu)$, transforms in a manner that cancels the transformation of
1491: $\calR^4$.
1492: \begin{itemize}
1493:
1494: \item{The lowest-order term with a one-loop sub-divergence has the form
1495: $S^2\, \calR^4\, R_{11}^{-5}\, \Lambda^3$ and corresponds to tree-level IIA. After renormalizing this by
1496: adding the contribution of the triangle diagram containing
1497: the one-loop counterterm with coefficient $c_1$ this has a value equal to that of
1498: the tree-level contribution contained in
1499: the modular function $E_{5/2}$ that multiplies $S^2\, \calR^4$ in the IIB theory -- as it should
1500: since the IIA and IIB theories have identical perturbative expansions up to
1501: at least genus four \cite{Berkovits2006}.}
1502: \item{
1503: Expanding the one-loop sub-divergence to next order in $S,T,U$ results in a term of the form
1504: $S^3\, \calR^4\,R_{11}^{-3} \Lambda^3$
1505: that contributes to a genus-one term in IIA string theory and, after renormalization,
1506: equals the genus-one part of the
1507: the modular function $\calE_{(0,1)}$ (or $\calE_{(3/2,3/2)}$
1508: in the notation of \cite{gv:D6R4}).}
1509: \item{ A term of the form
1510: $S^4\, \calR^4\,R_{11}^{-1} \Lambda^3$, is associated with a genus-two IIA string
1511: contribution that contributes a term of the form $g_A^2\,s^4\, \log(-s)\,\calR^4$.
1512: [A similar
1513: finite term of the form $R_{11}^{-4}\, S^4\,\calR^4$ corresponds to a genus-one
1514: IIA string theory contribution.]}
1515: \item{ A further term arising from one-loop sub-divergences is
1516: $S^5\, \calR^4\,R_{11}\Lambda^3$, which contributes to a genus-three term of order
1517: $g_A^4\,S^5\,\calR^4$ in IIA string theory.}
1518: \item{
1519: In addition to these contributions from sub-divergences, there is a primitive divergence of the form
1520: $S^2\, \calR^4\,\Lambda^8 $ which has to be canceled by a new local counterterm. Since this translates
1521: into a type IIA string-theory term proportional to $g_A^{8/3}$, which is not a consistent power,
1522: this must have a vanishing renormalized value.}
1523: \item{Similarly, a possible term $S^4\, \calR^4\, \Lambda^4$ does not have a
1524: sensible perturbative string theory interpretation and so we will
1525: set its renormalized value to zero.}
1526: \item{ By contrast, a term of the form
1527: $S^3\, \calR^4\, \Lambda^6$ is to be canceled by another new two-loop local counterterm, but the finite
1528: renormalized value must take a specific value
1529: (just as we saw in the cancellation of the one-loop $\calR^4 \, \Lambda^3$ term)
1530: equal to the genus-two term in the IIB modular function, $\calE_{(0,1)}$.}
1531: \item{A new phenomenon that arises at order $S^6\, \calR^4$ is the
1532: occurrence of a primitive logarithmic divergence, $\log \Lambda$, which is
1533: the divergence manifested as a pole in $\epsilon$ in dimensional
1534: regularization of the eleven-dimensional theory. This should again be subtracted by
1535: a local counterterm.}
1536: \end{itemize}
1537: An important feature of the two-loop divergences is that they describe local terms
1538: that are independent of $R_{11}$ and can indeed be subtracted by the addition of new local counterterms.
1539: Whether this continues to be the case at higher loops ($L>2$) is an interesting question that is not addressed here.
1540:
1541: Corresponding terms arise in the $\calT^2$ compactification to
1542: nine dimensional string theory, in which there is also dependence on
1543: the radii $r_B$ or $r_A$.
1544:
1545: \subsubsection{Dealing with infrared threshold effects}
1546: \label{sec:infracut}
1547:
1548: Although the four-graviton amplitude has no infrared divergences in nine or ten dimensions, there are subtleties in
1549: extracting the nonanalytic threshold terms, which are infrared consequences of intermediate
1550: massless multi-particle states. These states are zero Kaluza--Klein modes.
1551:
1552: At one loop ($L=1$) there is a complicated $S$, $T$ and $U$-channel
1553: discontinuity structure (reviewed in \cite{grv:oneloop}) with the
1554: property that the scales of various
1555: logarithmic factors cancel out and the form of the
1556: nonanalytic terms is invariant under rescaling the Mandelstam invariants.
1557:
1558: The massless intermediate states originate in the two-loop case ($L=2$)
1559: from zero Kaluza--Klein modes in the factor
1560: $\Gamma_{(n,n)}$ in (\ref{latdef}). The nonanalytic terms have
1561: discontinuities that arise from the long-time propagation of these
1562: states. For example, the $S$-channel configuration shown in
1563: figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram} has two-particle thresholds associated
1564: with $m_I=0$ or $n_I=0$, or both, arising from
1565: the integration limits $L_1\to \infty$, $L_3\to \infty$ (or both
1566: simultaneously). In the low energy expansion this generates
1567: terms of the form $A_k\, S^k \,\log (-S/C_k)$ (where $A_k$ and
1568: $C_k$ are constants) that are required by unitarity. However,
1569: if we were to simply expand the integrand
1570: in integer powers of $S$ the signature of such thresholds would be
1571: the occurrence of terms of order $S^k$ with divergent coefficients,
1572: $\lim_{\mu \to 0}C_k\, S^k \log \mu$, where $\mu$ is an infrared cutoff.
1573:
1574: In the following we will not be interested in the details of the nonanalytic thresholds\footnote{The detailed threshold structure is obtained much more simply
1575: using dimensional regularization than with the cutoff
1576: procedure we are adopting. }, but will
1577: simply concentrate on the dependence of the nonanalytic terms in the amplitude on the scale $\chi$ ($\chi>0$)
1578: of the Mandelstam invariants, defined by
1579: \be
1580: S= \chi\,S_0\,, \qquad T= \chi\, T_0\,,\qquad U= -\chi (S_0+T_0)\,,
1581: \label{rescale}
1582: \ee
1583: where $S_0$ and $T_0$ are arbitrary constants.
1584: Since the limit $L_k \to \infty$ (for any $k$) translates into the
1585: limit $V\to 0$, the infrared nonanalytic effects
1586: arises when there are sufficient inverse powers of $V$.
1587: The signature of these contributions is the presence of
1588: divergent coefficients, $I_{(p,q)}$, in the power series expansion
1589: (\ref{ipqdef}).
1590:
1591: A simple model for the parts of our expressions that give rise to nonanalytic thresholds
1592: is given by considering the convergent integral,
1593: $H = \int_0^{\Lambda^2} dV\,V^a e^{-\chi/V}$,
1594: where $a>-1$. On the one hand this can be expanded for $\chi/\Lambda^2<1$ as
1595: \be\begin{split}
1596: H&= {\Lambda^{2(a+1)}\over a+1} + {\Lambda^{2a}\, (-\chi) \over a}+ \dots+
1597: {\Lambda^{2a-2r+2}\, (-\chi)^r \over (a-r+1) r!} + \dots \cr
1598: & +
1599: {(-\chi)^{a+1}\over (a+1)!}\,(\log(\Lambda^{2}/\chi)- \Gamma'(a+2)/\Gamma(a+2))
1600: + O(\chi^{a+2}/\Lambda^2)\,.
1601: \label{exactexp}
1602: \end{split}\ee
1603: On the other hand, the analogue of the procedure adopted in this paper is to consider the formal series
1604: obtained by expanding the integrand of $H$,
1605: \be
1606: H = \sum_{r=0}^\infty \int_0^{\Lambda^2} {1\over r!} V^{a-r} \, (-\chi)^r dV.
1607: \label{formexp}
1608: \ee
1609: Clearly, terms with $r > a$ are divergent at the small $V$ endpoint,
1610: despite the convergence of the original integral. However, we are only interested in
1611: the terms with non-negative powers of $\Lambda$ (i.e., terms of order $\chi^r$ with $r\le a+1$) in
1612: the exact expansion given by (\ref{exactexp}). So the correct result is obtained by simply ignoring all the
1613: divergent terms in the formal expansion, with the
1614: exception of the term with $r=a+1$, which has a logarithmic divergence.
1615: This term is to be interpreted as $\log(\Lambda^2/\chi)$. An efficient way of describing this is to replace
1616: the formal expression (\ref{formexp}) by the regulated expression
1617: \bea
1618: H_{reg} &=& \int_0^{\Lambda^2} \sum_{r=0}^{a+1} {1\over r!} V^{a-r} \, (-\chi)^r \, e^{-\chi f/V}dV\nn\\
1619: &\equiv& \int_{0_\chi}^{\Lambda^2} \sum_{r=0}^\infty {1\over r!} V^{a-r} \, (-\chi)^r dV
1620: \label{reguexp}
1621: \eea
1622: with $f\ll 1$. The second line defines the notation to be used in discussing the analogous integrals that we will meet
1623: later in this paper.
1624: The expression (\ref{reguexp})
1625: reproduces the exact expansion (\ref{exactexp}), apart from the scale inside the $\log$
1626: factor, which is now proportional to $\chi^{a+1}\, \log(\Lambda^2/\chi f)$.
1627: The above simple example illustrates how the terms in the expansion (\ref{ibdef}) of the integrand in (\ref{funcint})
1628: give the correct series expansion
1629: of the amplitude, including the parts with logarithmic nonanalytic behaviour. However, the scale of the logarithm
1630: is not determined.
1631:
1632: As an example of such a nonanalytic term let us consider the explicit ten-dimensional string loop
1633: calculation \cite{grv:oneloop} that determines a genus-one logarithmic
1634: threshold at order $s^4$. This can be written as $\calR^4$ multiplied by
1635: \bea
1636: S^4\log(-SR_{11}^2/\mu_2) +T^4\log(-TR_{11}^2/\mu_2)+ U^4\log(-UR_{11}^2/\mu_2) =\sigma_2^2 \, \log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(2,0)}),
1637: \label{genonetwo}
1638: \eea
1639: where $\mu_2$ is a specific constant and
1640: $C_{(2,0)}(S_0,T_0)$, has a specific dependence on $S_0$,
1641: and $T_0$ (but not on $\chi$). This scale encodes the precise details of the multiparticle
1642: thresholds. In this paper we will reproduce the expression on the second line of (\ref{genonetwo}) from
1643: the $\calS^1$ compactification of
1644: $L=2$ eleven-dimensional supergravity, but the scale $C_{(2,0)}$ multiplying $\chi$ inside the $\log$ factor
1645: will not be determined.
1646: More generally, in the compactification to ten dimensions we will obtain nonanalytic
1647: contributions of the form
1648: $K_{(p,q)}\, \sigma_2^p\, \sigma_3^q\, \log(\chi R_{11}^2 /C_{(p,q)})\,,$
1649: where the constant coefficients, $K_{(p,q)}$, will be evaluated, but
1650: not $C_{(p,q)}$. In principle, $C_{(p,q)}$ can be reconstructed, apart from a multiplicative constant, from
1651: two-particle and three-particle unitarity.
1652:
1653: In the compactification on $\calT^2$ to nine dimensions most of the nonanalytic
1654: contributions
1655: are characterized by half-integral powers of $S$, $T$ and $U$. These are
1656: easily separated from the analytic parts and we will not consider them
1657: here. However, a logarithmic term will also arise at order $l_{11}^8\,\calD^8 \,
1658: \calR^4\sim \sigma_2^2\calR^4$, which is known in detail using dimensional regularization
1659: \cite{BernDunbar} (and is
1660: reviewed in appendix~\ref{sec:DimReg}) and will also be considered
1661: in the $\Lambda$ cutoff procedure.
1662:
1663:
1664: \subsection{The general form of the expansion of two loops on $\calT^n$}
1665:
1666: After taking care of various normalization constants,
1667: the low-energy expansion of the two-loop supergravity amplitude (\ref{eberndun}) compactified on a $n$-torus
1668: can be written as
1669: \bea
1670: A_{sugra} &=& \! i{\kappa_{11}^6\over (2\pi)^{22}}\; \calR^4\
1671: \pi^6
1672: \bigg[\s_2
1673: I_{(1,0)}+{ \sigma_3\over 12} \ I_{(0,1)}+{\s_2^2 \over 2!\cdot 144 }\,
1674: I_{(2,0)}
1675: \non\\
1676: &+& {\sigma_2\sigma_3\over 3!\cdot 15120 }I_{(1,1)}
1677: +{1\over 4! \, 302400 }\big( \sigma_2^3I_{(3,0)} + {4\over 3}\sigma_3^2
1678: I_{(0,2)} \big)+ \dots \bigg]\ .
1679: \label{eberz}
1680: \eea
1681: where the coefficients are functions of the moduli that are given by the integrals
1682: \be\label{e:DefIn}
1683: I_{(p,q)} = \pi^{N+1}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
1684: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\, \hat \Gamma_{(n,n)}(G_{IJ}V,\tau)\,,
1685: \ee
1686: where $N=2p+3q-2$ and the functions $B_{(p,q)}(\tau)$ are defined via (\ref{bndefs}) and (\ref{ddef}).
1687: These can be evaluated by symbolic computer methods and the resultant expressions are
1688: given up to order $2p+3q=6$
1689: in appendix~\ref{sec:Modular}, together with their decomposition into functions satisfying
1690: Poisson eigenvalue equations.
1691: Recall that the notation for the integration limits in (\ref{e:DefIn}) builds in the $S$, $T$, $U$-dependence
1692: of the nonanalytic thresholds, so that factors of $\log \chi$ are present in certain terms in (\ref{eberz}).
1693: The lattice factor $\hat \Gamma_{(n,n)}$ defined in (\ref{latticefact}) contains the information about
1694: the spatial torus.
1695:
1696: We will now turn to the evaluation of the
1697: $I_{(p,q)}$'s explicitly for the cases $n=1$ (compactification on
1698: $\calS^1$), and $n=2$ (compactification on $\calT^2$).
1699:
1700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1701: \section{Circle compactification to ten dimensions}
1702: \label{sec:sone}
1703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1704:
1705:
1706: We will now consider the value of the two-loop amplitude after compactification on a circle
1707: of radius $l_{11}R_{11}$ in the special case in which the external momenta are zero in the compact
1708: direction. The metric of the eleven-dimensional theory is related to the string-frame
1709: ten-dimensional type IIA metric in the usual manner by
1710: \be
1711: ds^2=G^{(11)}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=
1712: {l_{11}^2\over l_s^2R_{11}}\; g_{\mu \nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu +
1713: R_{11}^2 l_{11}^2 (dx^{11} - C_\mu dx^\mu )^2,
1714: \label{metdef}
1715: \ee
1716: where $g_{\mu \nu}$ is the string frame metric and $R_{11}\, l_{11}$ is the radius of the eleventh dimension (and we
1717: will not be interested in the one-form $C_\mu$ here).
1718: The dictionary for translating between M-theory and type IIA string theory
1719: relates the string coupling and string-frame Mandelstam invariants to $R_{11}$
1720: and the eleven-dimensional invariants by
1721: \be
1722: l_{11} = R_{11}^{\half}\, l_s\,\qquad g_A^2 = R_{11}^3\,, \qquad S = R_{11} \, s\,.
1723: \label{twoadict}
1724: \ee
1725: In order to evaluate the ten-dimensional amplitude, $A^{(d=10)}$, we will need to evaluate the
1726: integral $I_{(p,q)}$ (\ref{e:DefIn}) in the case $n=1$, which we will call $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$.
1727:
1728:
1729: \subsection{Evaluation of $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$}
1730:
1731: In this case the metric of the compact dimension is simply $G_{IJ} =R_{11}^2$ so
1732: from (\ref{edhatdef}) we have
1733: \be
1734: \hat E=V\,v\,{|\hat m+\tau\hat n|^2\over \tau_2}\,,
1735: \label{soneedef}
1736: \ee
1737: which is to be used in (\ref{e:DefIn}), and where we have set
1738: \be
1739: v=R_{11}^2\,.
1740: \label{vdef}
1741: \ee
1742:
1743: The integral $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$ could be evaluated directly by use of the `unfolding trick', but
1744: it is more straightforward to use the method devised in \cite{gv:D6R4} for studying $I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$.
1745: This begins by noting that
1746: \be
1747: \left( v^2 {\partial^2\over \partial v^2} + 2 v
1748: {\partial\over \partial v}\right)\, e^{-\pi \hat E}
1749: = \Delta_{\tau}\, e^{-\pi \hat E} \equiv \tau_2^2
1750: \left({\partial^2\over \partial \tau_1^2} +
1751: {\partial^2\over \partial \tau_2^2}\right)\, e^{-\pi \hat E}\, .
1752: \label{soneintmeth}
1753: \ee
1754: This means that $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$ satisfies
1755: \bea
1756: \left( v^2 {\partial^2\over \partial v^2} + 2 v {\partial\over \partial v}\right)&&
1757: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}= \pi^{N+1} \, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
1758: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat
1759: n)\in\ZZ^2}\,\Delta_{\tau}\, e^{-\pi \hat E}
1760: \nn\\
1761: &=&\pi^{N+1} \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\neq(0,0)} \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
1762: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\,\Delta_{\tau}\, B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\,
1763: e^{-\pi \hat E}
1764: -\partial I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}\,,\nn\\
1765: \label{ineval}
1766: \eea
1767: where we have integrated by parts and the boundary term is given by
1768: \be
1769: \partial I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)} = \left. \pi^{N+1} \sum_{\hat m,\hat n} \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{-\half}^{\half}
1770: d\tau_1\,
1771: \left(B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\,\partial_{\tau_2}\, e^{-\pi \hat E} - \partial_{\tau_2}\,
1772: B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\, e^{-\pi \hat E}
1773: \right)
1774: \right|_{\tau_2 = \tau_2^\Lambda}\,
1775: \label{ibound}
1776: \ee
1777: (where we recall that $V\,\tau_2^\Lambda = \Lambda^2$).
1778: After substituting $B_{(p,q)} = \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil } b_{(p,q)}^i$ (as in (\ref{modsum})) and writing
1779: \be
1780: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)} = \sum_{i=0}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil} h_{(p,q)}^i(v)\,,
1781: \label{hsum}
1782: \ee
1783: equation~(\ref{ineval}) is replaced by a set of component equations
1784: of the form
1785: \bea
1786: \left( v^2 {\partial^2\over \partial v^2} + 2 v {\partial\over \partial v}\right)\,
1787: h_{(p,q)}^i = j_{(p,q)}^i -\partial b_{(p,q)}^i\equiv J_{(p,q)}^i\,,
1788: \label{inevan}
1789: \eea
1790: where the bulk term is given by
1791: \be
1792: j_{(p,q)}^i= \pi^{N+1}\int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
1793: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\,\Delta_{\tau}\, b_{(p,q)}^i(\tau)\,
1794: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} e^{-\pi \hat E}\,,
1795: \label{bulkgen}
1796: \ee
1797: and $\partial b_{(p,q)}^i$ is the component form of the last term in (\ref{ibound}).
1798: After using the Poisson equation (\ref{poissoeq}) satisfied by $b_{(p,q)}^i$, equation (\ref{inevan}) reduces to a set of
1799: simple second order differential equations.
1800:
1801: As we will see later, for terms that are analytic in the Mandelstam invariants
1802: the right-hand side of (\ref{inevan}), $J_{(p,q)}^i$, has a dependence
1803: on $v$ of the form
1804: \be
1805: J_{(p,q)}^i = v^{N-4} \, J_{(p,q)}^{(4-N)\, i} + \Lambda^3\, v^{N-\fiveh}\, J_{(p,q)}^{(\fiveh-N)\, i} +
1806: \Lambda^{8-2N} \, J_{(p,q)}^{(0)\, i}\,,
1807: \label{jsplitv}
1808: \ee
1809: where $J_{(p,q)}^{(\alpha)\, i}$ are constants, the superscript $(\alpha)$
1810: indicates the power of $v$,
1811: and $N=2p+3q-2$.
1812: The first term in (\ref{jsplitv})
1813: is the finite contribution from non-zero winding numbers $\hat m\ne 0$, $\hat n \ne 0$,
1814: and the power $v^{N-4}$ follows by a simple dimensional argument. The second term, proportional to $\Lambda^3$,
1815: comes from the one-loop sub-divergent contributions in the sectors with $\hat m=0$, $\hat n\ne 0$ and
1816: $\hat m\ne 0$, $\hat n=0$ and the power $v^{N-5/2}$ is again determined by a simple
1817: dimensional argument. The third term with the power
1818: $\Lambda^{8-2N}$ comes from the sector with zero winding number, $\hat m=0, \hat n=0$.
1819: In the $N=4$ cases,
1820: $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$, the powers of $v^{4-N}$ and $\Lambda^{8-2N}$ include pieces that should be interpreted
1821: as $\log v$, $\log \Lambda$, as we
1822: will see in the explicit evaluation later in this section.
1823: After substituting the structure (\ref{jsplitv}) into (\ref{bulkgen}) and (\ref{inevan})
1824: each term in (\ref{hsum}) is seen to decompose in the same manner into $v^{N-4} \,h_{(p,q)}^{(4-N)\, i}+
1825: \Lambda^3\, v^{N-\fiveh}\, h_{(p,q)}^{(\fiveh-N)\, i} +
1826: \Lambda^{8-2N} \, h_{(p,q)}^{(0)\, i}$ and (\ref{ineval}) is solved by substituting
1827: \be
1828: \left( v^2 {\partial^2\over \partial v^2} + 2 v {\partial\over \partial v}\right)\, v^{-\alpha}\,
1829: h_{(p,q)}^{ (\alpha)\, i}
1830: = \alpha(\alpha-1)\,v^{-\alpha}\,h_{(p,q)}^{ (\alpha)\, i} \, ,
1831: \label{alpheq}
1832: \ee
1833: so that
1834: \be
1835: h_{(p,q)}^{ (\alpha)\, i}= {1\over \alpha(\alpha-1)} J_{(p,q)}^{(\alpha)\, i} \, .
1836: \label{hsols}
1837: \ee
1838: Therefore, $I_{(p,q)}$ (\ref{e:DefIn}) decomposes into the
1839: sum of three terms with distinct powers of $v$,
1840: \be
1841: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)} = v^{N-4} \, I_{(p,q)}^{(4-N)} +
1842: \Lambda^3\, v^{N-\fiveh}\, I_{(p,q)}^{(\fiveh-N)} +
1843: \Lambda^{8-2N} \, I_{(p,q)}^{(0)}\,.
1844: \label{splitv}
1845: \ee
1846: The one-loop sub-divergences proportional to $\Lambda^3$ are canceled by adding the triangle diagram,
1847: $I_{\triangleright\, (p,q)}^{(d=10)}$, with the one-loop
1848: $\calR^4$ counterterm at one vertex (figure~\ref{fig:TwoBoxDiagram} (c)).
1849: The term proportional to $\Lambda^{8-2N}$ is a primitive divergence that has to be subtracted by a
1850: new two-loop local counterterm,
1851: whose contribution to $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$ will be denoted $\delta_2 I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$.
1852:
1853: We will also be concerned, when $N\ge 2$,
1854: with the situation in which there are logarithmic terms on the right-hand side of
1855: (\ref{jsplitv}) proportional to $v^\alpha \,\log v$ and $v^\alpha\, (\log v)^2$, with various values of $\alpha$.
1856: In the presence of such source terms the solutions of (\ref{ineval}) also have logarithms.
1857: To be specific, the general form of the equations in the
1858: examples that follow is
1859: \begin{equation}
1860: (v^2\partial_{v}^2+2v\partial_{v}-\lambda)\, f(v)= a\, \log v + b\, {\log v\over v^\half} + c\, {\log v\over v^2}
1861: + d\, {(\log v)^2\over v}
1862: \,.
1863: \label{logeq}
1864: \end{equation}
1865: It is easy to verify that the solution of this equation is
1866: \bea
1867: f(v)&=&-a\, {1\over \lambda^2} (1 + \lambda\log v) - b\, {4\over 1+4\lambda}\, {\log v\over v^\half}
1868: + c\, {1\over v^2(2-\lambda)}\, \left(\log v + {3\over 2-\lambda}\right)
1869: \nn\\ &&
1870: - d\,
1871: {1\over v\lambda^3}(2+ 2\lambda -2\lambda \log v
1872: + \lambda^2 (\log v)^2) + f_0(v) \,,
1873: \label{gensol}
1874: \eea
1875: where $f_0$ is the solution of the homogeneous equation that will be irrelevant to us.
1876: We will see that these non-analytic terms are logarithmic thresholds expected from unitarity in ten dimensions.
1877:
1878: This procedure is implemented in detail in appendix~\ref{sec:s1compact} in the order to evaluate $I_{(p,q)}$
1879: with $N=1,2,3,4$, leading to terms in the four-graviton amplitude that we will now review.
1880:
1881:
1882: \subsection{The ten-dimensional type IIA low energy string scattering amplitude}
1883:
1884: We will now summarize the expressions deduced in detail in appendix~\ref{sec:s1compact} from the analysis of two-loop
1885: eleven-dimensional supergravity on $\calS^1$. The complete expressions will also include the contribution
1886: $I_{\triangleright\, (p,q)}^{(d=10)}$ that comes from the triangle diagram where one vertex is the $\calR^4$
1887: one-loop counterterm and the primitive divergence, $\delta_2 I^{(d=10)}_{(p,q)}$.
1888: We will begin by reviewing the $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ cases before considering the higher-order terms.
1889:
1890: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(1,0)$}
1891: The contribution to the coefficient of the $\sigma_2\, \calR^4\sim \calD^4 \calR^4$ term
1892: was shown in \cite{gkv:twoloop} to have the form
1893: \bea
1894: I^{(d=10)}_{(1,0)} + I_{\triangleright\, {(1,0)}}^{(d=10)} +
1895: \delta_2 I^{(d=10)}_{(1,0)}&=& {\zeta(5)\over 4\,R_{11}^5}
1896: \,,
1897: \label{i0def}
1898: \eea
1899: which corresponds to the tree-level type~IIA contribution
1900: $\zeta(5)\,\hat\sigma_2\calR^4/g_A^2$.
1901: In this case the finite piece from the $\hat m\ne0$, $\hat n\ne 0$ sector vanishes and
1902: the right-hand side arises entirely from the $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergence of $I^{(d=10)}_{(1,0)}$, together with
1903: $I_{\triangleright\, (1,0)}^{(d=10)}$, which cancels that divergence and replaces it with
1904: a specific finite expression.
1905: The power of $R_{11}$ corresponds to a tree-level
1906: contribution in type IIA string theory, using the identifications in (\ref{twoadict}) (recalling that
1907: $S = R_{11} \,s$).
1908: The $\Lambda^8$ contribution to $I_{(1,0)}^{(d=10)}$ coming from the $\hat m=0, \hat n= 0$ sector
1909: has been set to zero by subtracting it with a two-loop counterterm, $\delta_2 I_{(1,0)}^{(d=10)}$.
1910: There can be no finite remainder since $S^2\, \calR^4$ has no dependence on $R_{11}$ and
1911: translates into a IIA string contribution
1912: $g_A^{2/3}\,S^2\, \calR^4$, which would not make sense in string perturbation theory.
1913: For completeness, recall that there is also a genus-two contribution
1914: to $R_{11}\, \sigma_2 \calR^4 \sim g_A^2\, \hat\sigma_2\, \calR^4$
1915: that is obtained from the $\calS^1$ compactification of {\it one-loop} ($L=1$)
1916: eleven-dimensional supergravity. These tree-level and two-loop type IIA string theory contributions are precisely the
1917: same as those contained in the modular function $E_{5/2}$ that arises in the type IIB theory reviewed in the
1918: introduction. It is also notable that the two-loop supergravity calculation does not generate
1919: a genus-one contribution to $S^2\, \calR^4$. Such a term is known to be absent in string perturbation
1920: theory \cite{ggv:oneloop}.
1921:
1922: The perfect agreement of the predictions from two-loop eleven-dimensional supergravity with string
1923: theory found in \cite{gkv:twoloop} strongly indicated that higher-loop supergravity does not contribute further
1924: terms at order $\calD^4\calR^4$.
1925: This suggested \cite{gkv:twoloop} that the three-loop amplitude should be of order $\calD^6 \calR^4$
1926: (or higher), as has recently been shown explicitly \cite{Bern:2007hh}.
1927:
1928: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(0,1)$}
1929:
1930: The expression $I^{(d=10)}_{(0,1)}$ is the coefficient of the $\sigma_3 \, \calR^4$ (or $\calD^6 \calR^4$) term.
1931: The finite part of $I^{(d=10)}_{(0,1)}$ (the non-zero winding number sector) was considered in \cite{gv:D6R4}.
1932: In addition there is a $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergence (from the sector in which one winding number vanishes)
1933: that needs to be subtracted by $I_{\triangleright\, (0,1)}^{(d=10)}$,
1934: as well as a $\Lambda^6\, \calD^6 \calR^4$ primitive
1935: divergence (from the sector in which both winding numbers vanish)
1936: that is subtracted by $\delta_2 I^{(d=10)}_{(0,1)}$.
1937: This divergent term translates into a possible IIA string term,
1938: proportional to $g_A^2\, \calD^6 \calR^4$ term.
1939: This is not only a possible contribution, but is known to be present
1940: since it is present in the type IIB theory with a coefficient that is determined by $\calE_{(0,1)}$
1941: and was reviewed
1942: in the introduction. The net result is
1943: \be
1944: I^{(d=10)}_{(0,1)} + I_{\triangleright\, (0,1)}^{(d=10)} + \delta_2 I^{(d=10)}_{(0,1)}=
1945: {\zeta(3)^2\over 2\,R_{11}^6} + {\zeta(3)\zeta(2)\over R_{11}^3}
1946: + {6\zeta(2)^2\over 5}\,,
1947: \label{i1def}
1948: \ee
1949: In terms of type IIA string theory, these terms correspond to tree-level, genus-one and genus-two contributions
1950: with coefficients $g_A^{-2}$, $g_A^0$ and $g_A^2$, respectively
1951: Whereas, the coefficients of the first two terms are derived from the $\calS^1$ compactification,
1952: the coefficient of the last term
1953: has been fixed by choosing $\delta_2 I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$ so that
1954: it coincides with the coefficient of the two-loop term in the type IIB theory that came
1955: from the $\calT^2$ compactification.
1956: For completeness, recall that there is a genus-three
1957: contribution to $\calD^6 \calR^4$ that is again obtained as a finite
1958: contribution from the
1959: $\calS^1$ compactification of one-loop ($L=1$)
1960: eleven-dimensional supergravity and which is also contained in the IIB expression
1961: $\calE_{(0,1)}$, with precisely the same coefficient.
1962:
1963: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(2,0)$}
1964:
1965: When $N\geq 4$ the $L=2$ amplitude develops logarithmic
1966: singularities corresponding to string theory threshold
1967: contributions. These contributions require careful treatments which
1968: is detailed in the appendices~\ref{sec:s1compact} and in~\ref{sec:Cste}.
1969:
1970: The expression $I^{(d=10)}_{(2,0)}$ is the coefficient of
1971: $\sigma_{2}^2 \, \calR^4\sim \calD^8\, \calR^4$. At this order
1972: there is a second logarithmic singularity (after the one-loop
1973: ($L=1$) supergravity threshold of ten-dimensional supergravity, which
1974: is of order $S\log(-S)$) corresponding to a threshold of
1975: string perturbation theory.
1976: The contribution at order $\sigma_{2}^2\, \calR^4$, derived in the appendix~\ref{sec:D8R4circle},
1977: is
1978: \be\begin{split}
1979: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}+
1980: I_{\triangleright\, (2,0)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)} =& -{12\over5}\,\zeta(2)\,
1981: \left[ {\zeta(3)\over R_{11}^4}+{2\zeta(2)\over R_{11}} \right] \,
1982: \log(\chi R^2_{11}/C_{(2,0)})\, .
1983: \end{split}\ee
1984: %
1985: When converting these expressions to the string frame
1986: $\log(\chi R^2_{11})$ becomes $\log(\chi\, g_{A}^2)$, where we have used the relation $S=\chi S_0 = s R_{11}
1987: =\chi s_0 R_{11}$ (in other words, we have rescaled the Mandelstam invariants in the string frame by the same
1988: factor $\chi$ as in the eleven-dimensional frame).
1989: This non-analytic contribution is seen to correspond to the genus-one and genus-two
1990: normal massless thresholds of the string amplitude with coefficients
1991: $g_{A}^0\, \log(\chi)$ and $g_{A}^2\, \log(\chi)$, respectively
1992: The coefficient of the genus-two threshold contribution arises from a $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergence,
1993: which is regulated by the counter-term $I_{\triangleright\, (2,0)}^{(d=10)}$.
1994: The scale of the logarithms indicated by $C_{(2,0)}$ has not been determined
1995: by this computation and hides the details of the $T$-channel and $U$-channel thresholds, although in this
1996: case the complete calculation is straightforward and leads to (\ref{genonetwo}).
1997:
1998:
1999: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(1,1)$}
2000:
2001: The coefficient of the $\sigma_{2}\, \sigma_3 \, \calR^4\sim D^{10}\, \calR^4$ term is determined by the
2002: integral $I^{(d=10)}_{(1,1)}$, together with the triangle diagram containing the one-loop sub-divergence and the
2003: two-loop counterterm. These give
2004:
2005: \bea
2006: \nonumber I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}+
2007: \hat I_{\triangleright\, (1,1)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}\hat
2008: I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)} &=& {448\over R_{11}^2}\zeta(4)\zeta(3)+
2009: {675\over 2} \zeta(2)\zeta(4)R_{11}+ 182\, \zeta(2)^2\, R_{11}^2\, \log({\chi R^2_{11}\over C_{(1,1)}})\\
2010: \eea
2011: The first two terms will translate into genus-two and genus-three
2012: contributions to $S^5\, \calR^4$ in string
2013: theory, while the last term is a genus-two threshold contribution
2014: In fact, the coefficient of $\log(\chi)$ is precisely the same as in the
2015: ten-dimensional
2016: supergravity calculation in appendix~\ref{sec:tenreg}, which contains the
2017: detailed threshold dependence.
2018:
2019: \subsubsection{ $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$}
2020:
2021: In the case of $\sigma_{2}^3\, \calR^4$ and $\sigma_{3}^2\, \calR^4$
2022: the coefficients are determined by the integrals
2023: $I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)}$ and $I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)}$, together with the contributions from the one-loop and two-loop
2024: counterterms, that are evaluated in the appendix~\ref{sec:D12R4circle},
2025: \be\begin{split}
2026: I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)}+
2027: I_{\triangleright\, (3,0)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)} = - 3465\,\zeta(6)\, & \log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(3,0)})
2028: +{100647\over715}\,
2029: \zeta(3)\,\zeta(6)
2030: + 210\, \zeta(8) \,
2031: R_{11}^{3}
2032: \, ,
2033: \end{split}\ee
2034: and
2035: \be\begin{split}
2036: I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)}+
2037: I_{\triangleright\, (0,2)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)} = - {6615\over 2}\,\zeta(6)\,
2038: & \log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(3,0)})
2039: +{15827\over110}\,
2040: \zeta(3)\,\zeta(6)
2041: + 210\, \zeta(8) \,
2042: R_{11}^3
2043: \, ,
2044: \end{split}\ee
2045: corresponding to type-IIA genus-three, genus-four and genus-six contributions, respectively.
2046:
2047:
2048: \subsection{Connections with string perturbation theory in ten dimensions.}
2049: \label{connectten}
2050:
2051: We will now summarize these results and translate them into perturbative terms in IIA string theory.
2052: We will be interested in comparing these terms with direct calculations in string perturbation theory at
2053: genus-one and genus-two. The fact that the perturbative terms in the type IIA and type IIB theories
2054: are equal up to at least genus-four will provide additional data for determining the
2055: $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant coefficients of the ten-dimensional IIB theory.
2056:
2057: \subsubsection{Analytic terms}
2058:
2059: First recall the analytic terms in the derivative expansion
2060: of one-loop supergravity ($L=1$) compactified on $\calS^1$
2061: up to the order of interest in this paper are
2062: \cite{ggv:oneloop,Russo:1997mk}
2063: \be\begin{split}
2064: A_{L=1}^{an} =& i{\kappa_{11}^4\over (2\pi)^{11}\, l_{11}^3}\,
2065: 4\pi^4 \; \calR^4
2066: \ \bigg[ {2\zeta(3)\over R_{11}^3}+4\zeta(2)
2067: +{4\zeta(4)\over 3} R_{11}{\sigma_{2}\over 4^2}
2068: + {4\zeta(6)\over27}\, R_{11}^3\, {\sigma_{3}\over 4^3}\\
2069: &+{64\zeta(8)\over 2835}\, R_{11}^{5}\, {\sigma_{2}^2\over 4^4}
2070: +{16\zeta(10)\over1125}\,R_{11}^7\,{\sigma_{2}\sigma_{3}\over 4^5}
2071: +{64\zeta(12)\over 31185\cdot 691}\, R_{11}^9\,
2072: { (675{\sigma_{2}^3}+872{\sigma_{3}^2})\over 4^6}
2073: \cdots\,
2074: \bigg]\, .
2075: \label{aawalone}
2076: \end{split}\ee
2077:
2078:
2079: The analytic part obtained from two-loop ($L=2$) supergravity on
2080: $\calS^1$, obtained earlier
2081: in this section, together with the known two-loop results of
2082: \cite{gkv:twoloop} and \cite{gv:D6R4}, are given by
2083: \be\begin{split}
2084: A_{L=2}^{an} =& i{\kappa_{11}^6\over (2\pi)^{22}\,l_{11}^{12}}\; \ 4 \pi^6 \calR^4
2085: \ \bigg[ {\zeta(5) \over R_{11}^5}\ {\s_2\over 4^2}
2086: + {4\over3}\left({\zeta(3)^2\over 2R_{11}^6}+{\zeta(2)\zeta(3)\over R_{11}^3}
2087: +{6\zeta(2)^2\over 5}\right){\s_3\over 4^3}
2088: \\
2089: &
2090: +{8\over 2835}\,\left({675\over2}\zeta(2)\zeta(4)\,R_{11}
2091: +448\,{\zeta(4)\zeta(3)\over R_{11}^2} \right)
2092: {\s_3\s_2\over 4^5}\\
2093: & + {2\over 14175}\left(70 \, \zeta(8)\, R_{11}^3\,{3\sigma_{2}^3+4\sigma_{3}^2\over 4^6}+
2094: \zeta(6)\zeta(3)\,
2095: \left({100647\over715} {\sigma_2^3\over 4^6} +{4\over 3}\, {15827\over110}{\sigma_3^2\over 4^6} \right)\right)
2096: +\cdots\bigg]\, .
2097: \label{aawa}
2098: \end{split}
2099: \ee
2100: After conversion to the string frame the $L=1$ and $L=2$ analytic contributions combine to give
2101: the following terms in type IIA string theory coordinates,
2102: \be\begin{split}
2103: A^{an}_{L=1}+A^{an}_{L=2}& = i\kappa_{10}^2\,\calR^4\,\Big[ {2\zeta(3)\over g_{A}^2 }+4\zeta(2)+
2104: \left( {\zeta(5)\over g_{A}^2}+{4\zeta(4)\over 3}\,g_{A}^2
2105: \right)\, \hat\sigma_{2}\\
2106: &+
2107: {2\over3}\left({\zeta(3)^2\over g_{A}^2}
2108: +2\zeta(2)\zeta(3)+{12\zeta(2)^2\over 5}\, g_{A}^2
2109: + {2\zeta(6)\over 9}\, g_{A}^4 \right)\, \hat\sigma_{3}\\
2110: &+ {64\zeta(8)\over2835}\,g_{A}^6\sigma_{2}^2+
2111: \left({512\over 405} \,\zeta(4)\zeta(3)\, g_{A}^2
2112: + {20\over 21}\zeta(2)\zeta(4)\,g_{A}^4+{16\zeta(10)\over 1125}\, g_{A}^8\right)
2113: \, \hat\sigma_{2}\hat\sigma_3\\
2114: &+ \left(
2115: {\zeta(3)\zeta(6)}\, \frac{22366}{1126125}\,g_{A}^4+{4\over 135} \zeta(8)g_A^6+
2116: {320\zeta(12)\over 231\cdot 691}\,g_{A}^{10}\right) \, \hat\sigma_2^3\\
2117: &+
2118: \left(
2119: \zeta(3)\zeta(6)\, \frac{9044}{334125} \,g_{A}^4+ {16\over 405}\zeta(8)g_A^6+
2120: {64\cdot 872\zeta(12)\over 31185\cdot 691}\, g_{A}^{10}\right)\, \hat\sigma_3^2+\cdots\Big]\, .
2121: \end{split}
2122: \label{lanal}
2123: \ee
2124: These are some of the terms that could, in principle, be obtained from string
2125: perturbation theory. Other perturbative string terms should
2126: emerge from from higher-loop ($L>2$) supergravity.
2127: For example, tree-level terms beyond order $\calD^6 \calR^4$ are not
2128: obtained from supergravity Feynman diagrams
2129: of loop number $L\le 2$, but are obtained from higher-loop ($L>2$) contributions. Thus,
2130: the tree-level $\calD^4 \calR^4$ term can be deduced from a two-loop subdivergent
2131: contribution to the three-loop ($L=3$) Feynman diagrams of eleven-dimensional supergravity
2132: compactified on a circle as shown in figure~\ref{fig:threesub}.
2133: \begin{figure}[ht]
2134: \centering
2135: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{threesub}
2136: \caption{The double subdivergence of the three-loop diagrams that contributes at
2137: order $E_{7/2}\, S^4\,\calR^4$ in ten-dimensional type IIB.}
2138: \label{fig:threesub}\end{figure}
2139:
2140: Although the momentum expansion of string theory at genus greater than one
2141: has not been explicitly considered, several of the low-lying terms in (\ref{lanal}) are known to be in
2142: precise agreement with the expansion of tree-level and genus-one
2143: string theory amplitudes. So, for completeness,
2144: we now list the analytic terms that have been
2145: extracted from string theory at tree-level ($h=0$) and genus-one
2146: ($h=1$)
2147: \cite{gv:stringloop,grv:oneloop},
2148: \be\begin{split}
2149: A^{an}_{h=0}&+A^{an}_{h=1} = i \kappa_{10}^2\, \calR^4\,\Big[
2150: \left({2\zeta(3)\over g_{A}^2}+4\zeta(2)\right)+
2151: {\zeta(5)\over g_{A}^2}\, \hat\sigma_2
2152: +{2\over 3}\left({\zeta(3)^2\over g_{A}^2}+2\zeta(2)\zeta(3)\right)\, \hat\sigma_3\\
2153: &+{\zeta(7)\over 2g_{A}^2}\, \hat\sigma_2^2
2154: +\left({2\over 3g_{A}^2}\zeta(3)\zeta(5)+{97\over 270}\,
2155: \zeta(2)\zeta(5)\right)\, \hat\sigma_2\hat\sigma_3\\
2156: &+ \left({\zeta(9)\over 4 g_{A}^2}+{2\zeta(2)\zeta(3)^3\over15} \right)\, \hat\sigma_2^3
2157: +\left({2\over27g_{A}^2}(2\zeta(3)^2+\zeta(9))
2158: +{61\over 270}\zeta(2)\zeta(3)^2\right) \,
2159: \hat\sigma_3^2+\cdots\Big]\, .
2160: \label{stringann}
2161: \end{split}\ee
2162: We see that the terms that overlap with those of
2163: (\ref{lanal}) have precisely the same coefficients. However, there
2164: are terms that occur in either (\ref{lanal}) or (\ref{stringann})
2165: that do not occur in the other. For example, the genus-zero term of
2166: order $S^5\, \calR^4$ is not obtained from the
2167: $L=2$ supergravity diagrams described in this paper. However, it is
2168: expected to arise from a one-loop sub-divergence (proportional to
2169: $\Lambda^3$) of the three-loop diagrams ($L=3$). Similarly, its
2170: genus-one partner should arise from a double sub-divergence of the
2171: $L=3$ diagrams.
2172:
2173:
2174: The above expressions have been obtained in the limit
2175: appropriate for comparison with perturbative ten-dimensional type IIA
2176: string theory. However, the IIA and IIB theories are known to have
2177: identical four-graviton amplitudes up to at least genus-four
2178: \cite{Berkovits2006} so that,
2179: to the extent that the results match the string theory results, they should also
2180: apply to the ten-dimensional type IIB theory up to genus-four, at least.
2181:
2182:
2183:
2184:
2185:
2186: \subsubsection{Nonanalytic terms}
2187:
2188:
2189: The nonanalytic part of the one-loop ($L=1$) supergravity amplitude in
2190: ten dimensions is just the ten-dimensional maximal
2191: supergravity loop amplitude, which is well known
2192: \cite{Green:1982sw} (reviewed in \cite{grv:oneloop}). In this case
2193: the thresholds obtained by dimensional regularization give rise to
2194: terms of order $S\log(-S)$. The detailed structure of these terms is
2195: not relevant here, but it is notable that the scales of the
2196: Mandelstam invariants inside the logarithms cancel (the result is proportional to $(S+T+U)\log \chi$).
2197: This means
2198: that the result does not depend on details of the regularization scheme.
2199:
2200: The nonanalytic terms obtained from two-loop ($L=2$) supergravity compactified on $\calS^1$
2201: in appendix~\ref{sec:D8R4circle} are
2202: \be
2203: \begin{split}
2204: A_{L=2}^{nonan} =& i{\kappa_{11}^6\over (2\pi)^{22}\,l_{11}^{12}}\; \calR^4
2205: \ 4 \pi^6 \bigg[ -{8\over 15\, R_{11}^4}\, \zeta(2)\left({\zeta(3)\over R_{11}^4}+
2206: {2\zeta(2)\over R_{11}}\right)\log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(2,0)}){\s_2^2\over 4^4}\\
2207: &- {832\over 1296\, R_{11}^2}\, \zeta(4) \,\log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(1,1)}){ \sigma_2\sigma_3\over 4^5}\\
2208: &
2209: -{1\over 45}\zeta(6)\log(\chi R_{11}^2 /C_{(3,0)})\,
2210: \left(11 {\sigma_2^3\over 4^6}
2211: + 14\,{\sigma_3^2\over 4^6} \right)+\cdots
2212: \bigg]\,.
2213: \label{astregn}
2214: \end{split}
2215: \ee
2216: As before, the scales of the logarithms, $C_{(p,q)}$, are
2217: complicated functions of $S_0$ and $T_0$, and contain the information
2218: about the nonanalytic multiple logarithm terms (for example, the term
2219: of order $S^2\, \log(\chi)\, \calR^4$ is given in detail in (\ref{genonetwo})).
2220: This expression involves factors with logarithms of the Mandelstam invariants, of the form
2221: $S^k\, \log(-S)\, \calR^4$, which are correlated with discontinuities
2222: of the amplitude that are
2223: determined by unitarity.
2224: For example, at order $\sigma_2^2\,
2225: \log(-S)\, \calR^4$ there are two terms with coefficients that differ
2226: by a power of $R_{11}^3$. The first of these arose from a finite
2227: contribution to the two-loop amplitude, while the second arose from
2228: the triangle diagram containing the one-loop counterterm that cancels a
2229: $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergence.
2230:
2231: Transforming (\ref{astregn}) to IIA string coordinates leads to
2232: \be\begin{split}
2233: A^{nonan}_{L=2} =& i \kappa_{10}^2\,\calR^4\, \Big[ -{ \zeta(4)\over (4\pi)^3}\,\left(\zeta(3)+
2234: 2\zeta(2)\,g_{A}^2\right)\log(\chi g_{A}^2/C_{(2,0)})\, \hat\sigma_2^2\\
2235: &- {13\over 5184\pi}\, \zeta(4)\,g_{A}^2 \,\log(\chi g_{A}^2/C_{(1,1)})\, \hat\sigma_2\hat \sigma_3\\
2236: &
2237: -{1\over 11520\pi}\zeta(6)\,g_{A}^4\,\log(\chi g_A^2 /C_{3,0})\big(11\,\hat\sigma_2^3
2238: + 14\,\hat\sigma_3^2 \big)+\cdots
2239: \bigg]\,,
2240: \label{aawanonstring}
2241: \end{split}\ee
2242: %
2243: The first of these thresholds, of order $\hat\sigma_2^2\,\log(\chi)\,\calR^4$
2244: has both a genus-one and genus-two contribution.
2245: The coefficient of the genus-one part matches the value obtained
2246: in (3.47) of \cite{grv:oneloop} from genus-one string amplitude.
2247: Also present is the expected genus-two threshold of order
2248: $\hat\sigma_2\hat\sigma_3\,\log(\chi)\,\calR^4$, as well as
2249: the genus-three thresholds of order $\sigma_2^3\,\log(\chi)\,\calR^4$ and
2250: $\sigma_3^2\,\log(\chi)\,\calR^4$.
2251: The scales $C_{(p,q)}$ are undetermined by our procedure, whereas they are uniquely fixed in string
2252: perturbation theory. Such scales are also expected to be fixed by the
2253: $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality of the IIB theory.
2254:
2255: Reinterpreting the nonanalytic terms as contributions to
2256: ten-dimensional type IIB and requiring $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality strongly
2257: suggests how certain perturbative terms combine into nonperturbative modular invariant
2258: coefficients.
2259: Thus, in the type IIB case the two terms in the coefficient of
2260: $\hat\sigma_2^2\, \log(\chi)\, \calR^4$ form the two perturbative terms
2261: in the expansion of
2262: the modular function $E_{3/2}$, as expected by general
2263: arguments based on
2264: unitarity of string perturbation theory \cite{grv:bigpaper,grv:oneloop}.
2265: In similar manner, unitarity requires that the genus-three coefficients of $\hat\sigma_2^3\,
2266: \log(\chi)\, \calR^4$ and $\hat\sigma_3^2\, \log(\chi)\, \calR^4$ are pair up with genus-one threshold
2267: contributions in the ratio contained in the modular funtion $E_{5/2}$.
2268: Although these genus-one terms do not appear in the $L=2$ supergravity calculation
2269: (dimensional analysis implies that they should arise from a one-loop sub-deivergence of
2270: three-loop $L=3$ supergravity) their value is again known from the direct string theory calculations
2271: in \cite{grv:oneloop}. Once again the coefficient in (\ref{aawanonstring}) is in accord with
2272: expectations.
2273:
2274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2275: \section{Torus compactification to nine dimensions}
2276: \label{sec:ttwo}
2277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2278:
2279:
2280: Consider now the eleven-dimensional two-loop amplitude compactified on a
2281: two-torus of volume $\calV_2$ and complex structure
2282: $\Omega $, where the external momenta do not have any components in the compact toroidal dimensions.
2283: As before, we want to evaluate
2284: \be
2285: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)} = \pi^{N+1}\int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
2286: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\, \sum_{(\hat m^I,\hat
2287: n^I)\in \ZZ^4} \, e^{-\pi \hat E}\, .
2288: \label{intwot}
2289: \ee
2290: The metric on the torus that enters into the definition of $\hat E$ in (\ref{edhatdef}) is
2291: \be
2292: G_{IJ} = \frac{\calV_2}{\Omega_2}
2293: \left(
2294: \begin{matrix} 1 & \Omega_1\cr
2295: \Omega_1 & |\Omega|^2
2296: \end{matrix}
2297: \right)\,,
2298: \label{torusmet}
2299: \ee
2300: which leads to
2301: \be
2302: \hat E={\calV_2\, V\over\Omega_2\tau_2}\left| (1\ \Omega)M\left(\begin{matrix}\tau\cr
2303: 1\end{matrix}\right)\right|^2-2\calV_2\, V\det M\,,
2304: \ee
2305: where
2306: \be
2307: M=\begin{pmatrix}
2308: \hat m^1 & \hat m^2\\
2309: \hat n^1& \hat n^2
2310: \end{pmatrix}\, .
2311: \label{mnrestrict}
2312: \ee
2313: %
2314:
2315: The dependence on $\calV_2$ can be factored out by rescaling $V$ (with a corresponding rescaling of $V^\Lambda$),
2316: which leads to
2317: \be
2318: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}(\Omega,\calV_2) ={1\over 4} \pi^{3/2} \Gamma(N-3/2) \,\calV_2^{N-4}\, \calE_{(p,q)}^{(N+2)}(\Omega)\,,
2319: \label{calicale}
2320: \ee
2321: with $N=2p+3q-2$. The normalization has been chosen so that the functions $\calE_{(p,q)}^{(N+2)}(\Omega)$
2322: correspond to those defined in (\ref{analytr}).
2323: The dictionary relating M-theory to type IIB string theory includes the identifications
2324: \be
2325: r_B = \calV_2^{-3/4}\, \Omega_2^{-1/4}\,,\qquad e^{\phi_B} = g_B = \Omega_2^{-1}\,.
2326: \label{twobm}
2327: \ee
2328:
2329: Almost all the massless thresholds in nine dimensions for the terms up to the order we are considering here
2330: involve half-integral powers
2331: of the Mandelstam invariants rather than being logarithmic. In contrast to the ten-dimensional
2332: case in the previous section, these nonanalytic terms are easily distinguished from the
2333: analytic terms and we will ignore them in the following. The one exception is the
2334: logarithmic threshold that
2335: arises in the zero Kaluza--Klein ($m_I=n_I=0$) term, which is the genus-two massless supergravity
2336: sector discussed in appendices~\ref{sec:Cste} and \ref{sec:DimReg}.
2337:
2338:
2339: \subsection{Evaluation of $\Delta_\Omega I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}$}
2340: \label{methnine}
2341:
2342:
2343: Following the method used in \cite{gv:D6R4} we apply the
2344: Laplace operator $\Delta_\Omega \equiv 4\Omega_2^2\, \partial_\Omega\partial_{\bar\Omega}$ to
2345: $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}$ and use
2346: \be
2347: \Delta_\Omega\, e^{-\pi \hat E} = \Delta_\tau\, e^{-\pi \hat E}\,
2348: \label{newdelt}
2349: \ee
2350: to give
2351: \be
2352: \Delta_\Omega I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)} = \pi^{N+1}\, \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} dV V^{3-N} \int_{\calF_\Lambda}
2353: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \,B_{(p,q)}(\tau)\, \sum_{(\hat
2354: m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^4} \Delta_\tau \, e^{-\pi\hat E}\, ,
2355: \label{intwotb}
2356: \ee
2357: where $N=2p+3q-2$.
2358: Integrating by parts gives the Laplace operator $\Delta_\tau$
2359: acting on $ B_{(p,q)}(\tau)$, while the boundary term vanishes in the sector with
2360: $(\hat m^1,\hat m^2)\ne(0,0)$
2361: and $(\hat n^1,\hat n^2)\ne(0,0)$.
2362: For the moment we will restrict our considerations to this sector, which turns out to give terms independent of
2363: the cutoff $\Lambda$, which can therefore be set equal to $\infty$. We will also (in appendix~\ref{sec:Cste})
2364: need to consider the sector with $(\hat m^1,\hat m^2) = (0,0)$ and $(\hat n^1,\hat n^2) \ne (0,0)$.
2365:
2366: After using (\ref{modsum}) and (\ref{poissoeq}) we see, as in the $\calS^1$ compactification,
2367: that $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}$ is itself a sum of components,
2368: \be
2369: I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)} = \sum_{i=0}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil} h_{(p,q)}^{i}(\Omega,\calV_2)\, ,
2370: \label{indecom}
2371: \ee
2372: and $N=2p+3q-2$ as before.
2373: The function $h_{(p,q)}^{i}$ satisfies a Poisson equation
2374: \be
2375: (\Delta_\Omega - \lambda_{(p,q)}^i)\, h_{(p,q)}^{i} = \left.\pi^{N+1} \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} dV
2376: V^{3-N} \int_1^{\Lambda^2/V}
2377: {d\tau_2\over \tau_2} \, c_{(p,q)}^{i}
2378: (\tau_2)\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\neq(0,0)} e^{-\pi \hat E}\right|_{\tau_1 = 0}\, ,
2379: \label{innewt}
2380: \ee
2381: where $c_{(p,q)}^{i}$ is the coefficient of $\delta(\tau_1)$
2382: in~(\ref{genpoisson}) and~(\ref{poissoeq}) and
2383: \be
2384: \hat E\bigg|_{\tau_1=0} =\calV_2\, V\,
2385: {|\hat m^1+\hat m^2\Omega|^2+\tau_2^2|\hat n^1+\hat n^2\Omega|^2\over\Omega_2\tau_2} \,
2386: \label{tauonee}
2387: \ee
2388: %
2389: In order to determine the right-hand side of (\ref{innewt}) we will
2390: use the fact that
2391: $c_{(p,q)}^i(\tau_2)$ is a polynomial in
2392: $\tau_2+\tau_2^{-1}$ of degree $N-1=2p+3q-3$
2393: \be
2394: c_{(p,q)}^{i}(\tau_2)=\sum_{r=0}^{N-1} \, c_r (\tau_2+
2395: \tau_2^{-1})^r\ .
2396: \label{biprop}
2397: \ee
2398: %
2399: Substituting (\ref{biprop}), using
2400: the symmetry of the integrand under $\tau_2 \to 1/\tau_2$ to extend the
2401: range of integration to $0\le \tau_2 \le \infty$, and changing integration variables to
2402: $x=V/\tau_2$, $y=V\tau_2$
2403: the right-hand side of (\ref{innewt}) becomes
2404: \bea
2405: {\pi^{N+1}\over 4} &\times&\sum_{r=0}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil} c_r\, \int_0^\infty {dx\over x}\, \int_0^\infty
2406: {dy\over y}
2407: x^{2-{N\over 2}+{n_r\over 2}} y^{2-{N\over 2}-{n_r\over 2}} \, \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)'}
2408: e^{- \pi \calV_2 \big( y
2409: {|\hat m^1+\hat m^2\Omega|^2\over\Omega_2}+x{|\hat n^1+\hat n^2\Omega|^2\over \Omega_2}\big) }
2410: \non\\
2411: &&\qquad= {\pi^{N+1} \over 4\calV_2^{4-N} }\, \sum_{r=0}^{\lceil 3N/2\rceil} c_r\,E^*_{2-{N\over 2}+{n_r\over 2}}(\Omega ) \
2412: E^*_{2-{N\over 2}-{n_r\over 2}}(\Omega ) \,,
2413: \label{snnn}
2414: \eea
2415: for $-N+1\leq n_r\leq N-1$.
2416: The Eisenstein series $E^*_s$ is defined in terms of $E_s$ by
2417: \begin{equation}
2418: E^*_{s}(\tau)\equiv {\Gamma(s)\over \pi^s}\, E_{s}(\tau)=
2419: 2\zeta^*(2s)\, \tau_2^s+2\zeta^*(2-2s)\, \tau_2^{1-s}+O(\exp(-\tau_2)) \,
2420: \end{equation}
2421: and satisfies the symmetry relation $E^*_{s}=E^*_{1-s}$, where $\zeta^*(2s )=\pi^{-s}\Gamma(s)\zeta(2s)$.
2422: The cutoffs on the integration limits have been removed in (\ref{snnn}) since the result is finite
2423: (if the $E_{s}$ functions for $s\le 1/2$ are defined by analytic continuation from $s> 1/2$).
2424:
2425: So we finally obtain the Poisson equations for the components of the $(p,q)$ term,
2426: \be
2427: (\Delta_\Omega - \lambda_{(p,q)}^i)\, h_{(p,q)}^{i} =
2428: {\pi^{N+1} \over 4\calV_2^{4-N} } \sum_{r=0}^{N-1} c_r\,E^*_{2-{N\over 2}+{n_r\over 2}}(\Omega ) \
2429: E^*_{2-{N\over 2}-{n_r\over 2}}(\Omega) \, ,
2430: \label{ipoisso}
2431: \ee
2432: where $N=2p+3q-2$ and $1\leq i\leq \lceil 3N/2\rceil$.
2433: The right-hand side of this equation is a sum with a finite number of terms that depends on
2434: the value of $N$.
2435: The solutions of this equation for given values of $(p,q)$
2436: and the corresponding values of the index $i$ determine
2437: $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}$ and hence,
2438: the coupling constant dependence of the coefficient of the term in $A_{IIB}$ of order $S^{N+2}\, \, \calR^4$.
2439: It is notable that the right-hand side of (\ref{ipoisso}) is quadratic in the Eisenstein series, each of which will later
2440: (in section~\ref{sec:modular}) be identified with a coefficient of a lower-order term in the action.
2441:
2442: The dependence of $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=9)}$ on the volume, $\calV_2^{N-4}$, in (\ref{snnn}) translates into the IIB string
2443: theory description as
2444: \be
2445: g_B^{N-1}\, r_B^{3-2N}\, ,
2446: \label{stringparams}
2447: \ee
2448: using the correspondence between the supergravity and IIB string parameters given in (\ref{twobm}),
2449: together with the identification $S=R_{11}\, s$.
2450:
2451: In the above analysis we only considered terms with $(\hat m^1,\hat m^2) \neq(0,0)$ and
2452: $(\hat n^1,\hat n^2)\neq(0,0)$, which are independent of $\Lambda$. Certain terms with $\log \Lambda$
2453: dependence also entered into the zero eigenvalue parts of the modular functions $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}$,
2454: $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}$ in appendix~\ref{sec:Cste}. However, for economy of
2455: space we have not considered the terms that arise from $(\hat m^1,\hat m^2)= (0,0)$ with $(\hat n^1,\hat n^2) \neq(0,0)$,
2456: which correspond to subdivergences and have a power dependence on $\Lambda$ that needs to be subtracted by
2457: counterterms.
2458:
2459:
2460: In the $N=0$ case ($(p,q)= (1,0)$), which corresponds to the $\calD^4\calR^4$ term, the source on the right-hand
2461: side of (\ref{ipoisso})
2462: vanishes and the equation reduces to the Laplace eigenvalue equation (\ref{lapeig}) for the value $s=5/2$, as
2463: in \cite{gkv:twoloop}. In the $N=1$ case ($(p,q)=(0,1)$), which corresponds to the $D^6\calR^4$ term,
2464: the source on the right-hand side of (\ref{ipoisso}) is quadratic in $E_{3/2}$ and there is a single eigenvalue
2465: $\lambda_{(0,1)}^1=12$, reproducing (\ref{poiss}),
2466: as obtained in \cite{gv:D6R4}.
2467: We will now analyze these solutions for the cases $(2,0)$, $(1,1)$, $(3,0)$ and $(0,2)$,
2468: which raise a number of new issues.
2469:
2470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2471: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(2,0)$}
2472:
2473: The expression for
2474: $B_{(2,0)}(\tau)$ given in (\ref{b22def}) is written as the sum of the $b_{(2,0)}^i$'s in (\ref{eca}).
2475: Applying the method described in the previous subsection, using the explicit Poisson equation (\ref{b2ieq})
2476: satisfied by each $b_{(2,0)}^i$, we determine that the modular function $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}$
2477: associated with the $\sigma_2^4\, \calR^4$ term has the form
2478: \be
2479: {4\calV_2^2\over \pi^2}\, I_{(2,0)}(\Omega,\calV_2) \equiv \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)} (\Omega )=
2480: \sum_{i=0}^3 \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)2i}(\Omega )\ ,
2481: \label{caleidef}
2482: \ee
2483: where $ \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)i}(\Omega )$ are modular functions satisfying
2484: the Poisson equations
2485: \be
2486: (\Delta_\Omega -r(r+1)) \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)r}(\Omega )
2487: = - 2 u_r E_{3\over 2}
2488: E_{1\over 2}\ ,\qquad \textrm{for}\ r=2i = 2,4,6
2489: \label{primas}
2490: \ee
2491: and $u_r$ are constants given in appendix~\ref{sec:ModD8R4}.
2492:
2493: The function $E_{1/2}$ is defined as the limit
2494: \be
2495: \lim_{s\to 1/2} E_s= 2\Omega_2^{\half}\, \log{\Omega_2 \over 4\pi c_e}
2496: +4 \Omega_{2}^{\half}\sum_{n\neq0} d_{|n|}\, K_{0}(2\pi |n|\Omega_{2})\, e^{2i\pi\, n\,\Omega_{1}} \ ,
2497: \qquad c_e =e^{-\gamma}\, ,
2498: \ee
2499: where $\gamma $ is Euler's constant and $d_{|n|}$ is the number of divisors of $n$.
2500: This is a very special Eisenstein series which has a large-$\Omega_2$ expansion that has no purely power-behaved terms,
2501: but starts with $\Omega_2^{1/2}\, \log \Omega_2$.
2502: The interpretation of the $\log\Omega_{2}$ factor will be given in the section~\ref{sec:string}
2503: where it will shown to be associated with the presence of massless thresholds.
2504:
2505: The $i=0$ term, $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)0}$ associated with the constant
2506: $b_{(2,0)}^0=-13/21$, is shown in
2507: appendix~\ref{sec:Cste} to be equal to
2508: \be
2509: \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)0}= -{104\over 21} \zeta(2)
2510: \log{(-S\, \calV_2/\Omega_2\, C_{(2,0)}})\,,
2511: \label{zeroconst}
2512: \ee
2513: where $C_{(2,0)}$ is, as before, an undetermined
2514: function of $S_0$ and $T_0$, but is independent of $\calV_2$ and $\Omega_2$. The
2515: logarithm comes from
2516: the contribution of the zero Kaluza--Klein modes, $m_I=n_I=0$ in the
2517: $\calT^2$ reduction from eleven dimensions and should coincide with the supergravity
2518: calculation in nine dimensions discussed in section~\ref{sec:DimReg}.
2519: It is notable that the coefficient of $\log(\chi)$ in (\ref{zeroconst}) does indeed coincide with the coefficient of
2520: the $\epsilon$ pole in dimensional regularization of two-loop maximal supergravity around nine
2521: dimensions. However, in our case the scale
2522: depends on the compactification moduli rather
2523: than an arbitrary cutoff.
2524:
2525: When translated to IIB coordinates the $\calE_{(2,0)}$
2526: contribution has the form $r_B^{-1}\,\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}(\Omega)\,
2527: S^4\,\calR^4$.
2528:
2529: \subsubsection{$(p,q)=(1,1)$}
2530: With some effort one can use (\ref{b3detail}) to write $B_{(1,1)}= \sum_{j=0}^4 b_{(1,1)}^j$ where the $b_{(1,1)}^j$'s satisfy
2531: the Poisson equations (\ref{ecb}). It is straightforward to extend
2532: the general method described in sub-section~\ref{methnine}
2533: to determine the coefficient, $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}$, of the
2534: $\sigma_2\sigma_3\, \calR^4$ term in the amplitude. This is given by
2535: \be
2536: { 8\calV_2\over \pi^2 }\,I_{(1,1)}\equiv
2537: \calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}(\Omega )= \sum_{j=0}^4
2538: \calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)2j+1}(\Omega )\ ,
2539: \ee
2540: where $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)j}(\Omega )$ are modular functions
2541: satisfying
2542: \be
2543: (\Delta_\Omega -r(r+1))
2544: \calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)r}(\Omega )=- 2v_r E_{3\over 2} E_{3\over 2}- 4\pi^2 w_r E_{1\over 2} E_{1\over 2}\,,
2545: \qquad\quad r=2j+1 = 1,3,5,7,9\,,
2546: \label{fffm}
2547: \ee
2548: The coefficients $v_j,\ w_j$ are given in appendix~\ref{subsec:modten}.
2549:
2550: When translated to IIB coordinates this contribution has the form
2551: $r_B^{-3}\,\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}(\Omega)\, S^5\,\calR^4$.
2552:
2553: \subsubsection{The cases $(p,q) = (3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$}
2554: In this case there are two modular functions,
2555: $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}$, multiplying the independent
2556: kinematical structures $\sigma_2^3$ and $\sigma_3^2$.
2557: Equations in (\ref{b4ydef}) determine that $B_{(3,0)}^k= \sum_{k=0}^6
2558: b_{(3,0)}^{2k}$
2559: and $B_{(0,2)}^k= \sum_{k=0}^6 b_{(0,2)}^{2k}$ where $ b_{(3,0)}^k$ and $b_{(0,2)}^k$ satisfy the
2560: Poisson equations (\ref{xecb}). This leads to the expressions for the coefficients
2561: of the two kinematic structures at order $S^6\,\calR^4$,
2562: \bea
2563: {16 \over 3\pi^2}I_{(3,0)}\equiv
2564: \calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}(\Omega )
2565: &=&
2566: \sum_{k=0}^6 \calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)2k}(\Omega )\,,
2567: \nn\\
2568: {16 \over 3\pi^2}I_{(0,2)}\equiv
2569: \calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}(\Omega )
2570: &=&
2571: \sum_{k=0}^6 \calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)2k}(\Omega )\,,
2572: \label{ggiinn}
2573: \eea
2574: where $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)k} (\Omega )$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)k}(\Omega)$
2575: are modular functions satisfying,
2576: \bea
2577: (\Delta_\Omega -r(r+1))
2578: \calE_{(p,q)}^{(6)r}(\Omega )
2579: &=& - 2f_{(p,q)}^r E_{3\over 2} E_{5\over 2}- 16\zeta(2)\,
2580: (f_{(p,q)}^r+g_{(p,q)}^r)\, E_{1\over 2} E_{3\over 2}\,,
2581: \label{calgdefs}
2582: \eea
2583: where $r=2k= 2,4,6,8,10,12$ and $(p,q)=(3,0)$ or $(p,q)=(0,2)$ and the
2584: coefficients $f_{(p,q)}^r$ and $g_{(p,q)}^r$ are given in appendix~\ref{subsec:modtwelve}.
2585: The expressions for the functions $\calE_{3,0}^{(6)\,0}$ and
2586: $\calE_{0,2}^{(6)\, 0}$ associated with the constant function
2587: $b_{(3,0)}^0=12264/715$ and $b_{(0,2)}^0=2716/165$ can be obtained by direct evaluation of the
2588: integrals as in (\ref{kzerodef}) and (\ref{lzerodef}).
2589:
2590: When translated to IIB coordinates these $\calD^{12}\calR^4$
2591: contributions have the form $r_B^{-5}\,
2592: (\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}\,\hat\sigma_2^3 +\,\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}\, \hat
2593: \sigma_3^2)\, \calR^4$.
2594:
2595: \subsection{The nine-dimensional type IIB low energy string scattering amplitude}
2596:
2597: To summarize, we have determined a number of terms in
2598: the expansion of the the $\calT^2$ compactification of two-loop ($L=2$)
2599: eleven-dimensional supergravity
2600: up to order $S^6\, \calR^4$. Adding these to the terms found previously, gives the following
2601: expression in terms of the type IIB string
2602: theory parametrization:
2603: \bea
2604: A_{L=1}^{(d=9)}+A_{L=2}^{(d=9)} &=& r_B (g_B^{-\half}\, \calE_{(0,0)} (\Omega )\, \calR^4
2605: + g_B^{\half}\, \calE_{(1,0)} (\Omega )\, {\hat\sg_2 }\calR^4
2606: + g_B\, \calE_{(0,1)}(\Omega )\, {\hat\sg_3 }\calR^4)\nn\\
2607: &+&
2608: (4\pi)^2{ g_B^2\over r_B}\, \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)} (\Omega )\, {\hat\sg_2^2\over 288} \calR^4
2609: +(4\pi)^2\, {g_B^3\over r_B^3}\, \calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}(\Omega )\, {\hat\sg_2\hat\sg_3\over 3!\, 15120}\calR^4\nn\\
2610: &+& {(4\pi)^2\over 4!\, 302400}\, {12g_B^4\over r_B^5}\, \Big( \calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)} (\Omega )\, \hat\s_2^3 \calR^4
2611: +{4\over 3} \calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}(\Omega ) \, \hat\s_3^2 \calR^4\Big)
2612: \label{unxxx}
2613: \eea
2614: Here we have included the coefficients given in (\ref{eberz}) and the powers of $r_B$ and $g_B$
2615: in (\ref{stringparams}). The terms in the first line are the ones found in previous work,
2616: namely, the function $\calE_{(0,0)}$, which was derived from the $L=1$ amplitude \cite{ggv:oneloop}, and the
2617: functions ${\cal E}_{(1,0)}$ and ${\cal E}_{(0,1)}$ that were derived from the $L=2$ amplitude in
2618: \cite{gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}. We have not included terms that arise from renormalised subdivergent contributions
2619: (apart from the $\hat\sigma_2 \calR^4$ term), although these are easy to evaluate.
2620:
2621: We emphasize again that the Feynman diagrams of supergravity are only expected to be an
2622: approximation to low energy string theory in a limited range of moduli space, although some some very
2623: special processes are presumably protected by supersymmetry. This requires, in particular,
2624: that $r_B\ll 1$ or $r_A \gg 1$ with $\alpha's\, r^2_A \ll 1$.
2625: The type IIA expression follows by use of the usual T-duality relations
2626: \be
2627: r_A = r_B^{-1}\,,\qquad g_A = r_B^{-1} \, g_B\,.
2628: \label{tdual}
2629: \ee
2630:
2631: The functions $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}$, $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}$, $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}$
2632: are the unique $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant solutions of the Poisson
2633: equations obtained earlier, subject to the condition that they are no worse than power-behaved in $g_B$ as
2634: $g_B\to 0$.
2635: Our interest here is in obtaining the terms in these functions that are
2636: power-behaved in the string coupling $g_B= \Omega_2^{-1}$, which is the subject of the following
2637: sub-section.
2638:
2639:
2640:
2641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2642: \subsubsection{The perturbative expansion of $A_{IIB}^{(d=9)}$}
2643: \label{sec:pertmod}
2644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2645:
2646: In analyzing the perturbative parts of the solutions to the preceding Poisson equations
2647: we may replace $\Delta_\Omega$ by $\Omega_2^2\, \partial_{\Omega_2}^2$ since the perturbative terms
2648: are independent of $\Omega_1$.
2649: The cases $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ were discussed in \cite{gkv:twoloop, gv:D6R4}
2650: and reviewed in the introduction, so we will begin with the next term in the expansion.
2651:
2652: \medskip
2653: \noindent{ \it $(p,q)=(2,0)$}
2654: \smallskip
2655:
2656: We start with the coefficient, $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}=
2657: \sum_{i=0}^3 \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 2i}$ , of the $\sigma_2\calR^4\sim\calD^4 \calR^4$ terms.
2658: In this case, alone among the nine-dimensional terms that we are considering, there is a
2659: logarithmic singularity of order $S^4\, \log(\chi)\, \calR^4$, which arises from the sector with
2660: zero Kaluza--Klein modes,
2661: $m_I=n_I=0$, which enters into the function $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0}$. In addition to the analytic part,
2662: proportional to $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}\, \sigma_2^2\, \calR^4$, the amplitude therefore
2663: contains a nonanalytic part,
2664: \be
2665: A^{nonan}_{(2,0)} =\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\,0}\, S^4\, \log(\chi/C_{(2,0)})\, \calR^4\,,
2666: \label{sfourterm}
2667: \ee
2668: For $r=2,4,6$, we see from (\ref{primas}) that the perturbative parts of $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)r}$ satisfy
2669: \be
2670: (\Omega_2^2\partial_{\Omega_2}^2 -r(r+1))\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)r\, \rm pert}=-2 u_{r} \big(
2671: 4\zeta(3) \Omega_2^2 +
2672: 8\zeta(2) \big) \log {\Omega_2\over 4\pi c_e} \,,
2673: \label{poissei}
2674: \ee
2675: Hence
2676: \bea
2677: \Omega_2^{-2}\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)r\, \rm pert} &=&
2678: \a_{(2,0)}^{(r)} \Omega_2^{r-1} +\beta_{(2,0)}^{(r)}
2679: \Omega_2^{-r-2} + {8 u_r\zeta(3)\over (r(r+1)-2)^2}
2680: \left( 3+ (r(r+1) -2)\log {\Omega_2\over 4\pi c_e} \right)
2681: \non\\
2682: &-& {16\zeta(2)\, u_r\over (r(r+1))^2}\Omega_2^{-2}\left( 1 - r(r+1)\, \log {\Omega_2\over 4\pi c_e} \right)\, .
2683: \label{epertu}
2684: \eea
2685: where $u_2=20/21$, $u_4=90/ 77$, $u_6=640/165$
2686: and $\alpha_{(2,0)}^{(r)}$ and $\beta_{(2,0)}^{(r)} $ are integration constants and must be fixed by boundary conditions.
2687: Since the term proportional to $\alpha_{(2,0)}^{(r)}$ is an odd power of the string coupling, which does not appear
2688: in string perturbation theory, we deduce that $\alpha_{(2,0)}^{(r)}$ must be zero.
2689: As shown in \cite{gv:D6R4} and in
2690: appendix~\ref{sec:Diff},
2691: this uniquely determines the value of $\beta_{(2,0)}^{(r)}$.
2692:
2693:
2694: Summing all contributions and using the values of $u_1$, $u_2$ and
2695: $u_3$ given above leads to the complete
2696: contribution (including the $i=0$ term in (\ref{zeroconst}))
2697: \bea\label{e:calE}
2698: \Omega_2^{-2}\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\rm pert} &=&
2699: {16\over 5} \zeta(3) \log {\Omega_2 \over 4\pi c_e}
2700: + {4\over 9}\zeta(4) \Omega_2^{-4} +{4\over 945} \zeta(6) \Omega_2^{-6}
2701: + {512\over 496125} \zeta(8) \Omega_2^{-8}
2702: \,.
2703: \eea
2704: Notice that the sum of the $\zeta(2)\,\Omega_2^{-2}\, \log\Omega_2$
2705: terms appearing in each $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)i\, \rm pert}$ in (\ref{epertu}) have canceled with
2706: the $\log \Omega_2$ factor in $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)0}$
2707: (\ref{zeroconst}) and the only remaining genus-two term is the non-analytic term (\ref{sfourterm}),
2708: which is proportional to $g_B^2\,s^4\,\log(\chi/r_B^2 C_{(2,0)})$
2709: in the IIB string parametrization).
2710:
2711: Furthermore, we see that in the language of type IIB string theory, where $\Omega_2^{-1} = g_B$,
2712: the $S^4\, \calR^4$
2713: coefficient contains perturbative string contributions from genus-one to genus-five.
2714: The genus-one and genus-two terms (proportional to $\Omega_2^0$ and $\Omega_2^{-2}$, respectively),
2715: are simply obtained by equating the corresponding terms on the left-hand and right-hand sides of
2716: (\ref{poissei}). The
2717: power-behaved terms at order $\Omega_2^{-4}$, $\Omega_2^{-6}$ and $\Omega_2^{-8}$
2718: have been evaluated using the method described in appendix~\ref{sec:Diff}.
2719: We recognize part of the genus-one contribution to $\hat\sigma_2^2\,\calR^4$ in nine dimensions
2720: derived in \cite{grv:oneloop}.
2721: Indeed, the $\log\Omega_{2}$ term originates from the stringy
2722: corrections to the massless threshold
2723: and is associated with the $\log r$ term found in \cite{grv:oneloop}.
2724: It is notable that the scale of the logarithm is absolutely determined
2725: in this expression.
2726:
2727:
2728: \medskip
2729: \noindent{\it $(p,q)=(1,1)$}
2730: \smallskip
2731:
2732: Now we turn to the power-behaved terms in $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)\rm pert}$, the coefficient of the
2733: $\sigma_2\sigma_3\, \calR^4\sim \calD^{10}\calR^4$ contribution,
2734: which are determined by (\ref{fffm}).
2735: In this case the source term (the right-hand side of (\ref{fffm})) contains the powers $\Omega_2^0,\dots,\Omega_2^{-4}$
2736: which lead to terms with the same powers in $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(2)\rm pert}$. In addition there are $\beta$ terms that are
2737: again deduced from the expressions in appendix~\ref{sec:Diff}. The
2738: result is
2739: \bea\label{e:calF}
2740: \Omega_2^{-3}\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)\rm pert} &=& {180}\zeta(3)^2 +
2741: {7168\over 15}\, \zeta(2) \zeta(3) \Omega_2^{-2} -
2742: {1456\over 3} \, \zeta(2) \Omega_2^{-2} \log {\Omega_2\over 4\pi c_e}
2743: + {3248\over 3}\zeta(4) \Omega_2^{-4}\nn\\
2744: &+&{98\over 9}\zeta(6) \Omega_2^{-6}
2745: +{896\over 405}\zeta(8) \Omega_2^{-8}+{304\over 1875}\zeta(10) \Omega_2^{-10}
2746: +{185600\over 15802479}\zeta(12) \Omega_2^{-12}\,.
2747: \eea
2748: Note that the scale of the $\log \Omega_2$ term is determined in this expression.
2749: Thus $\Omega_2^{-3}\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)\rm pert}$ contains terms that are interpreted as
2750: perturbative string theory contributions from genus-one up to genus-seven.
2751: Note, in particular, the presence of the genus-two $\log\Omega_2 $ term. This is directly related to the
2752: presence of a $S^5\, \log (-S)$ term at genus-two in ten-dimensional
2753: supergravity, as we saw in (\ref{aawanonstring}) and which is required by unitarity. This
2754: will be discussed in the analysis of ten-dimensional $L=2$ supergravity in
2755: appendix~\ref{sec:tenreg}.
2756: Importantly, the $\log$ square terms -- present in each $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)j}$ contribution -- have canceled out in the sum.
2757: This corresponds to the cancelation of the leading $1/\epsilon^2$ pole also described in
2758: appendix~\ref{sec:tenreg}.
2759:
2760: \medskip
2761: \noindent{\it $(p,q) =(3,0)$ and $(p,q)= (0,2)$}
2762: \smallskip
2763:
2764: Finally, we turn to the coefficients of the two order
2765: $S^6\,\calR^4$ terms, $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6){\rm pert}}$
2766: and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6){\rm pert}}$. These are determined by (\ref{calgdefs}). In this case the source term on the
2767: right-hand side of each of these equations contains the powers $\Omega_2^0\,\dots, \Omega_2^{-6}$, which determine the
2768: corresponding powers of $\Omega_2$ in the solutions. In addition, there are $\beta$ terms with powers $\Omega_2^{-8}\,
2769: \dots, \Omega_2^{-16}$ that are determined by the expressions in appendix~\ref{sec:Diff}. The resulting
2770: perturbative terms in the solutions are
2771: \bea
2772: \Omega_2^{-4}\calE_{(3,0)}^{{(6)\rm pert}} &=& 96\zeta(3)\zeta(5) +{8828\over 77}\zeta(2)\zeta(5)\Omega_2^{-2}-
2773: {28096\over 77} \zeta(3) \zeta(2)\Omega_2^{-2}
2774: \non\\
2775: &+& 1760\, \zeta(4)\,\Omega_2^{-4}
2776: \log {\Omega_2\over C_{(3,0)}}
2777: + {280\over 3} \zeta(6) \Omega_2^{-6} +{1792\over 135}\zeta(8) \Omega_2^{-8}
2778: +{32\over 45}\zeta(10) \Omega_2^{-10}
2779: \non\\
2780: &+& {30720\over 53207} \zeta(12) \Omega_2^{-12} -{707584\over 7432425}\zeta(14) \Omega_2^{-14}
2781: +{973635584\over 41937606711}\zeta(16) \Omega_2^{-16}
2782: \label{e:calGx}\eea
2783: and
2784: \bea
2785: \Omega_2^{-4}\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6){\rm pert}} &=& 96\zeta(3)\zeta(5) +
2786: {81148\over 693}\zeta(2)\zeta(5)\Omega_2^{-2}-{233512\over 693} \zeta(3)
2787: \zeta(2)\Omega_2^{-2}
2788: \non\\
2789: &+&1680 \zeta(4)\, \Omega_2^{-4}\, \log {\Omega_2\over C_{(0,2)}}
2790: + {1120\over 9} \zeta(6) \Omega_2^{-6}
2791: +{3584\over 405}\zeta(8) \Omega_2^{-8}
2792: +{32\over 15}\zeta(10) \Omega_2^{-10}
2793: \non\\
2794: &+& {2432\over 159621} \zeta(12) \Omega_2^{-12} + {356268544\over 3277699425}\zeta(14) \Omega_2^{-14}
2795: +{215105536\over 9677909241} \zeta(16) \Omega_2^{-16}\,.
2796: \label{e:calGy}
2797: \eea
2798: Thus, these modular functions contain perturbative string
2799: contributions from genus-one up to genus-nine. Note, in particular,
2800: that the $\Omega_2^{-2}\, \log \Omega_2$ terms which are present for
2801: each individual eigenvalue have canceled in the sum. There remain two
2802: genus-two terms in (\ref{e:calGx}) and (\ref{e:calGy}), which have
2803: coefficients proportional to $\zeta(2)\zeta(3)$ and $\zeta(2)\zeta(5)$. Here we see another
2804: example of the lack of transcendentality. The example described in the introduction arose in comparing
2805: contributions of different genera whereas here it arises purely at genus-two.
2806: The only $\log$ terms in (\ref{e:calGx}) and
2807: (\ref{e:calGy}) are the ones associated with the power $\Omega_2^{-4}$,
2808: which correspond to genus-three terms in string theory. As we will see,
2809: these have the numerical values expected on the basis of string
2810: unitarity. The undetermined constants $C_{(3,0)}$ and $C_{(0,2)}$ are
2811: once again associated with the scale of these $\log$ terms.
2812:
2813: In addition to the terms in (\ref{e:calGx}) and (\ref{e:calGy}) there are $\Omega$-independent terms arising from
2814: $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0}$ of the form $\zeta(2)^2 \,\log(\calV_2\Lambda)$, as given in
2815: (\ref{laplaceonee}). This is the same $\log \Lambda$ divergence that we found in the case of the $\calS^1$ compactification
2816: to ten dimensions in (\ref{h4zerox}) and (\ref{h4zeroy}). This new $\Lambda$-dependent term
2817: should be canceled by a local counterterm. The values of the
2818: earlier local counterterms, such as the one that cancels the $\Lambda^3$
2819: behaviour of the one-loop amplitude, were determined by enforcing T-duality and the equality of perturbative
2820: type IIA and IIB four-graviton scattering at low genus. Whether this argument
2821: can be extended to the case of the $\log \Lambda$
2822: terms is not clear.
2823:
2824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2825: \subsection{Connections with string perturbation theory in nine dimensions}\label{sec:string}
2826: \label{sec:stringres}
2827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2828: We can now compare the perturbative terms in the modular functions with known features of string
2829: perturbation theory. Contributions to terms that contribute in the ten-dimensional limit $r_B\to \infty$
2830: up to order $\calD^6\calR^4$
2831: arise from
2832: one-loop and two-loop eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on $\calT^2$, as discussed in
2833: \cite{ggv:oneloop,Russo:1997mk,gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}.
2834: No further ten-dimensional terms arise from the expansion
2835: of $L=2$ supergravity to higher orders in momenta as considered
2836: in this paper. A dimensional argument shows that in order to generate higher-order
2837: ten-dimensional string theory terms one needs to consider
2838: higher-loop supergravity amplitudes with $L>2$, together with corresponding counterterm diagrams that cancel
2839: divergences. One example that is easy to extract explicitly is a contribution
2840: $E_{7/2}\, \calD^4 \calR^4$ that emerges from a diagram involving two $\calR^4$ counterterms
2841: that cancels the contribution of a pair of one-loop sub-divergences in three-loop supergravity diagrams,
2842: as shown in figure~\ref{fig:threesub}. The emergence of this
2843: term follows from a simple dimensional argument that takes into account the fact that the
2844: double-divergence behaves as $\Lambda^6$ (i.e., $\Lambda^3$ for each loop).
2845: However, there is no reason to expect this to be the complete $(\alpha's)^4\, \log(\chi)\,\calR^4$ contribution.
2846:
2847:
2848: As we saw in the last subsection,
2849: the perturbative expansions of the modular functions considered in this paper all begin with
2850: genus-one terms followed by a finite series of higher-genus
2851: corrections. Some of these terms may be compared with the known
2852: string theory results, which mostly come from the low-energy expansion of the
2853: genus-one amplitude \cite{grv:oneloop}.
2854:
2855: \subsubsection{Comparison with genus-one string theory}
2856:
2857: The terms in (\ref{unxxx}), apart from $\hat\sigma_2\, \calR^4$ and $\hat\sigma_3\, \calR^4$,
2858: disappear in the ten-dimensional IIB limit, $r_B\to \infty $.
2859: However, as discussed earlier, if the supergravity approximation does make contact with string theory
2860: this would happen for large values of $r_A$, which is described by T-duality
2861: from the IIB expression in the small-$r_B$ limit.
2862: In this limit there are terms with both negative and positive powers of $r_{A}$.
2863: Those proportional to $r_A$ give rise to perturbative contributions
2864: of type IIA theory in ten dimensions. These comprise a genus-one contribution to
2865: $\hat \sigma_2^2\calR^4\sim\calD^8\calR^4$, a genus-two contribution to $\hat\sigma_2\hat\sigma_3\, \calR^4\sim\calD^{10}\calR^4 $
2866: and a genus-three contribution to the $\calD^{12}\calR^4$ terms $\hat\sigma_2^3\, \calR^4$ and $\hat\sigma_3^2\, \calR^4$, which
2867: will be discussed in the following subsection. There are also terms
2868: which behave as $r_A^{1+k}$, which diverge in the decompactification limit $r_{A}\to \infty$ and
2869: must be resummed in order to reconstruct
2870: the string thresholds in ten dimensions, as explained in \cite{grv:bigpaper}.
2871: In addition to terms that are power-behaved in $r_A$, in type IIA string perturbation theory
2872: there are exponentially suppressed terms of the form
2873: $e^{-r_A}$. Such highly-suppressed terms do not appear in the compactification of the
2874: perturbative supergravity amplitude, which is not sensitive to terms
2875: of the form $e^{-\calV_n}$ that decrease exponentially with the
2876: compactification volume.
2877:
2878: \begin{itemize}
2879: \item
2880: Consider the type IIA interpretation of the analytic contributions obtained in the previous subsection.
2881: The genus-one terms of the modular functions in (\ref{unxxx}) have the following form,
2882: \be
2883: \begin{split}
2884: A^{an}_{h=1}
2885: = 2\zeta(2)\,\bigg(&{1\over r_A}+
2886: {1\over 3 r_A}\,\zeta(3)\hat\sigma_3+
2887: {r_A^3\over 21}\zeta(3)^2 \hat\sigma_2\hat\sigma_3
2888: + {2 r_A^5 \over 525}
2889: \zeta(3)\zeta(5)
2890: \big( \hat\sigma_2^3 + {4\over 3}\hat\sigma_3^2\big)\\
2891: &- {4\over 15}\, r_A \zeta(3)\log(g_A/r_A)\, \hat\sigma_2^2\bigg)\,.
2892: \label{gensug}
2893: \end{split}
2894: \ee
2895: The analytic terms in this expression are exactly the same as those obtained from the genus-one
2896: string theory calculation in \cite{grv:oneloop}, so the $L=2$ eleven-dimensional
2897: supergravity on $\calT^2$ precisely reproduces these genus-one terms in string theory.
2898:
2899: The $\log r_A$ contribution in the last line of (\ref{gensug}) comes from the
2900: function $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}$ multiplying the $\hat\sigma_2^2\,\calR^4$ contribution, which contains
2901: $\log\Omega_{2}=-\log(g_{s}^B)$ factors of the form
2902: \be
2903: {1\over r_{B}}\, {16\over5}\, \zeta(3)\, \log(g_{s}^B)= r_{A}\,{16\over5}\, \zeta(3)\,
2904: \log(g_{s}^{A}/ r_{A})\, .
2905: \ee
2906: The coefficient of the $\log r_A$ piece agrees with that calculated in genus-one
2907: string perturbation theory on a circle of finite radius $r_{A}=r^{-1}_{B}$
2908: in \cite{grv:oneloop}. This leaves a term proportional to $\log g_A$.
2909:
2910: \item
2911: The genus-two term
2912: at order $\hat\sigma_2\hat\sigma_3\, \calR^4\sim\calD^{10}\calR^4$ contained in
2913: $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}$ in equation~(\ref{e:calF})
2914: has a $\log\Omega_{2}$ factor, whereas
2915: the terms proportional to $\log^2\Omega_{2}$ in each $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)\,j}$
2916: cancelled after summing up all contributions.
2917: This is consistent with the absence of the
2918: $1/\epsilon^2$ pole in the total two-loop supergravity calculation detailed in appendix~\ref{sec:DimReg}.
2919: After T-duality, this $h=2$ term transforms into a term in type IIA that is proportional to $r_A$ and therefore
2920: survives the $r_A\to \infty$ limit. It is therefore gratifying that its coefficient agrees with that
2921: evaluated by dimensional regularization in ten dimensions, as
2922: described earlier.
2923:
2924: \item
2925: The functions $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)}$
2926: of equations~(\ref{e:calGx}) and~(\ref{e:calGy})
2927: exhibit a genus-three logarithmic term of order $S^6\,\calR^4$ of the form
2928: \be
2929: r_B^{-5} \zeta(2)^2 g_B^4\log g_B =
2930: r_A \zeta(2)^2 g_A^4 \log {g_A\over r_A} \,,
2931: \ee
2932: which shows that these terms are again proportional to terms nonanalytic in $r_A$ in the IIA theory that are
2933: proportional to $r_A$. Therefore these terms survive the ten-dimensional IIA limit, which was
2934: obtained in the $\calS^1$ compactification in (\ref{astregn}). Since the IIA and IIB amplitudes are equal
2935: up to at least genus four, it follows that
2936: these terms also arise in ten-dimensional IIB with the same coefficients.
2937: This, in turn, is consistent with two-particle unitarity \cite{grv:bigpaper}, which relates the order
2938: $S^6\, \calR^4$ threshold contributions at genus-one and genus-three in
2939: string perturbation theory. The precise coefficients of the
2940: genus-one ($h=1$) massless thresholds at order $S^6\, \calR^4$ have been
2941: evaluated in string theory \cite{grv:oneloop}. The coefficients of the genus-three terms deduced above
2942: imply that the $h=1$ and $h=3$
2943: terms combine into the nonanalytic term proportional to
2944: \be
2945: g_B^{5/2}\, E_{5/2}\, ({11\over 210}\hat\sigma_2^3 + {1\over 15}\hat\sigma_3^2)\log(\chi)\, \calR^4\,,
2946: \label{genthree}
2947: \ee
2948: which is precisely
2949: the anticipated non-perturbative threshold term \cite{grv:bigpaper}.
2950: \end{itemize}
2951: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2952:
2953:
2954:
2955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2956: \section{ Supersymmetry and higher-derivative couplings -- a schematic discussion.}
2957: \label{sec:modular}
2958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2959:
2960: In this paper we have analyzed the momentum expansion of the two-loop
2961: four-graviton amplitude in eleven-dimensional supergravity
2962: up to order $S^6\, \calR^4$. We considered the compactification on
2963: $\calS^1$ to make contact with the ten-dimensional IIA theory, and on $\calT^2$
2964: to make contact with the nine-dimensional IIB theory. In the $\calS^1$ case
2965: we obtained a number of higher-momentum terms that correspond to terms of
2966: particular genus in string perturbation theory. In the $\calT^2$ case we
2967: obtained a number of higher-momentum terms with coefficients that
2968: are specific $SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant functions of the complex scalar coupling
2969: multiplying particular powers of $r_B$.
2970: We have found some impressive matches with perturbative string-theory
2971: results at different genera that are obtained from direct calculations in string perturbation
2972: theory \cite{grv:oneloop}
2973: combined with unitarity constraints \cite{grv:bigpaper}. However, it is clear that there would be
2974: immense problems in going further in this manner. To begin with, the pattern of
2975: ultraviolet divergences of Feynman diagrams becomes much more complicated at higher values of $L$,
2976: which raises questions about how to implement the cutoff on the Schwinger parameters at higher
2977: loops. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this procedure of computing supergravity
2978: amplitudes with an ultraviolet cutoff and determining the finite part by using string dualities,
2979: can account for the details of intrinsically M-theory quantum effects,
2980: such as quantum effects of membranes,
2981: to all orders in the low energy expansion of string theory.
2982: Interestingly, according to the argument in \cite{Berkovits2006} that uses the pure spinor
2983: formalism, the terms of order $S^6R^4$ are the first terms for which one does not
2984: expect a non-renormalization theorem to hold just on the basis of
2985: supersymmetry. It is therefore of interest that the genus-one pieces and the threshold pieces of the genus-three
2986: terms in the $S^6\calR^4$ coefficient functions match the string theory results.
2987:
2988: More generally, it is of interest to consider to what extent the structure of
2989: the coefficients in the momentum expansion
2990: might be determined by symmetry constraints that might generalize to higher orders.
2991: In particular, it would be of interest to determine the extent to which maximal
2992: supersymmetry controls the form of the inhomogeneous Laplace equations satisfied by the
2993: coefficients.
2994:
2995: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2996: \subsection{Supersymmetry}
2997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2998:
2999: The structure of the Poisson equations satisfied by the coefficient functions should
3000: be highly constrained by maximal supersymmetry, although this has not been explored in
3001: detail beyond the lowest order term in the momentum expansion.
3002: In the case of the $\calR^4$ term the supersymmetry constraints are indeed
3003: known to determine that the coefficient function is the modular function $E_{3/2}$ \cite{Green:1998by}.
3004: At general order in the momentum expansion the requirement is that the full effective action
3005: be invariant under the modified supersymmetry transformation with spinor parameter $\epsilon$
3006: acting on any field $\Phi$ is
3007: \be
3008: \label{susymod}
3009: \delta\, \Phi = \left(\delta^{(0)} + {\a'}^3 \, \delta^{(3)} + {\a'}^5 \, \delta^{(5)}
3010: + \dots\right)\, \Phi\, ,
3011: \ee
3012: where $\delta^{(0)}$ is the classical supersymmetry transformation
3013: and $\delta^{(n)}\, \Phi$
3014: denotes the modified transformation at $O({\a'}^n)$. Invariance of the modified action, $
3015: (\alpha')^4\, S = S^{(0)} + \alpha'\, S^{(1)} + \ldots + (\alpha')^n \, S^{(n)} +
3016: \ldots$ (where $S^{(n)}$ is the action at order ${\alpha'}^n$) requires
3017: \be
3018: \left( \sum_{m=0}^r {\alpha'}^m \delta^{(m)} \right) \sum_{n=o}^r
3019: {\alpha'}^n S^{(n)} = 0 ,
3020: \label{invaract}
3021: \ee
3022: Furthermore, the modified supersymmetry transformations must form a closed algebra when acting
3023: on $\Phi$, modulo terms proportional to the modified $\Phi$ equation of motion and local symmetry transformations.
3024: This means that the commutator
3025: of two supersymmetry transformations with spinorial parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ is given by
3026: \be
3027: \left[\delta_1\,,\delta_2\right]\, \Phi = -2{\rm Im} (\bar\epsilon_2\gamma^\mu\epsilon_1)\,
3028: \partial_\mu\Phi + \Phi\ {\rm eqn. \ of\ motion}+ \delta_{local}\, \Phi\,,
3029: \label{modeq}
3030: \ee
3031: where $\gamma_\mu$ is a Dirac Gamma matrix for the ten-dimensional theory, the second term is proportional to an
3032: equation of motion and the third term represents local symmetry transformations.
3033:
3034: In \cite{Green:1998by} these equations at order ${\alpha'}^3$
3035: were used to determine that the ten-dimensional type IIB $\calR^4$ coefficient satisfies a Laplace
3036: eigenvalue equation of the form (\ref{lapeig}) that has as solution
3037: the modular function $\calE_{(0,0)}=E_{3/2}$.
3038: A similar argument at $O({\a'}^5)$ involving $\delta^{(5)}$
3039: determines the modular function $\calE_{(1,0)} =E_{5/2}/2$
3040: \cite{sinha}. Similarly,
3041: the form of the Poisson equation with a quadratic source term (\ref{poiss}) that
3042: determines $\calE_{(0,1)}=\calE_{(3/2,3/2)}/6$ is at least in qualitative accord with supersymmetry
3043: at $O({\a'}^6)$ \cite{gv:D6R4}. However, in this case, not only do the classical supersymmetries
3044: mix the ${\alpha'}^6\, S^{(6)}$ with the $O({\a'}^6)$
3045: supersymmetry transformations, $\delta^{(6)}$, but there is also mixing with the $O({\a'}^3)$
3046: variations, $\delta^{(3)}$, of the terms in $S^{(3)}$,
3047: \be
3048: \label{alphap6}
3049: \delta^{(6)}\, S^{(0)} + \delta^{(3)}\, S^{(3)}+ \delta^{(0)}\, S^{(6)} =0\,,
3050: \ee
3051: as well as in the closure of the algebra, where we require (ignoring detailed coefficients)
3052: \be
3053: [\delta_1^{(0)},\, \delta_2^{(6)}] + [\delta_1^{(6)},\, \delta_2^{(0)}] + [\delta_1^{(3)},\, \delta_2^{(3)}]
3054: = 0 + \frac{\delta S^{(6)}}{\delta \Phi^*} + \delta_{local}\, \Phi\,.
3055: \label{sixalg}
3056: \ee
3057: We may refer to terms such as $\delta^{(3)}\, S^{(3)}$ and their generalizations at higher order as
3058: `intermediate mixing terms'. These are terms of intermediate order in $\alpha'$ that mix
3059: with the $\delta^{(0)}$ (i.e., classical) variation of a higher-order term.
3060: The detailed analysis of these constraints is very
3061: cumbersome and has not been carried out. However, the structure of
3062: (\ref{alphap6}) and (\ref{sixalg}) is
3063: just what is needed for the coefficient function $\calE_{(0,1)}$ to satisfy a Poisson equation with a source
3064: term that is proportional to $E_{3/2}E_{3/2}$ arising from the presence of the contributions from intermediate mixing,
3065: $\delta^{(3)}\, S^{(3)}$ and $[\delta_1^{(3)},\, \delta_2^{(3)}]$.
3066:
3067: More generally, at order ${\alpha'}^p$ the modified supersymmetry conditions,
3068: \be \sum_{k=0}^p \delta^{(p-k)}\, S^{(k)}=0\,,
3069: \label{gensusy}
3070: \ee
3071: mix all terms at orders $k\le p$. The Poisson equations can, in general, have a number of distinct source terms that are
3072: quadratic in different lower order terms, as we have seen. There may also be degeneracies in which several terms
3073: of the same order mix under supersymmetry.
3074:
3075: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
3076: \subsection{Systematics of the nine-dimensional amplitude}
3077:
3078: These arguments suggest how the pattern might continue to higher derivatives.
3079: The general structure should involve Poisson equations with quadratic source terms that
3080: are determined by commuting two supersymmetries. Each factor that appears in the
3081: source is itself a modular function associated with a lower-order interaction or modified supersymmetry
3082: transformation.
3083: The fact that the source terms in the Poisson equations found in section~\ref{sec:ttwo} should
3084: be consistent with supersymmetry should therefore provide information concerning classes of terms
3085: in the nine-dimensional amplitude.
3086:
3087: We can illustrate this in a very schematic manner by listing the subset of terms required to
3088: reproduce the Poisson equations that we earlier obtained by analyzing $L=2$ diagrams of eleven-dimensional
3089: supergravity. In the language of the effective action, and
3090: ignoring coefficients, the effective action contains the following terms,
3091: \be
3092: S^{(9)} = S^{(9)}_{subset} + S^{(9)}_{rest}\,,
3093: \label{twosets}
3094: \ee
3095: where $S^{(9)}_{subset}$ is a subset of terms of the form $D^{2k}\, \calR^4$
3096: that will mix with each other under the intermediate supersymmetries, such as $\delta^{(3)} S^{(3)}$
3097: in (\ref{alphap6}) and its higher order generalizations. The following set of terms is needed
3098: \bea
3099: S_{subset}^{(9)} &=& \int d^9x \sqrt{-G^{(9)}}\, r_B\, \bigg( R+ {\a'}^3 E_{3\over 2}\,\calR^4+
3100: {\a'}^4\, r_B^{-2}\, E_{1\over 2}\, D^2\calR^4\non\\
3101: &+&{\a'}^5\, (E_{5\over 2} + r_B^{-4}\, E_{3\over 2})\, D^4\calR^4+{\a'}^6 (\calE_{(0,1)}^{(0)}
3102: + r_B^{-6}\,E_{5\over 2})\, D^6\calR^4\non\\
3103: &+& {\a'}^7\, (r_B^{-2}\,\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)} + r_B^{-8}\,E_{7\over 2})\,D^8\calR^4+{\a'}^8
3104: (r_B^{-4}\, \calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}+ r_B^{-10}\, E_{9\over 2})\, D^{10}\calR^4
3105: \non\\
3106: &+& {\a'}^9(r_B^{-6}\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)} + r_B^{-12}\, E_{11\over 2})\, D^{12}\calR^4\bigg)\, ,
3107: \label{nineffact}
3108: \eea
3109: where $D^{12}\calR^4$ stands for both kinematic structures $\sigma_2^3\calR^4$ and $\sigma_3^2 \calR^4$
3110: (and $G^{(9)}$ is the metric in the nine-dimensional space transverse to the torus).
3111: The coefficient functions are various modular functions, including some
3112: that have been discussed in this and earlier papers. We have included
3113: the interaction $r_B^{-1}\, E_{1/2}\, D^2\calR^4 \sim r_B^{-1}\, E_{1/2}\, \sigma_1\,\calR^4$, where
3114: $\sigma_1 = S+T+U$, even though it vanishes on shell when the dilaton is constant, because
3115: it is important for the structure of $\a'$--corrected supersymmetry transformations. In considering the
3116: supersymmetry variations of the fields in the action we need to consider general infinitesimal transformations
3117: (that are not on-shell).
3118: This is the $k=1$ term in the series of terms,
3119: $r_B^{1-2k}\, E_{k-1/2}\, D^{2k}\calR^4$, that
3120: arises from $L=1$ supergravity on $\calT^2$ \cite{Russo:1997mk,gkv:twoloop}.
3121:
3122: The remaining terms, which are contained in $S^{(9)}_{rest}$, include a host of further contributions that mix with $S^{(9)}_{subset}$
3123: under both the classical and higher-order supersymmetry transformations. Such terms, which are not of the form
3124: $D^{2k}\, \calR^4$ but involve the other fields in
3125: the supergravity multiplet, generally carry nonzero $U(1)$ charge, $u$ (where $U(1)$ is the $R$-symmetry
3126: of the IIB theory). The moduli-dependent coefficients of terms of this type are modular forms that transform with
3127: a phase under $SL(2,\ZZ)$ that compensates for the non-zero phase associated with the charge $u$. An example of such
3128: a term is $\calE_{(0,0)}^{-2}\, G^2\, R^3$, where $G$ is the complex type IIB three-form that carries unit $U(1)$ charge
3129: \cite{Schwarz:1993} and the modular form $\calE_{(0,0)}^u$ is given by acting with a
3130: $U(1)$-covariant derivative $u$ times
3131: on the Eisenstein series $E_{3/2}$ \cite{Green:1998by}\footnote{The superscript $u$ was suppressed for the
3132: coefficients $\calE_{(p,q)}$ of the $U(1)$-conserving terms considered explicitly earlier in
3133: this paper, which all have $u=0$.}
3134: Such $U(1)$-violating interactions are not present in classical IIB supergravity
3135: and are believed to arise in string theory only in $n$-point functions with $n>4$.
3136:
3137: The double expansion in powers of $\a'$ and powers of $r_B^{-2}$ in (\ref{nineffact})
3138: fits in with the general structure expected from supersymmetry.
3139: Demanding supersymmetry at a given order ${\a'}^{6+p} r_B^{-2p}$ gives conditions that can
3140: schematically be argued to associate modular functions with source terms as shown in the table.
3141: \begin{table}[h]
3142: \begin{center}
3143: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|}
3144: \hline
3145: ORDER & COEFFICIENT & SOURCE\\
3146: \hline
3147: ${\a'}^7 r_B^{-2}$&$\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)}$ & $E_{\half}E_{\threeh}$\\ \hline
3148: ${\a'}^8 r_B^{-4}$ & $\calE_{(1,1)}^{(4)}$&$ E_{\threeh}E_{\threeh} + E_{\half}E_{\half}$\\ \hline
3149: ${\a'}^9 r_B^{-6}$& $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)}$ & $E_{\threeh}E_{\fiveh}+ E_{\half}E_{\threeh}$\\ \hline
3150: \end{tabular}
3151: \caption{Summary of source terms associated with the inhomogeneous Laplace equations for various
3152: coefficient functions.}
3153: \end{center}
3154: \end{table}
3155: In the first line the source arises from the presence of
3156: ${\alpha'}^3\,E_{3/2}\,\calR^4$ and ${\alpha'}^4\, r_B^{-2}\, E_{1/2}\,D^2\calR^4$ in (\ref{nineffact}),
3157: together with their supersymmetric partners, which we have not determined. The powers of
3158: both $\alpha'$ and $r_B$ are such that these terms can
3159: mix with the $\delta^{(0)}$ transformation of the $O({\alpha'}^7\, r_B^{-2})$ terms.
3160: In the second line, the first source term comes from ${\alpha'}^3\, E_{3/2}\, \calR^4$ with
3161: ${\alpha'}^5\,r_B^{-4}\, E_{3/2}\,D^4\calR^4$,
3162: while the second source term comes from the ${\alpha'}^4\,r_B^{-4}\, E_{1/2}\,D^2\calR^4$ (more precisely,
3163: from the term $\delta^{(4)}S^{(4)}$ in the supersymmetry
3164: transformation at order $r_B^{-4}$).
3165: In the third line the first source term comes from ${\alpha'}^3\, E_{3/2}\,\calR^4$ and
3166: ${\alpha'}^6\, r_B^{-6}\, E_{5/2}\,D^6\calR^4$
3167: while the second source term comes from ${\alpha'}^4\, r_B^{-2}\, E_{1/2}\, D^2\calR^4$ and
3168: ${\alpha'}^5\,r_B^{-4}\, E_{3/2}\, D^4\calR^4$.
3169: In this manner we can see how the structure of the source terms in
3170: the Poisson equations of section~\ref{sec:ttwo} arise.
3171:
3172: These very sketchy arguments do not explain why the modular invariant coefficients in
3173: (\ref{nineffact}) are generally {\it sums} of modular functions satisfying Poisson equations, as we have seen
3174: in the examples derived from $L=2$ supergravity in this paper. This could well arise from the possible
3175: degeneracies in terms that mix with each other under supersymmetry mentioned earlier, which obviously merits further study.
3176:
3177: Finally, even the set of $D^{2k}\, \calR^4$ terms shown explicitly in $S^{(9)}_{subset}$ in (\ref{nineffact})
3178: is not complete. In the case of the lowest derivative terms,
3179: $\calR^4$, $\hat \sigma_2 \calR^4$ and $\hat\sigma_3 \calR^4$
3180: the complete coefficients can be deduced
3181: by imposing T-duality on the expressions obtained by compactifying $L=1$ and $L=2$-loop
3182: supergravity on a circle\footnote{Furthermore, the exact form of the coefficients of these terms
3183: is known in eight dimensions, where they are $SL(3,\ZZ)\otimes SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant functions
3184: \cite{Kiritsis:1997em,Basu:2007ru,Basu:2007ck}. The exact nine-dimensional expression can therefore be
3185: deduced by decompatifying these expressions.}. The terms of higher order in $\alpha'$
3186: have not been completed, although T-duality, together with the tree-level and one-loop perturbative
3187: string theory `data',
3188: do lead to some very suggestive constraints on the missing terms.
3189: However, we expect significant generalizations in the structure of the Poisson equations satisfied by the
3190: coefficients of the higher order terms, and a complete determination
3191: will almost certainly need an extension of the considerations of this
3192: paper.
3193:
3194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3195: \subsection{Concluding remarks}
3196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3197:
3198: We have determined terms in the derivative expansion of type II superstring theory that
3199: arise via duality
3200: from compactification of two-loop ($L=2$) eleven-dimensional supergravity on a circle and on a two-torus up
3201: to order $S^6\, \calR^4$.
3202: In the case of the two-torus compactification these coefficients are sums of modular functions of the scalar fields,
3203: satisfying an intriguing set of Poisson equations
3204: on moduli space with source terms that are bilinear in lower-order coefficients. This is the
3205: principle message of this paper. The structure of these equations has a form that is in line with the expectations
3206: based on implementing maximal supersymmetry. Although the terms that we have determined in this manner are incomplete,
3207: there are many intriguing correspondences with results directly obtained from string perturbation theory at tree-level and
3208: genus one in nine and ten dimensions. This structure should generalize to the larger moduli spaces that become
3209: relevant upon compactification to lower dimensions. Examples of this are the
3210: $SL(3,\ZZ)\otimes SL(2,\ZZ)$-invariant functions relevant
3211: to the compactification on $\calT^3$ to eight dimensions that were mentioned in the previous footnote.
3212:
3213: As emphasized in the introduction, supersymmetry guarantees that this structure should also apply to the low-energy
3214: expansion of the four-particle amplitudes in which the external states are any of the 256 states in the supermultiplet.
3215: These amplitudes conserve the $U(1)$ charge, $u$. However,
3216: as we have discussed, the full nonlinear supersymmetry relates such processes
3217: to amplitudes with total $u\ne 0$, and should therefore provide interesting constraints on these $U(1)$ non-conserving
3218: processes. However, the analysis of the
3219: complete set of conditions implied by supersymmetry is far from complete.
3220:
3221: All this suggests that the exact expressions for the moduli-dependent coefficients at higher orders in the
3222: low-energy expansion are given by duality-invariant functions that are
3223: solutions of generalizations of the Poisson equations obtained from
3224: two-loop ($L=2$) supergravity (\ref{ipoisso}).
3225:
3226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3227: \section*{Acknowledgements}
3228: We would like to thank Don Zagier, Nathan Berkovits and Sav Sethi for useful discussions.
3229: P.V. would also like to thank the Niels Bohr Institute for the
3230: hospitality during the completion of this work.
3231: This work was partially supported by the RTN contracts MRTN-CT-
3232: 2004-503369, MRTN-CT-2004-512194 and MRTN-CT-2004-005104, the ANR grant
3233: BLAN06-3-137168, MCYT FPA 2007-66665 and by NORDITA.
3234:
3235:
3236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3237: \appendix
3238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3239:
3240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3241: \section{Properties of the integrands $B_{(p,q)}$}\label{sec:Modular}
3242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3243:
3244: In this appendix we will describe properties of the functions $B_{(p,q)}$ that enter in the integrands
3245: of the coefficients $I_{(p,q)}$ in (\ref{e:DefIn}).
3246: The coefficients $I_{(1,0)}$ and $I_{(0,1)}$ were computed in
3247: \cite{gkv:twoloop,gv:D6R4}, respectively. The higher order coefficients
3248: of interest here are $I_{(2,0)}$, $I_{(1,1)}$, $I_{(3,0)}$, $I_{(0,2)}$.
3249: Recall that the functions $B_{(p,q)}$ are proportional to the functions $\tilde B_{(p,q)}$
3250: that enter into the expansion of the integrand in
3251: (\ref{funcint}),
3252: \be
3253: B_{(p,q)}=d_{(p,q)}\, \tilde B_{(p,q)}\,,
3254: \label{ddefnew}
3255: \ee
3256: where the coefficients $d_{(p,q)}$ are arbitrarily chosen integers that avoid the
3257: occurrence of unwieldy coefficients in the main equations. The values of $d_{(p,q)}$ of relevance to
3258: the examples in this paper were given in (\ref{bbtildef}).
3259:
3260:
3261: After mapping the integrand from the domain in figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(a) to
3262: figure~\ref{fig:ModularRegions}(b) the functions $B_{(p,q)}(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ are manifestly invariant under the
3263: transformation $\tau_1 \to -\tau_1$, which is equivalent to the symmetry $\tau\to 1-\tau^*$ in the original region.
3264: This means that the dependence on $\tau_1$
3265: enters via the combination
3266: \be
3267: T_1 = -\tau_1^2+|\tau_1|\, ,
3268: \label{betadeff}\ee
3269: and there is a discontinuity in $\partial_{\tau_1}$ at $\tau_1=0$.
3270: The coefficient of the $\sigma_2\,\calR^4\sim \calD^4 \calR^4$ term is simply $B_{(1,0)}(\tau)=1$ \cite{gkv:twoloop}.
3271: In this notation the coefficient of the $\sigma_3\,\calR^4\sim \calD^6 \calR^4$ term \cite{gv:D6R4} in (
3272: \ref{bonedef}) and (\ref{bonedefb}) is given by
3273: \be
3274: B_{(0,1)}(\tau) = \tau_2 + {1-6T_1\over \tau_2} + {5T_1^2\over \tau_2^3}
3275: \,.
3276: \label{bonedefnew}
3277: \ee
3278: We will here show that the higher order functions $B_{(p,q)}(\tau)$ are given by sums of the form\footnote{We would like to thank Don Zagier for
3279: explaining us the mathematical significance of this decomposition}
3280: \be
3281: B_{(p,q)}(\tau) = \sum_{ i=0}^{\lceil \threeh N\rceil}\, b_{(p,q)}^{3N-2i}(\tau)\,,
3282: \label{modsum}
3283: \ee
3284: where $N=2p+3q-2$ and $b_{(p,q)}^{i}$
3285: satisfies a Poisson equation with delta function source of general structure
3286: \be
3287: \Delta b_{(p,q)}^{i}(\tau) =
3288: i(i+1)
3289: \, b_{(p,q)}^{i}(\tau) -\tau_2\,
3290: c_{(p,q)}^{i}(\tau_2)\, \,\delta(\tau_{1})\,,
3291: \label{poissoeq}
3292: \ee
3293: %
3294: where $c_{(p,q)}^i(\tau_2)$ is a polynomial of order $N-1$ in $\tau_2+\tau_2^{-1}$.
3295: The index $i$ takes values $\lceil 3N/2\rceil$.
3296: The range of the summation index in (\ref{modsum}) is
3297: determined by the powers of $1/\tau_{2}$ in the expansion of
3298: $B_{(p,q)}$ which has the general form
3299: \be
3300: B_{(p,q)} (\tau) =\sum_{i=0}^{2N} \, q_{2i}(|\tau_1|)\,
3301: \tau_2^{N-2i}
3302: \label{bngen}
3303: \ee
3304: where $q_{2i}(|\tau_1|)$ are polynomials of degree $i$
3305: in $T_1$.
3306: The highest inverse power of $\tau_2$ in this sum is given by a
3307: constant times $T_1^{2N}\,\tau_2^{-3N}$.
3308:
3309: An important feature for later considerations is that
3310: $q_{2}(|\tau_1|)=q_2^{(0)}\, (1-6T_1)/6$ where
3311: $q_2^{(0)}$ is a constant. Since
3312: \be
3313: \int_{-\half}^\half d \tau_1 (1-6T_1)=0\, ,
3314: \label{importlat}
3315: \ee
3316: it follows that the zero mode with respect to $\tau_1$ satisfies
3317: \be
3318: \int_{-\half}^\half d\tau_1 \, (B_{(p,q)} - q_0\tau_2^{2p+3q-2}) = O(\tau_2^{2p+3q-5})\,.
3319: \label{zermod}
3320: \ee
3321:
3322: In the following subsections
3323: we will present the rather unwieldy complete expressions for the $B_{(p,q)}$ functions up to order $N=2p+3q-2
3324: =4$ of interest in this paper, which result from computer evaluations. However, it is worth noting two general
3325: features of these functions that are straightforward to derive to all orders.
3326:
3327: Firstly, for the special value $\tau_1=0$ (or $L_2=0$ in terms of the original Schwinger parameters),
3328: only the planar diagrams contribute to the amplitude
3329: and the integrals over the vertex positions $t_r$ can be computed explicitly. The result is
3330: \be
3331: \tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1=0,,L_3/L_1)= \alpha_{p,q} \sum_{k=0}^N
3332: c(k)c(N-k) \ \tau_2^{N-2k}\,,
3333: \label{tauonezero}
3334: \ee
3335: where
3336: \be
3337: \alpha_{p,q}= {N!\,(N+2)(p+q-1)!\over p! q! 2^p 3^q}\ ,\qquad c(k)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi } }{2^{2 k+1}(k+1)
3338: \Gamma \left(k+\frac{3}{2}\right)}\, .
3339: \label{tauonecoeff}
3340: \ee
3341: The coefficient $\alpha_{p,q}$ arises from the conversion of $\sigma_{N+2}$ to $\sigma_2^p\sigma_3^q$
3342: using the identity \cite{gv:stringloop}
3343: \be
3344: \sigma_n = n\, \sum_{2p+3q=n}{(p+q-1)!\over p! q! 2^p 3^q}\, \sigma_2^p\sigma_3^q\,,
3345: \label{sigident}
3346: \ee
3347: while the coefficients $c(k)$ come from further combinatorics in the expansion of the integrand (\ref{funcint}).
3348:
3349: Secondly, for arbitrary values of the Schwinger parameters, $L_k$, the leading terms in the expansion of
3350: $\tilde B_{(p,q)}$ for large $\tau_2=\Delta^{\half}/(L_1+L_2)$ are
3351: \be
3352: \tilde B_{(p,q)}(L_2/L_1,L_3/L_1)=
3353: \alpha_{p,q} \left( a_{N} \ \tau_2^{N}+ b_{N}\big( 1-6T_1\big)
3354: \tau_2^{N-2}+O\big(\tau_2^{N-4}\big) \right)\,,
3355: \label{leadingtau}
3356: \ee
3357: with
3358: \be
3359: a_N = {\sqrt\pi\over 2^{2 N+1} (N+1)\,\Gamma \left(N+ {3\over
3360: 2}\right)}\ ,\qquad b_N = {\sqrt\pi\,
3361: (N+1)\Gamma(N-1)\over 3\cdot 2^{2 N+1} \ \Gamma \left(N+ {1\over 2}\right)}\,.
3362: \label{leadingcoeff}
3363: \ee
3364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3365: \subsection{Properties of $B_{(2,0)}$}\label{sec:ModD8R4}
3366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3367:
3368: The modular function $B_{(2,0)}$ that enters the $\sigma_2^2\,\calR^4\sim\calD^4\calR^4$ interaction has the form
3369: \begin{equation}
3370: B_{(2,0)} = {4\over5}\, \tau_2^2+(1 -
3371: 6\,T_1) + {2\over5}\, \frac{2 - 15\,T_1 +
3372: 40\,T_1^2}{\tau_2^2}\
3373: + {2\over5}\, \frac{T_1^2\,\left(
3374: 11 - 43\,T_1 \right) }{\tau_2^4} +
3375: {32\over5}\,\frac{T_1^4}{\tau_2^6}\ .
3376: \label{b22def}
3377: \end{equation}
3378:
3379:
3380:
3381: We will now describe the iterative process for writing $B_{(2,0)} = \sum_{i=0}^6
3382: b_{(2,0)}^{2i}$, where each of the functions
3383: $b_{(2,0)}^{2i}$ satisfies a Poisson equation with delta function
3384: source of the form given in~(\ref{poissoeq}). The procedure will be the same in the
3385: cases with $N>2$.
3386: First consider the action of the laplacian
3387: $\Delta_{\tau}=\tau_{2}^2\,(\partial_{\tau_{1}}^2+\partial_{\tau_{2}}^2)$
3388: on a function of the form $q_n(|\tau_1|)/\tau_2^r$ with
3389: $q_n(|\tau_1|)$ polynomials of degree $n$ in the decomposition
3390: of the $B_{(2,0)}$ in (\ref{bngen}).
3391: The action of the laplacian gives two types of
3392: contributions
3393: \be\label{ediffone}
3394: \Delta_{\tau}{q_n(|\tau_1|) \over\tau_2^r} =r(r+1) {q_n(|\tau_1|)
3395: \over\tau_2^r}+ {q_n^{\prime\prime}(|\tau_1|)\over\tau_2^{r-2}}\ .
3396: \ee
3397: The first contribution is proportional to the original function times
3398: an `eigenvalue' determined by the power of $\tau_2$. The
3399: second contribution is of the same type as the original function but
3400: with the power of $\tau_2$ increased by $2$ and the numerator is a polynomial
3401: $q^{\prime\prime}_n(|\tau_1|)$ of degree $n-2$. The linear term
3402: $|\tau_1|$ in $q_n$ contributes to the $\delta(\tau_1)$ source in the Poisson
3403: equation using $\partial_{\tau_1}^2 |\tau_1| = 2\delta(\tau_1)$. Splitting off
3404: this contribution by writing
3405: \be
3406: q_n^{\prime\prime}(|\tau_1|) = \hat q_n(|\tau_1|) +q_n^{(1)}\, \delta(\tau_1)
3407: \ee
3408: one finds that (\ref{ediffone}) can be rewritten as
3409: \be\begin{split}
3410: \Delta_\tau \left({q_n(|\tau_1|) \over\tau_2^r} + {\hat
3411: q_n(|\tau_1|) \over(4r-1)\,\tau_2^{r-2}} \right)=& r(r+1)\left({q_n(|\tau_1|) \over\tau_2^r} + {\hat
3412: q_n(|\tau_1|) \over (4r-1)\,\tau_2^{r-2}} \right)\cr
3413: &+{\hat q^{\prime\prime}_n\over(4r-1)\, \tau_2^{r-4}}+
3414: {q_n^{(1)}\over\tau_2^{r-2}}\delta(\tau_1)\, .
3415: \end{split}\ee
3416: By iterating this procedure until the degree of the polynomial in
3417: $|\tau_1|$ is $1$ or $0$, one
3418: can construct an eigenfunction of the laplacian $\Delta_\tau$
3419: together with a delta function source term. This defines the function $b_{(p,q)}^{3N}$
3420: that contains the most negative power, $\tau_2^{-3N}$. After subtracting this function
3421: from $B_{(2,0)}$, the most negative remaining power is $\tau_2^{-3N+2}$ and the
3422: above procedure may be repeated to determine the function $b_{(p,q)}^{3N-2}$, and so on until
3423: the complete set of functions has been determined.
3424:
3425:
3426: Applying this procedure to $B_{(2,0)}$ leads to a sum of the following $b_{(2,0)}^i$ functions,
3427: \begin{eqnarray}
3428: b_{(2,0)}^{0}(\tau)&=&-{13\over21}\nn\\
3429: b_{(2,0)}^{2}(\tau)&=&{10\over21}\left(\tau_2^2+ 1-2T_1
3430: + \frac{(1-T_1)^2}{ \tau_{2}^2}\right)\nn\\
3431: b_{(2,0)}^{4}(\tau)&=& {10\over 77}\Big(\tau_2^2+\frac{3}{5}\, (4-15T_1)
3432: + \frac{1-9T_1+15T_1^2}{ \tau_{2}^2}
3433: +
3434: 7T_1^2\, \frac{1-T_1}{{\tau_2}^4}\Big) \nn \\
3435: b_{(2,0)}^{6}(\tau)&=&{32\over165}\Big( {\tau_2}^2+\frac{10}{7}(3-14T_1)+ \frac{1-20T_1+70T_1^2}{{\tau_2}^2} \nn \\
3436: &+& 6T_1^2\, \frac{3-14T_1}{ {\tau_2}^4} +
3437: \frac{33\, T_1^4}{ {\tau_2}^6} \Big) \, .
3438: \label{eca}
3439: \end{eqnarray}
3440: These functions satisfy the inhomogeneous Laplace equations for $r=0,2,4,6$
3441: \begin{equation}
3442: \Delta b_{(2,0)}^{r}(\tau) =r (r+1)\, b_{(2,0)}^r(\tau) -2u_r\,\tau_2\,
3443: (\tau_{2}+\tau_2^{-1}) \,\delta(\tau_{1})\, ,
3444: \label{b2ieq}
3445: \end{equation}
3446: where $u_0=0$ and, for $r=2,4,6$,
3447: \be
3448: u_r={1\over 4} q_r\, (r(r+1) -2) =({10\over 21},{45\over 77},{64\over 33})\ , \qquad q_r=({10\over 21},
3449: {10\over 77},{32\over 165})
3450: \label{qdefs}
3451: \ee
3452: The value $u_r$ can be computed by
3453: \be
3454: \partial_{\tau_1} b_{(2,0)}^{r}\bigg|_{\tau_1=0} =-2u_n (1+\tau_2^{-2})
3455: \ee
3456:
3457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3458: \subsection{Properties of $B_{(1,1)}$}\label{subsec:modten}
3459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3460: The modular function associated the coefficient of $\sigma_2\sigma_3\,\calR^4\sim\calD^{10}\calR^4$
3461: is given by
3462: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
3463: B_{(1,1)}= & \frac{45\,\tau_2^3}{2} + 35\,\left( 1 - 6\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2+
3464: \frac{7\,\left( 10 - 75\,T_1 + 191\,T_1^2 \right) }{2\,\tau_2}+
3465: \frac{45 - 420\,T_1 + 1372\,T_1^2 -
3466: 2086\,T_1^3}{2\,\tau_2^3} \cr
3467: &+ \frac{T_1^2\,\left( 285 - 1264\,T_1 + 1761\,T_1^2 \right) }{2\,\tau_2^5}
3468: + \frac{T_1^4\,\left( 347 - 782\,T_1 \right) }{2\,\tau_2^7}+\frac{145\,T_1^6}{2\,\tau_2^9}
3469: \end{split}\label{b3detail}\end{equation}
3470: %
3471: Following the previous iterative procedure
3472: this function can straightforwardly be shown to be a sum of five modular functions
3473: $B_{(1,1)}=\sum_{j=0}^4\,b_{(1,1)}^{2j+1}$
3474: that again satisfy Poisson equations with delta-function source terms,
3475: \bea
3476: b_{(1,1)}^1&=&-\frac{245}{66}\, \left( \tau_2+ {1 - T_1 \over \tau_2} \right)\\
3477: b_{(1,1)}^3&=&-\frac{7}{429}\, \Big( - 679\, \tau_2^3 + 3\, \left(
3478: 176 + 679\, T_1 \right) \, \tau_2+ {-679 + 2037\, T_1 +
3479: 4677\, T_1^2 +
3480: 679\, T_1^3 \over \tau_2^3}\\
3481: \nn& -& \frac{3\, \left( -176 + 1735\,
3482: T_1 + 679\, T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2}\Big)\\
3483: \nn b_{(1,1)}^5&=&{49\over39}\,\Big( 7\,\tau_2^3- 12\,\left( -2 + 7\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2 +
3484: \frac{6\,\left( 4 - 25\,T_1 + 35\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2} - \frac{7\,\left( -1 + 12\,T_1 - 36\,T_1^2 + 28\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^3} \\
3485: &+&
3486: \frac{63\,{\left( -1 + T_1 \right) }^2\,T_1^2}{\tau_2^5}\Big)\\
3487: b_{(1,1)}^7&=&-{1862\over7293}\,\Big(- 9\,\tau_2^3 +
3488: 5\,\left( -11 + 45\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2
3489: - \frac{5\,\left( 11 - 98\,T_1 + 210\,T_1^2 \right)
3490: }{\tau_2}
3491: \\
3492: \nn&+& \frac{9\,\left( -1 + 25\,T_1 - 140\,T_1^2 + 210\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^3}
3493: - \frac{33\,T_1^2\,\left( 6 - 38\,T_1 + 45\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^5}
3494: +\frac{429\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right) \,T_1^4}{\tau_2^7} \Big)\\
3495: \nn b_{(1,1)}^9&=&{1\over4862}\Big( 11172\,\tau_2^3 -
3496: \frac{18620\,\left( -11 + 45\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2}{3} + \frac{18620\,\left( 11 - 98\,T_1 + 210\,T_1^2 \right)
3497: }{3\,\tau_2}\\
3498: \nn& -&
3499: \frac{11172\,\left( -1 + 25\,T_1 - 140\,T_1^2 + 210\,T_1^3 \right)
3500: }{\tau_2^3}
3501: + \frac{40964\,T_1^2\,\left( 6 - 38\,T_1 + 45\,T_1^2 \right)
3502: }{\tau_2^5}
3503: \\
3504: &-&\frac{532532\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right)
3505: \,T_1^4}{\tau_2^7} +\frac{352495\,T_1^6}{\tau_2^9}\Big) \,.
3506: \eea
3507: The inhomogeneous Laplace equations satisfied by these functions are
3508: given by, for $r=1,3,5,7,9$
3509: \be
3510: \Delta_\tau b_{(1,1)}^r =r(r+1)\, b_{(1,1)}^r- 2\tau_2\big(v^{r} (\tau_2^2+
3511: \tau_2^{-2})
3512: +w^r\big)\ \delta(\tau_1 )\,,
3513: \label{ecb}
3514: \ee
3515: %
3516: where the constants $v^r$ and $w^r$ are given by
3517: \bea
3518: \nn v^1&=&0\ ,\ \ \ v^3={14\cdot 679\over 143}\ ,\ \ \ v^5={196\cdot
3519: 14\over 13}\ ,\ \ \
3520: v^7={18620\cdot 45\over 7293}
3521: \ ,\ \ \ v^9={6090\cdot 11\over 2431}\, ,\\
3522: w^1&=&-{245\over 33} \ ,\qquad w^3=-{14\cdot 1735\over 143}\ ,\qquad
3523: w^5=
3524: {196\cdot 25\over 13} \,,\\
3525: \nn w^7&=&{18620\cdot 98\over 7293} \ ,\qquad w^9={6090\cdot 30\over 2431}\,.
3526: \eea
3527:
3528:
3529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3530: \subsection{Properties of $B_{(3,0)}$ and $B_{(0,2)}$}\label{subsec:modtwelve}
3531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3532: The integrands that define the coefficients $I_{(3,0)}$, $I_{(0,2)}$
3533: of the $S^6\,\calR^4$ contributions
3534: $\sigma_2^3\,\calR^4$ and $\sigma_3^2\, \calR^4$, respectively, are
3535: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
3536: B_{(3,0)}=& 24\,\tau_2^4+ 45\,\left( 1 - 6\,T_1
3537: \right) \,\tau_2^2 + 4\,\left( 14 - 105\,T_1 + 270\,T_1^2
3538: \right) + \frac{3}{\tau_2^2} \,\left( 15 - 140\,T_1 +
3539: 462\,T_1^2 - 756\,T_1^3 \right)\cr
3540: & + \frac{6
3541: }{\tau_2^4}\,\left( 4 - 45\,T_1 + 190\,T_1^2 -
3542: 390\,T_1^3 + 558\,T_1^4 \right) +
3543: \frac{3\,T_1^2}{\tau_2^6}\,\left( 58 - 334\,T_1 +
3544: 715\,T_1^2 - 1402\,T_1^3 \right) \cr
3545: & +
3546: \frac{24\,T_1^4 }{\tau_2^8}\,\left( 10 - 41\,T_1 +
3547: 167\,T_1^2 \right) +
3548: \frac{24\,T_1^6}{\tau_2^{10}}\,\left( 7 - 93\,T_1 \right)
3549: + \frac{516\,T_1^8}{\tau_2^{12}}
3550: \end{split}\label{b4xdef}\end{equation}
3551: and
3552: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
3553: B_{(0,2)}&=24\,\tau_2^4 + 45\,\left( 1 - 6\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2+14\,\left( 4 - 30\,T_1 + 75\,T_1^2 \right)
3554: + \frac{ 45 - 420\,T_1 + 1358\,T_1^2 - 1904\,T_1^3 }{\tau_2^2}\,\cr
3555: &+
3556: \frac{6}{\tau_2^4}\,\left( 4 - 45\,T_1 + 185\,T_1^2 - 330\,T_1^3 + 197\,T_1^4 \right)
3557: + \frac{T_1^2 \,\left( 174 -
3558: 942\,T_1 + 1265\,T_1^2 +
3559: 1418\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^6}\cr
3560: &+
3561: \frac{2T_1^4}{\tau_2^8}\,\left( 105 - 96\,T_1 - 1529\,T_1^2 \right)
3562: - \frac{76\,T_1^6 }{\tau_2^{10}}\,\left( 1 - 27\,T_1 \right)
3563: - \frac{494\,T_1^8}{\tau_2^{12}}
3564: \end{split}\label{b4ydef}\end{equation}
3565:
3566:
3567:
3568: The functions $B_{(3,0)}$ and $B_{(0,2)}$ are each given by a sum of seven functions
3569: $b_{(3,0)}^{2k}$ and $b_{(0,2)}^{2k}$ with $k=0,\dots,6$,
3570: which satisfy Poisson equations, The detailed form of these functions
3571: is
3572: straightforward to determine using the iterative process described earlier, giving
3573: \bea
3574: b_{(3,0)}^0&=&{12264\over715}\,,
3575: \eea
3576: \bea
3577: b_{(3,0)}^2&=&-{2408\over143}\,\big( \tau_2^2+1 - 2\,T_1 + \frac{\left( 1 - T_1
3578: \right) ^2}{\tau_2^2}\big)\,,
3579: \eea
3580: \bea
3581: \nn b_{(3,0)}^4&=&{42\over12155}\,\Big(3915\,\tau_2^4 - 20\,\left( -181 + 783\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2+3\,\left( 547 - 3030\,T_1 + 7830\,T_1^2
3582: \right) \\
3583: \nn& -&
3584: \frac{10\,\left( -362 + 909\,T_1 - 732\,T_1^2 + 1566\,T_1^3 \right)
3585: }{\tau_2^2}\\
3586: &+& \frac{5\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right) \,\left( -783 + 2349\,T_1 +
3587: 413\,T_1^2 + 783\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^4} \Big)\,,
3588: \eea
3589: \bea
3590: b_{(3,0)}^6&=&-{1\over 3553}\Big( - 20322\,\tau_2^4 + 5\,\left( -10889 + 60966\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2-10\,\left( -1827 - 7280\,T_1 +
3591: 101610\,T_1^2 \right) \nn
3592: \\
3593: \nn& +&
3594: \frac{5\,\left( -10889 + 14560\,T_1 + 91294\,T_1^2 +
3595: 284508\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^2}\\
3596: \nn & -&
3597: \frac{6\,\left( 3387 - 50805\,T_1 + 112530\,T_1^2 + 152260\,T_1^3 +
3598: 152415\,T_1^4 \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\
3599: &+& \frac{33\,T_1^2\,\left( -6774 + 20322\,T_1 +
3600: 13295\,T_1^2 + 6774\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^6}\Big)\,,
3601: \eea
3602: \bea
3603: \nn b_{(3,0)}^8&=&{2\over2717}\Big(
3604: 7920\,\tau_2^4- 3600\,\left( -17 + 66\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2+
3605: 25200\,\left( 4 - 30\,T_1 + 55\,T_1^2
3606: \right) \\
3607: \nn& -& \frac{3600\,\left( -17 + 210\,T_1 - 798\,T_1^2 + 924\,T_1^3 \right)
3608: }{\tau_2^2}
3609: +
3610: \frac{7920\,\left( 1 - 30\,T_1 + 225\,T_1^2 - 600\,T_1^3 +
3611: 495\,T_1^4 \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\
3612: &- &\frac{102960\,T_1^2\,\left( -1 + 2\,T_1 \right) \,\left( 2 - 12\,T_1 +
3613: 11\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^6}
3614: + \frac{514800\,{\left( -1 + T_1 \right) }^2\,T_1^4}{\tau_2^8}
3615: \Big)\,,
3616: \eea
3617: \bea
3618: \nn b_{(3,0)}^{10}&=&{2\over1062347}\Big(- 756756\,\tau_2^4
3619: + 407484\,\left( -22 + 91\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2-333396\,\left( 50 - 451\,T_1 +
3620: 1001\,T_1^2 \right) \\
3621: \nn& +&
3622: \frac{407484\,\left( -22 + 369\,T_1 - 1881\,T_1^2 + 3003\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^2}\\
3623: \nn& -&
3624: \frac{756756\,\left( 1 - 49\,T_1 + 567\,T_1^2 - 2310\,T_1^3 + 3003\,T_1^4
3625: \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\
3626: \nn& +& \frac{2270268\,T_1^2\,\left( -15 + 215\,T_1 - 880\,T_1^2 + 1001\,T_1^3
3627: \right) }{\tau_2^6}\\
3628: &-&
3629: \frac{12864852\,T_1^4\,\left( 15 - 87\,T_1 + 91\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^8}
3630: + \frac{244432188\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right)
3631: \,T_1^6}{\tau_2^{10}}\Big)\,,
3632: \eea
3633: \bea
3634: \nn b_{(3,0)}^{12}&=&{2\over96577}\Big(16770\,\tau_2^4+
3635: - 40248\,\left( -7 + 30\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2
3636: +119196\,\left( 5 - 52\,T_1 + 130\,T_1^2
3637: \right)\\
3638: \nn& -&
3639: \frac{281736\,\left( -1 + 22\,T_1 - 143\,T_1^2 + 286\,T_1^3 \right)
3640: }{\tau_2^2}
3641: +
3642: \frac{16770\,\left( 1 - 72\,T_1 + 1188\,T_1^2 - 6864\,T_1^3 + 12870\,T_1^4 \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\
3643: \nn&-&
3644: \frac{1140360\,T_1^2\,\left( -1 + 22\,T_1 - 143\,T_1^2 + 286\,T_1^3 \right)
3645: }{\tau_2^6}+
3646: \frac{2166684\,T_1^4\,\left( 5 - 52\,T_1 + 130\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^8}\\
3647: &-& \frac{4333368\,T_1^6\,\left( -7
3648: + 30\,T_1 \right) }{\tau_2^{10}}+ \frac{24916866\,T_1^8}{\tau_2^{12}}\Big)\,,
3649: \eea
3650: %
3651: and
3652: \bea
3653: b_{(0,2)}^0&=&{12264\over715}\,,
3654: \eea
3655: \bea
3656: b_{(0,2)}^2&=&-{2128\over143}\,\left( \tau_2^2+1 - 2\,T_1 + \frac{\left( 1 - T_1
3657: \right) ^2}{\tau_2^2} \right)\,,
3658: \eea
3659: \bea
3660: \nn b_{(0,2)}^4&=&{42\over12155}\,\Big( 3385\,\tau_2^4
3661: - 20\,\left( -69 + 677\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2
3662: +3\,\left( -927 + 2630\,T_1 + 6770\,T_1^2 \right) \\
3663: \nn&- & \frac{10\,\left( -138 - 789\,T_1 + 1992\,T_1^2 + 1354\,T_1^3
3664: \right) }{\tau_2^2}\\
3665: &+& \frac{5\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right) \,\left( -677 + 2031\,T_1 + 2807\,T_1^2 + 677\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^4}
3666: \Big)\,,
3667: \eea
3668: \bea
3669: \nn b_{(0,2)}^6&=&-{1\over 561}\Big( - 6090\,\tau_2^4+ 525\,\left( -43 +
3670: 174\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2-350\,\left( 61 - 420\,T_1 +
3671: 870\,T_1^2 \right)
3672: \\\nn &+&
3673: \frac{525\,\left( -43 + 280\,T_1 - 574\,T_1^2 + 812\,T_1^3
3674: \right) }{\tau_2^2}
3675: - \frac{210\,\left( 29 - 435\,T_1 + 1500\,T_1^2 -
3676: 1200\,T_1^3 + 1305\,T_1^4 \right) }{\tau_2^4}
3677: \\
3678: &+&
3679: \frac{1155\,T_1^2\,\left( -58 + 174\,T_1 - 65\,T_1^2 + 58\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^6}
3680: \Big)\,,
3681: \eea
3682: \bea
3683: \nn b_{(0,2)}^8&=&{1\over143}\Big( 22\,\tau_2^4 - 10\,\left( -17 +
3684: 66\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2+
3685: 70\,\left( 4 - 30\,T_1 + 55\,T_1^2 \right)
3686: \\\nn & -&
3687: \frac{10\,\left( -17 + 210\,T_1 - 798\,T_1^2 + 924\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^2}+
3688: \frac{22\,\left( 1 - 30\,T_1 + 225\,T_1^2 - 600\,T_1^3 + 495\,T_1^4
3689: \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\
3690: &-& \frac{286\,T_1^2\,\left( -1 + 2\,T_1 \right) \,\left( 2 - 12\,T_1 + 11\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^6} + \frac{1430\,
3691: {\left( -1 + T_1 \right) }^2\,T_1^4}{\tau_2^8} \Big)\,,
3692: \eea
3693: \bea
3694: \nn b_{(0,2)}^{10}&=&-{1\over55913}\Big( - 90948\,\tau_2^4+ 48972\,\left( -22 + 91\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2
3695: -40068\,\left( 50 - 451\,T_1 + 1001\,T_1^2 \right)
3696: \\ \nn&+&
3697: \frac{48972\,\left( -22 + 369\,T_1 - 1881\,T_1^2 + 3003\,T_1^3
3698: \right) }{\tau_2^2}\\
3699: \nn&-&
3700: \frac{90948\,\left( 1 - 49\,T_1 + 567\,T_1^2 - 2310\,T_1^3 +
3701: 3003\,T_1^4 \right) }{\tau_2^4}
3702: \\
3703: &+&\frac{272844\,T_1^2\,\left( -15 + 215\,T_1 - 880\,T_1^2
3704: + 1001\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^6}\\ \nn&-&
3705: \frac{1546116\,T_1^4\,\left( 15 - 87\,T_1 + 91\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^8} + \frac{29376204\,\left( -1 + T_1 \right) \,T_1^6}{\tau_2^{10}}
3706: \Big)\,,
3707: \eea
3708: \bea
3709: b_{(0,2)}^{12}&=&-{1\over391}\Big( 130\,\tau_2^4 - 312\,\left( -7 +
3710: 30\,T_1 \right) \,\tau_2^2 +924\,\left( 5 - 52\,T_1 +
3711: 130\,T_1^2 \right)\\
3712: \nn &-&
3713: \frac{2184\,\left( -1 + 22\,T_1 - 143\,T_1^2 + 286\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^2} +
3714: \frac{130\,\left( 1 - 72\,T_1 + 1188\,T_1^2 - 6864\,T_1^3 + 12870\,T_1^4
3715: \right) }{\tau_2^4}\\ \nn&-&
3716: -\frac{8840\,T_1^2\,\left( -1 + 22\,T_1 - 143\,T_1^2 + 286\,T_1^3 \right) }{\tau_2^6}+
3717: \frac{16796\,T_1^4\,\left( 5 - 52\,T_1 + 130\,T_1^2 \right) }{\tau_2^8}
3718: \\
3719: \nn&- & \frac{33592\,T_1^6\,\left( -7 + 30\,T_1 \right) }{\tau_2^{10}}
3720: + \frac{193154\,T_1^8}{\tau_2^{12}}\Big)\,.
3721: \eea
3722: The inhomogeneous Laplace equations satisfied by these functions have the form
3723: \be
3724: \Delta_\tau b_{(p,q)}^r = r(r+1)\, b_{(p,q)}^r - 2\tau_2 \,\big(\tau_2+\tau_2^{-1}\big) \big[
3725: f_{(p,q)}^r (\tau_2^2+\tau_2^{-2})+g^r_{(p,q)} \big]\ \delta(\tau_1 )\,,
3726: \label{xecb}
3727: \ee
3728: where
3729: \bea
3730: &&f_{(3,0)}^{12}={15\cdot 12384 \over 7429}\ ,\ \ f_{(3,0)}^{10}=-{91\cdot 74088 \over 96577}\ ,\ \
3731: f_{(3,0)}^{8}={11\cdot 43200 \over 2717}\ ,\ \ f_{(3,0)}^{6}= {10\cdot 30483 \over 3553 }\ ,\ \non\\
3732: &&f_{(3,0)}^{4}={174\cdot 756 \over 2431}\ ,\ \ \ \ f_{(3,0)}^{2}=f_{(3,0)}^{0}=0\ ,\non\\
3733: &&g_{(3,0)}^{12}={62\cdot 12384 \over 7429}\ ,\ \ g_{(3,0)}^{10}=-{278\cdot 74088 \over 96577}\ ,\ \
3734: g_{(3,0)}^{8}={24\cdot 43200 \over 2717}\ ,\ \ g_{(3,0)}^{6}=- {10\cdot 23203 \over
3735: 3553 }\ ,\ \non\\
3736: &&g_{(3,0)}^{4}=-{73\cdot 756 \over 2431}\ ,\ \ g_{(3,0)}^{2}=-{4816\over 143}\ ,\ \ \
3737: g_{(3,0)}^{0}=0\ ,
3738: \eea and
3739: \bea
3740: &&f_{(0,2)}^{12}=-{15\cdot 624 \over 391}\ ,\ \ f_{(0,2)}^{10}={91\cdot 4452 \over 5083}\ ,\ \
3741: f_{(0,2)}^{8}={11\cdot 60 \over 143}\ ,\ \ f_{(0,2)}^{6}= {87\cdot 350 \over 187 }\ ,\
3742: \non\\
3743: &&f_{(0,2)}^{4}={84\cdot 1354 \over 2431}\ ,\ \ \ \ f_{(0,2)}^{2}=f_{(0,2)}^{0}=0\ , \non\\
3744: &&g_{(0,2)}^{12}=-{62\cdot 624 \over 391}\ ,\ \ g_{(0,2)}^{10}={278\cdot 4452 \over 5083 }\ ,\ \
3745: g_{(0,2)}^{8}={24\cdot 60 \over 143}\ ,\ \ g_{(0,2)}^{6}= {53\cdot 350 \over 187 }\ ,\
3746: \non\\
3747: &&g_{(0,2)}^{4}=-{84\cdot 2143 \over 2431}\ ,\ \ g_{(0,2)}^{2}=-{4256\over 143}\ ,\ \ \
3748: g_{(0,2)}^{0}=0\ .
3749: \eea
3750:
3751:
3752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3753: \section{Interactions from circle compactification to ten dimensions}
3754: \label{sec:s1compact}
3755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3756:
3757: We will here evaluate the integrals $I_{(p,q)}^{(d=10)}$ for ${(p,q)}=(2,0), (1,1), (3,0), (0,2)$ for the
3758: circle compactification that relates eleven-dimensional supergravity
3759: to ten-dimensional type IIA string theory. The method used to evaluate these
3760: integrals is an extension of that used for the $(0,1)$ case in \cite{gv:D6R4}, which
3761: we will review in the appendix~\ref{sec:D6R4circle} ($I_{(1,0)}^{(d=10)}$ was evaluated in \cite{gkv:twoloop}).
3762: First we will discuss some expressions that need to be evaluated in the course of the
3763: calculations.
3764:
3765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3766: \subsection{Some basic sums}\label{sec:integrals}
3767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3768: In the course of these calculations we will encounter both analytic and nonanalytic terms, as discussed
3769: in section~\ref{sec:infracut}. The calculation will reduce to the evaluation of expressions of the form
3770: \be
3771: \Sigma_\alpha (v,\Lambda,\chi)= \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}
3772: dx\, x^{-\alpha}\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x}\,e^{-{\chi f\over x}}\,.
3773: \label{sumalphval}
3774: \ee
3775: in the limit $\chi\,v \ll 1$ and $\Lambda^2 v\to \infty$ with $v$ fixed,
3776: where $f$ may be a function of $S_0$ and $T_0$, but its exact form will be irrelevant in the following
3777: (since, in general, we will not keep track of the scale of logarithmic thresholds). The regulating factor
3778: $e^{-\chi f/x}$ is inserted to regulate the infrared logarithmic factor as in (\ref{reguexp}).
3779:
3780:
3781: First consider the case $\alpha<1/2$. In this case we can safely set $S=0$ in (\ref{sumalphval}),
3782: giving
3783: \bea
3784: \Sigma_{\alpha<\half} = \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{\0chi}^{\Lambda^2}
3785: dx\,x^{-\alpha}\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x} = {\Lambda^{2-2\alpha}\over 1-\alpha} +
3786: 2\Gamma(1-\alpha)\, \zeta(2-2\alpha)\, (\pi v)^{\alpha-1}
3787: \,,
3788: \label{sumalphv}
3789: \eea
3790: where the $\Lambda$-dependence comes from the $\hat m=0$ term. For later reference we
3791: note
3792: \bea
3793: \Sigma_{-\half} = {2\over 3} \, \Lambda^3 + {1 \over \pi}\,\zeta(3)\, v^{-\threeh}\,,&&\qquad
3794: \Sigma_{-\threeh} = {2\over 5} \, \Lambda^5 + {3\over 2\pi^2 }\,\zeta(5) \, v^{-\fiveh}\nn\\
3795: \Sigma_0 &=& \Lambda^2 + {2 \over \pi}\,\zeta(2)\, v^{-1}
3796: \,.
3797: \label{exsum}
3798: \eea
3799: %
3800: Now we consider the case $\alpha =1/2$,
3801: \be
3802: \Sigma_\half= \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2 }
3803: {dx\over\sqrt x }\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x}\,e^{-{\chi f\over x}}\,.
3804: \label{sumfirst}
3805: \ee
3806: Here we cannot simply set $\chi =0$ since this leads to a singular sum,
3807: even though each term in the sum is finite,
3808: \be
3809: \Sigma_\half (\chi =0) = \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2 }
3810: {dx\over\sqrt x }\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x} = \sum_{\hat m\ne 0} {1\over \hat m}\,
3811: {\Gamma(\half)\over \sqrt {\pi v}}+ 2\Lambda \sim
3812: {2\over v^\half}\, \zeta(1)+ 2\Lambda \,.
3813: \label{sigmadeff}
3814: \ee
3815: The presence of a divergence in the form of $\zeta(1)$ shows the importance
3816: of keeping the factor of $e^{-\chi f/ x}$ in (\ref{sumfirst}).
3817:
3818: Separating the $\hat m=0$ contribution and computing the integral we find
3819: (for $Sfv\ll 1$, or $\alpha' s g_A^2 \ll 1$)
3820: \bea
3821: \Sigma_{\half} &=& 2\Lambda +\sum_{\hat m \neq 0} \int_0^\infty {dx\over \sqrt{x}} e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x -\chi f/x}
3822: = 2\Lambda+ \sum_{\hat m\neq 0}
3823: {1\over \sqrt{v \hat m}}e^{-2\sqrt{\pi \chi f v}|\hat m|}
3824: \non\\
3825: &=& 2\Lambda -{2\over \sqrt{v}} \log \big( 1-e^{-2 \sqrt{\pi \chi f v}}\big)
3826: \non
3827: \\
3828: &\cong & 2\Lambda - {1\over \sqrt{v}} \log (4\pi \chi f v)
3829: \label{sigres}
3830: \eea
3831: Notably, the scale of the logarithmic depends on $v=R_{11}^2$ but is independent of the
3832: cutoff $\Lambda$.
3833:
3834: Another special case that will be needed later is
3835: \bea
3836: \Sigma_1 &=& \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}
3837: {dx\over x}\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x}\, e^{-{\chi f\over x}}
3838: \nn\\
3839: &=& \log(v\, \Lambda^2/C') - {2\pi^{-\half}}\, (\chi f)^{-\half}\, v^{-\half}\,
3840: \label{sigone}
3841: \eea
3842: (where $C'$ is independent of $v$ and $\chi$),
3843: as can be checked by differentiating the first expression with respect to $\Lambda$ and with
3844: respect to $S$. The inverse power of $\chi$ will be ignored in the following as described in
3845: subsection (\ref{sec:infracut}).
3846:
3847:
3848: We now turn to consider $\alpha >1$. The integrand of $\Sigma_\alpha$ is more singular at small $x$ so
3849: \bea
3850: \Sigma_{\alpha>1} &=& \sum_{\hat m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}
3851: dx\,x^{-\alpha}\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 v x}\,e^{-{\chi f\over x}}
3852: \nn\\
3853: &=&{1\over v^\half}\, \sum_{ m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}
3854: {dx\over x^{\half} }\,x^{-\alpha}\, e^{-\pi m^2/ v x}\, e^{-{\chi f\over x}}\nn\\
3855: &=& {1\over v^\half}\, \sum_{ m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{1/\Lambda^2}^{\infty}
3856: dw\, w^{\alpha-\threeh }\, e^{-\pi m^2 w/v}\,e^{-\chi f w}
3857: \nn\\
3858: &=& {1\over v^\half}\, (\chi f)^{\half -\alpha}\, \Gamma(\alpha-\half)
3859: + {2\over v^\half}\, \,\left({v\over \pi}\right)^{\alpha-\half}\, \Gamma(\alpha -\half)\, \zeta(2\alpha-1) \,,
3860: \label{sumalphmore}
3861: \eea
3862: where we have performed a Poisson resummation to express the sum in terms of Kaluza--Klein integers $m$,
3863: and separated the $m=0$ term, which is proportional to $(-S)^{\half -\alpha}$ and set $S=0$ in the terms with $m\ne 0$.
3864: We note, in particular, that after again dropping negative powers of $\chi$,
3865: \be
3866: \Sigma_{\threeh} = {\pi v^\half\over 3}\,,
3867: \quad\qquad \Sigma_{\fiveh} = {\pi^2 v^{\threeh}\over 45}\, .
3868: \label{examplesii}
3869: \ee
3870:
3871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3872: \subsection{Evaluation of $I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$}\label{sec:D6R4circle}
3873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3874:
3875: The integral $I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$ of relevance to the $\sigma_3\,\calR^4$ interaction
3876: decomposes into three distinct pieces of the form
3877: \be
3878: I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}={I_{(0,1)}^{(3)}\over v^3}
3879: + I_{(0,1)}^{(3/2)}\,{\Lambda^3\over v^{3/2}} +I_{(1,0)}^{(0)}\, \Lambda^6\, ,
3880: \ee
3881: where $v=R_{11}^2$.
3882: The contribution $I_{(0,1)}^{(3)}$ is the finite part of the amplitude, which comes from
3883: non-zero winding numbers, and which was evaluated in
3884: in section~4 of \cite{gv:D6R4}. This corresponds
3885: to the tree-level string contribution to the $\calS^{(3)}\calR^4$ term in the amplitude
3886: (or the $\calD^6\calR^4$ interaction).
3887: The $I_{(0,1)}^{(3/2)}$ term proportional to $\Lambda^3$ comes from a one-loop sub-divergence
3888: that needs to be subtracted by the addition of the
3889: triangle diagram where one vertex is the $\calR^4$ one-loop
3890: counterterm. The $I_{(0,1)}^{(0)}$ term proportional to $\Lambda^6$ comes from a new two-loop
3891: divergence that also needs to be subtracted by the addition of a local counterterm.
3892:
3893: Each of these contributions satisfies a second order differential equation of the form,
3894: \be
3895: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big){ I_{(0,1)}^{(\alpha)}\over v^{\alpha}}=
3896: \alpha(\alpha-1)\, { I_{(0,1)}^{(\alpha)}\over v^{\alpha}}\, .
3897: \label{gensoll}
3898: \ee
3899: Applying the operator on the left-hand side of this equation to the explicit integral
3900: $I_{(0,1)}$ and using the explicit form of $\hat E$,
3901: \be
3902: \hat E(\tau,V) = v\, V {|\hat m+\hat n\tau|^2\over\tau_{2}}\,,
3903: \label{eexplic}
3904: \ee
3905: leads to
3906: \be
3907: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big) I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}=
3908: {\pi^2} \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ²} \int _\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV\, V^2\int _{\calF_\Lambda}
3909: {d^2\tau \over \tau_2^2} B_{(0,1)}(\tau) \Delta_\tau e^{-\pi \hat E(\tau,V)}\,.
3910: \label{laplaceone}
3911: \ee
3912: %
3913: After integration by parts,
3914: and using the Laplace equation (\ref{laplaceA}) satisfied by $B_{(0,1)}$
3915: this equation can be reexpressed as
3916: \be
3917: \begin{split}
3918: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}-12\big) I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}=& j_{(0,1)}- \partial I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}\, ,
3919: \end{split}
3920: \label{laplacetwo}
3921: \ee
3922: where $j_{(0,1)}$ is the bulk term
3923: \be
3924: j_{(0,1)} = - 12 {\pi^2}
3925: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _0^{\Lambda^2} dV\, V^2\int _1^{\Lambda^2\over V}
3926: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2}\,
3927: e^{-\pi \hat E}\, ,
3928: \label{bulk1}
3929: \ee
3930: and $ \partial I_{(0,1)}$ is the boundary term
3931: \be
3932: \partial I_{(0,1)} = {\pi^2} \left. \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}dV\, V^2
3933: \left(\partial_{\tau_{2}}B_{(0,1)}(\tau) \, e^{-\pi\hat E}-
3934: B_{(0,1)}(\tau)\partial_{\tau_{2}} e^{-\pi\hat E}\right) \right|_{\tau=\tau_2^\Lambda}\, ,
3935: \label{bounterm}
3936: \ee
3937: which receives contributions from
3938: $\tau_{2}= \tau_2^\Lambda=\Lambda^2/V$. Note that the upper limit
3939: on $V$ is equal to $\Lambda^2$ (whereas $V_\Lambda= 2\Lambda^2/\sqrt 3$) since
3940: $\tau_2^\Lambda = \Lambda^2/V \ge 1$.
3941:
3942: The boundary contributions with $\hat n\neq0$ are
3943: exponentially suppressed as $\Lambda^2\to\infty$ because
3944: they are proportional to
3945: \be
3946: e^{-v\, \hat n^2 \,\Lambda^2}\, .
3947: \ee
3948: Therefore only terms with $\hat n=0$ contribute to $\partial I_{(0,1)}$.
3949: These zero winding number terms contribute to the sub-leading divergence proportional to
3950: $\Lambda^3$, which is canceled
3951: by the diagram with the one-loop counterterm of
3952: (\ref{diag:counter}). Only the leading positive power of $\tau_2$ in $B_{(p,q)}$ contributes in an essential way to the
3953: boundary term
3954: (\ref{bounterm}).
3955: More explicitly, we may write
3956: $B_{(0,1)}(\tau)=\tau_{2} + \alpha_1(\tau_1) \tau_{2}^{-1} + o(\tau_2^{-3})$
3957: where $\int_{-1/2}^\half d\tau_1 \alpha_1(\tau_1) =\tilde \alpha_1=0$. In that case, after
3958: some manipulations (\ref{bounterm}) becomes
3959: \bea
3960: \partial I_{(0,1)} &=& \pi^2 \sum_{\hat m\in\ZZ}\int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}dV\, V^2
3961: \big( e^{-\pi \hat E}-
3962: (\tau_2^\Lambda)^{-1} \,(\pi\hat m^2 v V) \, e^{-\pi\hat E}\big)\nn\\
3963: &=& \pi^2 \sum_{\hat m\in\ZZ}\int_{0}^{\Lambda^2}dV\, V^2
3964: \big(1- {1\over \Lambda^2}\pi v V^2\hat m^2 \big)e^{-\pi {vV^2 \hat m^2\over \Lambda^2}}
3965: \nn\\
3966: &=&
3967: {\pi^2\over 3}\, \Lambda^6 - {3\over 2\pi } \, \zeta(2)\zeta(3)\,v^{-\threeh}\, \Lambda^3\, ,
3968: \label{boundthree}
3969: \eea
3970: using (\ref{exsum}) in the last step.
3971:
3972: The contribution from the bulk term in (\ref{laplacetwo}) is
3973: \be
3974: j_{(0,1)} = -12 \pi^2\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _0^{\Lambda^2}
3975: dV\, V^2\int _1^{V_\Lambda\over V}
3976: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2} \,e^{-\pi v\, V\, ( {m^2\over \tau_{2}}+ n^2 \tau_{2})}\, .
3977: \label{bulkss}
3978: \ee
3979: We now change variables to
3980: \be
3981: x=V/\tau_{2}\, , \qquad y=V\tau_{2}\, ,
3982: \label{xyvar}
3983: \ee
3984: which are integrated over the domain
3985: \be
3986: 0 < y < \Lambda^2 \, , \qquad 0 < x < y\, ,
3987: \label{limsxy}
3988: \ee
3989: with measure
3990: \be
3991: dV\, d\tau_2 = {1\over 2y}\, dx dy\, .
3992: \label{xymeas}
3993: \ee
3994: Noting that since the integrand is symmetric we can double the region of integration and
3995: integrate over $x$ and $y$ independently.
3996: In these variables we have
3997: \bea
3998: j_{(0,1)} &=& -3 \pi^2\, \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ} \int _0^{\Lambda^2} dx \int _0^{\Lambda^2} dy
3999: \sqrt{x\, y}\
4000: e^{-\pi v\,(\hat m^2 y +\hat n^2 x) }\nn\\
4001: &=& -3\pi^2 \, (\Sigma_{-\half})^2 = -{3\over v^3}\, \zeta(3)^2 - {24 \over \pi v^{\threeh}}
4002: \, \zeta(2)\zeta(3)\, \Lambda^3 -{4\over 3}\, \pi^2 \, \Lambda^6\, .
4003: \label{fullj}
4004: \eea
4005: %
4006: Substituting the contributions to $j_{(0,1)}$ and $\partial I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$ into (\ref{laplacetwo}) gives
4007: the Poisson equation
4008: \begin{equation}
4009: \begin{split}
4010: (v^2\partial^2_{v}+2v\partial_{v}-12)I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}=& - {3\over v^3}\,\zeta(3)^2
4011: - {45\over 2\pi v^{\threeh}}\,\zeta(2)\zeta(3)\, \Lambda^3 - 10\, \zeta(2) \,\Lambda^6\,.
4012: \end{split}
4013: \end{equation}
4014: This equation is simple to solve using the general formula (\ref{alpheq}), (\ref{hsols}), (\ref{gensol}), giving
4015: \begin{equation}
4016: I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)} =
4017: {5\over 6}\zeta(2)\, \Lambda^6 +\Lambda^3 {2\zeta(2) \zeta(3)\over\pi v^{3/2}} + {\zeta(3)^2\over 2\, v^3}\, .
4018: \end{equation}
4019: %%%%%%
4020: The $\Lambda^3$ divergence in $I_{(0,1)}$ is canceled by the counter
4021: term $\delta A_{\triangleright}$ of equation~(\ref{diag:counter}) which, at order
4022: $\sigma_3\,\calR^4$, contributes
4023: \begin{equation}\label{e:cc}
4024: I_{\triangleright\,(0,1)}^{(d=10)}= {\pi\over4}\,c_{1}\,
4025: \left({2\Lambda^3\over3}+ {\zeta(3)\over \pi \, v^{3/2}}\right) =
4026: {\zeta(2) \zeta(3) \over v^{\threeh}}
4027: - \Lambda^{3}{2\zeta(2)\zeta(3)\over \pi v^{\threeh}}
4028: - \Lambda^6 {4\zeta(2) \over 3}\, ,
4029: \end{equation}
4030: where we have used the
4031: value of $c_{1}$ given in (\ref{e:c1}).
4032: The relative normalisation of the counter-term triangle diagram with respect to the
4033: double box diagram,
4034: which is fixed by unitarity,
4035: is such that the $\Lambda^3$ divergence cancels. We also need to subtract
4036: the superficial $\Lambda^6$ divergence with a new counterterm
4037: \be
4038: \delta_{2} I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)} ={4\zeta(2)\over3} \Lambda^6 +
4039: {6\zeta(2)^2 \over 5}\, ,
4040: \label{countertwob}
4041: \ee
4042: where the value of the constant last term is determined from the value of the genus-two coefficient of the
4043: $\sigma_3\, \calR^4$ interaction in
4044: type IIB string theory, which is contained in the modular function $\calE_{(0,1)}$ \cite{gv:D6R4}
4045: (using the fact that the four-graviton amplitudes in the IIA and IIB theories are identical up to four loops).
4046: The total contribution
4047: \be
4048: I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}+I_{\triangleright\,(0,1)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)} =
4049: {\zeta(3)^2\over 2\, v^3}+ { \zeta(2)\zeta(3)\over
4050: v^{3/2}}+ {6\zeta(2)^2 \over 5}\, ,
4051: \label{ionetot}
4052: \ee
4053: %
4054: Using the dictionary between M-theory and string variables
4055: the first two terms coincide with the perturbative string tree-level and genus-one results. These
4056: are also reproduced by the first
4057: two terms of the perturbative expansion of $\calE_{(0,1)}$ (while the last term in (\ref{ionetot})
4058: is the genus-two term).
4059:
4060:
4061:
4062:
4063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4064: \subsection{Evaluation of $I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$}\label{sec:D8R4circle}
4065: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4066:
4067: In a similar fashion to the treatment of $I_{(0,1)}^{(d=10)}$, we may write $I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$ as the sum of three
4068: terms with different powers of $v$ (recalling that $v=R_{11}^2$)
4069: \be
4070: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}={I^{(2)}_{(2,0)}\over v^2}
4071: + I^{(1/2)}_{(2,0)}\,{\Lambda^3\over v^{1/2}} +I^{(0)}_{(2,0)}\, \Lambda^4\ .
4072: \ee
4073: The contribution $I^{(2)}_{(2,0)}$ is the finite part of the amplitude that comes from non-zero windings.
4074: The piece that diverges as $\Lambda^3$ comes from the sub-divergences in which there is zero winding in one loop
4075: and non-zero in the other. The leading $\Lambda^4$
4076: divergence does not make sense in string perturbation and is subtracted
4077: (just as the $\Lambda^8\, \calD^4\calR^4$ term was subtracted
4078: in \cite{gkv:twoloop}).
4079:
4080: Each of the contributions satisfies
4081: $$
4082: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big){ I^{(\alpha)}_2\over v^{\alpha}}=
4083: \alpha(\alpha-1)\, { I^{(\alpha)}_2\over v^{\alpha}}\ .
4084: $$
4085: Now we write $B_{(2,0)}$ as a sum of the four functions $b_{(2,0)}^0, b_{(2,0)}^2, b_{(2,0)}^4, b_{(2,0)}^6$
4086: satisfying Poisson equations with delta function sources. $I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$ is then naturally
4087: written as
4088: \be
4089: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}=\sum_{i=0}^3\, h_{(2,0)}^{2i}\ .
4090: \label{kuno}
4091: \ee
4092: The integral $h_{(2,0)}^0$ needs separate treatment, because
4093: $b_{(2,0)}^0=-13/21$ is a constant and will be considered later.
4094: The integrals $h_{(2,0)}^2,
4095: h_{(2,0)}^4, h_{(2,0)}^6$ can be computed by following the analogous computation to that given in the last
4096: sub-section (and
4097: section 4 of \cite{gv:D6R4}). By definition they satisfy the equations
4098: \be
4099: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big) \i_2^i=
4100: {\pi^3} \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV\, V\int _{\calF_\Lambda}
4101: {d^2\tau \over \tau_2^2} b_{(2,0)}^i(\tau) \Delta_\tau e^{-\pi\hat E}\ .
4102: \ee
4103: %
4104: where $\calF_\Lambda$ is once again the cutoff fundamental domain
4105: $\tau_{2}\leq \tau_2^\Lambda=\Lambda^2/V$ and $V_\Lambda = 2\Lambda^2/\sqrt 3$.
4106: Integrating by parts gives for $i=2,4,6$
4107: \be
4108: \begin{split}
4109: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}-i(i+1)\big) h_{(2,0)}^i= j_{(2,0)}^i - \partial h^i_{(2,0)}\,,
4110: \label{i3tot}
4111: \end{split}\ee
4112: where the bulk term is
4113: \be
4114: j_{(2,0)}^i = - 2 u_i {\pi^3}
4115: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV\, V\int _1^{\Lambda^2\over V}
4116: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2^2} \big(\tau_2^{2}
4117: +1\big) e^{-\pi E(0,\tau_{2})}
4118: \label{bulk2}
4119: \ee
4120: and the boundary term is
4121: \be
4122: \partial h^i_{(2,0)}={\pi^3} \left. \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2}\int_\0chi^{\Vlambda}dV\, V
4123: \left(\partial_{\tau_{2}}b_{(2,0)}^i(\tau) \, e^{-\pi\hat E}- b_{(2,0)}^i\,(\tau)
4124: \partial_{\tau_{2}} e^{-\pi\hat E}\right) \right|_{\tau=\tau_2^\Lambda}\,
4125: \label{i2bound}
4126: \ee
4127: (where $\lambda_{(2,0)}^i$ and $u_i$ are defined in the appendix~\ref{sec:ModD8R4}).
4128: %
4129:
4130: This boundary term again receives contributions from the region $\tau_{2}\sim \tau_2^\Lambda=\Lambda^2/V$
4131: and in the parametrization where $\hat E = v\, V |\hat m+\hat n\tau|^2/\tau_{2}$
4132: the contribution with $\hat n\neq0$ is again exponentially suppressed as $\Lambda^2\to\infty$.
4133: The $\hat n=0$ terms contribute to the sub-leading divergence which is regularised
4134: by the diagram with the one-loop counter-term of
4135: equation~(\ref{diag:counter}). As before, the only boundary contributions that matter are
4136: the leading ones, which in this case are given by using the expansion
4137: \be
4138: b_{(2,0)}^i(\tau)=q_i \tau_{2}^2 + \alpha_2^i(\tau_{1})+ o(\tau_{2}^{-1})\,, \qquad i=2,4,6\ ,
4139: \label{btwodef}
4140: \ee
4141: to give
4142: \be\begin{split}
4143: \partial h^i_{(2,0)} = u_i {3\pi^3\over4}\,\Lambda^3\, \Sigma_{\half} - {3\pi\over 4}\, \zeta(3)\,
4144: \tilde \alpha_2^{i}\, {\Lambda\over v^{3\over2}}\,,
4145: \end{split}\ee
4146: where $\tilde \alpha_2^{i}=\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} d\tau_{1} \alpha_2^{i}(\tau_{1})$,
4147: and $\Sigma_{\half}$ was defined in (\ref{sumfirst}).
4148: The contribution from the bulk term (\ref{bulk2}) is
4149: \bea
4150: j_{(2,0)}^i&=& - 2u_i\, \pi^3\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV\, V\int _1^{\Lambda^2\over V}
4151: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2^2} \big(\tau_2^2 +1\big) e^{-\pi v\, V\, (
4152: {\hat m^2\over \tau_{2}}+ \hat n^2 \tau_{2})}\\
4153: \nn&=& -u_i\pi^3\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int _0^{\Lambda^2} dx\int _0^{\Lambda^2} dy
4154: \sqrt{x\over y}\, e^{-\pi v\, ( \hat m^2\, x+ \hat n^2 \,y)}\nn\\
4155: &=& - u_i\, \pi^3 \, \Sigma_{\half}\,\Sigma_{-\half}\nn\\
4156: &=&- u_i\, \pi^3\, \left(2\Lambda - {1\over v^\half}\log(\chi v/2\pi^2c_{e}) \right)
4157: \,\left({2\over 3}\Lambda^3 + {\zeta(3)\over \pi \, v^{3\over2}}\right) \, .
4158: \label{qwa}
4159: \eea
4160: Therefore (\ref{i3tot}) becomes for $i=2,4,6$
4161: \begin{equation}
4162: \begin{split}
4163: (v^2\partial^2_{v}+2v\partial_{v}&-i(i+1))h_{(2,0)}^i=u_i\,\big(
4164: {3 \pi^3 \over 2}\, \Lambda^4
4165: + \frac{17\pi \,\Lambda^3\, \,\log(\chi v/2\pi^2c_{e})\,\zeta(2)}{2 \,\sqrt{v}}
4166: \, \\
4167: &+ {1\over v^{\threeh}} \zeta(3)\zeta(2) \,\Lambda \left(\frac{9\,\hat\alpha_2^{i}}{2\pi} - 12\right)
4168: + \frac{6\,\log(\chi v/2\pi^2c_{e})\,\zeta(2)\,\zeta(3)}{v^2}\big)\,.
4169: \end{split}
4170: \end{equation}
4171: %
4172: The terms proportional to $\Lambda$ will eventually cancel due to the relation
4173: (\ref{importlat}). Furthermore, the $\Lambda^4$ terms are primitive divergences that we
4174: will cancel with a counterterm, so their precise coefficients are
4175: not of relevance (there can be no finite
4176: remainder since this term does not correspond to a sensible term in string perturbation theory).
4177: These equations are of the form (\ref{logeq}) (with $a=d=0$), which
4178: have solutions (\ref{gensol}). The explicit expressions will not be
4179: given here but their sum enters the complete expression for $
4180: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$.
4181:
4182: Now consider the case of $h_{(2,0)}^0$
4183: for which the integrand is a total derivative. Integration by parts shows that the integral only gets
4184: contributions from $\tau_{2}$ boundary $\tau_2^\Lambda=\Lambda^2/V$, so that
4185: \bea
4186: \nn (v^2\partial^2_{v}+2v\partial_{v} )h_{(2,0)}^0&=&-{13\over 21}\, \pi^3\
4187: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2}\int_0^{V_\Lambda} dV\, V\int_{\calF_{\Lambda}} {d^2\tau\over\tau_{2}^2}\Delta_{\tau}e^{-\pi \hat E}\\
4188: \nn &=&-{13\over 21}\, \pi^4\, {v\over \Lambda^4}\, \, \sum_{\hat m\neq0}\,\hat m^2\,
4189: \int_{0}^{\Lambda^2} dV \, V^4\, e^{-\pi V^2\, v\hat m^2/\Lambda^2}\\
4190: &=&-{39\over 14}\, \zeta(2)\zeta(3)\, {\Lambda\over v^{3\over2}}\, .
4191: \label{hzerodef}
4192: \eea
4193:
4194:
4195: Summing all the contributions to $I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$ gives
4196: \begin{equation}
4197: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)} = \frac{8}{5\,{\sqrt{v}}}\,\pi \,\Lambda^3\,\log(\chi v/ \tilde C_{(2,0)})
4198: \,\zeta(2)
4199: - \frac{12}{50\,v^2}\,\log(\chi v/\tilde C_{(2,0)} ))\,\zeta(2)\,\zeta(3)\,,
4200: \label{fullsoltwo}
4201: \end{equation}
4202: where $\tilde C_{(2,0)}$ is an unknown function of $z$.
4203: Note that the term with coefficient $1/v^2=1/R_{11}^4$ corresponds to a finite
4204: genus-one contribution in IIA string theory,
4205: while the term with coefficient $1/v^\half = 1/R_{11}$ corresponds to a genus-two string theory term,
4206: that comes from the sub-divergences (as indicated by the factor of $\Lambda^3$).
4207:
4208: The $\Lambda^3$ divergence in $I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$ is canceled by the counter-term
4209: $I_{\triangleright\,(2,0)}^{(d=10)}$ of equation~(\ref{diag:counter}) which contributes
4210: \begin{equation}\label{e:ccb}
4211: I_{\triangleright\,(2,0)}^{(d=10)}= {\pi^3\zeta(2)\over 15}
4212: \, c_{1}\, v^{-\half}\,\left(-\log(\chi v/\tilde{\tilde C}_{(2,0)})\right)\,
4213: \end{equation}
4214: to the coefficient of $\sigma_2^2\,\calR^4$, where $c_{1}$ given in (\ref{e:c1})
4215: (and $\tilde{\tilde C}_{(2,0)}$ is another unknown function of $z$).
4216: The relative normalisation of the counter-diagram with respect to the double box diagram
4217: is such that the $\Lambda^3$ sub-divergence cancels. Furthermore, we need to introduce a counterterm that subtracts
4218: the primitive $\Lambda^4$ divergence,
4219: \bea
4220: I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)}+
4221: I_{\triangleright\, (2,0)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(2,0)}^{(d=10)} &=&
4222: -{12\over5}\,\zeta(2)\,
4223: \left[ {\zeta(3)\over v^2}+{2\zeta(2)\over \sqrt{v}} \right] \, \log(-S v/C_{(2,0)})\, .
4224: \label{primdiv}
4225: \eea
4226: The $\log(-S v)$ terms are threshold contributions that correspond to the genus-one and genus-two string theory
4227: thresholds expected from unitarity, as described in the body of this paper.
4228:
4229:
4230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4231: \subsection{Evaluation of $I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}$}\label{sec:D10R4circle}
4232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4233:
4234: We now consider $I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}$ for the term of order $\sigma_2\sigma_3\,\calR^4$
4235: in the expansion of the amplitude.
4236: We saw earlier that $B_{(1,1)}= \sum_{j=0}^4 b_{(1,1)}^{2j+1}$, where $b_{(1,1)}^j$ satisfies the Poisson equation (\ref{ecb}).
4237: Extending the earlier cases, this leads to the decomposition
4238: \be
4239: I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}=h_{(1,1)}^1+h_{(1,1)}^3+\cdots+h_{(1,1)}^9\ .
4240: \label{ktres}
4241: \ee
4242: In this case we have
4243: \be
4244: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big) h_{(1,1)}^j=
4245: \pi^{4}
4246: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int_0^{\Vlambda} dV \int _{\calF_\Lambda}
4247: {d^2\tau \over \tau_2^2} b_{(1,1)}^j(\tau) \Delta_\tau e^{-\pi\hat E}\ .
4248: \ee
4249: Proceeding as in the previous section we obtain, for $j=1,3,5,7,9$
4250: \be
4251: \begin{split}
4252: (v^2\partial^2_{v}+2v\,\partial_{v}-j(j+1)) h_{(1,1)}^j=& j_{(1,1)}^j - \partial h_{(1,1)}^j\, ,
4253: \end{split}
4254: \label{hthree}
4255: \ee
4256: where
4257: \be
4258: j_{(1,1)}^j = - 2\pi^{4}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int_0^{\Vlambda} dV
4259: \int _1^{\Lambda^2/V}
4260: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2^2} \big(v_j (\tau_2^3+{1\over\tau_{2}})
4261: +w_j \tau_2\big)\ e^{-\pi \hat E(i\tau_{2})}
4262: \label{jthree}
4263: \ee
4264: and
4265: \be
4266: \partial h_{(1,1)}^j =
4267: -\pi^4\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2}\int_{0}^{\Lambda^2} dV \, (\partial_{\tau_{2}}
4268: b_{(1,1)}^j\, e^{-\pi \hat E}- b_{(1,1)}^j\partial_{\tau_{2}} e^{-\pi
4269: \hat E})\big|_{\tau=\tau_2^\Lambda}\, ,
4270: \label{parth3}
4271: \ee
4272: %
4273: which again only gets contributions from the $\hat n=0$ sector. Furthermore,
4274: only the leading terms of
4275: \be
4276: b_{(1,1)}^j\sim e_3^j\tau_{2}^3+ \tau_{2}\, \alpha_3^j(\tau_{1})+o(\tau_{2}^{-1})\,,
4277: \label{btwoone}
4278: \ee
4279: contribute significantly to $\partial h_{(1,1)}^j$. Setting $x=V^2/\Lambda^2$ we get
4280: \bea
4281: \partial h_{(1,1)}^j &=&\pi^4\, {\Lambda\over 2}\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2}
4282: \int_{0_\chi}^{\Lambda^2} {dx\over x^{\half}}\,
4283: \left({3e_3^j\Lambda^2\over x} + \tilde\alpha_3^j
4284: -\pi\,v\,\hat m^2\, e^j\,\Lambda^2 -\pi\,v\,\hat m^2\,x\, \tilde\alpha_3^j\right)\, e^{-\pi \hat m^2 x v}
4285: \nn\\
4286: &=&{7\pi^4 e_3^j\over 4}\Lambda^3\,\Sigma_{3\over2} - {\pi^4\over 2}\,\tilde\alpha_3^j\, \Sigma_{\half}\, \Lambda\nn\\
4287: &=&{7\pi ^4 e_3^j\over 4}\Lambda^3\,\left({1\over v^\half}\, (\chi f)^{-1}+{\pi v^\half\over 3}\right)
4288: - {\pi^4\over 2}\,\tilde\alpha_3^j\, \left(2\Lambda^2 - {1\over 2v^\half}\, \Lambda\, \log(\chi v/C)
4289: \right)\,,
4290: \label{boundthreeb}
4291: \eea
4292: %
4293: where $\tilde\alpha_3^j\equiv \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} d\tau_{1}\, \alpha_3^j(\tau_{1})$.
4294: As before the $\log(\chi)$ term arises from the massless threshold associated with $m=0$ Kaluza-Klein charge in the
4295: intermediate states.
4296: Turning to the bulk term (\ref{jthree}) we write $j^j_{(1,1)} = -2\pi^4\, (v_j\, K_1+ w_j\, K_2)$, where
4297: \be
4298: v_j K_1+ w_j K_2 \equiv 2\pi^{4}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int_0^{\Lambda^2} dV
4299: \int _1^{\Lambda^2\over V}
4300: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2} \big(v_j (\tau_2^2+{1\over\tau^2_{2}})
4301: +w_j\big)\ e^{-\pi \hat E(i\tau_{2})}\ ,
4302: \ee
4303: where (after introducing $x=V/\tau_2,\ y=V\tau_2$)
4304: \bea
4305: \nn K_1 &=& {\pi^{4}\over 2}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int_0^{\Lambda^2}{dx dy\over \sqrt{xy}}
4306: \big( {x\over y}+{y\over x}
4307: \big)\ e^{-\pi v\,(\hat m^2 y +\hat n^2 x)}\nn\\
4308: &=& \pi^4 \Sigma_{\threeh}\, \Sigma_{-\half}
4309: \nn\\
4310: &=&\pi^4\,\left({2\over 3} \, \Lambda^3 + {1 \over \pi}\,\zeta(3)\, v^{-\threeh}\right)\,
4311: \left({1\over v^\half}\, (\chi f)^{-1} + {\pi v^\half\over 3}\right)
4312: \nn\\
4313: &=& {2\over3}{\pi^4\over v^\half}\, \Lambda^3\,(\chi f)^{-1}
4314: +
4315: {4\over3} \pi^3\, \zeta(2) \, \Lambda^3\, v^{\half}+ {\pi^3\zeta(3)\over v^2}
4316: (\chi f)^{-1}
4317: +{ \pi^{4}\over 3\, v}\zeta(3)\, ,
4318: \label{Konedef}
4319: \eea
4320: and
4321: \bea
4322: \nn K_2&=& {\pi^{4}\over 2}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int
4323: _0^\infty {dx dy\over \sqrt{xy}}
4324: \ e^{-\pi v\,(\hat m^2 y +\hat n^2 x)}\\
4325: &=& {\pi^4\over 2}\, (\Sigma_{\half})^2
4326: ={\pi^4\over 2}\, \left(2\Lambda -{1\over v^\half}\log(\chi v/C)\right)^2
4327: \nn\\
4328: &=& 2\pi^4\, \Lambda^2 - 2\pi^4\,\Lambda\,{1\over v^{\half}}\, \log(\chi v/C) + {\pi^4\over 2v}\, \log^2(\chi v/C)\,.
4329: \label{e:zetaOne2}\eea
4330: %
4331: The inverse powers of $S$ in (\ref{boundthreeb}) and (\ref{Konedef}), originate, as anticipated, from the attempt to expand
4332: the nonanalytic amplitude in powers of $S$. We can drop these terms, which are singular in the limit $f\to 0$,
4333: following the argument in section~\ref{sec:infracut}.
4334: Summing all the other contributions of order $S^5$ and $S^5 \log(-S)$ gives
4335: \be\begin{split}
4336: (v^2\partial_{v}^2+2v\partial_{v}-j(j+1))h_{(1,1)}^j&=-
4337: \frac{\pi ^5}{36}\,\left(21\,e^{j} + 8\,v_j \right) \,\sqrt{v}\,\Lambda^3 -
4338: { \pi^4\over2}\,(\hat e_j +8w_{j}) \,\Lambda^2\\
4339: & +
4340: {\pi^4\over 4 v^{\half}} \,(\hat \alpha^j_3 +8w_{j}) \,\log(\chi v/2\pi^2 c_{e})\,\Lambda \\
4341: &-
4342: \frac{{\pi }^4}{3v}\,\left(3\,w_j\,\log(\chi v/2\pi^2 c_{e})^2 + v_j\,\zeta(3) \right) \, .
4343: \end{split}\ee
4344: %
4345: These equations involve $\log v$ and $(\log v)^2$ factors are again of the form (\ref{logeq})
4346: (this time with $a=c=0$) with solutions (\ref{gensol}).
4347: Exploiting these solutions together with the following facts that follow from the explicit coefficients in
4348: appendix~\ref{sec:Modular}
4349: \be
4350: \sum_{j=0}^4 \ { w_{2j+1}\over (2j+1)(2j+2)}=0\ , \qquad \sum_{j=0}^4 {\hat f_{j}+8 w_{j}\over {1\over 4}+(2j+1)(2j+2)}=0\,,
4351: \label{sumss5}
4352: \ee
4353: and
4354: \bea
4355: && \sum_{j=0}^4 {v_{2j+1}\over (2j+1)(2j+2)} = {224\over 15}\,, \qquad
4356: \sum_{j=0}^4 {\hat \alpha^{2j+1}_3\over (2j+1)(2j+2)} = -{91\over
4357: 18}\, ,\nn\\
4358: &&
4359: \sum_{j=0}^4{ (21q_{2j+1}+8v_{2j+1})\over ({3 \over 4} - (2j+1)(2j+2))} =180\,,
4360: \label{moresums}
4361: \eea
4362: and recalling that $I_{(1,1)} = \sum_{j=0}^4h_{(1,1)}^{2j+1}$, the total result is
4363: \begin{equation}
4364: \begin{split}
4365: I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}=& - {91\over36} \, \pi^4\, \Lambda^2
4366: + \frac{675}{2}\,\zeta(4)\,\sqrt{v} \,{4\pi\Lambda^3\over3}+
4367: \frac{448\,\zeta(4)\,\zeta(3)}{v}\\
4368: &
4369: \qquad +\frac{273\pi^4}{54\,v}\,\log(\chi v/\tilde C_{(1,1)}) \,.
4370: \end{split}
4371: \end{equation}
4372: %
4373: The cancelation of the $\log^2(-S v)$ contributions corresponds to the fact that $1/\epsilon^2$ terms
4374: cancel in the two-loop diagrams of ten-dimensional type II supergravity, as we will see in detail in
4375: appendix~\ref{sec:tenreg}.
4376: %
4377: The $\Lambda^2$ contribution is the leading superficial divergence at two string loop and must be subtracted with no
4378: finite residue since it is not accompanied by a power of
4379: $v=R_{11}^2 = g_A^{2/3}$ that is an integer power of
4380: $g_A^2$ and therefore cannot contribute in string theory. The $\Lambda^3$
4381: contribution is a subleading divergence regulated by the counter term~(\ref{diag:counter})
4382: leaving a finite genus-three string contribution. The total contribution at order $\sigma_2\sigma_3\,\calR^4$ is
4383: \be
4384: \begin{split}
4385: I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}+I_{\triangleright\,(1,1)}^{(d=10)}+\delta_{2}I_{(1,1)}^{(d=10)}
4386: =& {4725\over8}\,\zeta(6)\,\sqrt{v}+
4387: \frac{448\,\zeta(4)\,\zeta(3)}{v}\\
4388: &\qquad +\frac{455\zeta(4)}{v}\, \log(\chi v/C_{(1,1)})\, .
4389: \end{split}\ee
4390: The first term in this expression corresponds to a genus-three IIA string
4391: contribution while the remaining terms (with the $1/v$ factor) are genus-two IIA string contributions.
4392: These contributions are distinguished by their distinct zeta function coefficients, so it would look very unnatural
4393: to associate the analytic $1/v$ term with the unknown scale of the logarithm in the nonanalytic $1/v$ term.
4394:
4395:
4396: Substituting this result into the expansion for the amplitude
4397: gives the terms of order $\sigma_2\sigma_3\, \calR^4$ as summarized in the text. It is worth noting, in particular, the presence of
4398: the logarithmic term
4399: \begin{equation}
4400: i {\kappa_{(11)}^6\over (4\pi)^{10}}\, {13\over 466560}\, \sigma_2\sigma_3\,\log(\chi)\, \calR^4\,,
4401: \end{equation}
4402: which reproduces the result obtained for the coefficient of the $1/\epsilon$ pole
4403: obtained by dimensional regularization around nine dimensions in (\ref{sec:ninereg}).
4404:
4405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4406: \subsection{Evaluation of $I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)}$
4407: and $I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)}$}
4408: \label{sec:D12R4circle}
4409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4410:
4411: In order to analyze the integrals $I_{(3,0)}$ and $I_{(0,2)}$
4412: we write $B_{(p,q)}=\sum_{k=0}^6 b_{(p,q)}^{2k}$ with $(p,q)=(3,0)$
4413: and $(p,q)=(0,2)$, where
4414: $b_{(p,q)}^k$ satisfy Poisson equations (\ref{xecb}).
4415: This leads to a decomposition
4416: \be
4417: I_{(p,q)}= h_{(p,q)}^{0}+h_{(p,q)}^2+\cdots+h_{(p,q)}^{12}\, ,
4418: \label{i4decom}
4419: \ee
4420: where, for $k=2,4,\dots,12$, the components satisfy the equations
4421: \be
4422: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}\big)\, h_{(p,q)}^k=
4423: {\pi^{5}}
4424: \sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in \ZZ^2} \int_\0chi^{\lambda}{ dV\over V} \int _{\calF_\Lambda}
4425: {d^2\tau \over \tau_2^2}\, b_{(p,q)}^k(\tau) \,\Delta_\tau e^{-\pi \hat E}\,.
4426: \label{compeqs}
4427: \ee
4428: The components $h_{(3,0)}^0$ and $h_{(0,2)}^0$
4429: need separate treatment because they are associated with the constant contributions
4430: $b_{(3,0)}^0=12264/715$ and $b_{(0,2)}^0=2716/165$.
4431: In this case both the left-hand and right-hand sides of (\ref{compeqs}) vanish. We
4432: will return to these cases later.
4433:
4434: \subsubsection{$h_{(3,0)}^k$, $h_{(0,2)}^k$ with $k>0$}
4435: \label{sec:hfoureval}
4436: Integrating (\ref{compeqs}) by parts and using (\ref{xecb}) gives
4437: \be
4438: \big(v^2{\p^2\over \p v^2}+2v{\p\over \p v}-k(k+1)\big) h_{(p,q)}^k= j_{(p,q)}^k - \partial h_{(p,q)}^k
4439: \,,
4440: \label{hfourieq}
4441: \ee
4442: for $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$ and $k=2,4,\dots,12$
4443: where
4444: \be
4445: j_{(p,q)}^i = - 2{\pi^{5}}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in \ZZ^2} \int
4446: _\0chi^{\Vlambda} { dV\over V}
4447: \int _1^\infty
4448: {d\tau_2 \over \tau_2^2} \big(1+\tau_2^2\big) \big[
4449: f_{(p,q)}^k (\tau_2^2+
4450: \tau_2^{-2}) + g_{(p,q)}^k \big]\
4451: \delta(\tau_1 )
4452: e^{-\pi E}
4453: \label{jfourdef}
4454: \ee
4455: and
4456: \be
4457: \partial h_{(p,q)}^k =-\pi^5\, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V} \big(\partial_{\tau_{2}}b_{(p,q)}^k
4458: e^{-\pi \hat E}-b_{(p,q)}^k\partial_{\tau_{2}} e^{-\pi\hat E}\big)\big|_{\tau_{2}=\tau_2^\Lambda}\, .
4459: \label{boundfourdef}
4460: \ee
4461: with $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$.
4462: We recall that the eigenvalues are the same for the two tensorial structures, so
4463: \bea
4464: (v^2\partial_{v}^2+2v\partial_{v}-k)(k+1)h_{(p,q)}^{2k}&=& -2\,(
4465: f_{(p,q)}^{2k} H_1+ g_{(p,q)}^{2k} H_2) -\partial h_{(p,q)}^{2k}\, ,
4466: \label{poissxy}
4467: \eea
4468: where (after introducing $x=V/\tau_2,\ y=V\tau_2$)
4469: \bea
4470: \nn H_1&=& {\pi^{5}\over 2}\,\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int
4471: _0^\infty {dx dy\over xy} \big( \sqrt{x\over y}+\sqrt{y\over x}\big)
4472: \big( {x\over y}+{y\over x}\big)\ e^{-\pi v\, (\hat m^2 y +\hat n^2 x)}\\
4473: \nn &=& {\pi^5\over 2}\, (\Sigma_{-\half}\, \Sigma_{\fiveh} + \Sigma_\half \, \Sigma_\threeh)
4474: \\
4475: \nn&=& {\pi^{5}\over 2}\, \left({2\over 3}\Lambda^3 + {1\over \pi}\zeta(3)\,v^{-\threeh}\right)
4476: \,\left(v^{-\half}(\chi f)^{-2}+{\pi^2\over 45}v^\threeh\right)\nn\\
4477: && {\pi^{5}\over 2}\, \left(-v^{-\half}\log(\chi v/C) + 2\Lambda\right)
4478: \,\left(v^{-\half}(\chi f)^{-1}+{\pi\over 3}v^\half\right)\,,
4479: \eea
4480: and
4481: \bea
4482: \nn H_2 &=& {\pi^{5}\over 2}\sum_{(\hat m,\hat n)\in\ZZ^2} \int
4483: _0^\infty {dx dy\over {xy}} \big( \sqrt{x\over y}+\sqrt{y\over x}\big)
4484: \ e^{-\pi v\,(\hat m^2 y +\hat n^2 x)}\\
4485: &=& {\pi^5\over 2}\, \Sigma_\half\, \Sigma_\threeh\nn
4486: \\
4487: &=& {\pi^{5}\over 2}\, \left(-v^{-\half}\log(\chi v/C) + 2\Lambda\right)
4488: \,\left(v^{-\half}(\chi f)^{-1}+{\pi\over 3}v^\half\right)\, ,
4489: \eea
4490: where the terms with inverse powers of $\chi$ will once more be dropped.
4491:
4492: The relevant contributions to the boundary term come from the positive
4493: powers of $\tau_{2}$ in the expansions
4494: \be
4495: b_{(p,q)}^{k}=e_{(p,q)}^k\, \tau_{2}^4+
4496: \alpha_{(p,q)}^{k}(\tau_{1})\,\tau_2^2+O(1)\,.
4497: \label{edefs}
4498: \ee
4499: Substituting in (\ref{boundfourdef}) gives
4500: \bea
4501: \partial h_{(p,q)}^k &=& -{\pi^5\over 2}\, \left({11\over 2}\Lambda^3 e_{(p,q)}^k\, \Sigma_{\fiveh}
4502: +{5 \over 2}\,\Lambda \, \tilde \alpha_{(p,q)}^k \, \Sigma_\threeh \right) \, ,
4503: \label{boundfour}
4504: \eea
4505: where $\tilde \alpha_{(p,q)}^k=\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} \, \alpha_{(p,q)}^k(\tau_{1}) \, d\tau_{1}$.
4506: Putting the various contributions together (\ref{hfourieq}) gives, for $k\ne 0$,
4507: \bea
4508: \nn (v^2\partial_{v}^2+2v\partial_{v}-k(k+1))\, h_{(p,q)}^{2k}&=&
4509: -\frac{315}{4}\,{\sqrt{v}}\,\Lambda \,\left( 8\,f_{(p,q)}^{2k} + 8\,g_{(p,q)}^{2k} + 5\,\tilde \alpha_{(p,q)}^{2k} \right) \,\zeta(6)\\
4510: &-&
4511: \frac{7}{4}\,\pi \,v^{\frac{3}{2}}\,\Lambda^3\,
4512: \left( 8\,f_{(p,q)}^{2k} + 33\,e_{(p,q)}^{2k} \right) \,\zeta(6)
4513: \\
4514: &-&\left( -
4515: 315\,(g_{(p,q)}^{2k}+f_{(p,q)}^{2k})\,\log(\chi v/2\pi^2c_{e}) + 21 \,f_{(p,q)}^{2k}\,\zeta(3)
4516: \right) \,\zeta(6)\,.\nn
4517: \eea
4518: for $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$.
4519:
4520: Once again these equations have $\log v$'s on the right-hand side and the solutions were obtained in (\ref{gensol}).
4521: We also note the values of the sums,
4522: \begin{eqnarray}
4523: &&\sum_{k=1}^6 { 8\,f_{(3,0)}^{2k} + 8\,g_{(3,0)}^{2k} + 5\,\tilde\alpha_{(3,0)}^{2k}\over 3/4-2k(2k+1)}=0\,, \qquad
4524: \sum_{k=1}^6 { 8\,f_{(3,0)}^{2k} + 33\,e_{(3,0)}^{2k} \over 15/4-2k(2k+1)}=-96\,,\\
4525: &&\sum_{k=1}^6 { 8\,f_{(0,2)}^{2k} + 8\,g_{(0,2)}^{2k} + 5\,\tilde\alpha_{(0,2)}^{2k}\over 3/4-2k(2k+1)}=0\,, \qquad
4526: \sum_{k=1}^6 { 8\,f_{(0,2)}^{2k} + 33\,e_{(0,2)}^{2k} \over 15/4-2k(2k+1)}=-96\,,\\
4527: &&\sum_{k=1}^6 { f_{(3,0)}^{2k} +e_{(3,0)}^{2k} \over 2k(2k+1)}={1733\over715}\,, \ \qquad\qquad\qquad
4528: \sum_{k=1}^6 { f_{(0,2)}^{2k} +e_{(0,2)}^{2k} \over 2k(2k+1)}={749\over330}\,,\\
4529: &&\sum_{k=1}^6 { f_{(3,0)}^{2k} \over 2k(2k+1)^2}={16000249\over75150075}\,,\ \qquad\qquad\qquad
4530: \sum_{k=1}^6 { f_{(0,2)}^{2k} \over 2k(2k+1)^2}={25658819\over118918800}\, .
4531: \end{eqnarray}
4532:
4533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4534: \subsubsection{$h_{(3,0)}^0$, $h_{(0,2)}^0$}
4535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4536:
4537:
4538: We now return to the $k=0$ terms, which are determined by the values of the constants $b_{(2,0)}^0$
4539: and $b_{(0,2)}^0$. In this case we can evaluate the integral
4540: \be
4541: h_{(p,q)}^{0} =\pi^{5}\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\,
4542: \sum_{(\hat m, \hat n)\in\ZZ^2}\, \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} {dV \over V} \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2 \tau\over \tau_2^2}
4543: \,e^{-\pi\,V\,v\, {|\hat m+\tau \hat n|^2\over\tau_2}}\,
4544: \label{fourconstb}
4545: \ee
4546: for $(p,q)=(3,0)$ and $(p,q)=(0,2)$.
4547: We will write the integral as the sum of two terms,
4548: \be
4549: h_{(p,q)}^0 = h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (1)} - h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (2)}\,
4550: \label{sumint}
4551: \ee
4552: where in $h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (1)}$ the
4553: $\tau$ integral spans the full fundamental domain, $\calF$, whereas $h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (2)}$
4554: subtracts the integral over the range $\Lambda^2/V \le \tau_2 \le \infty$.
4555: In the first contribution we separate the $\hat m=\hat n=0$ term, for which the $\tau$ integral simply gives
4556: the volume of the fundamental domain, $\int d^2\tau/\tau_2^2 = \pi/3$. The integral over $\tau$ in the
4557: $(\hat m,\hat n) \ne (0,0)$ piece can be `unfolded' to the infinite strip as in \cite{gkv:twoloop}, giving
4558: \bea
4559: h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (1)} &=&\pi^{5}\, b_{(p,q)}^{0} \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V}\,
4560: \left( \int_{\calF}{d^2\tau\over\tau_{2}^2}
4561: +\int_{0}^\infty {dt\over t^2}\sum_{p\neq0}\exp(-\pi p^2 v V/\tau_{2})\right)\nn\\
4562: &= &{\pi^6\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over3}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V} +
4563: {\pi^6\, b_{(p,q)}^0\over3v}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V^2}\, .
4564: \eea
4565:
4566: The second term in (\ref{sumint})
4567: may be evaluated by first performing a Poisson resummation on one of the integers, which
4568: gives a sum over the
4569: winding number, $\hat n$, and the Kaluza--Klein charge, $m$.
4570: The integral over $\tau_{1}$ projects onto the terms with
4571: $\hat n\, m =0$, giving
4572: \bea
4573: h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (2)} &=&{2\pi^5\, b_4^{0}\over v^{1\over2}}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V^{3\over2}}\,
4574: \int_{\Lambda^2/V}^\infty {dt\over t^{3\over2}}\nn\\
4575: &+&{2\pi^5\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over v^{1\over2}}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V^{3\over2}}\,
4576: \int_{\Lambda^2/V}^\infty {dt\over t^{3\over2}}\, \sum_{q\neq0}\left(e^{-\pi v V q^2t}+ e^{-\pi q^2 t/(v V)}\right)
4577: \nn\\
4578: &=&{\pi^6\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over3} \, {1\over v}\, \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V^2}
4579: -{\pi^4\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over \,v}\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V^2}\, \sum_{\hat m\neq0}
4580: {1\over \hat m^2}\, e^{-\pi\, \hat m^2\, v\, (V/\Lambda)^2}
4581: \eea
4582: where we have dropped the first term of the second line since it is smaller than $\exp(-\pi v\Lambda^2)$ and
4583: the last line follows by a further Poisson resummation of the second term of the second line.
4584: %
4585: \bea
4586: h_{(p,q)}^0 &=& h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (1)} -h_{(p,q)}^{0\, (2)} = {\pi^6\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over3}\,
4587: \int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V}\, e^{S/V}
4588: -{\pi^4\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over v} \,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}{dV\over V^2}\, e^{S/V}\nn\\
4589: &=& {\pi^6\, b_{(p,q)}^{0}\over3}\, \log(\chi /\Lambda^2 C'_{(p,q)}) + O(\Lambda^{-1}) \, ,
4590: \label{fullsum}
4591: \eea
4592: where $C'_{(p,q)}$ is an undetermined function of $z$, but is independent of $v$.
4593: After substituting the values of $b_{(3,0)}^0$ and $b_{(0,2)}^0$
4594: we find
4595: \be
4596: h_{(3,0)}^0 ={386316\over143}\,\zeta(6)\,\log(\chi /\Lambda^2 \, C_{(3,0)})\,,
4597: \label{h4zerox}
4598: \ee
4599: \be
4600: h_{(0,2)}^0 = {28518\over 11}\,\zeta(6)\,\log(\chi /\Lambda^2 \, C_{(0,2)})\,.
4601: \label{h4zeroy}
4602: \ee
4603: Note that in this case
4604: the scale of the logarithm is $\Lambda$,
4605: in contrast to the earlier cases, where it was $1/R_{11}^2$
4606: -- there is a new primitive divergence.
4607: This had to be the case since these terms are the
4608: $\hat m=0 =\hat n$ part of the $L=2$ eleven-dimensional supergravity amplitude, which is the only part that
4609: arises in the limit $R_{11}\to \infty$, where there is a $\log \Lambda$ divergence.
4610: The more conventional dimensional regularization argument that leads to the same coefficient for the
4611: $S^6 \,\log S\, \calR^4$ term is given in appendix~\ref{sec:elevenreg}. The pole residue in (\ref{elevenpole})
4612: matches perfectly with the above coefficient (once the differences in the conventions used for the normalization
4613: are taken into account).
4614:
4615: In order to compare with the string result we will write
4616: \bea
4617: h_{(3,0)}^0 &=&{386316\over143}\,\zeta(6)\left(\log(\chi R_{11}^2/C_{(3,0)}) -\log(\Lambda^2R_{11}^2)\right)
4618: \nn\\
4619: &=&{386316\over143}\,\zeta(6)\left(\log(\chi g_A^2/C_{(3,0)}) - \log(\Lambda^2 v)\right)\,,
4620: \label{h4zeroxnew}
4621: \eea
4622: where the first term on the right-hand side combines nicely with the contributions from $h_{(3,0)}^i$ with $i\ne 0$
4623: to reproduce the correct threshold term. The left over part is to be subtracted by a new counterterm.
4624:
4625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4626: \subsubsection{$I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)}$, $I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)}$ and counterterm contributions}
4627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4628:
4629: The values of $h_{(3,0)}^{2k}$ and $h_{(0,2)}^{2k}$ for $k=0,\dots,6$ determine the solutions,
4630: \bea
4631: I_{(3,0)}^{(d=10)}&=& 168 \pi \, \zeta(6)\, v^{3\over2}\, \Lambda^3+{100647\over715}\,
4632: \zeta(3)\,\zeta(6)
4633: - 3465\, \zeta(6)\, \log(\chi v/\tilde C_{(3,0)})\,
4634: \label{ithreezero}
4635: \eea
4636: and
4637: \bea
4638: I_{(0,2)}^{(d=10)}&=& 168 \pi \, \zeta(6)\, v^{3\over2}\, \Lambda^3+{15827\over110}
4639: \zeta(3)\zeta(6)
4640: - {6615\over2}\,\zeta(6)\, \log(\chi v/\tilde C_{(0,2)})\, .
4641: \label{izerotwo}
4642: \eea
4643: The $\Lambda^3$ terms are canceled by the counter-term diagram~(\ref{diag:counter}) and replaced by
4644: finite contributions that are interpreted in the IIA string coordinates as genus-four perturbative
4645: contributions\footnote{Since at order $S^6\,\calR^4$
4646: the diagram regulating the one-loop sub-divergence gives a result proportional to
4647: $\sigma_{6}= \sigma_{2}^3/4+\sigma_{3}^2/3$, it is necessary that the $\Lambda^3$ coefficients
4648: for $I_{(3,0)}$ and $I_{(0,2)}$ are the same.}.
4649: There are two distinct terms in (\ref{ithreezero}) and (\ref{izerotwo})
4650: that have no power of $v$ and are independent of $\Lambda$ (they are finite terms).
4651: These correspond to genus-three IIA string contributions. The $\log(\chi v)$ term corresponds to the genus-three
4652: part of $E_{5/2}\, s^6\, \log(\chi)$. The genus-one string part of this expression does not arise from two-loop
4653: supergravity diagrams considered in this paper,
4654: but it is easy to see from dimensional arguments that it should be obtained
4655: from the three-loop amplitude of eleven-dimensional supergravity.
4656: The $\Lambda^3$ terms are one-loop sub-divergences regularized by the counter-term diagram of
4657: equation~(\ref{diag:counter})
4658: \bea
4659: \nonumber
4660: I_{(3,0)}+I_{\triangleright\,(3,0)}^{(d=10)} + \delta_{2}I_{(3,0)}&=& 210\, \zeta(8) \,
4661: v^{3\over2}
4662: +{100647\over715}\,
4663: \zeta(3)\,\zeta(6)
4664: - 3465\,\zeta(6)\, \log(\chi v/C_{(3,0)})\,,\\
4665: \label{counterthree}
4666: \eea
4667: and
4668: \bea
4669: \nonumber
4670: I_{(0,2)}+I_{\triangleright\,(0,2)}^{(d=10)}+ \delta_{2}I_{(0,2)}&=& 210 \, \zeta(8)\,
4671: v^{3\over2}+{15827\over110}
4672: \zeta(3)\zeta(6)- {6615\over2}\,\zeta(6)\, \log(\chi v/C_{(0,2)})\,.\\
4673: \label{countertwo}
4674: \eea
4675:
4676:
4677:
4678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4679: \section{Quasi-zero mode modular functions}
4680: \label{sec:Cste}
4681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4682: In this section we will evaluate the coefficient $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0}$ of the
4683: $\sigma_2^2\,\calR^4$ term in (\ref{e:calE})
4684: and the coefficients $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0}$
4685: of the $S^6\,\calR^4$ terms in (\ref{e:calGx}) and~(\ref{e:calGy}).
4686: These are the cases in which modular function in the integrand,
4687: $B_{(p,q)}(\tau)=b_{(p,q)}$, is a constant so the eigenvalue
4688: in the inhomogenious Laplace equations is zero and the source term
4689: vanishes. We will see by direct evaluation that in these cases
4690: the coefficients satisfy Laplace equations of the form
4691: \be
4692: \Delta_\Omega \calE_{(p,q)}^{(r)\, 0} = {D_{(p,q)}\over 2} \,,
4693: \label{zerogen}
4694: \ee
4695: where $D_{(p,q)}$ are constants.
4696:
4697: \subsection{ Evaluation of $\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0}$}
4698:
4699: In the $(2,0)$ case we know that there is a two-loop supergravity threshold (which will be explicitly
4700: evaluated in section~\ref{sec:DimReg}). This is associated with the zero Kaluza--Klein modes in the
4701: loops, so here we will use the Kaluza--Klein basis for the sums, which means we need to evaluate
4702: \be
4703: \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0} = {4\calV_2^2\over \pi^2}\, I_{(2,0)\,0} ={4\calV_2^2\over \pi^2}\, b_{(2,0)}^0\,
4704: K
4705: \label{kzerodef}
4706: \ee
4707: where $b_{(2,0)}^0 = -13/21$ and
4708: \bea
4709: K &=&{\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\,
4710: \sum_{\{m_I, n_J\}\in\ZZ^{4}}\, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V}\, \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2 \tau\over \tau_2^2}
4711: \,e^{{-\pi{G^{IJ}\over V\tau_2}\left[(m+\tau n)_I( m+\bar\tau n)_J\right]}}\nn\\
4712: &=& {\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\,
4713: \sum_{\{m_I, n_J\}\in\ZZ^4}\, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V}\, \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2 \tau\over \tau_2^2}
4714: \,e^{{-{\pi\over\calV_2 \Omega_2 V\tau_2}\left|m_1+n_1\tau + \Omega(m_2+n_2\tau)\right|^2} - 2\pi{m_1n_2-m_2n_1
4715: \over \calV_2 V} }\,.
4716: \label{e:N2}
4717: \eea
4718: This will be analyzed by separating the integrand into sectors with different patterns of vanishing coefficients,
4719: \be
4720: K \equiv \sum_{m_1,n_1,m_2,n_2}\, \hat K_{(m_1,n_1)(m_2,n_2)} =
4721: \sum_{m_1
4722: ,n_1,m_2,n_2}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}\, {dV\over
4723: V}\int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(m_2,n_2)}\,.
4724: \label{msects}
4725: \ee
4726: It is convenient to decompose the sums as follows,
4727: \be
4728: \begin{split}
4729: \sum_{m_1,n_1,m_2,n_2}& J_{(m_1,n_1)(m_2,n_2)}\\=&
4730: J_{(0,0)(0,0)}+ \sum_{(m_1,n_1)\ne (0,0)}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(0,0)}
4731: + \sum_{(m_2,n_2)\ne(0,0)}\sum_{m_1,n_1}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(m_2,n_2)}\\
4732: =& J_{(0,0)(0,0)}+ \sum_{(p,q)}\sum_{k_1\ne 0}\, J_{(k_1p,k_1q)(0,0)}
4733: + \sum_{(p,q)}\sum_{k_2\ne 0}\sum_{m_1,n_1}\, J_{(m_2,n_2)(k_2p,k_2q)}\,,
4734: \end{split}
4735: \label{sumdecom}
4736: \ee
4737: where $p$, $q$ are relatively prime. We may now perform the `unfolding
4738: trick', which replaces the integral of the sum over $p$ and $q$ over $\calF_\Lambda$ by an
4739: integral of only
4740: the $(p,q)=(1,0)$ term over the rectangle $\calR_\Lambda$: $\{0\le \tau_2\le
4741: \Lambda^2/V$, $\-1/2\le \tau_1\le 1/2\}$. In principle, in the presence of the
4742: upper cutoff $\tau_2\le \Lambda^2/V$ this unfolding
4743: leads to a very complicated $\tau_1$ and $V$-dependent lower cutoff on $\tau_2$. However, as we will see, the
4744: results we need are not sensitive to the lower end of the $\tau_2$ integral and we will set this to zero.
4745: This gives
4746: \be
4747: \begin{split}
4748: \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}& \sum_{m_1,n_1,m_2,n_2}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(m_2,n_2)}\\
4749: =&
4750: \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \, J_{(0,0)(0,0)}+\int_\calR
4751: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}
4752: \left( \sum_{k_1\ne 0}\, J_{(k_1,0)(0,0)}
4753: + \sum_{k_2\ne 0}\sum_{m_1,n_1}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(k_2,0)}\right)\\
4754: =&\int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \, J_{(0,0)(0,0)}
4755: +\int_{\calR_\Lambda}
4756: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \left(\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\ne(0,0)}\, J_{(k_1,0)(k_2,0)}
4757: + \sum_{n_1,k_2\ne 0}\sum_{m_1}\, J_{(m_1,n_1)(k_2,0)}\right)\,,\\
4758: \end{split}
4759: \label{unfold}
4760: \ee
4761: This is a decomposition into the sum of singular, degenerate and
4762: non-degenerate orbits of $SL(2,\ZZ)$ in the language of
4763: \cite{gkv:twoloop}.
4764:
4765: Consider first the $m_I=n_I=0$ term, which contains the $\log(\chi)$ factor. In this case $J=\pi/3 +O(V/\Lambda^2)$
4766: and the result is
4767: \be
4768: K_{(0,0)(0,0)} = {\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\, {\pi \over 3}\, \log(\chi /C\Lambda^2) +O(\calV_2^{-1})\,,
4769: \label{zerokk}
4770: \ee
4771: where we have only kept the leading term in the limit $\calV_2 \to 0$, which is the part
4772: that behaves as $\calV_2^{-2}$.
4773:
4774: The second term in (\ref{unfold}) leads to
4775: \bea
4776: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0} K_{(k_1,0)(k_2,0)} &=& {\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\, \int_0^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V}\,
4777: \int_0^{\Lambda^2/V}{d\tau_2\over \tau_2^2} \, \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}\exp\left(-{\pi\over \calV_2\Omega_2 V \tau_2}
4778: |k_1 + k_2 \Omega_2|^2\right)\nn\\
4779: &=&{\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\, \int_0^{\Vlambda} dV\,
4780: \int_{\Lambda^{-2}}^\infty d\hat y \, \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}\exp\left(-{\pi \hat y\over \calV_2\Omega_2}
4781: |k_1 + k_2 \Omega_2|^2\right)
4782: \, ,
4783: \label{degenorb}
4784: \eea
4785: where we have defined $\hat y=(V\tau_2)^{-1}$.
4786: It is easy to see that this depends linearly on $\Lambda^2$ and
4787: has an overall power of $\calV_2^{-1}$, so it does not contribute to the term proportional to
4788: $\calV_2^{-2}$ and can be ignored here.
4789:
4790:
4791: The last term in (\ref{unfold}) leads to
4792: \be
4793: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}
4794: K_{(m_1,n_1)(k_2,0)} = {2\pi^3\over \calV_2^2} \sum_{n_1>0,k_2\ne 0}\sum_{m_1+0}^{n_1-1} \int_0^{\Vlambda}
4795: {dV\over V} \int_{\calR_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \, e^{-{\pi\over \calV_2\Omega_2
4796: V \tau_2 }|m_1 + n_1\tau + \Omega k_2|^2 + {2\pi\over V\calV_2}n_1k_2}\, .
4797: \label{nondegenorb}
4798: \ee
4799: Integrating over $\tau_1$ gives the expression
4800: \bea
4801: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}
4802: K_{(m_1,n_1)(k_2,0)} &=& {\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\, (\calV_2 \Omega_2)^\half \sum_{n_1\neq 0,k_2\neq 0}
4803: \int_0^{\Vlambda}
4804: {dV\over V^\half}\int_0^{\Lambda^2/V} d\tau_2\tau_2^{-\threeh} \, e^{-{\pi\over\calV_2 \Omega_2
4805: V\tau_2}(n_1^2\tau_2^2 + k_2^2\Omega_2^2)}\nn\\
4806: &=& {\pi^3\over \calV_2^2}\, (\calV_2 \Omega_2)^\half \sum_{n_1\neq 0,k_2\neq 0}\int_0^{\Vlambda}
4807: dV \int_0^{\Lambda^2} dy y^{-\threeh} \, e^{-{\pi\over\calV_2 \Omega_2}(
4808: {1\over V^2} n_1^2 y+ {1\over y}k_2^2\Omega_2^2)}\, ,
4809: \label{nondegenresa}
4810: \eea
4811: where $y=V\tau_2$. Since each term in the sum is dominated by the $V$ cutoff,
4812: we will perform a Poisson resummation of the integer $n_1$ after adding and subtracting the $n_1=0$
4813: term, which is proportional
4814: to $\int dV \sim \Lambda^2$. Since we are here not keeping terms that are powers of the cutoff (since they will not
4815: have the appropriate power of $\calV_2^{-2}$) we will drop this term. After the Poisson resummation the result is
4816: (again dropping terms that are positive powers of $\Lambda$ and are therefore not of order $\calV_2^{-2}$)
4817: \bea
4818: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}
4819: K_{(m_1,n_1)(k_2,0)} &\sim& {\pi^3\Omega_2\over \calV_2}\, \sum_{n_1\neq0}\sum_{\hat k_2\ne 0}\int_0^{V_\Lambda}
4820: dV\, V \int_0^{\Lambda^2} dy y^{-2} \, e^{-{\pi\Omega_2\calV_2 V^2\over y}(\hat n^1)^2 -\pi {\Omega_2\over \calV_2 y}k_2^2 }\nn\\
4821: &=& {2\pi^2\over \calV_2^2}\,\zeta(2)\, \sum_{k_2\ne 0}
4822: \int_0^{\Lambda^2} {dy\over y} \, e^{-\pi {\Omega_2\over \calV_2 y}k_2^2 }
4823: =
4824: - 2{\pi^2\over \calV_2^2}\,\zeta(2)\,\log(\Lambda^2\calV_2/\Omega_2 C) \, ,\nn\\
4825: \label{nondegenresb}
4826: \eea
4827:
4828: Therefore, the total contribution to $I^{(2)}_{(2,0)}$ proportional to $\calV_2^{-2}$ (which therefore
4829: does not have a power of $\Lambda$) gives a contribution
4830: \be
4831: K = - 2{\pi^2\over \calV_2^2}\,\zeta(2)\,\log(\chi \calV_2/\Omega_2 C)\, ,
4832: \label{totitwozerb}
4833: \ee
4834: so that from (\ref{kzerodef}) we have
4835: \be
4836: \calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0} = {104\over 21}\, \zeta(2)\,\log(\chi \calV_2/\Omega_2C)\,,
4837: \label{ezerores}
4838: \ee
4839: so that
4840: \be
4841: \Delta_\Omega\calE_{(2,0)}^{(2)\, 0} = \frac{104}{21}\, \zeta(2)\,.
4842: \label{laplaceoneb}
4843: \ee
4844:
4845: \subsection{Evaluation of $\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0}$ and $\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0}$}
4846:
4847: The terms of order $S^6\, \calR^4$ will contribute to a logarithmic
4848: eleven-dimensional threshold term, which means that the zero winding
4849: number sector $\hat m^I= \hat n^J=0$ possesses the singularity. In
4850: the winding number basis the expressions we need to evaluate are
4851: \bea
4852: \calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0} &=& {16\over 3\pi^2}\, I_{(3,0)\, 0} ={16\over \pi^2}\, b_{(3,0)}^0\,
4853: \hat K\,,\nn\\
4854: \calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0} &=& {16\over 3\pi^2}\, I_{(0,2)\, 0} ={16\over \pi^2}\, b_{(2,0)}^0\,
4855: \hat K\,.
4856: \label{khatzerodef}
4857: \eea
4858: where
4859: \be
4860: \hat K =\pi^{5}\,
4861: \sum_{\{\hat m_I, \hat n_J\}}\, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V}\, \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2 \tau\over \tau_2^2}
4862: \,e^{{-\pi{VG_{IJ}\over \tau_2}\left[(\hat m+\tau \hat n)^I(\hat m+\bar\tau\hat n)^J\right]}}\,.
4863: \label{fourconst}
4864: \ee
4865: We will now decompose the sums in the same manner as in (\ref{sumdecom}) ,(\ref{unfold}),
4866: writing
4867: \be
4868: \hat K \equiv \sum_{\hat m^1,\hat n^1,\hat m^2,\hat n^2}\, \hat K_{(\hat m^1,\hat n^1)(\hat m^2,\hat n^2)} =
4869: \sum_{\hat m^1,\hat n^1,\hat m^2,\hat n^2}\,\int_{\0chi}^{\Vlambda}\, {dV\over
4870: V}\int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}\, \hat J_{(\hat m^1,\hat n^1)(\hat m^2,\hat n^2)}\,.
4871: \label{msectswin}
4872: \ee
4873: and
4874: \be
4875: \begin{split}
4876: \int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2}& \sum_{\hat m^1,\hat n^1,\hat m^2,\hat n^2}\,
4877: \hat J_{(\hat m^1, \hat n^1)(\hat m^2,\hat n^2)}\nn\\
4878: =&\int_{\calF_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \, \hat J_{(0,0)(0,0)}
4879: +\int_{\calR_\Lambda}
4880: {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \left(\sum_{(\hat k_1,\hat k_2)\ne(0,0)}\,\hat J_{(\hat k_1,0)(\hat k_2,0)}
4881: + \sum_{\hat n^1,\hat k_2\ne 0}\sum_{\hat m^1}\,\hat J_{(\hat m^1,\hat n^1)(\hat k_2,0)}\right)\,,\\
4882: \end{split}
4883: \label{unfoldwind}
4884: \ee
4885:
4886: The zero winding number term is given by
4887: \be
4888: \hat K_{(0,0)(0,0)} = \pi^5\, {\pi \over 3}\, \log(\chi /C\Lambda^2) +O(\calV_2{-1})\,,
4889: \label{zerokkwind}
4890: \ee
4891: The second term in (\ref{unfoldwind}) leads to
4892: \bea
4893: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}\hat K_{(k_1,0)(k_2,0)} &=& \pi^5\, \int_0^{\Vlambda} {dV\over V}\,
4894: \int_\0chi^{\Lambda^2/V}{d\tau_2\over \tau_2^2} \, \sum_{\hat k_1,\hat k_2\ne 0}
4895: \exp\left(-\pi{\calV_2 V\over \Omega_2\tau_2}
4896: |\hat k_1 + \hat k_2 \Omega_2|^2\right)\nn\\
4897: &=&\pi^5\, \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda} dV\,
4898: \int_{\Lambda^{-2}}^\infty d\hat y \, \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}\exp\left(-\pi{\calV_2\over \Omega_2} V^2 \hat y
4899: |\hat k_1 + \hat k_2 \Omega_2|^2\right)
4900: \, ,
4901: \label{degenorbwind}
4902: \eea
4903: where $\hat y=(V\tau_2)^{-1}$.
4904:
4905: The last term in (\ref{unfoldwind}) leads to
4906: \be
4907: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0}
4908: \hat K_{(\hat m^1,\hat n^1)(k_2,0)} = \pi^5\, \sum_{\hat n^1,\hat k_2\ne 0}\sum_{\hat m^1} \int_\0chi^{\Vlambda}
4909: {dV\over V} \int_{\calR_\Lambda} {d^2\tau\over \tau_2^2} \, e^{-{\pi\calV_2 V\over
4910: \Omega_2 \tau_2 }|\hat m^1 + \hat n^1\tau + \Omega \hat k_2|^2 + 2\pi V\calV_2\,\hat n^1\hat k_2}\, .
4911: \label{nondegenorbb}
4912: \ee
4913: Integrating over $\tau_1$ gives
4914: \bea
4915: \sum_{k_1,k_2\ne 0} \hat K_{(\hat m^1,\hat n^1)(\hat k_2,0)} &=& \pi^5\, \left(\Omega_2\over \calV_2\right)^\half
4916: \sum_{\hat n^1\neq 0,\hat k_2\neq 0}\int_\0chi^{\Vlambda}
4917: {dV\over V^\threeh} \int_0^{\Lambda^2/V} d\tau_2\tau_2^{-\threeh} \, e^{-{\pi \calV_2 V\over
4918: \Omega_2\tau_2}((\hat n^1)^2\tau_2^2 + \hat k_2^2\Omega_2^2)}\nn\\
4919: &=& \pi^5\, \left(\Omega_2\over \calV_2\right)^\half \sum_{\hat
4920: n_1\neq 0,\hat k_2\neq 0}\int {dx dy\over x y^\threeh} \,
4921: e^{- \pi \calV_2 \Omega_2 \hat k_2^2 x -\pi{\calV_2\over \Omega_2} (\hat n^1)^2 y}\, ,
4922: \label{nondegenres}
4923: \eea
4924: where $x=V/\tau_2$ and $y=V\tau_2$.
4925: The $y$ integral may be performed without worrying about the cutoff
4926: and gives
4927: \be
4928: \int_0^\infty {dy\over y^{\threeh}}\,
4929: \sum_{\hat n^1\ne 0}\, e^{-\pi{\calV_2\over \Omega_2}(\hat n^1)^2 y}=
4930: {\pi \over 3}\left({\calV_2\over \Omega_2}\right)^\half\,,
4931: \label{yintt}
4932: \ee
4933: where we have used the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta
4934: function to write $\hat\sum |n_1| =-1/6$.
4935: The $x$ integral in (\ref{nondegenres}) gives
4936: \be
4937: \int_{0_\chi}^{\Lambda^2} {dx\over x } \,
4938: \sum_{\hat k_2\ne 0}e^{- \pi \calV_2 \Omega_2 \hat k_2^2 x}= \Sigma_1(
4939: \calV_2 \Omega_2) - \log(\chi /C\,\Lambda^2) = -\log\left(\calV_2\,\Omega_2\,
4940: \Lambda^2/\hat C\right)- \log(\chi /\hat C\Lambda^2)
4941: \,,
4942: \label{xintt}
4943: \ee
4944: where we have subtracted the $\hat k_2=0$ term (proportional to
4945: $\log(\chi)$) from the sum that
4946: defines $\Sigma_1$ in (\ref{sigone}) and discarded the term
4947: proportional to $S^{-\half}$, which is accompanied by a factor of
4948: $\calV_2^{-\half}$.
4949:
4950: Substituting (\ref{yintt}) and (\ref{xintt}) into (\ref{nondegenres})
4951: and combining this with (\ref{zerokkwind}), which is the other contribution that does not have
4952: a power of $\Lambda$, gives the total contribution
4953: \be
4954: \hat K = \pi^5 {\pi\over 3}\,\log\left(\calV_2\Omega_2\Lambda^2\over \hat C\right)\, ,
4955: \label{totitwozer}
4956: \ee
4957: so that, from (\ref{khatzerodef}),
4958: \bea
4959: \calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0} &=&{12264\over 715}\, 64\, \zeta(2)^2\,\log\left(\calV_2\Omega_2 \Lambda^2 \over \hat C\right) \,,\nn\\
4960: \calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0} &=&{2716\over 165}\, 64 \,\zeta(2)^2 \, \log\left(\calV_2\Omega_2\Lambda^2 \over \hat C\right) \,.
4961: \label{lzerodef}
4962: \eea
4963: Note that, as had to be the case, the $\log(\chi)$ in the zero-winding
4964: sector cancels with the effects of non-zero winding.
4965: The Laplace equations satisfied by these coefficients are
4966: \be
4967: \Delta_\Omega\calE_{(3,0)}^{(6)\, 0} = \frac{12264}{715}\,64\, \zeta(2)^2\,,\qquad
4968: \Delta_\Omega\calE_{(0,2)}^{(6)\, 0} = \frac{2716}{165}\,64\, \zeta(2)^2\,.
4969: \label{laplaceonee}
4970: \ee
4971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4972: \section{Weak coupling expansion of the generalized modular functions}\label{sec:Diff}
4973: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4974:
4975: In the main text we found modular functions which are defined by Poisson equations in the fundamental domain, of the general form
4976: \begin{equation}\label{e:DEsource}
4977: [\Delta_{\Omega}- s(s-1)]\, \mathcal{E}(\Omega) = S(\Omega)\ ,\qquad s\geq 0\ .
4978: \end{equation}
4979: Here we determine the perturbative part of $\calE$ for a general source term $S$
4980: with a zero mode expansion given by
4981: \begin{equation}\label{e:Szm}
4982: S(\Omega) = \sum_{n=0}^{N} \, \alpha_{n} \Omega_{2}^{n_{0}-n} + S_{cusp}(\Omega_{2})\ .
4983: \end{equation}
4984: We assume that the polynomial part does not contain $\Omega_{2}^{s}$ or $\Omega_{2}^{1-s}$
4985: (either because $s>N-1-n_0,\ s>n_0$ or because
4986: $\alpha_{s}=\alpha_{1-s}=0$). For the relevant cases $n_0$ will be
4987: an integer or half-integer number. $S_{cusp}$ is an
4988: exponentially suppressed contribution, which nevertheless will contribute to the perturbative
4989: (power-behaved) part of $\calE $.
4990:
4991: The general structure of the zero mode expansion of the solution
4992: $\mathcal{E}(\Omega)$ of~(\ref{e:DEsource}) is the sum
4993: of the particular solution with the source term and a solution of the homogeneous equation
4994: \begin{equation}
4995: \mathcal{E}(\Omega) = \sum_{n=0}^{N} \, {\alpha_{n}\,
4996: \Omega_{2}^{n_0-n}\over (n_{0}-n)(n_{0}-n-1)- s(s-1)} + \alpha \Omega_{2}^{s} +\beta \Omega_{2}^{1-s} + \mathcal{O}(\exp(-\Omega_{2}))
4997: \end{equation}
4998: The parameters $\alpha $ and $\beta $ are integration constants which are fixed by boundary conditions.
4999: For the cases appeared in the main text, one must impose that $\alpha=0$ because $s$ is such that $\Omega_{2}^s$ is more singular than the tree-level contribution in the weak coupling limit.
5000:
5001: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5002: \subsection{General method for determining $\beta$ terms}\label{sec:betaterm}
5003: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5004:
5005: The value of $\beta $ is determined as in section~5.4 of
5006: \cite{gv:D6R4} by integrating over the cutoff fundamental domain for $SL(2,\ZZ)$ the product of
5007: $\calE$ with the Eisenstein series $E_{s}$ --which is a
5008: solution of the homogeneous equation associated
5009: with~(\ref{e:DEsource}). Then we perform the partial integrations as
5010: \begin{equation}
5011: 0= \int_{\mathcal{F}_{L}} \, {d^2\Omega\over \Omega_{2}^2}\,([\Delta-s(s-1)]\, E_{s})\, \mathcal{E}
5012: = \int_{\mathcal{F}_{L}} \, {d^2\Omega\over \Omega_{2}^2}\, E_{s}\,S
5013: +\int_{\partial\mathcal{F}_{L}} \big( \bar\partial E_{s} \mathcal{E}- E_{s}\partial \mathcal{E} \big)
5014: \end{equation}
5015: Computing the boundary term, we find
5016: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
5017: \int_{\mathcal{F}_{L}} {d^2\Omega\over \Omega_{2}^2}\, E_{s}\, S(\Omega)&=2\zeta(2s)\, (1-2s) \,\beta\\
5018: &+2\zeta(2s)\sum_{n=0}^N \, {\alpha_{n} (n_{0}-n-s)\over (n_{0}-n)(n_{0}-n-1)- s(s-1)} \, L^{s+n_{0}-n-1}\\
5019: &+ \mathcal{O}(L^{-1})
5020: \end{split}
5021: \label{compboun}
5022: \end{equation}
5023: where we have only displayed the terms that do not vanish when the cutoff $L\to\infty$.
5024: Since
5025: \be
5026: E_s(\Omega) = \sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_\infty \backslash \Gamma}
5027: \Im\textrm{m}(\gamma\cdot \Omega)^s\,,
5028: \label{sumrect}
5029: \ee
5030: the integral on the left hand side
5031: can be evaluated by unfolding the Eisenstein series $E_{s}$, giving that in the limit of large $L$
5032: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
5033: \int_{0}^{L} {d\Omega_{2}\over \Omega_{2}^2} \, 2\zeta(2s)\,\Omega_{2}^s\, S(\Omega)&=2\zeta(2s)\, (1-2s) \,\beta\\
5034: &+2\zeta(2s)\sum_{n=0}^N \, {\alpha_{n} (n_{0}-n-s)\over (n_{0}-n)(n_{0}-n-1)- s(s-1)} \, L^{s+n_{0}-n-1}\\
5035: &+ \mathcal{O}(L^{-1})
5036: \end{split}\end{equation}
5037: The power-behaved terms in $L$ in (\ref{compboun}) cancel against the contributions from the power-behaved
5038: terms in $S$,
5039: so that the value of $\beta$ is
5040: determined by the projection of $S_{cusp}$ on $E_{s}$:
5041: \begin{equation}
5042: (1-2s)\, \beta = \int_{0}^{\infty} \, {d\Omega_{2}\over \Omega_{2}^2}\, \Omega_{2}^s \, S_{cusp}(\Omega_{2})\ .
5043: \label{projcusp}
5044: \end{equation}
5045: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5046: \subsection{ $\beta $ coefficients arising from a source $E_{s_1} E_{s_2}$}\label{sec:Beta}
5047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5048:
5049: For the particular case of a source term given by the product of two Eisenstein series,
5050: $E_{s_{1}}E_{s_{2}}$, the $\beta$-coefficient can be
5051: given in a closed form.
5052: Substituting the well known large $\Omega_2$ expansion of the Eisenstein series (see e.g. \cite{gv:D6R4})
5053: into the right-hand side of (\ref{projcusp}) we find
5054: \begin{eqnarray}
5055: \nonumber
5056: (2s-1)\,\beta^{(s)}_{(s_{1},s_{2})}&=& \int_{0}^{\infty} {dt\over t^{1-s}}\,
5057: {32\pi^{s_{1}+s_{2}}\over \Gamma(s_{1})\Gamma(s_{2})}\, \sum_{n>0}
5058: {\sigma_{1-2s_{1}}(n) \sigma_{1-2s_{2}}(n)\over n^{1-s_{1}-s_{2}}}\, K_{s_{1}-{1\over2}}(2\pi n \Omega_{2})K_{s_{2}-{1\over2}}(2\pi n \Omega_{2})\\
5059: &=& {4\pi^{s_{1}+s_{2}-s}}\, \sum_{n>0} {\sigma_{1-2s_{1}}(n) \sigma_{1-2s_{2}}(n) \over n^{s+1-s_{1}-s_{2}}}\, \\
5060: \nonumber&\times&
5061: {\Gamma\left(s-s_{1}-s_{2}+1\over 2\right)\Gamma\left(s+s_{1}-s_{2}\over 2\right)
5062: \Gamma\left(s-s_{1}+s_{2}\over
5063: 2\right)\Gamma\left(s+s_{1}+s_{2}-1\over 2\right)\over
5064: \Gamma(s)\Gamma(s_{1})\Gamma(s_{2})} \, ,
5065: \end{eqnarray}
5066: where we have used the result for the integral of the product of two
5067: Bessel functions,
5068: \bea
5069: \int_{0}^\infty dt t^{m-1}&& K_{n-{1\over2}}(t) K_{p-{1\over 2}}(t)
5070: ={1\over 2^{3-m}\Gamma(m)}\nn\\
5071: &&\Gamma\left(m-n-p+1\over 2\right)\Gamma\left(m+n-p\over2\right)
5072: \Gamma\left(m-n+p\over2\right)\Gamma\left(m+n+p-1\over2\right)
5073: \, .
5074: \label{betasdefs}
5075: \eea
5076: Using the fact that
5077: $\sigma_{a}(pq)=\sigma_{a}(p)\sigma_{a}(q)$ for $p$ and $q$ prime and the fact that
5078: all integers can be decomposed over a product of primes, one easily
5079: establishes that
5080: \begin{equation}
5081: \sum_{n>0} \, {\sigma_{a}(n)\sigma_{b}(n)\over n^r} =
5082: {\zeta(r)\zeta(r-a)\zeta(r-b)\zeta(r-a-b)\over \zeta(2r-a-b)} \, ,
5083: \end{equation}
5084: whereby
5085: \begin{equation}
5086: \beta^{(s)}_{(s_{1},s_{2})} = {4 \pi^{s_{1}+s_{2}}\over
5087: \Gamma(s_{1})\Gamma(s_{2})}\,
5088: {\zeta^*(s-s_{1}-s_{2}+1)\zeta^*(s+s_{1}-s_{2})
5089: \zeta^*(s-s_{1}+s_{2})\zeta^*(s+s_{1}+s_{2}-1)\over (2s-1)\,\zeta^*(2s)}\,,
5090: \end{equation}
5091: with $\zeta^*(s)=\zeta(s)\Gamma(s/2)/\pi^{s/2}$.
5092:
5093:
5094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5095: \section{Two-loop four-graviton supergravity amplitude
5096: in various dimensions}\label{sec:DimReg}
5097: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5098:
5099: In this appendix
5100: we will consider the two-loop four-graviton amplitude of maximal supergravity in Minkowski space in nine, ten and
5101: eleven dimensions using dimensional regularization. These results make contact at various points with our discussion
5102: of eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on a circle and on a two-torus.
5103: We follow the analysis described in
5104: \cite{Smirnov:1999gc,Smirnov:2002kq} and \cite{Tausk:1999vh}
5105: based on a dimensional regularisation
5106: adapted to the ten and nine dimensional case. Although the
5107: ten-dimensional and eleven-dimensional results are in
5108: the literature \cite{BernDunbar} we include them here for completeness.
5109:
5110: \subsection{Ten dimensions}
5111: \label{sec:tenreg}
5112:
5113: The amplitude in $D=10-2\epsilon$ dimensions takes the form
5114: \begin{equation} \begin{split}
5115: A_4^{(10-2\epsilon)}& =\calR^4\,
5116: \Big((-S )^{2}\,\left[
5117: I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T)+ I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,U) + I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T) +
5118: I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,U)\right] \cr
5119: &+(-T)^{2}\,\left[
5120: I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(T,S)+ I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(T,U) + I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(T,S) + I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(T,U)\right]\cr
5121: &+(-U)^{2}\,\left[
5122: I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(U,T)+ I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(U,S) +
5123: I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(U,T) + I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(U,S)\right]\Big)\,.
5124: \end{split}\end{equation}
5125: %
5126: The contributions $I^P$ and $I^{NP}$ are the scalar
5127: field theory double-box diagrams as described in
5128: section~\ref{sec:expand}.
5129:
5130:
5131: These integrals can be analyzed efficiently using the
5132: {\tt Mathematica} package described in \cite{Czakon:2005rk}. The integrals can be reduced by a repeated use
5133: of the first and second Barnes' lemma given in the appendix~D of \cite{Smirnov:1999gc,Smirnov:2004ym}
5134: to reproduce the result of the appendix~C of \cite{BernDunbar}
5135: The planar amplitude $I^P(S,T)$ is given by
5136: \begin{equation}
5137: I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T)={ (-S\mu^2)^{3-2\epsilon}\over (4\pi)^{10}} \,
5138: \Big( -{2\over 7!\cdot 5!}{4S+T\over S\,\epsilon^2}
5139: -\frac{63\, T^3-252 \, S\, T^2-55\,S^2 \,T+704\, S^3}{700\cdot
5140: 9!\, S^3\,\epsilon}
5141: +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\Big)\,,
5142: \end{equation}
5143: and the non-planar amplitude takes to form
5144: \begin{equation}
5145: I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T)={ (-S\mu^2)^{3-2\epsilon}\over (4\pi)^{10}} \,
5146: \left({7\over 7!\cdot 5!} {1\over\epsilon^2}+{ 1\over 30\cdot9!}\,
5147: \frac{917 S^2+ 2 \,T \,U}{S^2\, \epsilon}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\right)\,,
5148: \end{equation}
5149: %
5150: where $\mu$ is an arbitrary scale and we have made use
5151: of the on-shell condition $S+T+U=0$. The terms of $O(\epsilon^0)$ are functions of the dimensionless
5152: ratio $T/S$.
5153:
5154: The $1/\epsilon^2$ pole cancels (on-shell) in the $S$-channel part of the amplitude, $A^{(S)}$, giving
5155: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
5156: &I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T)+I^{P\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,U)+I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,T)
5157: +I^{NP\,(10-2\epsilon)}(S,U)\cr
5158: &=-{1\over (4\pi)^{10}}\, { 50\, S^3 + 5 S T U\over 6!^2\epsilon }
5159: + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\,.
5160: \end{split}\end{equation}
5161: %
5162: The $\epsilon$ pole contributes to terms proportional to $\log(-S\mu^2)$, which are not symmetric in the
5163: Mandelstam invariants. However,
5164: summing all the contributions and using the mass-shell constraint the total amplitude takes the symmetric form
5165: \begin{equation}
5166: A_4^{(10-2\epsilon)}= \frac{13}{ (4\pi)^{10}\,466560\, \epsilon}\,\sigma_{2}\,\sigma_{3} \calR^4+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\, .
5167: \end{equation}
5168: %
5169: The striking cancelation of the $1/\epsilon^2$ pole separately in the $S$, $T$ and $U$-channels,
5170: corresponds to the cancelation of the
5171: terms proportional to $\log^2(-S)$, $\log^2(-T)$ and $\log^2(-U)$
5172: in the circle compactification of the term of order $S^5\,\calR^4$
5173: analyzed in appendix~\ref{sec:D10R4circle} and of the $(\log\Omega_{2})^2$ dependence
5174: in the $\calE_{(1,1)}(\Omega)$ coefficient of equation~(\ref{e:calF}).
5175:
5176:
5177: Under a rescaling $(S,T,U) \to \Omega_{2}\, (S,T,U)$ the amplitude behaves as
5178: \begin{equation}
5179: \Omega_{2}^{-5}\,A^{(10-2\epsilon)}_4\to A^{(10-2\epsilon)}_4+ {13\over (4\pi)^{10}\,233280}\, \sigma_{2}\sigma_{3}\,\log\Omega_{2} \, .
5180: \end{equation}
5181: The $\log\Omega_{2}$ term (properly normalized) should be related to with the $\log\Omega_{2}$ term in (\ref{e:calF}).
5182:
5183:
5184:
5185: \subsubsection{The triangle counterterm diagram}
5186:
5187:
5188: The ten-dimensional
5189: two-loop amplitude receives an extra contribution from the
5190: triangle diagram with the one-loop counterterm $A_{\triangleright}$ of equation~(\ref{diag:counter}).
5191: In the dimensional regularisation scheme the triangle loop amplitude in $D=10-2\epsilon$ reads
5192: \begin{eqnarray}
5193: \nn I^{(10-2\epsilon)}_{\triangleright}(S)&=&-{1\over (2\pi)^{10}}\int {d^{10-2\epsilon}\ell\over
5194: \ell^2 (\ell-p_{1})^2 (\ell-p_{1}-p_{2})^2}\\
5195: &=&- {\Gamma(-2+\epsilon)\over 2\, (3-\epsilon)^2 (4\pi)^5}\, (-S)^{2-2\epsilon}
5196: \end{eqnarray}
5197: %
5198: This pole in $\epsilon$
5199: leads to a contribution of order $S^4 \, \log(-S)$.
5200: This is interpreted in the $\calS^1$ compactification to type IIA
5201: string theory as a
5202: genus-two threshold contribution. Unitarity requires the presence of
5203: this
5204: term since the discontinuity across the threshold is
5205: the product of the genus-one $\calR^4$ term
5206: and the leading contribution from the tree-level amplitude.
5207: To pick out the coefficient we can perform
5208: a rescaling of the Mandelstam variables $(S,T,U) \to \Omega_{2}\,
5209: (S,T,U)$ this amplitude behaves as
5210: \begin{equation}
5211: \Omega_{2}^{-4}\, A^{(10-2\epsilon)}_{\triangleright}\to
5212: A^{(10-2\epsilon)}_{\triangleright}
5213: + {1\over (4\pi)^{5}\,72}\, \sigma_{2}^2\,\log\Omega_{2} \,,
5214: \end{equation}
5215: which corresponds to the two-loop $S^4\, \log\Omega_{2}$ term
5216: that would be contained in a modular function describing the terms at
5217: order $S^4\,\calR^4$ in ten dimensions.
5218:
5219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5220: \subsection{Eleven dimensions}\label{sec:elevenreg}
5221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5222:
5223: In similar fashion the planar and non-planar scalar field theory integrals that contribute
5224: to the two-loop amplitude in $D=11-2\epsilon$ dimensions
5225: are found to be given by
5226: \begin{eqnarray}
5227: \nn I^{P\,(11-2\epsilon)}(S,T)&=&(-S)^{-2\epsilon}\,{\pi\over(4\pi)^{11}}\,{1\over\epsilon}\, \frac{
5228: 2100 \, S^4- 880\, S^3\,T+215 \,S^2\,T^2+30\,S\, T^3+12 \,T^4 }{9451728000}
5229: + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\\
5230: \end{eqnarray}
5231: \begin{equation}
5232: I^{NP\,(11-2\epsilon)}(S,T)=(-S)^{-2\epsilon}\,{\pi\over (4\pi)^{11}}\, {1\over\epsilon}\,
5233: {40383\, S^4 - 1138\ S^2\,T\,U + 144\ U^2\, T^2\over 79394515200}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)
5234: \end{equation}
5235: The resulting amplitude is
5236: \be
5237: A_{4}^{(11-2\epsilon)}=
5238: {\pi\over(4\pi)^{11}}\,{1\over\epsilon}\,{1971\, \sigma_{2}^3
5239: +2522\, \sigma_{3}^2 \over 5003856000} +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\ .
5240: \label{elevenpole}
5241: \ee
5242: %
5243: in agreement with the results of \cite{BernDunbar}.
5244:
5245: The $1/\epsilon$ pole in (\ref{elevenpole})
5246: gives a $S^6\, \calR^4$ term in the amplitude in eleven-dimensional Minkowski space
5247: that should correspond to the zero-winding sector of the two-loop amplitude at order
5248: $S^6\, \calR^4$ in the compactified theory.
5249: In section~\ref{sec:hfoureval} we determined the zero-winding coefficients
5250: $h_{(3,0)}^0$ and $h_{(0,2)}^0$ (see (\ref{h4zerox}) and (\ref{h4zeroy})). Referring back to
5251: the normalizations in equation~(\ref{eberz}), we see that these zero-winding terms agree precisely with
5252: (\ref{elevenpole}) with $1/\epsilon$ replaced by $\log \Lambda^2/C$ (where $C$ is an undetermined constant).
5253:
5254:
5255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5256: \subsection{Nine dimensions}\label{sec:ninereg}
5257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5258:
5259: The planar and non-planar diagrams in nine dimensions also have logarithmic branch points. These arise from
5260: the coalescence of the square root branch points of the individual one-loop integrals.
5261: For completeness, we note the
5262: result of an analysis of the the planar and non-planar diagrams in $D=9-2\epsilon$ dimensions analogous to the
5263: one of the preceding sub-sections, giving
5264: \begin{equation}
5265: \nn I^{P,(9-2\epsilon)}(S,T)=S^{2-2\epsilon}\,{\pi\over(4\pi)^9}\, \frac{-
5266: 45\,S^2 +18\,S\,T + 2\,T^2 }{399168\,\epsilon\,S^2}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)
5267: \end{equation}
5268: \begin{equation}
5269: I^{NP,(9-2\epsilon)}(S,T,U)=s^{2-2\epsilon}\,{-\pi\over (4\pi)^9\, 332640}\,
5270: {75\, S^2+ 2 \, T\, U\over
5271: S^2\,\epsilon}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)\ .
5272: \end{equation}
5273: %
5274: Collecting all the contributions one finds in agreement with \cite{BernDunbar}
5275: \begin{equation}
5276: A^{(9-2\epsilon)}_{4}= -{1\over 8\epsilon}\, {1\over (4\pi)^9}\, {13\pi\over9072}\,
5277: \sigma_{2}^2\,\calR^4+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0) \ .
5278: \end{equation}
5279:
5280:
5281: %------
5282: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
5283:
5284:
5285:
5286: \bibitem{Hull:1994ys}
5287: C.~M.~Hull and P.~K.~Townsend,
5288: {\sl Unity of superstring dualities,}
5289: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 438} (1995) 109
5290: [arXiv:hep-th/9410167].
5291: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B438,109;%%
5292:
5293:
5294:
5295: \bibitem{Witten:1995ex}
5296: E.~Witten,
5297: {\sl String theory dynamics in various dimensions,}
5298: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 443} (1995) 85
5299: [arXiv:hep-th/9503124].
5300: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9503124;%%
5301:
5302:
5303: \bibitem{Schwarz:1995jq}
5304: J.~H.~Schwarz,
5305: {\sl The power of M theory,}
5306: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 367} (1996) 97
5307: [arXiv:hep-th/9510086].
5308: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510086;%%
5309:
5310: \bibitem{Aspinwall:1995fw}
5311: P.~S.~Aspinwall,
5312: {\sl Some relationships between dualities in string theory,}
5313: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 46} (1996) 30
5314: [arXiv:hep-th/9508154].
5315: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9508154;%%
5316:
5317: \bibitem{ggv:oneloop}
5318: M.~B.~Green, M.~Gutperle and P.~Vanhove,
5319: {\sl One loop in eleven dimensions,}
5320: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 409} (1997) 177
5321: [arXiv:hep-th/9706175].
5322: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9706175;%%
5323:
5324: \bibitem{Russo:1997mk}
5325: J.~G.~Russo and A.~A.~Tseytlin,
5326: {\sl One-loop four-graviton amplitude in eleven-dimensional supergravity,}
5327: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 508} (1997) 245
5328: [arXiv:hep-th/9707134].
5329: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9707134;%%
5330:
5331: \bibitem{gkv:twoloop}
5332: M.~B.~Green, H.~h.~Kwon and P.~Vanhove,
5333: {\sl Two loops in eleven dimensions,}
5334: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 104010
5335: [arXiv:hep-th/9910055].
5336: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9910055;%%
5337:
5338:
5339: \bibitem{gv:D6R4} M.B. Green and P. Vanhove, {\sl Duality and higher
5340: derivative terms in M theory},
5341: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 093
5342: [arXiv:hep-th/0510027].
5343: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0601,093;%%
5344:
5345:
5346: \bibitem{gv:stringloop} M.B. Green and P. Vanhove,
5347: {\sl The low energy expansion of the one-loop type II superstring
5348: amplitude},
5349: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61}, 104011 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9910056].
5350:
5351:
5352: \bibitem{grv:oneloop}
5353: M.~B.~Green, J.~G.~Russo and P.~Vanhove,
5354: {\sl Low energy expansion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II
5355: superstring theory,}
5356: JHEP {\bf 0802} (2008) 020
5357: [arXiv:0801.0322 [hep-th]].
5358: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0802,020;%%
5359:
5360:
5361:
5362: \bibitem{Berkovits2006}
5363: N.~Berkovits,
5364: {\sl New higher-derivative R**4 theorems,}
5365: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 211601
5366: [arXiv:hep-th/0609006].
5367: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,211601;%%
5368:
5369:
5370: \bibitem{Schwarz:1995dk}
5371: J.~H.~Schwarz,
5372: {\sl An SL(2,Z) multiplet of type IIB superstrings,}
5373: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 360} (1995) 13
5374: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 364} (1995) 252]
5375: [arXiv:hep-th/9508143].
5376: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B360,13;%%
5377:
5378:
5379: \bibitem{Green:1987mn}
5380: M.~B.~Green, J.~H.~Schwarz and E.~Witten,
5381: {\sl Superstring Theory. Vol. 2: Loop Amplitudes, Anomalies And Phenomenology,}
5382: {\it Cambridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. ( 1987) 596 P. ( Cambridge Monographs On Mathematical Physics)}
5383:
5384:
5385:
5386: \bibitem{gg:dinstanton}
5387: M.~B.~Green and M.~Gutperle,
5388: {\sl Effects of D-instantons,}
5389: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 498} (1997) 195
5390: [arXiv:hep-th/9701093].
5391: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B498,195;%%
5392:
5393: \bibitem{Green:1998by}
5394: M.~B.~Green and S.~Sethi,
5395: {\sl Supersymmetry constraints on type IIB supergravity,}
5396: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 046006 (1999)
5397: [arXiv:hep-th/9808061].
5398: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,046006;%%
5399:
5400:
5401:
5402: \bibitem{BernDunbar}
5403: Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~C.~Dunbar, M.~Perelstein and J.~S.~Rozowsky,
5404: {\sl On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its
5405: implication for ultraviolet divergences,}
5406: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 530} (1998) 401
5407: [arXiv:hep-th/9802162].
5408: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802162;%%
5409:
5410:
5411: \bibitem{Dai:2006vj}
5412: P.~Dai and W.~Siegel,
5413: {\sl Worldline green functions for arbitrary Feynman diagrams,}
5414: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 770} (2007) 107
5415: [arXiv:hep-th/0608062].
5416: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B770,107;%%
5417:
5418:
5419: \bibitem{D'Hoker:2005jc}
5420: E.~D'Hoker and D.~H.~Phong,
5421: {\sl Two-Loop Superstrings VI: Non-Renormalization Theorems and the 4-Point
5422: Function,}
5423: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 715} (2005) 3
5424: [arXiv:hep-th/0501197].
5425: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B715,3;%%
5426:
5427:
5428:
5429: \bibitem{Bern:2007hh}
5430: Z.~Bern, J.~J.~Carrasco, L.~J.~Dixon, H.~Johansson, D.~A.~Kosower and R.~Roiban,
5431: {\sl Three-Loop Superfiniteness of N=8 Supergravity,}
5432: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 161303
5433: [arXiv:hep-th/0702112].
5434: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,161303;%%
5435:
5436: \bibitem{Green:1982sw}
5437: M.~B.~Green, J.~H.~Schwarz and L.~Brink,
5438: {\sl N=4 Yang-Mills And N=8 Supergravity As Limits Of String Theories,}
5439: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 198} (1982) 474.
5440: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B198,474;%%
5441:
5442:
5443:
5444:
5445: \bibitem{grv:bigpaper}
5446: M.~B.~Green, J.~G.~Russo and P.~Vanhove,
5447: {\sl Non-renormalisation conditions in type II string theory and maximal
5448: supergravity,}
5449: JHEP {\bf 0702} (2007) 099
5450: [arXiv:hep-th/0610299].
5451: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0702,099;%%
5452:
5453: \bibitem{sinha} A.~Sinha,
5454: {\sl The G-hat**4 lambda**16 term in IIB supergravity,}
5455: JHEP {\bf 0208} (2002) 017
5456: [arXiv:hep-th/0207070].
5457: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0208,017;%%
5458:
5459:
5460: \bibitem{Schwarz:1993}
5461: J.H. Schwarz, {\sl Covariant Field Equations of Chiral
5462: $N=2$, $D=10$ Supergravity}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B226} (1993) 269.
5463:
5464:
5465:
5466: %\cite{Kiritsis:1997em}
5467: \bibitem{Kiritsis:1997em}
5468: E.~Kiritsis and B.~Pioline,
5469: {\sl On $R^4$ threshold corrections in type IIB string theory and (p,q) string
5470: instantons,}
5471: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 508}, 509 (1997)
5472: [arXiv:hep-th/9707018].
5473: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B508,509;%%
5474:
5475:
5476:
5477: %\cite{Basu:2007ru}
5478: \bibitem{Basu:2007ru}
5479: A.~Basu,
5480: {\sl The $D^4 R^4$ term in type IIB string theory on $T^2$ and U-duality,}
5481: arXiv:0708.2950 [hep-th].
5482: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.2950;%%
5483:
5484: %\cite{Basu:2007ck}
5485: \bibitem{Basu:2007ck}
5486: A.~Basu,
5487: {\sl The $D^6 R^4$ term in type IIB string theory on $T^2$ and U-duality,}
5488: arXiv:0712.1252 [hep-th].
5489: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.1252;%%
5490:
5491: \bibitem{Smirnov:1999gc}
5492: V.~A.~Smirnov,
5493: {\sl Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless on-shell double box,}
5494: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 460} (1999) 397
5495: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905323].
5496: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B460,397;%%
5497:
5498: \bibitem{Smirnov:2002kq}
5499: V.~A.~Smirnov,
5500: {\sl Analytical evaluation of double boxes,}
5501: arXiv:hep-ph/0209177.
5502: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0209177;%%
5503:
5504: \bibitem{Tausk:1999vh}
5505: J.~B.~Tausk,
5506: {\sl Non-planar massless two-loop Feynman diagrams with four on-shell legs,}
5507: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 469} (1999) 225
5508: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909506].
5509: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B469,225;%%
5510:
5511: \bibitem{Czakon:2005rk}
5512: M.~Czakon,
5513: {\sl Automatized analytic continuation of Mellin-Barnes integrals,}
5514: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 175} (2006) 559
5515: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511200].
5516: %%CITATION = CPHCB,175,559;%%
5517: \bibitem{Smirnov:2004ym}
5518: V.~A.~Smirnov,
5519: {\sl Evaluating Feynman Integrals,}
5520: Springer Tracts Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 211} (2004) 1.
5521: %%CITATION = STPHB,211,1;%%
5522:
5523:
5524:
5525:
5526:
5527:
5528: \end{thebibliography}
5529: \end{document}
5530: