1: 

2: 

3: 

4: 

5: \newif\iffigs\figstrue

6: %  Uncomment the next line if you don't want the figures:

7: %\figsfalse

8: 

9: \documentclass[paper, 12pt, letterpaper]{JHEP}

10: 

11: \def\Bbb{\bf}

12: \def\C{{\Bbb C}}

13: \def\R{{\Bbb R}}

14: \def\Z{{\Bbb Z}}

15: \def\H{{\Bbb H}}

16: 

17: 

18: \def\Hom{\operatorname{Hom}}

19: \def\Tors{\operatorname{Tors}}

20: \def\Ker{\operatorname{Ker}}

21: \def\Spec{\operatorname{Spec}}

22: \def\Area{\operatorname{Area}}

23: \def\Vol{\operatorname{Vol}}

24: \def\ad{\operatorname{ad}}

25: \def\tr{\operatorname{tr}}

26: \def\Pic{\operatorname{Pic}}

27: \def\disc{\operatorname{disc}}

28: \def\cpl{\operatorname{cpl}}

29: \def\Img{\operatorname{Im}}

30: \def\Rea{\operatorname{Re}}

31: \def\Gr{\operatorname{Gr}}

32: \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}}

33: \def\Sl{\operatorname{SL}}

34: \def\GO{\operatorname{O{}}}

35: \def\SU{\operatorname{SU}}

36: \def\GU{\operatorname{U{}}}

37: \def\Sp{\operatorname{Sp}}

38: \def\Spin{\operatorname{Spin}}

39: \def\rank{\operatorname{rank}}

40: \def\bearray{\begin{eqnarray}}

41: \def\eearray{\end{eqnarray}}

42: \def\bearraynn{\begin{eqnarray*}}

43: \def\eearraynn{\end{eqnarray*}}

44: \def\bfig{\begin{figure}}

45: \def\efig{\end{figure}}

46: \def\Aff{\operatorname{Aff}}

47: \def\diag{\operatorname{diag}}

48: \def\opeq#1{\advance\lineskip#1 \advance\baselineskip#1

49:         \advance\lineskiplimit#1}

50: \def\eqalignsq#1{\null\,\vcenter{\opeq{2.5\jot}\mathsurround=0pt

51:         \everycr={}\tabskip=0pt\offinterlineskip

52:         \halign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil

53:         \crcr#1\crcr}}\,\null}

54: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\opeq{2.5\jot}\mathsurround=0pt

55:         \everycr={}\tabskip=0pt

56:         \halign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil

57:         \crcr#1\crcr}}\,\null}

58: 

59: \def\sm{$\sigma$-model}

60: \def\nlsm{non-linear \sm}

61: \def\smm{\sm\ measure}

62: \def\CY{Calabi--Yau}

63: \def\LG{Landau-Ginzburg}

64: \def\cR{{\Scr R}}

65: \def\cM{{\Scr M}}

66: \def\cA{{\Scr A}}

67: \def\cB{{\Scr B}}

68: \def\cK{{\Scr K}}

69: \def\cD{{\Scr D}}

70: \def\cH{{\Scr H}}

71: \def\cT{{\Scr T}}

72: \def\cL{{\Scr L}}

73: \def\cF{{\Scr F}}

74: 

75: 

76: \def\spnh{\Spin(32)/\Z_2}

77: 

78: \def\Pf{{\em Proof: }}

79: 

80: \def\ker{{\rm ker}}

81: \def\coker{{\rm coker}}

82: \def\rank{{\rm rank}}

83: \def\im{{\rm im}}

84: \def\dim{{\rm dim}}

85: \def\codim{{\rm codim}}

86: \def\Card{{\rm Card}}

87: \def\li{{\rm linearly independent}}

88: \def\ld{{\rm linearly dependent}}

89: \def\deg{{\rm deg}}

90: \def\det{{\rm det}}

91: \def\Div{{\rm Div}}

92: \def\supp{{\rm supp}}

93: \def\Gr{{\rm Gr}}

94: \def\End{{\rm End}}

95: \def\Aut{{\rm Aut}}

96: 

97: 

98: \newtheorem{Proposition}{Proposition}[section]

99: \newtheorem{Definition}{Definition}[section]

100: \newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}[section]

101: \newtheorem{Lemma}{Lemma}[section]

102: \newtheorem{Corrolary}{Corrolary}[section]

103: 

104: 

105: 

106: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

107: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

108: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

109: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

110: 

111: \newcommand{\bp}{\begin{Proposition}}

112: \newcommand{\ep}{\end{Proposition}}

113: \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{Theorem}}

114: \newcommand{\et}{\end{Theorem}}

115: \newcommand{\bl}{\begin{Lemma}}

116: \newcommand{\el}{\end{Lemma}}

117: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{Corrolary}}

118: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{Corrolary}}

119: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

120: 

121: 

122: %EOF

123: 

124: 

125: 

126: 

127: 

128: \usepackage{graphics}

129: 

130: 

131: \title{Graded Lagrangians, exotic topological D-branes and enhanced 

132: triangulated categories }

133: 

134: \author{C.~I.~Lazaroiu\\C.~N.~Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

135: SUNY at Stony BrookNY11794-3840, U.S.A.\\calin@insti.physics.sunysb.edu}

136: 

137: 

138: \abstract{I point out that (BPS saturated) A-type D-branes 

139: in superstring compactification 

140: on Calabi-Yau threefolds  correspond to 

141: {\em graded} special Lagrangian submanifolds, a particular case 

142: of the graded Lagrangian submanifolds considered by M. Kontsevich and P. Seidel. 

143: Combining this with the categorical formulation of cubic string field theory 

144: in the presence of D-branes, I consider a collection of {\em topological} 

145: D-branes wrapped over the same Lagrangian cycle and

146: {\em derive} its string field action from first string-theoretic principles. 

147: The result is a {\em $\Z$-graded} version of super-Chern-Simons field theory 

148: living on the Lagrangian cycle, whose relevant string field is a degree one 

149: superconnection in a $\Z$-graded superbundle, 

150: in the sense previously considered in 

151: mathematical work of J.~M.~Bismutt and J.~Lott. 

152: This gives a refined (and modified) 

153: version of a proposal previously made by C. Vafa. 

154: I analyze the vacuum deformations 

155: of this theory and relate them to topological 

156: D-brane composite formation, upon using the 

157: general formalism developed in a previous paper. This allows me to identify a 

158: large class of topological D-brane composites (generalized, or `exotic' 

159: topological D-branes) which do not admit a traditional description. 

160: Among these are objects 

161: which correspond to the `covariantly constant sequences of flat bundles' 

162: considered by Bismut and Lott, as well as more general structures, 

163: which are related to the enhanced triangulated 

164: categories of Bondal and Kapranov.

165: I also give a rough sketch of the relation  

166: between this construction and the large radius limit of a certain 

167: version of the `derived category of Fukaya's category'. 

168: 

169: This paper forms part of a joint project with Prof. 

170: S.~Popescu, a brief announcement of which can be found in the second 

171: part of the note hep-th/0102183. 

172: The paralel B-model realization, as well as the relation with 

173: the enhanced triangulated categories of Bondal and Kapranov, was 

174: recently discussed by D.~E.~Diaconescu in the paper hep-th/0104200, upon 

175: using the observations contained in that announcement.

176: }

177: 

178: \begin{document}

179: 

180: 

181: \tableofcontents

182: 

183: \pagebreak

184: 

185: \section{Introduction}

186: 

187: Recent progress in our understanding of Calabi-Yau D-brane physics 

188: has lead to the realization that the D-branes of an $N=2$ superstring 

189: compactification are intrinsically graded objects. This observation, 

190: which in the physics context is due to M. Douglas \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich,

191: pi_stab}, and in the homological mirror symmetry literature can be traced 

192: back to \cite{Kontsevich} (see also \cite{Seidel} and \cite{Zaslow_hms}), 

193: has far reaching 

194: implications for the physical description of open superstring dynamics 

195: on Calabi-Yau backgrounds. 

196: Most work toward extracting the physical consequences of this 

197: fact \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall, Diaconescu, Oz_triples},  

198: has focused on the analysis of so-called B-type branes \cite{Ooguri}, 

199: i.e. those D-branes which in the large radius limit are described by 

200: holomorphic sheaves. The other class of D-branes which can be 

201: introduced in such compactifications (the so-called A-branes, 

202: which correspond to (special) Lagrangian 

203: cycles) has been comparatively less well studied.

204: This asks for clarification, 

205: especially since applications to mirror symmetry 

206: (which interchanges the two types of branes) require 

207: that we understand both sides of the mirror duality. 

208: 

209: Since the chiral/antichiral 

210: primary sectors of the compactified superstring are 

211: faithfully described by the associated topological models

212: \cite{Witten_NLSM, Witten_mirror, Witten_CS}, it is 

213: natural to approach this problem from the point of view of topological 

214: string theory. The purpose of 

215: the present paper is to analyze some basic 

216: dynamical implications of the existence of D-brane grading 

217: for the topological branes of the A model.

218: 

219: Most recent work on categories of D-branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds 

220: follows the largely {\em on-shell} (or rather, partially off-shell) 

221: approach originally proposed in 

222: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}. In \cite{com3}, I proposed an alternative, 

223: {\em consistently off-shell} approach, which makes direct use of a formalism

224: (developed in \cite{com1}) 

225: for associative string field theory in the presence of D-branes

226: and goes well-beyond the boundary 

227: state formalism \cite{Cardy, boundary_states} 

228: which has traditionally dominated the subject\footnote{Some limitations of the 

229: (topological) boundary state formalism were discussed in \cite{top}.}.

230: This method is especially well-suited for analysis of D-brane

231: composite formation, a phenomenon which forms the crucial ingredient 

232: of any realistic approach to Calabi-Yau D-brane physics. Since condensation 

233: of boundary and boundary condition changing operators is intrinsically 

234: an {\em off-shell} process, it can be expected  

235: that a complete understanding of 

236: such phenomena can only be obtained by systematic use of 

237: off-shell techniques, which 

238: explains the relevance of string field theory methods.

239: This point of view also allows for better contact with the 

240: homological mirror symmetry conjecture of \cite{Kontsevich}, which is based 

241: on an effort to work at the (co)chain, rather than (co)homology level.

242: 

243: 

244: In this paper I shall follow the approach outlined in \cite{com3} 

245: by giving its concrete realization for a class of topological 

246: D-branes of the A model. A thorough understanding of A-model open string dynamics 

247: requires consideration of intersecting D-branes and a detailed analysis of 

248: disk instanton effects, which ultimately should be carried out through 

249: mirror symmetry. Since a  complete discussion of  these issues (which bear 

250: an intimate relation 

251: with the mathematical work of K. Fukaya \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2}) 

252: is rather involved, the present paper restricts to a small sector of the 

253: relevant structure, by considering a system of D-branes which wrap 

254: a given (special) Lagrangian cycle. We shall moreover take

255: the large radius limit, thereby neglecting disk 

256: instanton corrections \cite{boundary} to the classical string field action. 

257: As we shall see below, even the 

258: analysis of this sector is considerably more subtle than has previously 

259: been thought. In fact, insistence on a consistent off-shell 

260: description leads to novel results, which 

261: would be difficult to extract through the `mixed' methods of 

262: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}. Among these is is the fact 

263: that the string field associated with such boundary sectors 

264: is a superconnection living in a 

265: {\em $\Z$-graded} superbundle, rather that the standard $\Z_2$-graded variant 

266: of \cite{Quillen} which was used in \cite{Oz_superconn, Vafa_cs}.  

267: More importantly,  we shall {\em show the existence of 

268: many more classes of {\em topological} 

269: A-type branes than has previously been suspected}. 

270: Such exotic topological branes correspond to backgrounds 

271: in the {\em extended} moduli space of the open topological A-string.

272: Whether they also play a role in the physical, untwisted theory is 

273: a question which we do not attempt to settle in this paper.

274: 

275: 

276: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the basics of 

277: the general 

278: formalism of associative open string field theory with D-branes which 

279: was developed in \cite{com1, com3}. Since we shall later deal with the 

280: A-model, which for certain D-brane configurations admits a 

281: `complex conjugation' symmetry, we also give a brief discussion of the 

282: supplementary structure describing open string field 

283: theories endowed with such operations. This is a straightforward 

284: extension of the analysis of \cite{com1}, which bears on basic structural 

285: issues such as consistent general constructions of antibranes. It can be 

286: viewed as a D-brane extension of the analysis already given in 

287: \cite{Witten_SFT, Thorn, Gaberdiel}, 

288: though our discussion is carried in different conventions. 

289: In Section 3 I reconsider the problem of grading of A-type topological 

290: D-branes. While this issue was touched upon in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} 

291: (see also \cite{Aspinwall}), a careful geometric analysis does not seem to 

292: have been given before. I give a precise description of this grading 

293: and discuss some of the underlying issues of orientation, which turn out 

294: to be of crucial importance for the string field theory discussed in later 

295: sections. Our approach makes us of the 

296: so-called {\em graded Lagrangian submanifolds} of \cite{Seidel},  which 

297: can be shown to give the general description of 

298: (not necessarily BPS saturated) graded topological A-branes. Since the 

299: present paper 

300: restricts to the special Lagrangian case, I only discuss this theory 

301: in its very simplified form which applies to such situations. 

302: This gives a geometrically self-contained description of A-type branes 

303: as graded objects, thereby improving on the discussion 

304: of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}. The general theory, as it applies 

305: to non-BPS A-type branes, will be discussed somewhere else \cite{nlsm}. 

306: Armed with a consistent off-shell framework and a 

307: precise understanding of the geometric description of our 

308: objects, we proceed in Section 4 to construct the string field theory 

309: of a system of {\em distinct} D-branes wrapping the same special Lagrangian 

310: cycle. More precisely, we consider a set of branes having 

311: different gradings and whose underlying geometric supports coincide. 

312: The fact that one must consider such systems is a direct consequence of 

313: the idea of D-branes as graded objects, and it should serve as a  

314: test for its implications. The salient point of our construction is 

315: that the presence of distinct gradings leads to a shift of the worldsheet 

316: $U(1)$ charge of the various boundary condition changing observables, 

317: which implies that the resulting string field theory is a {\em $\Z$-graded} 

318: version of super-Chern-Simons theory

319: \footnote{This should be compared with 

320: the $\Z_2$-graded proposal of \cite{Vafa_cs}.}. 

321: This suggests that the currently prevalent approach

322: (which is largely based on borrowing the results of 

323: \cite{Witten_CS}) must be reconsidered. 

324: We build the string field theory by identifying each piece of the 

325: axiomatic data discussed in \cite{com1, com3}, and check the relevant 

326: consistency constraints. This gives an explicit 

327: realization  of the general framework developed in those papers. 

328: After identifying the underlying structure, we show that the resulting 

329: string field action admits a description in the language of 

330: {\em $\Z$-graded superconnections}, which were previously considered in the

331: mathematical work of \cite{Bismut_Lott}. 

332: We proceed in 

333: Section 5 with a discussion of the conditions under 

334: which our string field theory 

335: is invariant with respect to complex conjugation, and give a precise 

336: description

337: of the conjugation operators. 

338: Section 6 formulates an extended string field action, whose detailed 

339: analysis is left for future work. Section 7 gives

340: a preliminary analysis of the moduli space of vacua of our string field 

341: theory. Upon applying the general framework of \cite{com1, com3}, we 

342: discuss the relevant deformation problem and sketch its relation with 

343: the modern mathematical theory of {\em extended} deformations 

344: \cite{Kontsevich_Felder, Manin}. This provides a concrete realization

345: of some general observations made in \cite{com3}. 

346: In Section 8 we analyze various 

347: types of deformations, which allows us to 

348: identify large classes of topological A-type branes 

349: (wrapping the cycle $L$) which {\em do not admit a traditional description}. 

350: These `exotic A-type branes' can be viewed as topological D-brane composites 

351: resulting from condensation of boundary and boundary condition changing 

352: operators, and they must be included in a physically complete analysis of 

353: A-type open string dynamics. As a particular case, we recover the standard 

354: deformations of traditional A-type branes, and a class of generalized 

355: D-branes which correspond to the flat complexes of vector bundles 

356: studied in \cite{Bismut_Lott}. We also discuss more 

357: general solutions, which correspond to the pseudocomplexes and generalized 

358: complexes of \cite{com1}, and relate the former to the enhanced triangulated 

359: categories of Bondal and Kapranov, upon following the general observations 

360: already made in \cite{com3}. 

361: This provides a vast enlargement of the theory of 

362: \cite{Witten_CS}, which can be analyzed through 

363: the categorical methods developed in 

364: \cite{com1}.  Section 9 makes some brief remarks 

365: on how the theory 

366: considered in this paper relates to Fukaya's 

367: category \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2}. Finally, section 10 

368: presents our conclusions.

369: 

370: 

371: The content of this paper was originally conceived as 

372: introductory material for the more detailed work \cite{us}, 

373: a brief announcement of 

374: which can be found in the last section of the note \cite{com3}. 

375: Meanwhile, a paper appeared \cite{Diaconescu}, which succeeded to recover some 

376: of the B-model details which were left out in \cite{com3}, as well as 

377: the specifics of the relation with the work of Bondal and Kapranov \cite{BK}, 

378: a relation which was mentioned in \cite{com3}. 

379: This prompted me to write the present note, which 

380: contains a self-contained description of (part) of the A-model realization 

381: of the relevant string field theory, and a brief 

382: sketch of the ensuing mathematical 

383: analysis. Since the basic  B-model realization is

384: now available in \cite{Diaconescu}, I refer the reader to 

385: this reference for the parallel holomorphic discussion

386: \footnote{I should perhaps point out that the idea of using the work 

387: of Bondal and Kapranov \cite{BK} goes back to the original paper 

388: of M. Kontsevich on the homological mirror symmetry conjecture. This 

389: idea was re-iterated in \cite{com3} in a string field theory context, 

390: where its application to the B model was mentioned without giving 

391: all of the relevant 

392: details (which form part of the more ambitious project \cite{us}). The paper 

393: \cite{Diaconescu} follows this idea by studying a $\Z$-graded 

394: holomorphic theory, which was implicit (but not explicitly written down) 

395: in the announcement \cite{com3}. That theory, as well as the theory of this 

396: paper, can be obtained through the very general procedure 

397: of {\em shift-completion}.}. 

398: 

399: 

400: \section{Review of axioms and complex conjugation}

401: 

402: We start with a short review of the necessary framework, 

403: followed by a brief discussion of complex conjugations. 

404: We are interested in a general description of the structure of 

405: cubic (or associative, as opposed to homotopy associative) 

406: open string field theory in the presence of D-branes. This subject

407: was discussed systematically in the paper \cite{com1}, to which we refer 

408: the reader for details. The basic idea is to formulate the theory in 

409: terms of a so-called `differential graded (dG) category', which encodes 

410: the spaces of off-shell states of strings stretching between 

411: a collection of D-branes. Since we are interested in oriented strings, 

412: such states can be viewed as morphisms between the various D-branes, 

413: which allows us to build a category with objects given by the 

414: D-branes themselves. The associative morphism compositions are given by the 

415: basic string products, which result from the triple correlators 

416: on the disk. From this perspective, states of strings whose endpoints lie on the 

417: same D-brane $a$ define `diagonal' boundary sectors $Hom(a,a)=End(a)$, while 

418: states of strings stretching between two different D-branes $a$ and $b$ 

419: (namely from $a$ to $b$) define boundary condition changing sectors $Hom(a,b)$. 

420: This terminology is inspired by the formalism of open-closed conformal 

421: field theory on surfaces with boundary \cite{Cardy}; indeed, 

422: states in the boundary  and 

423: boundary condition changing sectors are related to boundary/boundary condition changing 

424: conformal field theory operators via the state-operator correspondence.

425: The reader is referred to \cite{com3} for a nontechnical introduction 

426: to this approach and to \cite{com1} for a more detailed discussion. 

427: Some background on dG categories can be found in the appendix of \cite{com1}, 

428: while a systematic discussion of the relevant on-shell approach can be 

429: found in \cite{top}.

430: 

431: \subsection{The basic data and the string field action} 

432: 

433: Recall from \cite{com1} that a 

434: (tree level) associative open string field theory in the presence of D-branes 

435: is specified by: 

436: 

437: \

438: 

439: (I) A differential graded $\C$-linear category ${\cal A}$

440: 

441: \

442: 

443: (II) For each pair of objects $a, b$ of ${\cal A}$, an invariant 

444: nondegenerate bilinear and graded-symmetric form 

445: $_{ab}(.,.)_{ba}:Hom(a,b)\times Hom(b,a)\rightarrow \C$ of 

446: degree $3$. 

447: 

448: 

449: 

450: \

451: 

452: A {\em $\C$-linear category} is a category whose morphism spaces are 

453: complex vector spaces and whose morphism compositions are bilinear maps. 

454: A {\em graded linear category} is a linear category whose morphism spaces 

455: are $\Z$-graded, i.e. $Hom(a,b)=\oplus_{k\in \Z}{Hom^k(a,b)}$, and 

456: such that morphism compositions are homogeneous of degree zero, i.e.: 

457: \be

458: |uv|=|u|+|v|~~{\rm~for~all~homogeneous~}u\in Hom(b,c),~v\in Hom(a,b)~~,

459: \ee 

460: where $|.|$ denotes the degree of a homogeneous element.

461: In a {\em differential graded linear category} (dG category), 

462: the morphism spaces 

463: $Hom(a,b)$ are endowed with nilpotent operators $Q_{ab}$  

464: of degree $+1$ which act as derivations of morphism compositions:

465: \be

466: \label{der}

467: Q_{ac}(uv)=Q_{bc}(u)v+(-1)^{|u|}uQ_{ab}{v}~{\rm~for~homogeneous~}u\in Hom(b,c),~

468: v\in Hom(a,b)~~.

469: \ee

470: Graded symmetry of the bilinear forms means: 

471: \be

472: _{ab}(u,v)_{ba}=(-1)^{|v||u|}_{ba}(v,u)_{ab}

473: \ee 

474: for homogeneous elements $u\in Hom(a,b)$ and $v\in Hom(b,a)$. 

475: The degree $3$ constraint is:

476: \be

477: _{ab}(u,v)_{ba}=0~~{\rm~unless~}|u|+|v|=3~~.

478: \ee

479: The bilinear forms are required to be invariant with respect 

480: to the action of $Q_{ab}$ and morphism compositions:

481: \be

482: \label{d_invariance}

483: _{ab}(Q_{ab}(u),v)_{ba}+(-1)^{|u|}(u,Q_{ba}(v))=0~~{\rm~for~}

484: u\in Hom(a,b),~v\in Hom(b,a)~~

485: \ee

486: and

487: \be

488: _{ca}(u,vw)_{ac}=_{ba}(uv,w)_{ab}~~{\rm~for~}u\in Hom(c,a),~v\in Hom(b,c),~

489: w\in Hom(a,b)~~.

490: \ee

491: 

492: Given such data, one can build the (unextended) string field action:

493: \be

494: \label{gfeneral_action_expanded}

495: S(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a,b\in S}

496: {_{ba}\langle \phi_{ba} , Q_{ab}\phi_{ab} \rangle_{ab}} +

497: \frac{1}{3}\sum_{a,b,c\in S}{

498: _{ca}\langle \phi_{ca}, \phi_{bc}\cdot \phi_{ab}\rangle_{ac}}~~, 

499: \ee

500: where $S$ denotes the set of objects of ${\cal A}$\footnote{We assume for 

501: simplicity that ${\cal A}$ is a small category, i.e. its objects form a set.

502: In fact, we shall only need the case when $S$ is finite or countable, since this 

503: will be relevant for our application.

504: We neglect the conditions under which various sums 

505: make mathematical sense (i.e. converge etc). Convergence of 

506: these sums can be assured (at least in principle) 

507: by imposing supplementary conditions on the 

508: allowed string field configurations.}

509: and $\phi_{ab}\in Hom^1(a,b)$ are the components of the degree one string 

510: field.

511: 

512: Upon defining the total boundary space ${\cal H}=\oplus_{a,b\in S}{Hom(a,b)}$, 

513: the total string product $\cdot:{\cal H}\times {\cal H}\rightarrow {\cal H}$

514: as well as the total bilinear form $\langle .,.\rangle$ 

515: and BRST operator $Q:{\cal H}\rightarrow {\cal H}$ in an obvious manner 

516: (see \cite{com1} for details), one can write this action in the more compact 

517: form:

518: \be

519: \label{general_action}

520: S(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}\langle \phi , Q\phi \rangle +\frac{1}{3}

521: \langle \phi, \phi\cdot \phi\rangle~~~,

522: \ee

523: where $\phi=\oplus_{a,b\in S}{\phi_{ab}}$ is a degree one element of 

524: ${\cal H}$. 

525: 

526: \subsection{Theories with complex conjugation} 

527: 

528: The axioms of a string field theory can be supplemented 

529: by requiring the existence of conjugation operators 

530: subject to certain constraints\footnote{This type of structure was 

531: discussed in \cite{Gaberdiel} for the case of a single boundary sector

532: (but allowing for homotopy associative string products).}. 

533: We say that such a theory is {\em endowed with conjugations}

534: if one is given the following two supplementary structures:

535: 

536: (IIIa) An involutive map $a\rightarrow {\overline a}$ on the set of 

537: D-brane labels.

538: 

539: (IIIb) A system of {\em degree zero} antilinear operators 

540: $*_{ab}:Hom(a,b)\rightarrow Hom({\overline b},{\overline a})$, 

541: with the properties:

542: 

543: \

544: 

545: (1) $*_{{\overline a}{\overline b}}*_{ba}=

546: id_{Hom(b,a)}$, for any two objects $a$ and $b$

547: 

548: \

549: 

550: (2) $_{{\overline b}{\overline a}}\langle *_{ab}u,*_{ba}v

551: \rangle_{{\overline a}{\overline b}}=

552: _{ba}\overline{\langle v, u\rangle}_{ab}$ for $u\in Hom(a,b)$ and 

553: $v\in Hom(b,a)$

554: 

555: \

556: 

557:  

558: (3) $Q_{{\overline b}{\overline a}}*_{ab}u=(-1)^{|u|+1}*_{ab}Q_{ab}u$ for 

559: $u\in Hom(a,b)$

560: 

561: 

562: \

563: 

564: (4) $*_{ac}(u_{bc}v_{ab})=(*_{ab}v_{ab})(*_{bc}u_{bc})$ for 

565: $u_{bc}\in Hom(b,c)$ and $v_{ab}\in Hom(a,b)$. 

566: 

567: \

568: 

569: For each D-brane $a$, its partner ${\overline a}$ will be called its 

570: `conjugate brane'. 

571: 

572: 

573: In a theory possessing conjugations, the action (\ref{general_action}) has the 

574: following property:

575: \be

576: \overline{S(\phi)}=S(*\phi)~~.

577: \ee

578: Hence one can assure reality of 

579: the string field action  by imposing the following condition on the 

580: string field:

581: \be

582: *\phi=\phi\Leftrightarrow *_{ab}\phi_{ab}=

583: \phi_{{\overline b}{\overline a}}~~.

584: \ee

585: The condition that $*$ preserve the degree $|.|$ is crucial for 

586: consistency of the reality constraint $|*\phi|=|\phi|$ with the 

587: degree one constraint $|\phi|=1$.

588: 

589: 

590: \section{A-type D-branes as graded special Lagrangian submanifolds}

591: 

592: It is well-known \cite{Ooguri} that BPS saturated D-branes in Calabi-Yau threefold 

593: compactifications are described  either by holomorphic cycles 

594: (so-called type B branes) or by 

595: special Lagrangian cycles (so-called type A D-branes) 

596: of the Calabi-Yau target space $X$. 

597: In the case of multiply-wrapped branes one must also include a bundle 

598: living on each cycle (which corresponds to a choice of Chan-Paton data) 

599: and a choice of connection in this bundle, which should be 

600: integrable for B-type branes and flat for type A branes. 

601: From a conformal field theory point of view, type A and B D-branes 

602: correspond to different boundary conditions \cite{Ooguri}, and they 

603: preserve 

604: different $N=2$ subalgebras of the $(2,2)$ worldsheet algebra.

605: 

606: 

607: The starting point of our analysis is the observation of 

608: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} 

609: that this data does not in fact suffice for a complete description of D-brane 

610: physics. 

611: The essence of the argument of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} 

612: is as follows. The various boundary/boundary 

613: condition changing sectors of the theory consist of open string states, which 

614: are charged with respect to the worldsheet $U(1)$ current of the $N=2$ 

615: superconformal algebra. It is then shown in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} 

616: (based on bosonization techniques) 

617: that a complete specification of the theory requires 

618: a consistent choice of charges for the various boundary 

619: sectors, and that, 

620: in the presence of at least two different D-branes, the 

621: relative assignment of such charges has 

622: an invariant physical meaning. If one defines the `abstract' degree 

623: of a D-brane through the winding number of the bosonized $U(1)$ current, 

624: this amounts to the statement that a complete 

625: description of the background requires the specification of an 

626: integer number for each D-brane present in the compactification.

627: 

628: While this is an extremely general argument (which in particular 

629: applies to non-geometric compactifications), the concrete realization 

630: for the A model remains somewhat obscure. In this section, I 

631: explain the geometric meaning of this `grade' for the case of semiclassical 

632: type A branes, i.e. for the large radius limit of a Calabi-Yau 

633: compactification which includes such objects\footnote{If one wishes to go away from 

634: large radius, then one must consider disk 

635: instanton corrections to the boundary/boundary condition changing sectors, 

636: which are induced by corrections to the associated BRST operators. 

637: This leads to Floer cohomology and instanton destabilization of some semiclassical 

638: D-branes, as well as to supplementary corrections to the string field action. 

639: By staying in the large radius limit, we avoid each of these issues.}.

640: Our proposal is motivated by a combination of mathematical results of 

641: \cite{Seidel} and an anomaly analysis which can be carried out in the twisted 

642: model (the A-model). Since a complete exposition would take more space 

643: than afforded in this paper, I will give a simplified discussion and refer the 

644: reader to \cite{nlsm}, which will include a more detailed analysis. 

645: 

646: We propose that the correct description of a BPS saturated 

647: type A brane is given 

648: (in the large radius limit) by a triple $({\bf L}, E, A)$, where 

649: ${\bf L}$ is a so-called {\em graded special Lagrangian submanifold} of $X$.

650: The mathematical 

651: concept of graded Lagrangian manifolds (not necessarily special) 

652: is originally due to M. Kontsevich 

653: \cite{Kontsevich} and was discussed in more detail in recent work of 

654: P. Seidel \cite{Seidel}. Recall that a Lagrangian cycle is a three-dimensional 

655: submanifold of $X$such that the Kahler form $\omega$ of $X$ 

656: has vanishing restriction to $L$. 

657: The cycle is {\em special} Lagrangian, if also also has:

658: \be

659: \label{sl}

660: Im(\lambda_L\Omega)|_L=0~~

661: \ee

662: for some complex number $\lambda_L$ of unit modulus.

663: Since this condition 

664: is invariant under the change $\lambda_L\rightarrow -\lambda_L$, the relevant 

665: quantity is $\lambda_L^2$, i.e. the special Lagrangian condition (\ref{sl}) 

666: only specifies $\lambda_L$ {\em up to sign}.

667: A {\em grading}\footnote{It is 

668: not hard to show \cite{nlsm} that this is a particular case of the general 

669: notion of graded Lagrangian submanifold introduced in \cite{Seidel}.}  

670: of a special Lagrangian cycle $L$ 

671: is simply the choice of a {\em real} number $\phi_L$ such that 

672: $e^{-2\pi i \phi_L}=\lambda_L^{2}$.

673: There is a discrete infinity of such 

674: choices (differing by an integer), so there is a countable infinity 

675: of gradings of any given special Lagrangian cycle. 

676: Furthermore, there is 

677: always a {\em canonical} choice $\phi_L^{(0)}\in [0,1)$ (which we shall 

678: call the {\em fundamental grading}), a fact which 

679: distinguishes special Lagrangians from more general Lagrangian submanifolds. 

680: Then any grading is of the form $\phi_L^{(n)}=\phi_L^{(0)}+n$, with $n$ an

681: integer which specifies a shift of the charges of the associated 

682: boundary  sector. Hence one can identify a graded special Lagrangian 

683: cycle ${\bf L}$ with the pair $(L,n)$. This agrees with the general conformal 

684: field theory argument of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}.

685: 

686: We end this section by noting that a choice of grading specifies an 

687: orientation of the special Lagrangian cycle. Indeed, given a grading 

688: $\phi_L^{(n)}$, one has a canonically-defined 

689: {\em real} volume form $\Omega_L(n):=e^{-i\pi \phi_L^{(n)}}\Omega=

690: e^{-i(\phi_L^{(0)}+n)}\Omega$ 

691: on $L$\footnote{One can also think of this as a choice of sign, 

692: $\lambda_L(n):=e^{-i\pi \phi_L(n)}$, for the quantity appearing in (\ref{sl})

693: (the other choice afforded by the relation $\lambda_L^2=

694: e^{-2\pi i \phi_L^{(n)}}$

695: would be $\lambda'_L(n)=-\lambda_L=e^{-i\pi \phi_L^{(n+1)}}$, which 

696: corresponds to the opposite orientation). The point is that once one 

697: specifies a grading $n$, we have a choice $\lambda_L(n)$ which is 

698: uniquely determined by $n$, and consequently we have a 

699: natural choice of orientation. In the absence of a grading, we would have 

700: no natural way to pick one of the two opposite orientations. This may seem 

701: subtle but it is in fact a triviality. As we shall see below, this 

702: simple fact is ultimately responsible for the appearance of supertraces in our 

703: string field action. }.

704: It is clear that the orientation induced by $\phi_L^{(n)}=\phi_L^{(0)}+n$ 

705: in this manner coincides with 

706: $(-1)^n$ times the orientation induced by the fundamental grading 

707: $\phi_L^{(0)}$. 

708: 

709: 

710: \section{The open string field theory of a collection of 

711: graded D-branes wrapping the same 

712: special Lagrangian cycle}

713: 

714: We consider a family of D-branes $a_n$ described by triples  

715: $({\bf L}_n, E_n, A_n)$ 

716: with ${\bf L}_n:=(L, n)$ for some collection of integers 

717: $n$. These branes share the same underlying 

718: special Lagrangian cycle $L$, but have possibly different Chan-Patton bundles 

719: $E_n$ (complex vector bundles defined over the cycle $L$) and  different 

720: background flat connections $A_n$ living in these bundles. Note that we 

721: assume that each brane has a different grade $n$.

722:   

723: According to our previous discussion, each D-brane $a_n$ 

724: determines an 

725: orientation ${\cal O}_n$ of the cycle $L$, and these orientations are 

726: related 

727: to the `fundamental' orientation ${\cal O}_0$ through:

728: \be

729: {\cal O}_n=(-1)^n{\cal O}_0~~.

730: \ee\noindent When integrating differential forms (see below), we shall 

731: write $L_n$ for $L$ endowed with the orientation ${\cal O}_n$, and $L:=L_0$ 

732: for $L$ endowed with the orientation ${\cal O}_0$.  

733: 

734: 

735: We now consider the cubic open string field theory associated with 

736: such a system. Since we have more than one D-brane, one must use the 

737: categorical framework of \cite{com1, com3}, which was shortly reviewed in 

738: Section 2. Instead of giving a lengthy discussion of localization 

739: starting from the topological A model, we shall simply list the relevant data

740: and check that the axioms of Section 2 are satisfied. The data of 

741: interest is as follows:

742: 

743: 

744: (1) The spaces $Hom(a_m,a_n)$ of off-shell 

745: states of oriented open strings stretching from $a_m$ to $a_n$. 

746: For our topological field theory, these 

747: can be identified through a slight extension of the arguments of 

748: \cite{Witten_CS}, which gives:

749: \be

750: \label{spaces}

751: Hom^k(a_m,a_n)=\Omega^{k+m-n}(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))~~,

752: \ee

753: where

754: $\Omega^*(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))$ 

755: denotes the space of (smooth) differential forms on the cycle 

756: $L$ with values in the bundle $Hom(E_m, E_n)$. In these expressions we let $k$ be any 

757: signed integer, so for example $Hom^k(a_m,a_n)$ can be nonvanishing for $k=n-m...n-m+3$ 

758: and vanishes otherwise. 

759: 

760: In the string field theory of the A model, the various state spaces must 

761: graded 

762: by the charge of boundary/ boundary condition changing states with respect 

763: to the anomalous $U(1)$ current on the string worldsheet (this 

764: follows from the construction of the string field products in the manner of 

765: \cite{Zwiebach_closed, Zwiebach_open}). 

766: In our situation, this grading (which is indicated by the superscript 

767: $k$ in (\ref{spaces})) differs from the

768: grading by form rank, as displayed 

769: by the shift through $m-n$ in (\ref{spaces}). The presence of such a 

770: shift follows from arguments similar 

771: to those of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}, or by a careful discussion of 

772: localization along the lines of \cite{Witten_CS}. 

773: These shifts of the $U(1)$ 

774: charge in the boundary condition changing sectors reflect the

775: different gradings of the branes $a_n$ and are required for a consistent 

776: description of the theory. They will play a crucial role in the correct 

777: identification of the string field theory of our D-brane system. 

778: If one denotes the $U(1)$ charge of a state $u\in Hom(a_m, a_n)$ by $|u|$, 

779: then one has the relation:

780: \be

781: \label{U1}

782: |u|=rank u+n-m~~.

783: \ee

784: Relation (\ref{spaces}) can also be written as:

785: \be

786: Hom(a_m,a_n)=\Omega(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))[n-m]~~,

787: \ee

788: upon using standard mathematical notation for shifting degrees.

789: 

790: It is useful to consider the total boundary state space

791: ${\cal H}=\oplus_{m,n}{Hom(a_m, a_n)}=\Omega^*(L, End({\bf E}))$, 

792: where ${\bf E}=\oplus_{n}{E_n}$. This has an obvious $\Z\times \Z$

793: grading given by ${\cal H}_{m,n}=Hom(a_m, a_n)$, and a

794: $\Z_2$ grading given by:

795: \bea

796: \label{eo}

797: {\cal H}_{even}&=&\oplus_{k+m-n=even}{Hom^k(a_m, a_n)}~~,\\

798: {\cal H}_{odd}&=&\oplus_{k+m-n=odd}{Hom^k(a_m,a_n)}~~.\nn

799: \eea

800: The $\Z_2$ grading can be described in standard supergeometry language 

801: as follows. Let us define even and odd subbundles of ${\bf E}$ through:

802: \bea

803: \label{E_grading}

804: E_{even}&=&\oplus_{n=even}{E_n}~~\\

805: E_{odd}&=&\oplus_{n=odd}{E_n}~~.\nn

806: \eea

807: Then ${\bf E}=E_{even}\oplus E_{odd}$ can be regarded as a super-vector 

808: bundle ($\Z_2$-graded bundle). Its bundle of endomorphisms then has 

809: the decomposition:

810: \be

811: \label{end_grading}

812: End({\bf E})=Hom(E_{even}, E_{even})\oplus Hom(E_{odd}, E_{odd})\oplus

813: Hom(E_{even}, E_{odd})\oplus Hom(E_{odd}, E_{even})~~

814: \ee

815: and a total $\Z_2$ grading:

816: \bea

817: \label{superbundle}

818: End({\bf E})_{even}&=&

819: Hom(E_{even}, E_{even})\oplus Hom(E_{odd}, E_{odd})~~\\

820: End({\bf E})_{odd}&=&Hom(E_{even}, E_{odd})\oplus Hom(E_{odd}, E_{even})~~.\nn

821: \eea

822: Then ${\cal H}$ corresponds to the the tensor product

823: $\Omega^*(L)\otimes_{\Omega^0(L)} \Omega^0(End({\bf E}))$, 

824: in which case the $\Z_2$ grading on ${\cal H}$ is induced by the standard 

825: $\Z_2$ grading on $\Omega^*(L)$ and the $\Z_2$-grading (\ref{superbundle}) 

826: on $End({\bf E})$. 

827: 

828: Also note that $End({\bf E})$ has a diagonal $\Z$-grading, whose 

829: mod $2$ reduction gives the grading (\ref{end_grading}):

830: \be

831: \label{E_Zgrading}

832: End({\bf E})_{s}=\oplus_{m-n=s}{Hom(E_m,E_n)}~~.

833: \ee

834: As a consequence, the total boundary state space ${\cal H}$ has 

835: a $\Z$-grading induced by (\ref{E_Zgrading}) and by the grading of 

836: $\Omega^*(L)$ through form rank. This coincides with the 

837: grading (\ref{U1}) given by the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge, and whose 

838: mod $2$ reduction is the string field theoretic grading (\ref{eo}).

839: 

840: 

841: (2) One has boundary products, which in our case are given (up to signs) 

842: by the wedge product

843: of bundle valued forms (which are taken to involve composition 

844: of morphisms between the fibers):

845: \be

846: \label{products}

847: u\cdot v=(-1)^{(k-n)rank v} 

848: u\wedge v~~~~~~~{\rm for~}~u\in Hom(a_n,a_k)~{\rm~and~}~

849: v\in Hom(a_m,a_n)~~.

850: \ee

851: This gives compositions of the form 

852: $Hom(a_n,a_k)\times Hom(a_m,a_n)\rightarrow Hom(a_m,a_k)$. As in 

853: \cite{com1}, these induce a total boundary product on ${\cal H}$ through:

854: \be

855: u\cdot v=\oplus_{m,k}{\left[\sum_{n}{u_{nk}v_{mn}}\right]}

856: \ee

857: for elements $u=\oplus_{nk}{u_{nk}}$ and $v=\oplus_{mn}{v_{mn}}$ 

858: with $u_{nk}\in Hom(a_n, a_k)$ and $v_{mn}\in Hom(a_m, a_n)$.

859: 

860: The total boundary product also admits a standard supergeometric 

861: interpretation. Indeed, remember that both of the factors 

862: $\Omega^*(L)$ and $\Omega^0(End({\bf E}))$ admit natural structures 

863: of superalgebras, with multiplications given by wedge product of 

864: forms and composition of bundle morphisms, respectively. This 

865: allows us to consider the induced superalgebra structure on 

866: ${\cal H}$, which, following \cite{Quillen}, corresponds to

867: $\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes}_{\Omega^0(L)} \Omega^0(End({\bf E}))$.

868: According to standard supermathematics, the corresponding 

869: product on ${\cal H}$ acts on decomposable elements $u=\omega\otimes f$ 

870: and $v=\eta\otimes g$ as follows:

871: \be

872: (\omega\otimes f)(\eta\otimes g)=(-1)^{\pi(f) rank \eta}

873: (\omega\wedge \eta)\otimes (f\circ g)~~,

874: \ee

875: for $\omega, \eta$ some forms on $L$ and $f,g\in End({\bf E})$.

876: In this relation, $\pi(f)$ stands for the parity of $f$ 

877: with respect to the decomposition (\ref{superbundle}).

878: 

879: If we apply this relation for $u\in Hom(a_n, a_k)$ and $v\in 

880: Hom(a_m, a_n)$, then $\pi(f)$ is the mod $2$ reduction of $k-n$ and 

881: we recover relation (\ref{products}) upon viewing $u$ and $v$ 

882: as bundle-valued forms. In local coordinates, one can write write

883: $u=dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_r}u_{\alpha_1..\alpha_r}$, 

884: $v=dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_s}v_{\alpha_{1}...\alpha_s}$, 

885: and obtain:

886: \be

887: uv=(-1)^{s(k-n)}

888: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_{r+s}}u_{\alpha_1...\alpha_r}

889: v_{\alpha_{r+1}...\alpha_{r+s}}~~,

890: \ee

891: which recovers the boundary products introduced above. 

892: This means that one has a 

893: sign factor of $-1$ each time one commutes $dx^\alpha$ with an odd 

894: bundle morphism. 

895: In our conventions, one writes the bundle morphisms to the right.  

896: 

897: 

898: (3) One has bilinear forms $_{mn}\langle . , . \rangle_{nm}$ 

899: on the products 

900: $Hom(a_m,a_n)\times Hom(a_n,a_m)$, which 

901: are induced by the two-point boundary correlator on the disk. 

902: These can be identified through a localization argument and are 

903: given by:

904: \be

905: \label{metrics}

906: _{mn}\langle u,v \rangle_{nm}=\int_{L_n}{tr_{E_n}(u\cdot v)}

907: =(-1)^n\int_{L}{tr_{E_n}(u\cdot v)}

908: \ee

909: where $tr_{E_n}$ denotes the fiberwise trace on $End(E_n)$. 

910: 

911: Since integration of forms requires the specification of an orientation, 

912: one must keep track of which of the two orientations of $L$ is used in the 

913: definition of each bilinear form. This gives the crucial sign factor in the 

914: right hand side.  As in \cite{com1}, one can combine these into a 

915: bilinear form $\langle . , .\rangle$ 

916: on the total boundary state space ${\cal H}$. Due to the 

917: sign factor in (\ref{metrics}), one obtains:

918: \be

919: \langle u , v \rangle=\int_L{str(uv)}~~{\rm for}~~u,v\in {\cal H}~~,

920: \ee

921: where $str$ is the supertrace with 

922: respect to the decomposition (\ref{superbundle}) (see \cite{Quillen} 

923: for details). 

924: 

925: (4) One has degree one BRST operators 

926: $Q_{mn}:Hom(a_m, a_n)\rightarrow Hom(a_m, a_n)$, which in our case are 

927: given by the covariant differentials $d_{mn}$ associated with the flat 

928: connections $A_m$ and $A_n$. More precisely, $d_{mn}$ is the 

929: differential of the `twisted' de Rham complex:

930: {\scriptsize\bea

931: 0\stackrel{d_{mn}}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^{0}(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))

932: \stackrel{d_{mn}}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))

933: \stackrel{d_{mn}}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^2(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))

934: \stackrel{d_{mn}}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^3(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))

935: \stackrel{d_{mn}}{\longrightarrow} 0~~.\nn

936: \eea}

937: determined by the connection $\nabla_{mn}$ induced by 

938: $A_m$ and $A_n$ on $Hom(E_m, E_n)$. 

939: 

940: 

941: These can be combined into the total BRST operator 

942: $Q=\oplus_{m,n}{Q_{mn}}$, which can be identified as the exterior 

943: differential on ${\bf E}$ induced by the total connection $A=\oplus_n{A_n}$. 

944: This is a differential operator on $\Omega^*(End({\bf E}))$ with the 

945: property:

946: \be

947: Q(\omega \otimes f)=d\omega \otimes f +(-1)^{rank \omega} \omega Qf~~,

948: \ee

949: so it gives a superconnection on the superbundle ${\bf E}$ in the 

950: sense of \cite{Quillen}. 

951: 

952: It is not hard to see that all of the axioms  discussed in \cite{com1} 

953: (and reviewed in Section 2) are satisfied. 

954: In the language of Section 2, we have 

955: a differential graded category ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ 

956: with objects $a_n$ and bilinear forms

957: between the morphism spaces which are invariant with respect to the 

958: BRST charges $Q_{mn}$ and with respect to morphism compositions.  

959: The abstract structure is depicted in figure 1.  

960: 

961: \hskip 1.0 in

962: \begin{center} 

963: \scalebox{0.6}{\input{cat.pstex_t}}

964: \end{center}

965: \begin{center} 

966: Figure  1. {\footnotesize 

967: A full two-object subcategory of the category describing our D-brane system.

968: }

969: \end{center}

970: 

971: According to the axioms of Section 2, the open string field theory 

972: is described by the action:

973: \be

974: \label{sfa}

975: S(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}\langle \phi , Q\phi \rangle +\frac{1}{3}

976: \langle \phi, \phi\cdot \phi\rangle 

977: \ee

978: where the string field 

979: $\phi=\oplus_{m,n}{\phi_{mn}}$ (with $\phi_{mn}\in Hom(a_m, a_n)$) 

980: is a degree 

981: one

982: element of the total boundary state space 

983: ${\cal H}$. 

984: Combining all of the data above, one can re-write this in 

985: the form:

986: \be

987: \label{action}

988: S(\phi)=\int_{L}{str

989: \left[\frac{1}{2}\phi Q\phi+\frac{1}{3}\phi\phi\phi\right]}~~.

990: \ee 

991: The product in the integrand is given by (\ref{products}).

992: 

993: 

994: 

995: 

996: \section{Complex conjugations}

997: 

998: Our string field theory can be endowed 

999: with conjugations, provided that the collection of D-branes 

1000: $({\bf L}_n, E_n, A_n)$ is invariant with respect to the operation

1001: which takes a brane into a conjugate brane\footnote{Our conjugate 

1002: branes should {\em not} be identified with the `topological antibranes' of 

1003: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}. The `topological antibranes' of 

1004: those papers result from our conjugate branes upon performing a further 

1005: shift of the grading by $1$. The conjugation operators we construct below

1006: are related with 

1007: the `gauge invariance' of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}, 

1008: which consists in shifting the grading of all D-branes by $1$ combined 

1009: with reversing the role of branes and antibranes.}. We propose that the  

1010: conjugate brane of a D-brane $a=({\bf L}, E, A)$ is the D-brane  

1011: ${\overline a}=(\overline{\bf L}, {\overline E}, A^*)$ 

1012: defined as follows: 

1013: 

1014: \

1015: 

1016: (a) The underlying cycle of $\overline{a}$ is $L$. 

1017: 

1018: \

1019: 

1020: (b) If the grading of $a$ is given by $n$ (i.e. ${\bf L}=(L, n)$), then 

1021: the grading of ${\overline a}$ is ${\overline n}=-n$. 

1022: 

1023: \

1024: 

1025: (c) The underlying bundle ${\overline E}$ is the antidual of the bundle $E$, 

1026: i.e. the bundle whose fiber $E_x$ at a point $x$ of $L$ is the space of 

1027: {\em antilinear} functionals defined on the fiber $E_x$ of $E$. 

1028: 

1029: \

1030: 

1031: (d) The connection ${\overline \nabla}$ is given by:

1032: \be

1033: ({\overline \nabla}_X\psi)(s)=-\psi(\nabla_{\overline X}(s))+X\left[\psi(s)\right]~~,

1034: \ee

1035: for any local sections $s$ of $E$ and $\psi$ of ${\overline E}$ and 

1036: any vector fields $X$. In the right hand side, ${\overline X}$ is 

1037: the complex conjugate of $X$. Namely, viewing $X$ as 

1038: a complex-linear derivation of the algebra of (complex-valued) functions on $L$, one takes:

1039: \be

1040: {\overline X}(f):=\overline{X(\overline{f})}~~.

1041: \ee

1042: The result is another complex-linear derivation, 

1043: i.e. a vector field. If $x^\alpha$

1044: are (real !) local coordinates on $L$, then upon expanding $X=X^\alpha\partial_\alpha$, 

1045: one has ${\overline X}=\overline{X^\alpha}\partial_\alpha$, 

1046: where $\overline{X^\alpha}$ denotes 

1047: the usual complex conjugate of the function $X^\alpha$. In particular, 

1048: ${\overline \partial_\alpha}=\partial_\alpha$.

1049: 

1050: 

1051: If $s_\alpha$ is a local frame of sections for $E$, then 

1052: we can consider the antidual frame ${\overline s}_\alpha$

1053: of ${\overline E}$, defined by the conditions:

1054: \be

1055: {\overline s}_\alpha(s_\beta)=\delta_{\alpha\beta}~~.

1056: \ee

1057: Then we have (1-form valued) connection matrices $A$ and $A^*$ defined through:

1058: \bea

1059: \nabla(s_\alpha)&=&A_{\beta\alpha}s_\beta~~\\

1060: {\overline \nabla}({\overline s}_\alpha)&=&

1061: A^*_{\beta \alpha}{\overline s}_\beta~~.

1062: \eea

1063: In this case, we obtain the relation:

1064: \be

1065: A^*=-A^+~~, 

1066: \ee

1067: i.e.:

1068: \be

1069: A^*_i(x)=-A_i(x)^+~~,

1070: \ee

1071: where $A=A_i(x)dx^i$ and $A^*=A^*_i(x)dx^i$.

1072: 

1073: The abstract description given above has the advantage that it does 

1074: not require the choice of supplementary data. It is possible to formulate 

1075: a conjugation operator in these abstract terms, and check all relevant axioms 

1076: given in Section 2. Below, I shall use a mathematically less elegant, 

1077: but more concrete approach which requires the choice of a metric on 

1078: the bundle $E$\footnote{This is 

1079: not natural in a topological string theory, which should be formulated 

1080: as much as possible without reference to a metric. I prefer to use 

1081: the metric language in order to make the paper easier to understand 

1082: for the casual reader.}. For this, let us assume that the bundle 

1083: $E$ is endowed with a hermitian metric $h_E$; the 

1084: precise choice of such a metric is irrelevant for what follows.

1085: We use standard {\em physics} conventions by taking $h_E$ to be antilinear 

1086: in its first variable and linear in the second. Such a scalar product 

1087: defines a {\em linear} isomorphism between ${\overline E}$ and $E$, which 

1088: identifies an antilinear functional $\psi$ on $E_x$ with 

1089: the vector $u_\psi\in E_x$ satisfying the equation:

1090: \be

1091: h_E(v, u_\psi)=\psi(v)~~{\rm~for~all~}v\in E_x~~.

1092: \ee

1093: Using this isomorphism, one can translate the abstract definition 

1094: of `conjugate branes' into the following more concrete description: 

1095: 

1096: \

1097: 

1098: (c') The underlying bundle ${\overline E}$ of ${\overline a}$ can be 

1099: identified with the underlying bundle $E$ of $A$

1100: 

1101: \

1102: 

1103: (d') The background flat connection $A^*$ of $E$ can be identified 

1104: with the opposite of the hermitian conjugate of $A$ with respect to the 

1105: metric $h_E$:

1106: \be

1107: A^*=-A^+~~.

1108: \ee

1109: From now on, the symbol $A^+$ always denotes hermitian conjugation with 

1110: respect to $h_E$, unless we state otherwise. We can now describe the 

1111: antilinear conjugations of our string field theory. Since this is 

1112: a bit subtle, we shall proceed in two steps. 

1113: 

1114: \paragraph{Step 1.} 

1115: Given a (complex-valued) differential form $\omega=\omega_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}

1116: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_k}$ on $L$, we define

1117: its conjugate by\footnote{$x^\alpha$ are {\em real} coordinates on the three-cycle 

1118: $L$ (which is not a complex manifold !). I hope this avoids any confusion.}:

1119: \be

1120: \tilde{\omega}:=\overline{\omega_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k}}dx^{\alpha_k}\wedge 

1121: ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_1}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}{\overline \omega}~~,

1122: \ee

1123: where ${\overline \omega}=

1124: \overline{\omega_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k}}dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge 

1125: ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_k}$ is the usual complex conjugate of $\omega$ and we 

1126: used the relation:

1127: \be

1128: dx^{\alpha_k}\wedge ..\wedge dx^{\alpha_1}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}dx^{\alpha_1}

1129: \wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_k}~~.

1130: \ee

1131: 

1132: It is not hard to check that this operation has the following properties:

1133: \bea

1134: \label{tilde}

1135: (\alpha\wedge \beta)\tilde{~}&=&

1136: \tilde{\beta}\wedge \tilde{\alpha}~~\nn\\

1137: d(\tilde{\omega})&=&(-1)^{rank \omega}(d\omega)\tilde{~} ~~\\

1138: \int_{L}{\tilde{\omega}}&=&-\overline{\int_{L}{\omega}}~~.

1139: \eea

1140: 

1141: 

1142: \paragraph{Step 2}

1143: 

1144: Let us now return to our our collection of D-branes 

1145: $a_n=({\bf L}_n, E_n, A_n)$ 

1146: and assume that we have picked hermitian metrics $h_n=h_{E_n}$ on 

1147: each of the bundles $E_n$.

1148: For $u=\omega\otimes f$ a decomposable element of 

1149: $Hom(a_m, a_n)$ (with $\omega$ a complex-valued 

1150: form on $L$ and $f\in Hom(E_m, E_n)$), we define:

1151: \be

1152: \label{conj}

1153: *u:=(-1)^{(n-m+1)rk \omega}{\tilde \omega}\otimes f^+~~.

1154: \ee 

1155: We then extend this uniquely to an antilinear operation from 

1156: $\Omega^*(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))$ to $\Omega^*(L, Hom(E_n, E_m))$.

1157: In terms of the usual hermitian conjugation of bundle-valued forms

1158: ($(\omega\otimes f)^+:={\overline \omega}\otimes f^+$), this reads:

1159: \be

1160: *u=(-1)^{rk u (rk u+1)/2+(n-m)rk u }u^+~~.

1161: \ee

1162: Since the choice of hermitian metrics allows us to identify the 

1163: `conjugate branes' 

1164: ${\overline a}_n=(\overline{L_n}, \overline{E_n}, A_n^*)$ 

1165: with the triples $({\bf L}_{-n}, E_n, -A^+_n)$, we can also view 

1166: (\ref{conj}) as antilinear maps $*_{mn}$ from $Hom(a_m, a_n)$ to 

1167: $Hom(\overline{a_n}, \overline{a_m})$. We claim that these operators 

1168: give conjugations of our string field theory. To see this, one must check 

1169: that the axioms of Section 2 are satisfied. For this, notice first that 

1170: the operations $*_{mn}$ are homogeneous of degree zero when viewed as 

1171: applications between $Hom(a_m, a_n)$ and $Hom(\overline{a_n}, \overline

1172: {a_m})$. This follows from the fact that they preserve form rank, and 

1173: from form our definition ${\overline n}=-n$, ${\overline m}=-m$ 

1174: of gradings for the `conjugate branes':

1175: \be

1176: |*_{mn}u_{mn}|=rank (*_{mn}u_{mn})+(-m)-(-n)=rank u_{mn}+n-m=|u_{mn}|~~.

1177: \ee

1178: The other properties listed in Subsection 2.2. then follow by straightforward 

1179: computation, and I shall leave their verification as an exercise for the 

1180: reader. 

1181: 

1182: It should be clear from our discussion that the theory 

1183: considered in the previous section 

1184: will be invariant under conjugation only 

1185: if the set of D-branes $a_n$ is invariant with respect to the 

1186: involution $a_n\rightarrow \overline{a_n}$. This can always be 

1187: achieved by adding the `conjugate branes' $\overline{a_n}$ to the original 

1188: set, but in general this will lead to more than one D-brane 

1189: wrapped on $L$ for each grade $n$. Hence a general 

1190: analysis requires that we allow various D-branes present in the system 

1191: to have the same grade $n$. While it is possible to carry out 

1192: our analysis for such general systems, this 

1193: leads to rather complicated notation. 

1194: When discussing reality issues in this paper, we shall 

1195: assume for simplicity that the set of D-branes present in 

1196: our background is invariant with respect to 

1197: the transformation $a_n\rightarrow \overline{a_n}$. This requires that the set of 

1198: grades under consideration is invariant with respect to the substitution 

1199: $n\rightarrow -n$ and that $E_{-n}=E_n$, $h_{E_{-n}}=h_{E_n}$ and 

1200: $A_{-n}=-A^+_n=A_n$. With these hypotheses, one 

1201: has ${\overline a_n}=a_{-n}$, and we can impose the reality constraint 

1202: $*\phi_{mn}=\phi_{-n, -m}$ on the string field. 

1203: Note, however, that there is no reason why

1204: our background should contain only brane-`conjugate brane' pairs. If this 

1205: condition is not satisfied, then one can simply work with a 

1206: {\em complex} action of the form (\ref{general_action}). 

1207: In fact, complex string field actions are natural in topological

1208: string field theories, as is well-known from the example of the B-model.

1209: A real string field action is only required in a physically complete 

1210: theory, such as the theory of `all' topological D-branes. 

1211: 

1212: 

1213: 

1214: 

1215: 

1216: \section{An extended action}

1217: 

1218: Our  theory (\ref{action}) can be extended in the following manner. 

1219: Consider the supermanifold

1220: ${\cal L}:=\Pi TL$ 

1221: obtained by applying parity reversal on the fibers of the 

1222: tangent bundle of $L$. ${\cal L}$ is equipped with a sheaf 

1223: ${\cal O}_{\cal L}$ of Grassmann algebras, whose sections are 

1224: superfunctions defined on ${\cal L}$.

1225: 

1226: If $\theta^\alpha$ $(\alpha=1..3$) are odd coordinates

1227: along the fibers $T_xL$, then sections of ${\cal O}_{\cal L}$ 

1228: are superfields 

1229: of the form:

1230: \be

1231: \label{taylor}

1232: f(x, \theta)=f^{(0)}(x)+

1233: \theta^ \alpha f^{(1)}_\alpha(x)+\theta^\alpha\theta^\beta

1234: f^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}(x)+\theta^\alpha\theta^\beta\theta^\gamma 

1235: f^{(3)}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(x)~~,

1236: \ee

1237: with Grassmann-valued coefficients $f^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$

1238: (sections of ${\hat {\cal O}}_L={\cal O}_L\otimes G$, 

1239: where $G$ is an underlying Grassmann 

1240: algebra).

1241: The space $\Gamma ({\cal O}_{\cal L})$ of such superfields forms a 

1242: $\Z\times \Z_2$-graded 

1243: algebra, with $\Z$-grading\footnote{The components 

1244: of this grading are nonzero only in degrees $0,1,2$ and $3$.}

1245: induced by the degree of 

1246: the monomials in $\theta^\alpha$ and $\Z_2$-grading given by 

1247: Grassmann parity. 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: We are interested in elements ${\bf \Phi}$ of the space

1251: $\Gamma({\cal O}_{\cal L}{\hat \otimes}End({\bf E}))$, 

1252: which carries the $\Z_2$ grading induced from the two components

1253: of the tensor product. 

1254: We shall denote this total $\Z_2$-grading by $deg$.

1255: Such bundle-valued superfields have the expansion:

1256: \be

1257: \label{phi_expansion}

1258: {\bf \Phi}(x,\theta)=\sum_{k=0}^3{\theta^{\alpha_1}..\theta^{\alpha_k}

1259: {\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x)}~~,

1260: \ee

1261: whose coefficients ${\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ are sections of

1262: the sheaf ${\bf End}({\bf E}):=

1263: {\hat {\cal O}}_L\otimes End({\bf E})$, i.e. elements of the algebra

1264: $\Gamma({\bf End}({\bf E})):=G{\hat \otimes}_\C \Gamma(L, End({\bf E}))$

1265: of Grassmann-valued sections of $End({\bf E})$. This algebra has 

1266: a $\Z$-grading induced by the $\Z$-grading on $End({\bf E})$ and a 

1267: total $\Z_2$-grading induced by the sum of Grassmann parity with the 

1268: $\Z_2$-degree on $End({\bf E})$. Note that the mod $2$ reduction of the 

1269: $\Z$-grading does not give the $\Z_2$ grading.

1270: 

1271: The coefficients  ${\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ 

1272: define {\em Grassmann-valued} forms 

1273: ${\hat \phi}^{(k)}=

1274: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ... 

1275: \wedge dx^{\alpha_k}{\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x)$, viewed as  

1276: elements of the algebra 

1277: ${\cal H}_e=\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes} 

1278: \Gamma({\bf End}({\bf E}))$ of forms with Grassmann-valued coefficients in 

1279: $End({\bf E})$. 

1280: This algebra also has total 

1281: $\Z$ and $\Z_2$-gradings (denoted again by $|.|$ and $deg$) 

1282: which are induced by the $\Z$ and $\Z_2$-gradings on 

1283: $\Omega^*(L)$ and $\Gamma({\bf End}({\bf E}))$. The $\Z_2$-grading 

1284: $deg$ is the mod $2$ reduction of the 

1285: sum between the $\Z$-grading $|.|$ and Grassmann parity.

1286: If ${\hat a}$ and ${\hat b}$ are elements of ${\cal H}_e$, then 

1287: their product is:

1288: \be

1289: \label{hat_product}

1290: {\hat a}{\hat b}=

1291: (-1)^{(deg {\hat a}-rank {\hat a})~rank {\hat b}}{\hat a}\wedge {\hat b}~~.

1292: \ee

1293: 

1294: If $deg({\bf \Phi})=p\in \Z_2$ is the parity of the superfield ${\bf \Phi}$, 

1295: then the components  ${\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ 

1296: have total parity 

1297: $deg{\bf \Phi}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}=p-k (mod 2)$, 

1298: while the Grassmann-valued form ${\hat \phi}^{(k)}$ has 

1299: total parity $p$. 

1300: We obtain a correspondence 

1301: ${\bf \Phi}\leftrightarrow {\hat \phi}$ which takes ${\bf \Phi}$ into

1302: the sum of Grassmann-valued forms 

1303: ${\hat \phi}=\sum_{k=0}^3{{\bf \phi}^{(k)}}$. This map is homogeneous of 

1304: degree zero, i.e. it intertwines the $\Z_2$ gradings $deg$ on 

1305: $\Gamma({\cal O}_{\cal L}\otimes End({\bf E}))$ and ${\cal H}_e$.

1306: 

1307: Under this correspondence, the BRST differential 

1308: $Q=d$ on ${\cal H}_e$ 

1309: (extended to Grassmann-valued forms in the obvious manner) 

1310: maps to the operator:

1311: \be

1312: D=\theta^\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha}~~

1313: \ee

1314: on superfields.

1315: By analogy with the usual Chern-Simons case, this 

1316: allows us to write an extended string field action:

1317: \be

1318: \label{extended_action}

1319: S_e({\bf \Phi})=

1320: \int_L d^3x\int{d^3\theta 

1321: str\left[\frac{1}{2}{\bf \Phi} {\bf D}{\bf \Phi}+

1322: \frac{1}{3}{\bf \Phi}{\bf \Phi}{\bf \Phi}

1323: \right]}~~.

1324: \ee

1325: This can be viewed as a $\Z$-graded version of {\em extended} 

1326: super-Chern-Simons field theory. It should be compared with the proposal of 

1327: \cite{Vafa_cs}. 

1328: 

1329: 

1330: 

1331: \paragraph{Observation}

1332: 

1333: 

1334: It is a standard subtlety (see, for example, \cite{AS1}) that the product 

1335: of the Grassmann-valued forms 

1336: ${\hat \phi^{(k)}}$ induced by superfield multiplication 

1337: differs from the standard wedge product. 

1338: This is due to the fact that the coordinates 

1339: $\theta^\alpha$ are Grassmann odd. To be precise, let us consider 

1340: two superfields ${\bf A}$, ${\bf B}$ 

1341: of parities $p_{\bf A}$ and $p_{\bf B}$, and let 

1342: ${\bf A}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ and 

1343: ${\bf B}^{(l)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_l}$ 

1344: be their components under the expansion (\ref{taylor}), 

1345: which have  total 

1346: parities $p_{\bf A}-k (mod 2)$ and $p_{\bf B}-l (mod 2)$.      

1347: We also consider the associated Grassmann-valued forms ${\hat a}^{(k)}=

1348: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_k}{\bf A}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ 

1349: and ${\hat b}^{(l)}=

1350: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_l}{\bf B}^{(l)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_l}$.

1351: Then one can write:

1352: \be

1353: ({\bf A}{\bf B})(x,\theta)=

1354: \sum_{n=0}^3{\theta^{\alpha_1}...\theta^{\alpha_n}

1355: ({\bf A}{\bf B})^{(n)}_{\alpha_1...\alpha_n}}(x)~~.

1356: \ee

1357: If $({\hat a}*{\hat b})^{(n)}=

1358: dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...\wedge dx^{\alpha_n}

1359: ({\bf A}{\bf B})^{(n)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_n}(x)$ 

1360: is the associated Grassmann-valued form, then one has

1361: $({\hat a}*{\hat b})^{(n)}=\sum_{k+l=n}{{\hat a}^{(k)}*{\hat b}^{(l)}}$, where:

1362: \be

1363: \label{sf_star}

1364: {\hat a}^{(k)}*{\hat b}^{(l)}=(-1)^{(p_{\bf A}-k)l}{\hat a}^{(k)}

1365: \wedge {\hat b}^{(l)}~~.

1366: \ee

1367: The sign prefactor arises 

1368: when commuting the odd variables $\theta^{\beta_j}$ with the coefficient

1369: ${\bf A}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}$ in the following relation:

1370: \be

1371: \theta^{\alpha_1}..\theta^{\alpha_k} {\bf A}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}

1372: \theta^{\beta_1}...\theta^{\beta_l}{\bf B}^{(l)}_{\beta_1..\beta_l} =

1373: (-1)^{(p_{\bf A}-k)l}\theta^{\alpha_1}..\theta^{\alpha_k}

1374: \theta^{\beta_1}...\theta^{\beta_l}{\bf A}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}

1375: {\bf B}^{(l)}_{\beta_1..\beta_l} 

1376: \ee

1377: Equation (\ref{sf_star}) reads:

1378: \be

1379: \label{star}

1380: {\hat a}*{\hat b}=(-1)^{(p_{\bf A}-rank{\hat a})rank {\hat b}

1381: }{\hat a}\wedge {\hat b}=(-1)^{(p_{\bf A}-|{\bf a}|)rank {\hat b}

1382: }{\hat a}\cdot {\hat b}~~,

1383: \ee 

1384: where the multiplication $\cdot$ is that of (\ref{products}). 

1385: Since $p_{\bf A}=deg {\hat a}$, 

1386: this is exactly the product (\ref{hat_product}) on the algebra ${\cal H}_e$. 

1387: Hence one can write the extended action as a functional on ${\cal H}_e$:

1388: \be

1389: S_e({\hat \phi})=

1390: \int_L{d^3x 

1391: str\left[\frac{1}{2}{\hat \phi} *d{\hat \phi}+

1392: \frac{1}{3}{\hat \phi}*{\hat \phi}*{\hat \phi}

1393: \right]}~~.

1394: \ee

1395: In this form, the action $S_e$ can be related to the general extension 

1396: procedure discussed in \cite{Gaberdiel} (when the latter is 

1397: translated in our conventions).

1398: One imposes the condition that ${\bf \Phi}$ is an odd superfield, i.e. 

1399: $deg {\hat \phi}={\hat 1}\in \Z_2$. 

1400: 

1401: If $p_{\bf A}={\hat 1}$, 

1402: then the product (\ref{star}) agrees with the multiplication 

1403: (\ref{products}) when $|{\bf a}|=1$. This implies that the extended 

1404: action (\ref{extended_action}) 

1405: reduces to the unextended one 

1406: (\ref{sfa}) if all non-vanishing Grassmann-valued form 

1407: components 

1408: of the extended string field ${\bf \Phi}$ satisfy 

1409: $|{\hat \phi}_{mn}|=1$. 

1410: 

1411: 

1412: \section{The moduli space of vacua}

1413: 

1414: Recall that the moduli space of vacua is built by solving the Maurer-Cartan 

1415: equation:

1416: \be

1417: \label{mc}

1418: Q\phi+\frac{1}{2}\left[\phi, \phi \right]=0~~\Leftrightarrow 

1419: Q\phi+\phi\phi=0

1420: \ee

1421: for string fields $\phi\in {\cal H}$ of degree $|\phi|=1$. 

1422: Two solutions of (\ref{mc}) are identified if they differ by 

1423: a gauge transformation. The gauge group is generated 

1424: by infinitesimal transformations of the form 

1425: $\phi\rightarrow \phi+Qu+\left[\phi,u\right]$. 

1426: If our collection of D-branes is invariant 

1427: under complex conjugation, one can also impose 

1428: the reality constraint $*\phi_{m,n}=\phi_{-n, -m}$, in which case 

1429: one also requires reality ($*u=u$) of the gauge generator $u$. 

1430: The commutator appearing in (\ref{mc}) is 

1431: the graded commutator on the algebra ${\cal H}$, which reduces to the 

1432: square of $\phi$ due to the degreee one condition $|\phi|=1$. 

1433: The resulting moduli space is a (formal) supermanifold ${\cal M}$, which 

1434: can be built 

1435: locally by solving (\ref{mc}) upon expressing $\phi$ as a formal power 

1436: series in appropriate variables \cite{Barannikov_formality}. 

1437: 

1438: 

1439: The degree one condition on the string field reads:

1440: \be

1441: \label{deg}

1442: rank\phi_{mn}+n-m=1\Leftrightarrow rank\phi_{mn}=1+m-n~~. 

1443: \ee

1444: As in \cite{com1}, this implies that one can deform the vacuum by 

1445: condensing fields of rank $1+m-n$  in the boundary sector $Hom(a_m,a_n)$. 

1446: The fact that one can condense higher rank forms in this manner is due 

1447: to the presence of $\Z$-graded branes in the background. In fact, it 

1448: can be argued that the standard deformations (\ref{mc}) represent 

1449: {\em extended} deformations of the usual vacuum based on the 

1450: collection of flat connections $A_n$. 

1451: 

1452: 

1453: \subsection{The shift-invariant case}

1454: 

1455: To understand this, let us consider the case $E_m=E$ and $A_m=A$  

1456: for all $m$, i.e. we take the underlying bundles and flat connections 

1457: to be identical.

1458: We also take an infinity of $D$-branes, i.e. we let $n$

1459: run over all integer values from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$.

1460: In this case, the moduli space built by solving (\ref{mc}) will in 

1461: fact be ill-defined, due to the existence of a countable 

1462: number of shift symmetries 

1463: $S_k:\phi_{m,n}\rightarrow \phi_{m+k, n+k}$ of the string field action.

1464: 

1465: This problem is easily solved by restricting to

1466: `shift-invariant' configurations, i.e. configurations of the string field 

1467: for which $\phi_{mn}=\phi_{m-n}$ depends only on the difference $m-n$

1468: \footnote{ A more careful treatment requires an analysis of 

1469: shift-equivariant string field configurations, i.e. configurations which 

1470: are shift invariant only up to gauge transformations. Here we give a 

1471: simplified discussion in terms of shift-invariant solutions.}. 

1472: We thus replace ${\cal M}$ by the moduli space ${\cal M}_d$, which is 

1473: obtained by solving the Maurer-Cartan equations (\ref{mc}) for shift

1474: invariant configurations. For such configurations, the equations reduce to:

1475: \be

1476: \label{mc_reduced}

1477: Q_{n}\phi_n+\sum_{k+l=n}{\phi_k\phi_l}=0~~,

1478: \ee

1479: where $Q_n:=d_A$ acts on 

1480: $Hom(a_n,a_0)=\Omega^*(L, End(E))[-n]$ and 

1481: $\phi_n$ is a degree one element of  

1482: $Hom(a_n, a_0)$, i.e. a form of rank $1+n$ valued 

1483: in $End(E)$.  

1484: 

1485: We next consider the linearization $Q_n\phi_n=0$ of

1486: (\ref{mc_reduced}), which describes infinitesimal 

1487: vacuum  deformations. Upon dividing through linearized gauge 

1488: transformations $(\phi_n\rightarrow \phi_n+Q_nu_n)$, 

1489: we obtain that the tangent 

1490: space to ${\cal M}_d$ (at the point $O=\{A_n=A~{\rm~for~all~}n\}$) 

1491: is given by the degree one BRST cohomology of 

1492: ${\cal H}_d:=\oplus_{n}{\Omega^*(L, End(E))[-n]}$

1493: \be

1494: T_O{\cal M}_d=H_Q^1({\cal H}_d)=

1495: ker \left[Q:{\cal H}^1_d\rightarrow {\cal H}^2_d\right]/

1496: im \left[Q:{\cal H}^0_d\rightarrow {\cal H}^1_d\right]~~.

1497: \ee

1498: It is easy to see that this coincides with the {\em total} BRST cohomology 

1499: of $\Omega^*(L, End(E))$:

1500: \be

1501: T_O({\cal M}_d)=H^*_{d_A}(L, End(E))=\oplus_{k=0}^3{H^k_{d_A}(L, End(E))}~~.

1502: \ee

1503: 

1504: 

1505: 

1506: That is, (shift-invariant) {\em degree one deformations of our 

1507: theory correspond to extended deformations of the moduli space of flat 

1508: connections on $E$}. 

1509: It is well-known (see, for example, \cite{Witten_CS}) that 

1510: the moduli space of flat connections on $E$ is the same as the moduli space 

1511: of (classical) vacua of the Chern-Simons theory based on $E$, which in 

1512: turn gives the (large radius) description of the boundary sector of 

1513: a {\em single} D-brane $({\bf L}_0, E, A)$ wrapped on $L$.

1514: It follows that inclusion of graded D-branes leads automatically to 

1515: an {\em extended} moduli space. This is a particular realization of 

1516: the general principle (already mentioned in \cite{com3}) that 

1517: usual 

1518: (degree one) deformations of a shift-completed string field theory describe

1519: {\em extended} deformations of the uncompleted system. 

1520: 

1521: Let us compare this with a theory of non-graded branes.

1522: If one were to neglect 

1523: the fact that type A branes are $\Z$-graded, and consider the naive 

1524: identification of D-branes with the data $(L, E, A)$, then, as in 

1525: \cite{Witten_CS}, one would arrive at the conclusion that the 

1526: string field theory of the D-brane collection $(a_n)_n$ is the standard 

1527: Chern-Simons field theory based on the bundle $E_{tot}=E_n^{\oplus \Z}$

1528: (viewed as an {\em even} bundle rather than a superbundle) and 

1529: considered around the vacuum described by the  

1530: configuration $\{A_n=A~{\rm~for~all~}n\}$. 

1531: Vacuum deformations of this theory would 

1532: correspond to independent deformations $\phi_{n,n}$

1533: of the flat connections $A_n$, 

1534: and would locally give an infinite power ${\cal M}={\cal M}_0^{\Z}$ 

1535: of the moduli space ${\cal M}_0$ of a single flat connection 

1536: $A$. Restricting to shift-invariant deformations would then give the 

1537: `regularized' moduli space ${\cal M}_d={\cal M}_0$. 

1538: Tangent direction to the latter are described by bundle-valued 

1539: {\em one}-forms $\omega\in \Omega^1(L, End(E))$. 

1540: 

1541: 

1542: 

1543: \subsection{Degree constraints}

1544: 

1545: Let us now return to the general case of distinct bundles $E_n$. 

1546: We would like to use constraint (\ref{deg}) in order to 

1547: understand the types of 

1548: D-brane configurations which result from physical vacuum deformations. 

1549: 

1550: For this, note that presence of the D-branes 

1551: $a_m$ and $a_n$ in the string background requires consideration of 

1552: both $\phi_{mn}$ and $\phi_{nm}$ as components of the string field. 

1553: Since one requires that the total string field have degree one, then 

1554: one obtains constraints in the case 

1555: $\phi_{nm}\neq 0$ or $\phi_{mn}\neq 0$, 

1556: due to the fact that the ranks of these components must belong to the 

1557: set $\{0,1,2,3\}$. In fact, {\em both} of these components will vanish 

1558: unless $|m-n|\leq 2$, i.e. $m-n\in \{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$. Since (\ref{deg})

1559: simply requires $rank \phi_{mm}=1$ for $m=n$, we have {\em six} 

1560: possibilities for which at least one of $\phi_{mn}$ and $\phi_{nm}$ can 

1561: be nonzero:

1562: 

1563: \

1564: 

1565: (1)$|m-n|\leq 2$~~, which gives 5 possibilities, further 

1566: subdivided as follows:

1567: 

1568: \

1569: 

1570: (a)$|m-n|=2$, i.e. $n\in \{m-2, m+2\}$, in which case only one of 

1571: $\phi_{mn}$ and $\phi_{nm}$ can be nonzero

1572: 

1573: (b)$|m-n|=1$, i.e. $n\in \{m-1,m+1\}$, in which case both $\phi_{mn}$ 

1574: and $\phi_{nm}$ can be nonzero.

1575: 

1576: (c)$m=n$, in which case $\phi_{mn}=\phi_{nm}=\phi_{mm}$ can be nonzero.

1577: 

1578: \

1579: 

1580: (2)$|m-n|>2$, which requires $\phi_{mn}=\phi_{nm}=0$. 

1581: 

1582: \

1583: 

1584: This can be visualized in the following manner. 

1585: Let us identify the D-branes $a_n$ as 

1586: abstract points of a regular one-dimensional lattice, and view the components 

1587: $\phi_{mn}$ as link variables connecting the various nodes, with $\phi_{mm}$ 

1588: viewed as self-linking of a node with itself. The links $\phi_{mn}$ for 

1589: $m\neq n$ are oriented (since $\phi_{mn}$ and $\phi_{nm}$ should be 

1590: viewed as independent data), while the self-links $\phi_{mm}$ carry no 

1591: orientation. 

1592: 

1593: \hskip 1.0 in

1594: \begin{center} 

1595: \scalebox{0.8}{\input{links.pstex_t}}

1596: \end{center}

1597: \begin{center} 

1598: Figure  2. {\footnotesize The formal lattice describing the allowed 

1599: string field configurations. The numbers in round brackets indicate 

1600: form degree.}

1601: \end{center}

1602: 

1603: 

1604: 

1605: 

1606: Then $(1)$ and $(2)$ tell us that two nodes $m$ and $n$ can be 

1607: connected by a 

1608: link if and only if $|m-n|\leq 2$. Physically, this means that 

1609: condensation 

1610: of string field components is {\em local} with respect to the grade $n$, 

1611: i.e. our system behaves in certain ways 

1612: like a lattice with finite length interactions.  

1613: This observation gives a 

1614: string field theoretic interpretation of the point made in 

1615: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} that the grade should in a certain sense 

1616: be `$\Z_6$-valued'. In the conjugation-invariant case, 

1617: the reality condition 

1618: $*\phi_{mn}=\phi_{-n,-m}$ puts further constraints on the allowed 

1619: configurations, without modifying the qualitative picture discussed 

1620: above. 

1621: 

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: \section{Analysis of deformations}

1626: 

1627: Consider the general expansion of a degree one string field:

1628: \be

1629: \phi=\oplus_{mn}{\phi_{mn}}~~,

1630: \ee

1631: with $\phi_{mn}\in Hom^1(a_m, a_n)=\Omega^{1+m-n}(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))$. 

1632: 

1633: Only terms with $n-m=-2,-1,0$ or $1$ survive, so we obtain:

1634: \be

1635: \phi=\oplus_{m}{

1636: \left[\phi^{(3)}_{m,m-2}\oplus\phi^{(2)}_{m,m-1}\oplus \phi^{(1)}_{m,m}\oplus 

1637: \phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}\right]}~~,

1638: \ee

1639: where the superscripts indicate the rank of forms.

1640: The Maurer-Cartan equations read:

1641: 

1642: \be

1643: d\phi^{(1+m-k)}_{mk}+\sum_{n}{\phi^{(1+n-k)}_{nk}\phi^{(1+m-n)}_{mn}}=0~~.

1644: \ee

1645: Considering the nontrivial cases $k=m-1, m, m+1, m+2$, this gives:

1646: {\footnotesize \bea

1647: \label{eq}

1648: d\phi^{(2)}_{m,m-1}+\phi^{(0)}_{m-2,m-1}\phi^{(3)}_{m,m-2}

1649: +\phi^{(1)}_{m-1,m-1}\phi^{(2)}_{m,m-1}+\phi^{(2)}_{m,m-1}\phi_{m,m}^{(1)}+

1650: \phi^{(3)}_{m+1,m-1}\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}&=&0~~\nn~~~~~~~~~~~\\

1651: d\phi^{(1)}_{m,m}+\phi^{(0)}_{m-1,m}\phi^{(2)}_{m,m-1}+

1652: \phi_{m,m}^{(1)}\phi^{(1)}_{m,m}+\phi^{(2)}_{m+1,m}\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}&=&0~~,\nn\\

1653: d\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}+\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}\phi_{m,m}^{(1)}+

1654: \phi_{m+1,m+1}^{(1)}\phi_{m,m+1}^{(0)}&=&0~~\\

1655: \phi^{(0)}_{m+1,m+2}\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}&=&0~~,\nn    

1656: \eea}\noindent We obtain 4 systems of equations $\Sigma_k$ $(k=1..4$), where 

1657: $\Sigma_k$ correspond to the $k$-th row in (\ref{eq}). 

1658: Each system contains a number of equations parameterized by $m$.

1659: In a theory with conjugations, 

1660: each of the systems $\Sigma_k$ is

1661: independently conjugation invariant, as a consequence of 

1662: the reality condition $*\phi_{mn}=\phi_{-n,-m}$ on the string field.

1663: These equations are a particular realization of similar 

1664: constraints holding in an arbitrary cubic string field theory with 

1665: D-branes, a more systematic study of which will be given in \cite{us}. 

1666: Here I shall only make a few basic observations. 

1667: 

1668: 

1669: \subsection{Diagonal deformations} 

1670: 

1671: Let us consider the particular case $\phi_{mn}=\delta_{mn}

1672: \phi^{(1)}_{mm}$, which corresponds to condensing boundary operators 

1673: in each diagonal sector, but no boundary condition changing operators. 

1674: In this situation, equations (\ref{eq}) reduce to:

1675: \be

1676: d\phi^{(1)}_{mm}+\phi^{(1)}_{mm}\phi^{(1)}_{mm}=0~~,

1677: \ee

1678: with 

1679: $d=d_{mm}$, the differential on $\Omega^*(L, End(E_m))$ 

1680: induced by the flat connection $A_m$.

1681: Since $\phi^{(1)}_{mm}$ are one-forms valued in $End(E_m)$, and 

1682: the product (\ref{products}) reduces in this case to the 

1683: usual wedge product of forms, this can also be written as:

1684: \be

1685: d\phi^{(1)}_{mm}+\phi^{(1)}_{mm}\wedge \phi^{(1)}_{mm}=0~~.

1686: \ee

1687: These are the standard equations describing {\em independent} 

1688: deformations 

1689: $A_m\rightarrow A'_m:=A_m+{\phi^{(1)}}_{mm}$ of the flat connections $A_m$. 

1690: This is a realization of the general principle \cite{com1, com3} 

1691: that condensation of 

1692: diagonal components of the string field can be interpreted as 

1693: performing independent deformations of the D-branes $a_n$.

1694: Upon integrating such deformations, we obtain a D-brane system of 

1695: the type ${(a'_n)}_n$, where $a'_n$ is a deformation of the brane $a_n$, 

1696: obtained by modifying its flat background connection. 

1697: More precisely, one obtains $a'_n=({\bf L}_n, E_n, A'_n)$, 

1698: with the new background connection $A'_n$. In the language 

1699: of \cite{com1, com3}, such deformations preserve the category structure 

1700: and thus they do not lead to D-brane composite formation.

1701: 

1702: 

1703: \subsection{Unidirectional off-diagonal deformations and exotic type A 

1704: branes}

1705: 

1706: Let us now consider the case where all $\phi_{mm-2}$, $\phi_{mm-1}$

1707: and $\phi_{mm}$ vanish  

1708: vanish but $\phi_{mm+1}$ may be non-zero. This corresponds to 

1709: condensing degree zero forms $\phi^{(0)}_{mm+1}$ in each 

1710: boundary condition changing sector $Hom(a_m, a_{m+1})$. 

1711: Note that $\phi^{(0)}_{mm+1}$ is simply a bundle 

1712: morphism from $E_m$ to $E_{m+1}$.

1713: 

1714: In this case, the 

1715: constraints (\ref{eq}) reduce to:

1716: \bea

1717: \phi^{(0)}_{m+1,m+2}\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}&=&0~~\\    

1718: d\phi^{(0)}_{m,m+1}&=&0~~.

1719: \eea

1720: The second condition tells us that the morphism $\phi_{mm+1}$ is 

1721: flat (covariantly constant) 

1722: with respect to the connection induced by $A_m$ and $A_{m+1}$ 

1723: on the bundle $Hom(E_m, E_{m+1})$, while the first equation shows 

1724: that these morphisms form a {\em complex}:

1725: \be

1726: \label{complex}

1727: ...~E_{m-1}\stackrel{\phi_{m-1,m}}{\longrightarrow}

1728: E_m\stackrel{\phi_{m, m+1}}{\longrightarrow}E_{m+1}~...~~.

1729: \ee

1730: 

1731: As explained on general grounds in \cite{com1, com3}, condensation 

1732: of such operators destroys the original category structure, leading to 

1733: a so-called {\em collapsed category}. If we restrict to the simplest 

1734: case when the collection of nonzero condensates $\phi_{mm+1}$ connects 

1735: together all of the branes present in our system\footnote{That is, 

1736: if none of the morphisms in the complex (\ref{complex}) vanishes.}, 

1737: then the end 

1738: result of such a condensation process is a single D-brane composite. 

1739: It follows 

1740: that one can produce an {\em   entirely new object} associated with the 

1741: cycle $L$ through such a process. Such an object corresponds to a 

1742: complex of the type (\ref{complex}), whose morphisms are covariantly 

1743: constant with respect to the original connections $A_n$.  

1744: Complexes of this type were studied from a mathematical perspective 

1745: in \cite{Bismut_Lott}. We wish to stress that the entire complex 

1746: (\ref{complex}) must be viewed as a {\em new} topological D-brane 

1747: (a D-brane composite) in this situation. In the case when some of the 

1748: morphisms $\phi_{m,m+1}$ vanish, the complex (\ref{complex}) splits 

1749: into connected subcomplexes, and each subcomplex should be viewed as 

1750: a novel D-brane composite. 

1751: 

1752: 

1753: We conclude that, 

1754: {\em given a special Lagrangian cycle $L$, one has many more 

1755: topological D-branes wrapping $L$ 

1756: than the graded branes of the type $({\bf L}_n, E_n,A_n)$}. 

1757: This already gives a vast enlargement of the category of topological 

1758: D-branes, as was already mentioned in \cite{com3}. Of course, an even 

1759: bigger enlargement can be obtained by considering more than one 

1760: Lagrangian cycle, for example by taking a collection of Lagrangians

1761: with transverse intersections. This will be discussed in detail 

1762: somewhere else. 

1763: 

1764: \subsection{General deformations}

1765: 

1766: It is clear that a generic deformation satisfying (\ref{eq}) does 

1767: not correspond to a flat connection background on the cycle $L$; 

1768: indeed, such deformations involve condensation of forms of rank 

1769: {\em zero}, {\em two} and {\em three}, beyond the standard condensation 

1770: of rank one forms.  

1771: The resulting string field backgrounds therefore 

1772: lead to quite exotic classes of topological D-brane composites. 

1773: The formalism appropriate for 

1774: studying such systems is the theory of flat superconnections 

1775: on $\Z$-graded superbundles, the basics of which were developed by Bismutt 

1776: and Lott in \cite{Bismut_Lott}. This must be combined with the foundational 

1777: work of \cite{com1, com3} and with the mathematical discussion of 

1778: Bondal and Kapranov \cite{BK}. 

1779: 

1780: \subsubsection{General string field backgrounds and pseudocomplexes}

1781: 

1782: While I will not give a complete analysis 

1783: along these lines, I wish to explain the relation between 

1784: general solutions to (\ref{eq}) and the framework of 

1785: \cite{com1, com3}. For this, let us once again restrict to the 

1786: shift-invariant case $E_n=E$ and $A_n=A$ for all $n$, and let 

1787: us assume that $n$ runs over all signed integers.

1788: 

1789: In the language of \cite{com3},

1790: our category ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ built on the objects $a_n$ is then the 

1791: {\em shift completion} of the one-object category ${\cal A}$ formed 

1792: by the D-brane $a_0=({\bf L}_0, E, A)$ together with the morphism 

1793: space $Hom(a_0, a_0)$ and the induced morphism composition (figure 2).

1794: Indeed, the objects $a_n$ can be identified with the {\em formal translates} 

1795: $a_n=a[n]$ of the object $a_0:=a$, and the morphism spaces 

1796: $Hom(a_m, a_n)=Hom(a[m],a[n])$ are given by:

1797: \be

1798: Hom(a[m], a[n])=Hom(a,a)[n-m]~~.

1799: \ee

1800:  

1801: The one-object category ${\cal A}$ 

1802: describes the boundary sector of a 

1803: single D-brane $a_0$, and underlies 

1804: the open string field theory of \cite{Witten_CS}, which 

1805: is equivalent with the standard Chern-Simons field theory on the 

1806: bundle $E_0=E$. 

1807: Indeed, since $m=n=0$, the extra signs in the boundary product and 

1808: topological metric of Section 3 dissapear in this case. 

1809: Hence {\em inclusion of graded D-branes $a_n$ amounts to taking 

1810: the shift completion ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ 

1811: of the naive one-objects category ${\cal A}$}. That is, 

1812: {\em working with graded D-branes amounts to taking the shift-completion}.

1813: 

1814: This is in fact a 

1815: general principle, already pointed out in \cite{com3}, 

1816: which gives a more conceptual explanation for 

1817: the observations of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} and whose origin 

1818: can be traced back to the theory of BV quantization. It is also 

1819: intimately related with extended deformation theory

1820: \cite{Kontsevich_Felder, Manin}, as will be discussed in detail in 

1821: \cite{us}.  

1822: 

1823: 

1824: \hskip 1.0 in

1825: \begin{center} 

1826: \scalebox{0.8}{\input{one_object.pstex_t}}

1827: \end{center}

1828: \begin{center} 

1829: Figure  3. {The open string field theory 

1830: of \cite{Witten_CS} 

1831: (identical with standard Chern-Simons field theory on $L$) 

1832: corresponds to a one-object category ${\cal A}$, whose shift completion 

1833: ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ 

1834: gives the string field theory of the present paper, if one restricts to the 

1835: shift-invariant case $E_n=E_0$ and $A_n=A_0$.}

1836: \end{center}

1837: 

1838: 

1839: 

1840: 

1841: In this categorical language, 

1842: general solutions of (\ref{eq}) correspond to so-called 

1843: {\em pseudocomplexes} \cite{com1} built out of objects and morphisms 

1844: of the shift-completed category ${\tilde {\cal A}}$. For example, 

1845: a solution of (\ref{eq}) containing only four nonvanishing 

1846: components $\phi_{m,m-1}$, $\phi_{m,m}$, 

1847: $\phi_{mm+1}$ and $\phi_{m+1,m-1}$ 

1848: (for some fixed $m$) corresponds to the pseudocomplex

1849: depicted in figure 4.

1850: 

1851: \hskip 1.0 in

1852: \begin{center} 

1853: \scalebox{0.8}{\input{pseudocomplex.pstex_t}}

1854: \end{center}

1855: \begin{center} 

1856: Figure  4. {\footnotesize A pseudocomplex formed by three objects $a_{m-1}$, 

1857: $a_m$ and $a_{m+1}$ and four morphisms $\phi_{m,m-1}$, 

1858: $\phi_{m,m}$, $\phi_{m,m+1}$ and $\phi_{m+1,m-1}$ of ${\tilde {\cal A}}$.} 

1859: \end{center}

1860: 

1861:  

1862: It was shown on general grounds in 

1863: \cite{com1, com3} that pseudocomplexes form a dG category 

1864: $p({\tilde {\cal A}})$ of their own 

1865: and, in fact, give an admissible class of D-branes which extends the class 

1866: of objects of ${\tilde {\cal A}}$. 

1867: This allows for a string field theoretic description of any D-brane 

1868: configuration resulting from condensation of string field components 

1869: $\phi_{mn}$ satisfying equations (\ref{eq}). The resulting string field 

1870: theory gives a description of open string dynamics in 

1871: the presence of such general condensates, which include the original D-branes

1872: $a_n$, covariantly constant complexes of the type 

1873: (\ref{complex}) as well as much 

1874: more general objects, which do not admit a classical geometric description. 

1875: {\em It is this category of `exotic A-type branes', rather than the naive 

1876: one-object category 

1877: ${\cal A}$ which must be studied in order 

1878: to gain a better understanding of open string mirror symmetry `with one cycle'}.

1879: This gives a very nontrivial extension of the theory originally considered 

1880: in \cite{Witten_CS}, and provides a first step toward an open string 

1881: realization of the program outlined 

1882: in \cite{Witten_mirror} of gaining a better understanding of mirror symmetry 

1883: by considering the {\em extended} moduli space of topological strings. 

1884: 

1885: \subsubsection{Relation with work of Bondal and Kapranov}

1886: As pointed out in \cite{com1, com3}, pseudocomplexes over ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ 

1887: allow one to make 

1888: contact with the so-called {\em enhanced triangulated categories} 

1889: discussed by Bondal and Kapranov \cite{BK}. In fact, it is 

1890: easy to see that pseudocomplexes over ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ can be identified 

1891: with the {\em twisted complexes} of \cite{BK}, {\em defined over ${\cal A}$}. 

1892: The latter form a dG category, the so-called pre-triangulated category 

1893: ${\rm Pre-Tr}({\cal A})$ associated with the one-object category ${\cal A}$. 

1894: Hence we have the identification: 

1895: \be

1896: p({\tilde {\cal A}})={\rm Pre-Tr}({\cal A})~~.

1897: \ee

1898: This is a reflection of the general principle, already mentioned in 

1899: \cite{com3}, that 

1900: {\em the category of pseudocomplexes of the shift-completion ${\tilde{\cal A}}$

1901: coincides with the pre-triangulated category ${\rm Pre-Tr}({\cal A})$ of the 

1902: uncompleted category ${\cal A}$.} From this point of view, the appearance of 

1903: pre-triangulated categories (and, later, of triangulated categories) in 

1904: string theory is a result of taking the shift-completion. This is the general 

1905: formulation of the main observation made by M. Douglas in 

1906: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}.

1907: 

1908: 

1909: Upon taking

1910: the zeroth BRST cohomology (which, due to the existence of shift functors, 

1911: corresponds to working {\em on-shell}) one obtains 

1912: the so-called {\em enhanced triangulated category} 

1913: ${\rm Tr}({\cal A})=H^0({\rm Pre-Tr}({\cal A}))$

1914: of the original one-object category ${\cal A}$. 

1915: As discussed in 

1916: \cite{BK}, the category ${\rm Tr}({\cal A})$ behaves in a certain sense 

1917: as a `derived category' of ${\cal A}$, thereby 

1918: {\em providing an A-model 

1919: analogue of the derived category picture familiar from studies of the 

1920: B-model} \cite{Kontsevich, Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}. 

1921: This construction can be related to a degeneration of the large radius limit 

1922: of the `derived category' of 

1923: Fukaya's category \cite{Kontsevich, Fukaya, Fukaya2, Kontsevich_recent}

1924: (see Section 9).

1925: 

1926: \subsection{Generalized complexes and the quasiunitary cover}

1927: 

1928: We saw above that the traditional approach to A-type brane dynamics

1929: (which largely consists of applying the results of \cite{Witten_CS} ) 

1930: must be extended in a rather nontrivial manner. 

1931: We hope to have convinced the reader that, 

1932: when confronted with the problem of analyzing the structure 

1933: defined by the most general solutions of (\ref{eq}), the tools of 

1934: category theory become not only directly relevant, but also unavoidable, 

1935: at least as a first approach to organizing the resulting complexity. 

1936: 

1937: It may then come as a surprise that the most general solutions of (\ref{eq}) 

1938: {\em do not, in fact, suffice}. Indeed, it was 

1939: shown in \cite{com1, com3} that the basic 

1940: physical constraint of {\em unitarity} requires the consideration of even more 

1941: general objects (the so-called {\em generalized complexes}) over ${\cal A}$, 

1942: which can be described as `pseudocomplexes with repetition'.

1943: In a generalized complex, one allows for a sequence $a_{n_j}$ whose 

1944: (non-necessarily distinct) terms belong to our D-brane family $\{a_n\}$, 

1945: and one asks for solutions of the obvious generalization of (\ref{eq}). 

1946: More precisely, a generalized complex over ${\tilde {\cal A}}$ 

1947: can be described as a sequence $(a_{n_j})$ together with a 

1948: family of morphisms $\phi_{n_i,n_j}\in Hom^1(a_{n_i}, a_{n_j})$

1949: subject to the conditions:

1950: \be

1951: Q_{m_i,m_k}\phi_{m_i,m_k}+\sum_{j}{\phi_{m_j,m_k}\phi_{m_i,m_j}}=0~~.

1952: \ee

1953: The generalization away from pseudocomplexes is due to the fact that we 

1954: allow for repetitions $m_i=m_j$. 

1955: 

1956: It was shown in \cite{com1} that generalized complexes automatically 

1957: lead to a string field theory, the so-called {\em quasiunitary cover}

1958: $c({\tilde {\cal A}})$ of 

1959: the theory based on ${\tilde {\cal A}}$. The quasiunitary cover 

1960: satisfies a minimal 

1961: form of the physical constraint of unitarity. Namely, any condensation 

1962: process in the string field theory based on $c({\tilde {\cal A}})$ 

1963: produces a D-brane which can be identified with 

1964: an object of $c({\tilde {\cal A}})$.

1965: Mathematically, this gives an extension of the 

1966: Bondal-Kapranov theory, which is forced upon us due to very basic 

1967: physical considerations. It is {\em this} theory which gives the 

1968: ultimate (i.e. `physically closed') extension of the naive one-object 

1969: theory described by ${\cal A}$. 

1970: 

1971: \section{Relation with the large radius limit of Fukaya's category} 

1972: In the last section of this paper, I wish to give a short outline of the 

1973: how the theory considered here may relate to the category constructed in 

1974: \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2}. As I will discuss in more detail somewhere else, 

1975: Fukaya's category is related to a `quantized' version of a category of 

1976: {\em intersecting} A-type branes, where the quantum effects arise from 

1977: disk instanton corrections to the semiclassical structure. 

1978: 

1979: Since disk instanton

1980: effects are suppressed in the large radius limit, we can in first 

1981: approximation 

1982: consider the case when the Kahler class of our Calabi-Yau manifold 

1983: belongs to the deep interior of the Kahler cone. In this case, it can 

1984: be shown that the $A_\infty$ 

1985: `category' considered in \cite{Fukaya} reduces to a 

1986: $\Z_2$-projection of a {\em substructure} of an 

1987: associative differential graded category which satisfies the axioms 

1988: of \cite{com1}. This substructure, which is not a category in 

1989: the standard mathematical sense, only describes a {\em subsector} 

1990: of the (large radius) open string field theory of the topological A-type string. 

1991: More precisely, the construction proposed in \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2} 

1992: corresponds to a `category' whose objects are A-type branes wrapping 

1993: {\em distinct} and {\em transversely intersecting} Lagrangian cycles, 

1994: and whose morphisms are given by boundary condition {\em changing} states 

1995: of the topological A-type string. This construction does 

1996: not take into account the possibility of having different A-type branes 

1997: wrapping the same Lagrangian cycle (which is precisely the subject of 

1998: interest 

1999: in the present paper), nor does it consider the boundary sectors of 

2000: strings starting and ending on the same D-brane. Moreover, the construction 

2001: of Fukaya's categiory 

2002: is currently largely 

2003: performed in a $\Z_2$-graded approach, and should be extended 

2004: by inclusion of $\Z$-gradings.

2005: 

2006: If we use the notation 

2007: $supp(a)$ to describe the support of a topological A-type brane, 

2008: i.e. its underlying Lagrangian cycle, then the large radius limit 

2009: of Fukaya's category consists 

2010: of a collection of objects having the property that 

2011: $supp(a)$ and $supp(b)$ are transversely intersecting Lagrangian cycles 

2012: for any pair of {\em distinct} D-branes $a$ and $b$. Moreover, the original

2013: proposal of \cite{Fukaya} only considers morphism spaces of the form 

2014: $Hom(a,b)$ for $a\neq b$, i.e. no endomorphism spaces $End(a):=Hom(a,a)$ 

2015: are allowed. Due to this reason, the resulting large radius structure 

2016: does 

2017: not correspond to 

2018: a category in the classical mathematical sense, in spite of the fact that 

2019: all off-shell nonassociativity

2020: can be eliminated in the large radius limit. 

2021: For example, this structure does not 

2022: contain units $1_a\in Hom(a,a)$, since morphism spaces of the type 

2023: $Hom(a,a)$ are not directly described. This leads to somewhat complicated 

2024: constructions \cite{Fukaya2, Kontsevich_recent} which attempt to repair such 

2025: problems by making use of transversality arguments

2026: \footnote{The main idea of this approach is to view the Fukaya category as 

2027: a description of a certain form of intersection theory for Lagrangian cycles.

2028: In this case, the missing endomorphisms can be recovered by considering 

2029: Lagrangian {\em self}-intersections, which can be defined in traditional 

2030: topological manner as intersections between a Lagrangian cycle and a small 

2031: displacement of itself (in this symplectic theory, such a displacement 

2032: corresponds to an isotopy transform of the cycle). While one expects

2033: such a procedure to be related to the physical approach of 

2034: including diagonal boundary sectors from the very beggining (or at least to a 

2035: subsector of the physical construction), a 

2036: reasonably complete proof that this is indeed the case has not yet been given.

2037: I thank Prof. K. Fukaya for some clarifications on the current status 

2038: of his work on this issue.} . 

2039: 

2040: It is now clear that the theories described in this paper belong 

2041: precisely to the missing sector of the original construction of 

2042: \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2}. Indeed, we studied exactly the case when 

2043: one has distinct topological D-branes which wrap the same (special) Lagrangian

2044: cycle. One can view part of this as a certain degeneration of the 

2045: large radius version of Fukaya's `category' in which various Lagrangian cycles 

2046: are deformed until they coincide. 

2047: More precisely, it seems likely that only the 

2048: sector of unidirectional off-diagonal 

2049: deformations discussed in  Subsection 8.2.

2050: can be recovered in this manner from Fukaya's category. 

2051: However, the issue is clouded by that fact that, in a 

2052: string field theory such as those discussed in \cite{com1, com3}, 

2053: physics is invariant with respect to so-called {\em quasiequivalences},

2054: and for this (as well and other) reasons the issue is currently unsettled.

2055: A perhaps more natural point of  view is to follow 

2056: the physics by including such objects in the very definition of 

2057: the relevant category, as required by the structure 

2058: of open string field theory. 

2059: 

2060: 

2061: 

2062: \section{Conclusions and directions for further research}

2063: 

2064: We studied (the large radius limit of) a sector of 

2065: the string field theory of the open A-model, by 

2066: considering a system of distinct topological D-branes which wrap the 

2067: same special Lagrangian cycle. We extracted the relevant string field 

2068: action from first physical principles, and identified it with 

2069: a $\Z$-graded version of super-Chern-Simons field theory, thereby 

2070: relating graded A-brane dynamics with the mathematical theory 

2071: of $\Z$-graded superconnections developed in \cite{Bismut_Lott}. 

2072: 

2073: Upon using the resulting string field action, we gave a preliminary 

2074: discussion of the associated moduli space of vacua, and we sketched 

2075: its relation it with 

2076: the theory of {\em extended} deformations \cite{Kontsevich_Felder, Manin} 

2077: of flat connections on the cycle. 

2078: Moreover, we studied the effect of vacuum deformations form the 

2079: perspective of \cite{com1, com3}, which relates them to 

2080: condensation of boundary and boundary condition changing 

2081: operators and to formation of D-brane composites. 

2082: This gives an explicit realization of 

2083: the general discussion of those papers and shows the existence 

2084: of a large class of `exotic' A-type branes.

2085: We also made a few observations 

2086: about the connection of this physically motivated construction with the 

2087: theory of enhanced triangulated categories developed in \cite{BK}. 

2088: 

2089: Our analysis should be viewed as a description of a small sector of the 

2090: A-model counterpart of the `derived category of D-branes' whose B-model 

2091: incarnation leads to the derived category of coherent sheaves. 

2092: It is a basic consequence of mirror symmetry for open strings that the 

2093: processes of D-brane composite formation which are responsible for 

2094: generating the derived category of coherent sheaves in the B-model should 

2095: have an A-model counterpart. Just as $D^bCoh$ can be viewed 

2096: as the product of off-shell B-type open string dynamics 

2097: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall, com3, us, Diaconescu}, 

2098: A-model composite formation processes lead to an 

2099: enlargement of the standard category of A-type topological D-branes. 

2100: This enlargement, which after quantization ($=$ inclusion of 

2101: disk instanton effects) can be viewed as a sort of `derived category' of a 

2102: completed\footnote{Completed by inclusion of endomorphisms.} version of 

2103: Fukaya's category, generates the A-model counterpart of $D^bCoh$

2104: \footnote{Such an enlargement of Fukaya's category was already proposed 

2105: in \cite{Kontsevich}, though the proposal of that paper does not 

2106: consider diagonal boundary sectors.}. 

2107: 

2108: The generalized topological D-brane composites 

2109: constructed in this paper correspond to backgrounds 

2110: belonging to the extended moduli space of the topological A-string. 

2111: As such, they should be relevant for a better formulation of 

2112: homological mirror symmetry, a subject which forms the deeper motivation 

2113: of our study. It is important, however, to approach the much harder question 

2114: whether such objects play a role in the physical, untwisted model. 

2115: This issue could in principle be addressed through a careful study of 

2116: deformations for the string field theory of compactified superstrings 

2117: in the presence of graded A-type branes.

2118: 

2119: This problem is somewhat difficult to formulate precisely,

2120: due to the fact that current understanding of the {\em super}string 

2121: field theory of Calabi-Yau compactifications is rather incomplete. 

2122: Since the topological A-model only captures the chiral primary sector,  

2123: it is in principle possible that some of the extended deformations leading 

2124: to our exotic D-branes are `lifted' in the physical theory, due to 

2125: the dynamics of higher string modes. It is likely, however, that at least the 

2126: covariantly-constant complexes of Subsection 8.2. survive in the untwisted 

2127: model, since one can adapt effective action arguments such as those of 

2128: \cite{Oz_triples} to argue for their appearance on non-topological grounds.

2129: In fact, these objects are the analogues of the type B D-brane complexes of 

2130: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall}, and their relevance for 

2131: Calabi-Yau {\em super}string dynamics should be similar

2132: to the importance of the latter.

2133: Whether the more exotic composites resulting from condensation of 

2134: higher rank forms also play a role in the non-topological theory is currently 

2135: an open problem, which deserves careful study.

2136: 

2137: 

2138: 

2139: 

2140: 

2141: 

2142: \

2143: 

2144: 

2145: 

2146: \acknowledgments{

2147: I wish to thank Prof. Sorin Popescu for collaboration in a related 

2148: project and

2149: Profs. D. Sullivan and K. Fukaya for useful conversations.

2150: I am endebted to 

2151: Prof. M.~Rocek for constant support and interest in my work. 

2152: The author is supported by the Research Foundation under NSF grant 

2153: PHY-9722101. }

2154: 

2155: \

2156: 

2157: 

2158: 

2159: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

2160: \bibitem{Kontsevich}{M.~Kontsevich,{\em Homological algebra of mirror 

2161: symmetry},  Proceedings of the International 

2162: Congress of Mathematicians,

2163: (Zurich, 1994), 120--139, Birkhauser, alg-geom/9411018.}

2164: \bibitem{Seidel}{P.~Seidel, {\em Graded Lagrangian submanifolds}, 

2165: Bull. Soc. Math. France 128 (2000), 103-149, math.SG/9903049.}

2166: \bibitem{Douglas_Kontsevich}{M.~Douglas,

2167: {\em D-branes, Categories and N=1 Supersymmetry}, hep-th/0011017.}

2168: \bibitem{pi_stab}{ Michael R. Douglas, Bartomeu Fiol, Christian Romelsberger, 

2169: {\em Stability and BPS branes}, hep-th/0002037.}

2170: \bibitem{Aspinwall}{Paul S. Aspinwall, Albion Lawrence, 

2171: {\em Derived Categories and Zero-Brane Stability}, 

2172: hep-th/0104147.}

2173: \bibitem{Zaslow_hms}{Alexander Polishchuk, Eric Zaslow, 

2174: {\em Categorical Mirror Symmetry: The Elliptic Curve}, 

2175: Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. {\bf 2} (1998) 443-470, math.AG/9801119.}

2176: \bibitem{Oz_triples}{Yaron Oz, Tony Pantev, Daniel Waldram,

2177: {\em Brane-Antibrane Systems on Calabi-Yau Spaces}, 

2178: hep-th/0009112.}

2179: \bibitem{Oz_superconn}{

2180: Mohsen Alishahiha, Harald Ita, Yaron Oz, 

2181: {\em On Superconnections and the Tachyon Effective Action}, 

2182: hep-th/0012222.}

2183: \bibitem{Ooguri}{ Hirosi Ooguri, Yaron Oz, Zheng Yin, {\em 

2184: D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors}, 

2185: Nucl.Phys. {\bf B477} (1996) 407-430.}

2186: \bibitem{top}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, 

2187: {\em On the structure of open-closed topological field 

2188: theory in two dimensions}, hep-th/0010269, to be published in Nucl. Phys. B}

2189: \bibitem{boundary}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, 

2190: {\em  Instanton amplitudes in open-closed topological string theory}, 

2191:  hep-th/0011257.}

2192: \bibitem{com1}{

2193: C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Generalized complexes and string field theory}, 

2194: hep-th/0102122.}

2195: \bibitem{com3}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em 

2196: Unitarity, D-brane dynamics and D-brane categories}, 

2197: hep-th/0102183. }

2198: \bibitem{us}{C. I. Lazaroiu and  S. Popescu, {\em to appear}.}

2199: \bibitem{nlsm}{C. I. Lazaroiu, in preparation}

2200: \bibitem{Diaconescu}{D.E. Diaconescu

2201: {\em Enhanced D-Brane Categories from String Field Theory}, hep-th/0104200.}

2202: \bibitem{BK}{A.~Bondal, M.~M.~Kapranov, 

2203: {\em Enhanced triangulated categories}, Mat. Sb. {\bf 181} (1990), No.5, 669, 

2204: English translation in Math. USSR Sbornik Vol {\bf 70} (1991), No. 1 , 93. }

2205: \bibitem{Quillen}{D. Quillen, 

2206: {\em Superconnections and the Chern character}, 

2207: Topology, {\bf 24}, No.1.(1085), 89-95.}

2208: \bibitem{Bismut_Lott}{J.~M.~Bismut  and J.~Lott, 

2209: {\em Flat vector bundles, direct images and higher analystic torsion}, 

2210: J. Amer. Math Soc {\bf 8} (1992) 291.}

2211: \bibitem{Vafa_cs}{C. Vafa, 

2212: {\em Brane/anti-Brane Systems and $U(N|M)$ Supergroup},  hep-th/0101218.}

2213: \bibitem{Kontsevich_Felder}{M.~Kontsevich, 

2214: {\em Deformation quantization of Poisson Manifolds}, I, 

2215: mat/9709010.}

2216: \bibitem{Manin}{Yu. I. Manin

2217: {\em Three constructions of Frobenius manifolds: a comparative study},

2218: Asian J. Math. {\bf 3} (1999), no. 1, 179--220, math.QA/9801006. }

2219: \bibitem{Barannikov_formality}{Sergey Barannikov, 

2220: {\em  Generalized periods and mirror symmetry in dimensions $n>3$}, 

2221:  math.AG/9903124.}

2222: \bibitem{AS1}{Scott Axelrod, I. M. Singer,

2223: {\em Chern-Simons perturbation theory}, 

2224: Proceedings of the XXth International Conference on 

2225: Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics,

2226: Vol. 1, 2 (New York, 1991), 3--45, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, 

2227: NJ, 1992, hep-th/9110056.}

2228: \bibitem{Cardy}{J.~L.~Cardy, 

2229: {\em Conformal invariance in critical systems with boundaries}, 

2230: Bonn 1986, Proceedings, Infinite Lie Algebras and Conformal Invariance 

2231: In Condensed Matter and Particle Physics*,

2232: 81-92. ; {\em Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the Verlinde formula}, 

2233: Nucl.Phys. {\bf B324} (1989) 581; {\em Boundary conditions in conformal field 

2234: theory}, in {\em 

2235: Integrable systems in quantum field theory and statistical mechanics}, 

2236: eds. M. Jimbo et al, 127--148; 

2237: J.~L.~Cardy, D.~C.~Lewellen, 

2238: {\em Bulk and boundary operators in conformal field theory}, 

2239:  Phys.Lett. {\bf B259} (1991), 274--278.}

2240: \bibitem{Witten_CS}{

2241: E.~Witten,{\em Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory}, 

2242: The Floer memorial volume, 637--678, Progr. Math., 133, Birkhauser, Basel,

2243: 1995, hep-th/9207094.}

2244: \bibitem{Witten_NLSM}{

2245: E.~Witten, {\em Topological sigma models}, Commun. Math. Phys. 

2246: {\bf 118} (1988),411.}

2247: \bibitem{Witten_mirror}{E.~Witten, 

2248: {\em Mirror manifolds and topological field theory}, 

2249: Essays on mirror manifolds, 120--158, Internat. Press, 

2250: Hong Kong, 1992, hep-th/9112056.}

2251: \bibitem{Witten_SFT}{E.~Witten, {\em Noncommutative geometry and string 

2252: field theory}, Nucl. Phys, {\bf B268} (1986) 253.}

2253: \bibitem{Thorn}{C.~B.~Thorn, {\em String field theory},~Phys.~Rept. {\bf175}(1989)1.}

2254: \bibitem{Zwiebach_closed}{B.~Zwiebach,

2255: {\em Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation},

2256: Nucl.~Phys. {\bf B 390}(1993) 33, hep-th/9206084.}

2257: \bibitem{Zwiebach_open}{

2258: B.~Zwiebach, {\em Oriented open-closed string theory revisited}, 

2259: Annals. Phys. {\bf 267} (1988), 193, hep-th/9705241.}

2260: \bibitem{Gaberdiel}{

2261: M.~Gaberdiel, B.~Zwiebach, {\em 

2262: Tensor constructions of open string theories I:Foundations

2263: }, Nucl. Phys {\bf B505} (1997), 569, hep-th/9705038.}

2264: \bibitem{boundary_states}{ Andreas Recknagel, Volker Schomerus,

2265: {\em Moduli Spaces of D-branes in CFT-backgrounds},

2266: hep-th/9903139,{\em Boundary Deformation Theory and Moduli Spaces of D-Branes},

2267: Nucl.Phys. B545 (1999) 233-282hep-th/9811237,{\em D-branes in Gepner models},

2268: Nucl.Phys. B531 (1998) 185-225,hep-th/9712186,

2269: N.~Ishibashi, {\em The boundary and crosscap states

2270:  in conformal field theories}, Mod.~Phys.~Lett. {\bf A4} (1989) 251; 

2271:  N.~Ishibashi, T.~Onogi, {\em Conformal field theories on surfaces

2272:  with boundaries and crosscaps}, Mod.~Phys.~Lett. {\bf A4} (1989) 161;}

2273: \bibitem{Fukaya}{K.~Fukaya, 

2274: {\em  Morse homotopy,  $A^\infty$-category and  Floer  homologies}, in

2275: {\em  Proceedings of  the  GARC Workshop  on  Geometry and  Topology},

2276: ed. by H.~J.~Kim, Seoul  national University (1994), 1-102; {\em Floer

2277: homology, $A^\infty$-categories and topological field theory}, in {\em

2278: Geometry and Physics}, Lecture  notes in pure and applied mathematics,

2279: {\bf 184},  pp 9-32, Dekker, New  York, 1997; {\em  Floer homology and

2280: Mirror       symmetry,      I},       preprint       available      at

2281: $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

2282: \bibitem{Fukaya2}{K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H.~Ohta, K.~Ono, 

2283: {\em Lagrangian intersection Floer theory - anomaly and obstructon}, 

2284:   preprint       available      at

2285: $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

2286: \bibitem{Kontsevich_recent}{M.~Kontsevich, Y.~Soibelman, 

2287: {\em Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations}, math.SG/0011041.}

2288: \end{thebibliography}

2289: \end{document}

2290: 

2291: 

2292: 

2293: 

2294: 

2295: 

2296: 

2297: 

2298: 

2299: 

2300: 

2301: 

2302: