1: \newif\iffigs\figstrue

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

3: %\figsfalse

4: 

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

6: 

7: 

8: \def\Bbb{\bf}

9: \def\C{{\Bbb C}}

10: \def\R{{\Bbb R}}

11: \def\Z{{\Bbb Z}}

12: \def\H{{\Bbb H}}

13: 

14: \def\Hom{\operatorname{Hom}}

15: \def\Tors{\operatorname{Tors}}

16: \def\Ker{\operatorname{Ker}}

17: \def\Spec{\operatorname{Spec}}

18: \def\Area{\operatorname{Area}}

19: \def\Vol{\operatorname{Vol}}

20: \def\ad{\operatorname{ad}}

21: \def\tr{\operatorname{tr}}

22: \def\Pic{\operatorname{Pic}}

23: \def\disc{\operatorname{disc}}

24: \def\cpl{\operatorname{cpl}}

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

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

27: \def\Gr{\operatorname{Gr}}

28: \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}}

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

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

31: \def\SU{\operatorname{SU}}

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

33: \def\Sp{\operatorname{Sp}}

34: \def\Spin{\operatorname{Spin}}

35: \def\rank{\operatorname{rank}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

42: \def\Aff{\operatorname{Aff}}

43: \def\diag{\operatorname{diag}}

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

45:         \advance\lineskiplimit#1}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54: 

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

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

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

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

59: \def\LG{Landau-Ginzburg}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70: 

71: 

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

73: 

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

75: 

76: \def\ker{{\rm ker}}

77: \def\coker{{\rm coker}}

78: \def\rank{{\rm rank}}

79: \def\im{{\rm im}}

80: \def\dim{{\rm dim}}

81: \def\codim{{\rm codim}}

82: \def\Card{{\rm Card}}

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

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

85: \def\deg{{\rm deg}}

86: \def\det{{\rm det}}

87: \def\Div{{\rm Div}}

88: \def\supp{{\rm supp}}

89: \def\Gr{{\rm Gr}}

90: \def\End{{\rm End}}

91: \def\Aut{{\rm Aut}}

92: 

93: 

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

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

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

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

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

99: 

100: 

101: 

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

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

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

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

106: \newcommand{\we}{\wedge}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

116: 

117: 

118: %EOF

119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

120: \newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

121: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

122: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

123: 

124: %\def\appendix#1{

125:  % \addtocounter{section}{1} \setcounter{equation}{0}

126:   %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}} \section*{Appendix}

127:   %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix \thesection\ \ \ #1} }

128: 

129: \newcommand{\newsection}{    % Numeration of eqs. is automatic

130: \setcounter{equation}{0}

131: \section}

132: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber \\*}

133: 

134: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

135: \newcommand{\nonu}{\nonumber}

136: \def \ov {\over }

137: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

138: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

139: \def \ci {\cite}

140: \def \de{\partial}

141: \def \x{{\bf x}}

142: \def\y{{\bf y}}

143: \def\k{{\bf k}}

144: \def\LB{\left(}

145: \def\RB{\right)}

146: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

147: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

148: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

149: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

150: \def\la{\label}

151: \def \bi{\bibitem}

152: \def \Tr {{\rm tr}}

153: \def\O{{\cal O}}

154: \def\C{{\cal C}}

155: \def\LA{\langle}

156: \def\RA{\rangle}

157: \def\X{{\bar X}}

158: \def\a{\alpha}

159: \def\b{\beta}

160: \def\e{\epsilon}

161: \def\A{{\cal A}}

162: \def\n{{\nabla}}

163: \def\G{{\Gamma}}

164: \def\1{{{(1)}}}\def\2{{{(2)}}}\def\3{{{(3)}}}  

165: 

166: 

167: 

168: \font\mybbb=msbm10 at 8pt

169: \font\mybb=msbm10 at 12pt

170: \def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}

171: \def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}

172: \def\pRe{\bbb{R}}

173: \def\Re {\bb{R}}

174: \def\Z {\bb{Z}}

175: \def\q{\bb{a}}

176: \def\id{\protect{{1 \kern-.28em {\rm l}}}}

177: \def\cn{{\cal N}}

178: 

179: \def\p#1{{\phi{}^{(#1)}}}

180: \def\hp#1{{{\phi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

181: \def\tp#1{{{\tilde\phi}{}^{(#1)}}}

182: \def\c#1{{c{}^{(#1)}}}

183: \def\hc#1{{{c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

184: \def\tc#1{{{\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

185: 

186: %\def\boldphi{{\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi}}

187: \def\boldphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

188: 

189: 

190: %%\boldwe is used in the definition of \bwe. It can also be used separately. 

191: \def\boldwe{\mbox{\boldmath $\wedge$}}

192: \def\bwe{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.9pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}

193: \hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}}

194: \def\bweft{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.1pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}

195: \hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}}

196: 

197: 

198: \def\pb#1{{{\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

199: \def\hpb#1{{{\bf\boldphi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

200: \def\tpb#1{{{\bf\tilde\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

201: \def\cb#1{{{\bf c}{}^{(#1)}}}

202: \def\hcb#1{{{\bf c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

203: \def\tcb#1{{{\bf\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

204: 

205: 

206: \font\gothics=ygoth at 10pt

207: \font\gothicl=ygoth at 12pt

208: \def\gg#1{\hbox{\gothics#1}}

209: 

210: \def\gG{\hbox{\gothicl G}}

211: 

212: \font\frakl=yfrak at 12pt

213: \font\fraks=yfrak at 10pt

214: 

215: \def\fG{\hbox{\frakl G}}

216: 

217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

218: 

219: 

220: 

221: 

222: \usepackage{graphics}

223: 

224: 

225: \title{Graded Chern-Simons field theory and graded topological 

226: D-branes}

227: 

228: \author{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, R. Roiban and D. Vaman

229: \\C.~N.~Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

230: SUNY at Stony BrookNY11794-3840, U.S.A.\\

231: calin, roiban, dvaman@insti.physics.sunysb.edu

232: }

233: 

234: 

235: \abstract{We discuss graded D-brane systems of the topological A model

236: on a Calabi-Yau threefold, 

237: by means of their string field theory. We give a detailed analysis 

238: of the extended string field action, showing that it 

239: satisfies the classical master equation, and construct

240: the associated BV system. The analysis is entirely general 

241: and it applies to any collection of D-branes (of distinct grades) 

242: wrapping the same special Lagrangian cycle, being valid in

243: arbitrary topology. Our discussion employs a 

244: $\Z$-graded version of the covariant BV formalism, whose 

245: formulation involves the concept of 

246: {\em graded supermanifolds}.

247: We discuss this formalism in detail 

248: and explain why $\Z$-graded supermanifolds are necessary for a correct 

249: geometric understanding of BV systems. 

250: For the particular case of graded D-brane pairs, 

251: we also 

252: give a direct construction of the master action, finding complete agreement

253: with the abstract formalism. We analyze formation 

254: of acyclic composites and show that, under certain topological assumptions,

255: all states resulting from the  condensation process of a pair of branes 

256: with grades differing by one unit  are BRST trivial and thus the

257: composite can be viewed as a closed string vacuum. We prove

258: that there are {\em six} types of pairs which must 

259: be viewed as generally inequivalent. This contradicts the 

260: assumption that `brane-antibrane' systems exhaust the nontrivial 

261: dynamics of topological A-branes with the same geometric support.

262: }

263: 

264: 

265: \preprint{YITP-SB 01-37}

266: 

267: 

268: 

269: 

270: \begin{document}

271: 

272: 

273: \tableofcontents

274: 

275: \pagebreak

276: 

277: \section{Introduction}

278: ${}$

279: 

280: The issue of D-brane composite formation plays a central role in the

281: study of Calabi-Yau compactifications of open superstrings. It has

282: gradually become clear \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, com1, com3,

283:   Aspinwall, Diaconescu, sc, Oz_superconn, Oz_triples} that a proper

284: understanding of D-brane condensation processes holds the key to

285: disentangling the relevance of the derived category of coherent

286: sheaves and its A-model analogue, the derived category of Fukaya's

287: category \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2, Kontsevich_recent} (or rather, a

288: generalization thereof \cite{sc}).  Since D-brane condensation

289: involves off-shell string dynamics, the most systematic approach to

290: this problem is through the methods of open string field theory. In

291: fact, it seems that `mirror symmetry with open strings' is best

292: formulated as a (quasi)-equivalence of open string field theories with

293: D-branes, an overarching off-shell version which would subsume all

294: previous statements.  A fundamental ingredient in this program is the

295: observation of \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} that the correct description

296: of D-branes in Calabi-Yau compactifications involves an extra datum,

297: an integer-valued quantity called the D-brane's grade.  As pointed out

298: in \cite{com3}, the procedure of including graded D-branes admits a

299: general string field theoretic description (the so-called `shift

300: completion' of a D-brane category). Taking this fact into account

301: leads to a concrete presentation of the {\em extended} moduli space

302: of open string vacua, an approach which affords computation of various

303: physical quantities away from points of the geometric moduli space.

304: Moreover, the papers \cite{com3, Diaconescu} and \cite{sc} gave an

305: explicit description of certain subsectors of the relevant string

306: field theories for the case of Calabi-Yau threefolds.

307: 

308: The purpose of this paper is to continue the analysis (initiated in

309: \cite{sc}) of a string field-theoretic model relevant for the dynamics

310: of A-type \cite{Ooguri} graded {\em topological} D-branes of a

311: Calabi-Yau threefold compactification. In \cite{sc}, a sector of the

312: string field theory of such objects was described in terms of a

313: $\Z$-graded version of Chern-Simons field theory living on a special

314: Lagrangian cycle. The model captures the off-shell dynamics of

315: topological branes of arbitrary grades wrapped over the cycle. As

316: sketched in that paper, the classical moduli space of vacua of this

317: theory allows one to recover a piece of the extended boundary moduli

318: space, an object which plays a crucial role in the homological mirror

319: symmetry program \cite{Kontsevich}.  More precisely, points of the

320: extended moduli space can be described as {\em generalized D-brane

321:   composites}, obtained by condensing boundary condition changing

322: states between {\em graded} D-branes.  This suggest that one can

323: extract physical information about such points by studying the quantum

324: dynamics of the resulting theory.

325: 

326: Since the theory written down in \cite{sc} involves higher rank forms,

327: its quantization must deal with the issue of reducible gauge algebras.

328: Therefore, a correct analysis of this theory requires the full force

329: of the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism. The purpose of the present paper

330: is to carry out the classical part of this analysis, thus providing a

331: precise starting point for a study of quantum dynamics.  Applying such

332: methods, we will be able to recover the extended action already

333: written down in \cite{sc}, which plays the role of (classical) master

334: action for our theory. This enables us to show that the model

335: constructed in \cite{sc} is a consistent starting point for a

336: quantum-mechanical analysis. As an application, we give a detailed

337: discussion of graded D-brane pairs, thus obtaining a realization of

338: ideas proposed in \cite{Vafa_cs}, though in a somewhat different

339: context.

340: 

341: Our investigation reveals that there are six types of D-brane pairs

342: which are physically inequivalent in general.  

343: This confirms the $\Z_6$ periodicity

344: of the D-brane grade suggested in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} from

345: worldsheet considerations and contradicts the assumption that

346: `brane-antibrane' systems exhaust the nontrivial dynamics of

347: topological A-branes with the same geometric support.

348: 

349: The paper is organized as follows. We start in Section 2 by

350: recalling the construction of the classical string field action of

351: \cite{sc}. In section 3, we discuss the associated extended string

352: field theory, giving a detailed presentation of the structures

353: involved.  Though this section is somewhat technical, a clear

354: description of these structures is crucial for a correct understanding

355: of latter work.  The central objects are the so-called extended

356: boundary product and extended bilinear form introduced in \cite{sc},

357: whose construction we explain in detail.  In Section 4, we proceed to

358: show that the extended action discussed in Section 3 satisfies the

359: classical master equation with respect to the antibracket induced by a

360: certain odd symplectic form (which coincides with the extended

361: bilinear form up to sign factors and a shift of grading).  This

362: establishes the fact that the the extended action plays the role of

363: classical BV action for our systems. The proof, which is completely

364: general, makes use of the geometric version of the BV formalism, as

365: discussed, for example, in \cite{Kontsevich_Schwarz}.  Our approach is

366: in fact a certain modification of usual covariant framework, which

367: differs from the latter by incorporating the ghost grading. This

368: modified formalism, which is necessary for a correct description of BV

369: systems, involves the concept of {\em graded supermanifolds} which was

370: recently introduced in \cite{Voronov}. We therefore start with a

371: general exposition of the geometric $\Z$-graded formalism, which is of

372: independent interest for foundational studies of BV quantization.  We

373: then apply this framework to the extended string field theory of

374: Section 3. This allows us to give a complete construction of the

375: relevant BV system, and a very concise and general proof of the fact

376: that the extended action satisfies the classical master equation. We

377: also identify the classical gauge which leads to the unextended string

378: field theory.  After discussing the form of the BRST operator in this

379: gauge, we proceed with a discussion of the particular case of graded

380: D-brane pairs. Section 5 recalls the open string interpretation of the

381: various data discussed in Section 2, and gives their concrete

382:  description for such systems.  In Section 6, we consider

383: composite formation for D-brane pairs and the issue of acyclic

384: condensates. After discussing the worldsheet BRST cohomology and

385: explaining how it distinguishes between the various pairs, we explain

386: the interpretation of string field vacua as points of the extended

387: moduli space, and give an explicit construction of acyclic composites

388: for certain graded D-brane pairs whose relative grading equals one.

389: This gives a concrete realization of suggestions made in

390: \cite{Vafa_cs}.

391: 

392: While the geometric BV framework of Section 4 is extremely powerful

393: and general, it does not explain the origin of the various components

394: of the extended string field. To gain some insight into this issue, we

395: proceed in Section 7 with a direct construction of the BV action for

396: the case of graded pairs. We show that the more familiar

397: component approach leads to an action which can be viewed as the

398: expression of the extended action of Section 3 in a particular system

399: of linear coordinates, and show how the various ghosts and antifields

400: arise in standard manner by performing the BV-BRST resolution of our

401: (closed, but generally reducible) gauge algebras.  We also give a

402: discussion of the relation between pairs with arbitrarily high

403: relative grade.  Section 8 connects these results with the geometric

404: approach of Section 4, and in particular gives a very concise

405: formulation of the BV-BRST algorithm.  This synthetic description

406: should be useful for understanding the structure of the gauge algebra

407: of systems containing more than two graded branes.  We end in Section

408: 9 by presenting our conclusions and a few directions for further

409: research. 

410: 

411: 

412: \section{A string field theory for graded topological D-branes} 

413: 

414: This section describes the string field theory of a collection of

415: graded topological D-branes wrapping the same special Lagrangian cycle

416: of a Calabi-Yau threefold. This theory was written down in \cite{sc}

417: starting from a worldsheet analysis and using the framework developed

418: in \cite{com1, com3}.

419: 

420: \subsection{Graded D-branes}

421: 

422: We start by recalling some basic concepts introduced in

423: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} (see also \cite{Aspinwall} and \cite{sc}).

424: We are interested in so-called {\em graded topological D-branes} of

425: the A-model compactified on a Calabi-Yau threefold $X$.  Recall from

426: \cite{Witten_CS} that an {\em ungraded} topological D-brane can be

427: described as a pair $(L,E)$ where $L$ is a (connected) special

428: Lagrangian cycle of $X$ and $E$ is a flat vector bundle on

429: $L$\footnote{We remind the reader that this is a vector bundle endowed

430:   with a flat structure, i.e. the equivalence class of a family of

431:   local trivializations whose transition functions are constant.

432:   Specifying a flat structure amounts to giving a gauge-equivalence

433:   class of flat connections.}.  The generalization to {\em graded}

434: D-branes \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, sc} is obtained by replacing $L$

435: with a graded version \cite{Seidel}, which for practical purposes

436: amounts to fixing an integer $n$ (the brane's {\em grade}) and a

437: certain orientation of $L$ which depends on $n$. As discussed in

438: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall, sc}, the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge

439: in the boundary condition changing sectors between two graded D-branes

440: wrapping $L$ is then shifted by $\pm n$, while the boundary products

441: in various sectors contain extra signs. Moreover, the boundary metric

442: receives grade-dependent signs in boundary condition changing sectors,

443: due to the fact that the relevant orientation of $L$ depends on the

444: branes' grades.

445: 

446: 

447: 

448: \subsection{Graded Chern-Simons field theory as a string field 

449:   theory for graded D-branes}

450: 

451: 

452: As explained in detail in \cite{sc}, it is possible to describe

453: certain graded D-brane systems through a generalization of

454: Chern-Simons field theory. To be specific, we consider a collection of

455: graded topological A-type branes wrapping {\em the same} special

456: Lagrangian cycle $L$ in $X$.  The main assumption for what follows is

457: that no two D-branes of this collection have the same grade. This

458: allows one to label the branes by their grades, which form a finite or

459: infinite set of integers. If $a_n$ denotes the D-brane of grade $n$,

460: then we denote by $E_n$ its underlying bundle. This notation includes

461: the specification of a flat structure (flat connection) on each $E_n$.

462: 

463: With these hypotheses, it was shown in \cite{sc} that the string field

464: theory of the system is a graded version of Chern-Simons field theory,

465: which generalizes both the usual Chern-Simons description of

466: \cite{Witten_CS} and the supergroup Chern-Simons proposal of

467: \cite{Vafa_cs}.  This describes the dynamics of so-called `degree one

468: graded connections' \cite{Bismut_Lott} on the graded (super-)bundle

469: ${\bf E}=\oplus_{n}{E_n}$.  To define the theory, one must first

470: describe the so-called {\em total boundary space} ${\cal H}$ of

471: \cite{sc}, which consists of the off-shell states of open strings

472: stretching between our branes.

473: 

474: \subsubsection{The total boundary algebra}

475: 

476: We start by considering the algebra ${\cal E}$ of endomorphisms of

477: ${\bf E}$.  This admits a natural $\Z$-grading induced by the bundle

478: decomposition: \be

479: \label{dec}

480: End({\bf E})=\oplus_{k}{End_k({\bf E})}~~, \ee where: \be End_k({\bf

481:   E})=\oplus_{n-m=k}{Hom(E_m, E_n)}~~.  \ee If $f$ is a morphism from

482: $E_m$ to $E_n$, then its degree with respect to this grading is given

483: by: \be \Delta(f)=n-m~~.  \ee It is easy to see that the composition

484: of morphisms is homogeneous of degree zero with respect to this

485: grading: \be \Delta(f\circ g)=\Delta(f)+\Delta(g)~~.  \ee It follows

486: that ${\cal E}$ (with multiplication given by composition of

487: morphisms) forms a graded associative algebra with respect to the

488: grading induced by $\Delta$.

489: 

490: The next step is to consider the tensor product ${\cal

491:   H}=\Omega^*(L)\otimes {\cal E}$ between the exterior algebra of $L$

492: and the endomorphism algebra ${\cal E}$.  Since both algebras are

493: $\Z$-graded, ${\cal H}$ is endowed with gradings $rk$ and $\Delta$

494: induced from its components, as well as with the total grading

495: $|~.~|=rk +\Delta$.  On decomposable elements $u=\rho\otimes f$, these

496: are given by: \be rk u=rk

497: \rho~~,~~\Delta(u)=\Delta(f)~~,~~|u|=rk\rho+\Delta(f)~~.  \ee An

498: arbitrary element $u$ of ${\cal H}$ can be viewed as a matrix

499: $u=(u_{mn})$, where $u_{mn}\in \Omega^*(L)\otimes \Gamma(Hom(E_m,

500: E_n))$ is a bundle-valued form.  Then $\Delta(u_{mn})=n-m$ and

501: $|u_{mn}|=rk u_{mn}+n-m$~~. The space ${\cal H}$ is also endowed with

502: a canonical multiplication $\bullet$ (the `total boundary product' of

503: \cite{sc}), induced from the multiplicative structure of its tensor

504: components. On decomposable elements $u=\rho\otimes f$ and

505: $v=\eta\otimes g$, this is given by: \be

506: \label{dot}

507: u\bullet v=(-1)^{\Delta(f)rk \eta}(\rho\wedge \eta)\otimes (f\circ

508: g)~~.  \ee Up to the sign prefactor, the right hand side is simply the

509: usual wedge product of $End({\bf E})$ -valued forms, which includes

510: composition of bundle morphisms on the coefficients: \be u\wedge

511: v=(\rho\wedge \eta)\otimes (f\circ g)~~.  \ee This allows us to write

512: (\ref{dot}) in a slightly more familiar form: \be u\bullet

513: v=(-1)^{\Delta(u)rk v}u\wedge v~~. \ee

514: 

515: The boundary product is homogeneous of degree zero with respect to the

516: total grading: \be |u\bullet v|=|u|+|v|~~.  \ee Hence ${\cal H}$

517: becomes a graded associative algebra when endowed with the grading

518: $|~.~|$ and the product $\bullet$. This well-known construction of a

519: graded associative structure on the tensor product from similar

520: structures on components is usually denoted by: \be {\cal

521:   H}=\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes} {\cal E}~~, \ee where the hat above the

522: tensor product indicates that the multiplication and grading on the

523: resulting space are constructed in the canonical manner discussed

524: above.

525: 

526: 

527: A supplementary datum is provided by the existence of a natural

528: differential $d$ on the product algebra ${\cal H}$. This is the

529: exterior differential on $End({\bf E})$-valued forms, twisted with the

530: direct sum connection $A=\oplus_n{A_n}$. Flatness of $A_n$ assures

531: that $d^2=0$, and definition (\ref{dot}) implies that $d$ acts as a

532: graded derivation of the product $\bullet$ (with respect to the total

533: grading): \be d(u\bullet v)=(du)\bullet v+(-1)^{|u|}u\bullet (dv)~~.

534: \ee Moreover, one has: \be |du|=|u|+1~~.  \ee

535: 

536: 

537: The final element needed in the construction is a `trace' on ${\cal

538:   H}$.  This is induced by the natural traces on $\Omega^*(L)$ and

539: ${\cal E}$, which are defined as follows. For complex-valued forms

540: $\rho\in \Omega^*(L)$, we define: \be

541: Tr_\Omega(\rho)=\int_{L}{\rho}~~, \ee while for $End({\bf E})$-valued

542: morphisms $f$ we have the supertrace of \cite{Quillen}: \be

543: \label{str}

544: str(f)=\sum_{m}{(-1)^{m}tr_{m}(f_{mm})}~~, \ee where $tr_{m}$ is the

545: fiberwise trace in the bundle $End(E_m)$.  Note that $str(f)$ is a

546: complex-valued function defined on $L$.  When all components $E_n$ of

547: ${\bf E}$ have grades $n$ of the same parity (which in the language of

548: \cite{Quillen} amounts to taking the even or odd component of ${\bf

549:   E}$ to be the zero bundle), the supertrace (\ref{str}) reduces to

550: $\pm$ the ordinary fiberwise trace on the bundle $End({\bf E})$.

551:  

552: Both traces are graded-symmetric with respect to the natural degrees

553: on their spaces of definition: \be

554: \label{traces}

555: Tr_\Omega(\rho\wedge \eta)=(-1)^{rk\rho rk\eta}Tr_{\Omega}(\eta\wedge

556: \rho) ~~,~~ str(f\circ g)=(-1)^{\Delta(f)\Delta(g)}str(g\circ f)~~.

557: \ee Since $Tr_\Omega(u\wedge v)$ and $str(f\circ g)$ vanish unless $rk

558: \rho+rk \eta=3$ (remember that $L$ is a 3-cycle !), respectively

559: $\Delta(f)+\Delta(g)=0$, the graded symmetry properties are equivalent

560: with: \be Tr_\Omega(\rho\wedge \eta)=Tr_{\Omega}(\eta\wedge

561: \rho)~~{\rm~and~}~~ str(f\circ g)=(-1)^{\Delta(f)}str(g\circ f)~~.

562: \ee Using (\ref{traces}), we define a trace on ${\cal H}$ which on

563: decomposable elements $u=\rho\otimes f$ is given by: \be Tr_{\cal

564:   H}(u)=\int_{L}{str(f)\rho}~~.  \ee It is easy to check that this is

565: graded-symmetric: \be Tr_{\cal H}(u\bullet v)=(-1)^{|u||v|}Tr_{\cal

566:   H}(v\bullet u)~~.  \ee It immediately follows that the

567: (nondegenerate) bilinear form on ${\cal H}$, defined through: \be

568: \langle u , v \rangle:=Tr_{\cal H}(u\bullet v)=\int_{L}{str(u\bullet

569:   v)}~~, \ee is graded-symmetric as well: \be \langle u , v

570: \rangle=(-1)^{|u||v|}\langle v, u \rangle~~.  \ee It is clear that

571: $\langle u, v\rangle$ vanishes on bi-homogeneous elements unless both

572: of the conditions $rk u+rk v=3$ and $\Delta(u)+\Delta(v)=0$ are

573: satisfied.  It follows that non-vanishing of $\langle u, v\rangle$

574: requires $|u|+|v|=3$, for elements homogeneous with respect to the

575: total degree. Due to this selection rule, the graded symmetry property

576: is in fact equivalent with: \be \langle u , v \rangle=\langle v, u

577: \rangle~~.  \ee The last properties we shall need are invariance of

578: the bilinear form with respect to the total boundary product and

579: differential: \be \langle du, v\rangle+(-1)^{|u|}\langle u,

580: dv\rangle=0~~,~~ \langle u\bullet v, w\rangle=\langle u, v\bullet

581: w\rangle~~.  \ee These follows easily upon using the properties of the

582: differential and supertrace. We end by noting that the trace and

583: bilinear form can be expressed in more familiar language as follows:

584: \be Tr_{\cal H}(u)=\int_{L}{str(u)}~~,~~\langle u, v

585: \rangle=\int_{L}{(-1)^{\Delta(u)rk v} str(u\wedge v)}~~, \ee if one

586: extends the supertrace to bundle-valued forms through: \be

587: str(\rho\otimes f):=str(f)\rho~~.  \ee

588: 

589: 

590: 

591: \subsubsection{The string field action and its gauge algebra} 

592: 

593: The string field theory of \cite{sc} is described by the action: \be

594: \label{action}

595: S(\phi)=\int_{L}{str\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi\bullet d\phi+\frac{1}{3}

596:     \phi\bullet\phi\bullet\phi\right]}~~.  \ee This is defined on the

597: component ${\cal H}^1=\{\phi\in {\cal H}||\phi|=1\}$ of the total

598: boundary space. It can also be written in the form: \be

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

600: \phi,\phi\bullet \phi\rangle~~, \ee which is discussed, for example,

601: in \cite{com1}.  As explained in more detail below, the physical

602: interpretation of the defining data is as follows. $d$ plays the role

603: of a `total worldsheet BRST charge' on a certain collection of

604: (topological) open string sectors. The product $\bullet$ is a total

605: open string product for that collection and the bilinear form $\langle

606: .,.\rangle$ is a `total BPZ form' (total topological metric).

607: 

608: 

609: The action (\ref{action}) is invariant with respect to infinitesimal

610: gauge transformations of the form: \be

611: \label{gauge}

612: \phi\rightarrow

613: \phi+\delta_\alpha\phi=\phi-d\alpha-[\phi,\alpha]_\bullet~~, \ee where

614: $\delta_\alpha\phi=-d\alpha-[\phi,\alpha]_\bullet$, with $\alpha\in

615: {\cal H}^0=\oplus_{\tiny

616: \begin{array}{c}m,n\\m\geq n\end{array}}

617: \Gamma(Hom(E_m,E_n))\otimes\Omega^{m-n}(L)$ a charge zero element

618: $(|\alpha|=0$) of ${\cal H}$. In these relations, $[.,.]_\bullet$

619: denotes the graded commutator in the total boundary algebra, which on

620: arbitrary homogeneous elements is given by: \be

621: \label{comdot}

622: [u,v]_\bullet=u\bullet v -(-1)^{|u||v|}v\bullet u~~.  \ee It is easy

623: to check that: \be

624: \delta_\alpha\delta_\beta\phi-\delta_\beta\delta_\alpha\phi=\delta_{

625:   [\alpha,\beta]_\bullet}\phi~~, \ee so that the Lie algebra of

626: transformations of the form (\ref{gauge}) closes off-shell.  Note that

627: $[\alpha,\beta]_\bullet=\alpha\bullet\beta-\beta\bullet \alpha$ since $\alpha$

628: and $\beta$ have vanishing $U(1)$ charge.  In fact, relation

629: (\ref{comdot}) shows that our gauge transformations give a

630: representation of the (infinite-dimensional) Lie algebra ${\bf

631:   g}=({\cal H}^0, [.,.]_\bullet)$, which is a subalgebra of the graded

632: Lie algebra $({\cal H}, [.,.]_\bullet)$.  The gauge group ${\cal G}$

633: results by exponentiation of ${\bf g}$. This infinite-dimensional

634: group is rather exotic, since its generators are higher rank forms on

635: the cycle $L$. Note that we insist on considering {\em all} elements

636: of ${\cal H}^0$ as generators of this group, even though we start with

637: a particular background flat connection on $E=\oplus_{n}E_n$ which

638: happens to split as a direct sum $\oplus_{m}A_m$. Even for a direct

639: sum background, one {\em cannot} restrict to the `diagonal' subalgebra

640: $\oplus_{m} \Gamma(Hom(E_m,E_m))(L)$ of ${\bf g}$.  Inclusion of

641: non-diagonal generators is necessary for consistency of the string

642: field interpretation, since such a decomposition of the connection is

643: accidental, and one can deform away from direct sum backgrounds by

644: condensing boundary condition changing states \cite{sc}.

645: 

646: 

647: \subsection{The open string interpretation}

648: 

649: The precise interpretation of (\ref{action}) in terms of open A-type

650: strings arises upon applying the general formalism discussed in

651: \cite{com1, com3}. For this, one considers the decomposition: \be

652: \label{decomposition}

653: {\cal H}=\oplus_{m,n}{{\cal H}_{nm}}~~, \ee where ${\cal

654:   H}_{nm}=\Omega^*(L)\otimes \Gamma(Hom(E_m, E_n))$ and notices that

655: the product $\bullet$ and differential $d$ are compatible with it in

656: the sense that $\bullet$ vanishes on ${\cal H}_{kn'}\times {\cal

657:   H}_{nm}$ if $n\neq n'$ and takes ${\cal H}_{kn}\times {\cal H}_{nm}$

658: into ${\cal H}_{km}$, while $d$ takes ${\cal H}_{nm}$ into ${\cal

659:   H}_{nm}$.  This implies that the collection of spaces ${\cal

660:   H}_{nm}$ can be viewed as the morphism spaces of a differential

661: graded category built on the objects $a_n$ (which, due to our

662: assumption, are in bijection with the grades $n$ present in the

663: system).  The category interpretation results upon defining $Hom(a_m,

664: a_n):={\cal H}_{nm}$. One can further check that the bilinear form

665: $\langle . , .\rangle$ is compatible with the decomposition

666: (\ref{decomposition}), in the sense that it vanishes on ${\cal

667:   H}_{m'n'}\times {\cal H}_{nm}$ unless $n'=n$ and $m'=m$.  Then the

668: general discussion of \cite{com1} suggests that ${\cal H}_{nm}$ should

669: be interpreted as the (off-shell) state space of open topological

670: strings stretching from $a_m$ to $a_n$. This interpretation is indeed

671: valid, and can be recovered from the topological A-model as discussed

672: in \cite{sc}.

673: 

674: For example, the fact that the natural grading on ${\cal H}_{nm}$ is

675: given by $|~.~|$ implies that the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge of states

676: for the string stretching from $a_m$ to $a_n$ is given by: \be

677: \label{ghost_mn}

678: |u|=rk u+n-m~~, \ee which agrees with the observation of

679: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich} that the $U(1)$ charge is shifted in

680: boundary condition changing sectors connecting two graded topological

681: D-branes.  A direct construction of the string field theory

682: (\ref{action}) can be found in the paper \cite{sc}, which takes the

683: sigma model perspective as a starting point.

684: 

685: 

686: 

687: \section{The extended string field theory}

688: 

689: 

690: The theory (\ref{action}) can be extended in a manner reminiscent of

691: that discussed in \cite{Gaberdiel}. This extension was already written

692: down in \cite{sc}, which gave a very short discussion of its

693: structure.  Here we give a more complete exposition.

694: 

695: Since we start with an action based on a graded super-bundle, the

696: various objects involved in the extension procedure are somewhat

697: subtle and we shall give a careful discussion of their construction.

698: We warn the reader that a cursory reading of the present section may

699: lead to serious misunderstanding of our sign conventions.

700: 

701: 

702: \subsection{The extended boundary data}

703: 

704: In order to formulate the extended theory, we must define an {\em

705:   extended boundary algebra} $({\cal H}_e,d, *)$, a differential

706: graded associative algebra which extends 

707: $({\cal H},d,\bullet)$.  We

708: also need an {\em extended topological metric} $\langle .,.

709: \rangle_e$, a graded-symmetric nondegenerate bilinear form on ${\cal

710:   H}_e$ which extends the BPZ form $\langle .,.\rangle$. We shall

711: consider the three elements $*$, $d$ and $\langle . , . \rangle_e$ in

712: turn.

713: 

714: The extended boundary algebra $({\cal H}_e, *)$ is obtained (as in

715: \cite{Gaberdiel}) by considering a (complex) Grassmann algebra $G$ and

716: constructing the graded associative algebra ${\cal

717:   H}_e=\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes}{\cal E} {\hat \otimes}G$. The

718: extended boundary product $*$ will be the standard product on this

719: algebra, to be discussed below.  The Grassmann algebra $G$

720: \footnote{All of the constructions of this paper can in fact be

721:   carried out with an {\em arbitrary} commutative superalgebra $G$

722:   with unit.} (whose elements we denote by $\alpha, \beta \dots$)

723: comes endowed with the Grassmann degree $g$ and a multiplication which

724: we write as juxtaposition. We allow $G$ to have any number of odd

725: generators, which we denote by $\xi^\mu$. An element of $G$ has the

726: form: \be

727: \label{Ggens}

728: \alpha=\alpha_0+\sum_{k\geq 1}

729: \sum_{\mu_1<\dots<\mu_k}{\alpha_{\mu_1\dots

730:     \mu_k}\xi^{\mu_1}...\xi^{\mu_k}}~~, \ee where $\alpha_0$ and

731: $\alpha_{\mu_1..\mu_k}$ are complex numbers. We note the existence of

732: an evaluation map $ev_G$ from $G$ to $\C$, which projects out the odd

733: generators: \be

734: \label{evG}

735: ev_G(\alpha)=\alpha_0~~.  \ee

736: 

737: Since we shall tensor with $G$, we will encounter various

738: $\Z_2$-valued degrees, for which we use the following convention. We

739: let $\Z_2=\Z/2\Z=\{{\hat 0}, {\hat 1}\}$, where ${\hat 1}$ is the

740: unit. For an element $t\in \Z_2$, we define the power $(-1)^t$ by

741: picking any representative for $t$ in the covering space $\Z$; this is

742: clearly well-defined since $(-1)^2=+1$. If $n$ is an integer and $t$

743: is an element of $\Z_2$, then $nt\in \Z_2$ is the product of $t$ with

744: the mod 2 reduction of $n$.

745: 

746: Associativity of ${\hat {\otimes}}$ allows us to view ${\cal H}_e$ as

747: either of the tensor products ${\cal H}{\hat \otimes }G$ or

748: $\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes}{\hat {\cal E}}$, where ${\hat {\cal

749:     E}}:={\cal E}{\hat {\otimes}} G$. It will be useful to discuss the

750: multiplicative structure of ${\cal H}_e$ from both of these

751: perspectives.  For this, we first recall the multiplicative structure

752: on the factor ${\hat {\cal E}}$ of the second presentation.

753: 

754: \subsubsection{The algebra ${\hat {\cal E}}$ of Grassmann-valued sections of 

755:   $End({\bf E})$}

756: 

757: The space ${\hat {\cal E}}$ is the graded associative algebra of

758: Grassmann-valued sections of $End({\bf E})$.  If ${\hat f}=f\otimes

759: \alpha$ and ${\hat g}=g \otimes \beta$ are two decomposable elements

760: of ${\hat {\cal E}}$ (with $f,g$ elements of ${\cal E}$ and $\alpha,

761: \beta$ elements of $G$), then their canonical multiplication is given

762: by: \be

763: \label{hatfg}

764: {\hat f}{\hat g}= (-1)^{g(\alpha)\Delta(g)}(f\circ g)\otimes

765: (\alpha\beta)~~.  \ee

766: 

767: One can extend the composition of morphisms $\circ$ from ${\cal E}$ to

768: a naive multiplication on ${\hat {\cal E}}$ given by: \be

769: \label{hatfg_circ}

770: {\hat f}\circ {\hat g}=(f\circ g)\otimes (\alpha\beta)~~.  \ee In

771: terms of this naive product, the defining relation (\ref{hatfg})

772: becomes: \be {\hat f}{\hat g}=(-1)^{g({\hat f})\Delta({\hat g})}{\hat

773:   f}\circ {\hat g}~~, \ee where $g({\hat f})=g(\alpha)$ and

774: $\Delta({\hat g})=\Delta(g)$ are the degrees induced on ${\hat {\cal

775:     E}}$ by the $\Z_2$-grading of $G$ and the $\Z$-grading of ${\cal

776:   E}$. Note that $g({\hat f})$ is simply the Grassmannality of ${\hat

777:   f}$, while $\Delta({\hat g})=n-m$ if ${\hat g}$ is a morphism from

778: $E_m$ to $E_n$.

779: 

780: The algebra ${\hat {\cal E}}$ is endowed with the total $\Z_2$-valued

781: grading induced by the sum $\sigma=\Delta~(mod~2)~+g$ between the

782: mod~2 reduction of $\Delta$ and the Grassmann degree $g$ on $G$: \be

783: \sigma(f\otimes \alpha)=\Delta(f)~(mod~2)~+g(\alpha)~~.  \ee The

784: product (\ref{hatfg}) is homogeneous of degree zero with respect to

785: this grading: \be \sigma({\hat f}{\hat g})=\sigma({\hat

786:   f})+\sigma({\hat g})~~.  \ee

787:  

788: The supertrace $str$ on ${\cal E}$ extends to a functional $str_e$ on

789: ${\hat {\cal E}}$, which associates a {\em Grassmann-valued} function

790: $str_e({\hat f})$ (defined on $L$) to each Grassmann-valued section of

791: ${\hat f}$ of $End({\bf E})$. On decomposable elements ${\hat

792:   f}=f\otimes \alpha$, this `extended supertrace' is given by: \be

793: str_e(f\otimes \alpha):=str(f)\otimes \alpha~~.  \ee

794: 

795: It is easy to check that the extended supertrace has the property: \be

796: str_e({\hat f}{\hat g})=(-1)^{\sigma({\hat f})\sigma({\hat g})}

797: str_e({\hat g}{\hat f})~~.  \ee

798: 

799: \subsubsection{The multiplicative structure on ${\cal H}_e$}

800: 

801: A decomposable element ${\hat u}$ of ${\cal H}_e$ can be presented as:

802: \be \label{dec1} {\hat u}=\rho\otimes f\otimes \alpha=u\otimes

803: \alpha=\rho\otimes {\hat f}~~, \ee where $\rho$ is a (complex-valued)

804: form on $L$, $f$ is an endomorphism of ${\bf E}$ and $\alpha$ is an

805: element of the Grassmann algebra $G$.  In this relation, we defined

806: $u=\rho\otimes f$ (an element of ${\cal H}=\Omega^*(L)\otimes {\cal

807:   E}$) and ${\hat f}=f\otimes \alpha$ (an element of ${\hat {\cal E}}=

808: {\cal E}\otimes G$).  If ${\hat v}=\eta\otimes g\otimes \beta=v\otimes

809: \beta=\eta\otimes {\hat g}$ is another element of ${\cal H}_e$ (with

810: $v=\eta \otimes g$ and ${\hat g}=g\otimes \beta$), then the canonical

811: product $*$ in ${\cal H}_e$ is given by \footnote{It might be useful

812:   to show that the product $*$ is indeed associative.  Consider degree

813:   one Grassmann valued forms in ${\cal H}_e$: $\hat a*(\hat b*\hat

814:   c)=\hat a*(-1)^{(1-rk b )rkc+ g(b)\Delta(c)}\hat b \hat

815:   c=(-1)^{(1-rk b )rk c+ g(b)\Delta(c)+(1-rk a )(rk b+rk

816:     c)+g(a)(\Delta(b)+\Delta(c))} \hat a\hat b\hat c$ . On the other

817:   hand $(\hat a*\hat b)*\hat c=(-1)^{(1-rk a )rk b + g(a)\Delta

818:     b}(\hat a\hat b)*\hat c= (-1)^{(1-rk a)rk b+ g(a)\Delta(b)+(2-rk

819:     a-rk b)rk c+(g(a)+g(b))\Delta(c)}\hat a\hat b\hat c$.  Since the

820:   signs are the same in both cases the product $*$ satisfies

821:   associativity.  }: \bea

822: \label{star1}

823: {\hat u}*{\hat v}&=&(-1)^{g(\alpha)|v|}(u\bullet v)\otimes

824: (\alpha\beta)

825: \nonu\\

826: &=&(-1)^{(g(\alpha)+\Delta(f))rk \eta}(\rho\wedge \eta)\otimes

827: ({\hat f}{\hat g})\nonu\\

828: &=& (-1)^{g(\alpha)|v|+\Delta(f)rk \eta}(\rho \wedge \eta) \otimes

829: (f\circ g)\otimes (\alpha\beta)~~.  \eea The first two equations

830: correspond to viewing ${\cal H}_e$ as ${\cal H}{\hat \otimes }G$ and

831: $\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes}{\hat {\cal E}}$ respectively. The last

832: treats ${\cal H}_e$ as the triple tensor product $\Omega^*(L){\hat

833:   \otimes} {\cal E}{\hat \otimes }G$.

834: 

835: The extended boundary space is equipped with the total ($\Z_2$-valued)

836: degree $deg$ induced from its components: \be deg({\hat u})= (rk

837: \rho+\Delta(f))~(mod~2)~+g(\alpha)=|u|~(mod~2)~+g(\alpha)= rk

838: \rho~(mod~2)~+\sigma({\hat f})~~, \ee on elements ${\hat u}$ of the

839: form (\ref{dec1}).  The extended boundary product (\ref{star1}) is

840: homogeneous of degree zero with respect to this grading: \be deg

841: ({\hat u}*{\hat v})=deg ({\hat u})+deg ({\hat v})~~. \ee

842: 

843: 

844: \subsubsection{The trace and bilinear form on ${\cal H}_e$}

845: The extended boundary space is endowed with a trace $Tr_e$ which on

846: decomposable elements ${\hat u}=\rho\otimes f\otimes \alpha$ takes the

847: form: \be Tr_e({\hat u})=\int_{L}{\rho~str(f)~\alpha}=

848: \int_{L}{\rho~str_e({\hat f})}~~= Tr_{\cal H}(u)\otimes \alpha~~.  \ee

849: This associates an element of $G$ to every element of ${\cal H}_e$. It

850: is easy to check that the extended trace is graded-symmetric with

851: respect to the total degree: \be

852: \label{tre}

853: Tr_e({\hat u}*{\hat g})=(-1)^{deg {\hat u}~deg {\hat v}} Tr_e({\hat

854:   v}*{\hat u})~~.  \ee One can also write: \be Tr_e({\hat

855:   u})=\int_{L}{str_e({\hat u})}~~, \ee upon extending $str_e$ to

856: ${\cal H}_e$ through: \be str_e(\rho\otimes {\hat f})=\rho~str_e({\hat

857:   f})~~.  \ee

858: 

859: 

860: We next introduce a (nondegenerate) bilinear form on ${\cal H}_e$

861: through: \be \langle {\hat u}, {\hat v}\rangle_e:=Tr_e({\hat u}*{\hat

862:   v}) =\int_{L}{str_e({\hat u}*{\hat v})}~~.  \ee Property (\ref{tre})

863: assures graded-symmetry of this form with respect to the total degree

864: on the extended boundary space: \be \langle {\hat u}, {\hat

865:   v}\rangle_e=(-1)^{deg {\hat u}~deg {\hat v}} \langle {\hat v}, {\hat

866:   u}\rangle_e~~. \ee It is also easy to check invariance of the

867: extended bilinear form with respect to the extended boundary product:

868: \be \langle {\hat u}*{\hat v},{\hat w}\rangle_e=\langle {\hat u},

869: {\hat v}*{\hat w}\rangle_e~~.  \ee We finally note the worldsheet

870: charge selection rule: \be

871: \label{dc}

872: \langle {\hat u},{\hat v}\rangle_e=0~~{\rm~unless~}~|{\hat u}| +|{\hat

873:   v}|=3~~.  \ee Since the supertrace only couples the component

874: $u_{mn}$ to $v_{nm}$, one has in fact separate selection rules for the

875: gradings $\Delta$ and $rk$: \be

876: \label{selrules}

877: \langle {\hat u},{\hat v}\rangle_e=0~~{\rm~unless~}~rk{\hat u}

878: +rk{\hat v}=3~ {\rm~and~}~\Delta({\hat u})+\Delta({\hat v})=0~~, \ee

879: for bi-homogeneous elements $u$ and $v$.

880: 

881: 

882: \subsubsection{Expression of the extended product in terms 

883:   of the wedge product and `twisted wedge product' of Grassmann-valued

884:   forms with coefficients in $End({\bf E})$}

885: 

886: It is possible to express the extended boundary data discussed above

887: in somewhat more familiar language as follows.  Upon regarding ${\cal

888:   H}_e$ as the tensor product $\Omega^*(L){\hat \otimes}{\hat {\cal

889:     E}}$, one has the usual wedge product: \be

890: \label{wedge}

891: {\hat u}\wedge {\hat v}=(\rho\wedge \eta)\otimes ({\hat f}\circ{\hat

892:   g})~~, \ee which uses the composition (\ref{hatfg_circ}) of

893: Grassmann-valued bundle morphisms.  One can also define a `twisted

894: wedge product' by\footnote{The twisted wedge product $\bweft$ was used

895:   in \cite{sc}, where it was denoted simply by $\wedge$, since it is

896:   the natural extension of the wedge product of bundle-valued forms to

897:   the graded case. In the present paper, we reserve the notation

898:   $\wedge$ (later simply written as juxtaposition) for the usual wedge

899:   product built with the ordinary composition of morphisms.}: \be

900: \label{hatuv_wedge}

901: {\hat u}\bwe{\hat v}=(\rho\wedge \eta)\otimes ({\hat f}{\hat g})~~.

902: \ee The idea behind this definition is that, since ${\hat u}$ and

903: ${\hat v}$ are forms with Grassmann-valued coefficients in a {\em

904:   graded} bundle, it is natural to consider a `wedge product' which

905: includes multiplication with respect to the natural product

906: (\ref{hatfg}) on the coefficient algebra ${\hat {\cal E}}$.

907: 

908: It is easy to see that: \be {\hat u}\bwe{\hat v}=(-1)^{g({\hat

909:     u})\Delta({\hat v})}{\hat u}\wedge {\hat v} \ee

910: 

911: 

912: 

913: With these definitions, equation (\ref{star1}) gives: \be

914: \label{star}

915: {\hat u}*{\hat v}=(-1)^{(g({\hat u})+\Delta({\hat u}))rk {\hat v}}

916: {\hat u}\bwe {\hat v}=(-1)^{g({\hat u})|{\hat v}|+\Delta({\hat u})rk

917:   {\hat v}} {\hat u}\wedge {\hat v}~~, \ee where we extended the

918: grades $\Delta, g$ and $rk$ to ${\cal H}_e$ in the obvious manner: $

919: \Delta(\rho\otimes f\otimes \alpha):=\Delta(f)$, $g(\rho\otimes

920: f\otimes \alpha):=g(f)$, $rk(\rho\otimes f\otimes \alpha):=rk\rho$.

921: 

922: 

923: As in the previous section, the product (\ref{hatuv_wedge}) allows for

924: a formulation of the extended algebraic structure in perhaps more

925: familiar language. Upon viewing ${\cal H}_e$ as $\Omega^*(L)\otimes

926: {\hat {\cal E}}$, one can locally expand its elements in the form: \be

927: \label{gvf}

928: {\hat u}= \sum_{k=0}^3{dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...  \wedge

929:   dx^{\alpha_k}{\bf U}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x)} \ee where the

930: coefficients ${\bf U}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x)$ are Grassmann-valued

931: sections of $End({\bf E})$, i.e. elements of ${\hat {\cal E}}$.  Then

932: the twisted wedge product (\ref{hatuv_wedge}) reads: \be

933: \label{doo}

934: {\hat u}\bwe {\hat v}=\sum_{k,l=0}^3{ dx^{\alpha_1}\wedge ...  \wedge

935:   dx^{\alpha_k}\wedge dx^{\beta_1}\wedge ...  \wedge dx^{\beta_l}({\bf

936:     U}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x) {\bf

937:     V}^{(l)}_{\beta_1..\beta_l}(x))}~~, \ee {\em where the product

938:   ${\bf U}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1..\alpha_k}(x) {\bf

939:     V}^{(l)}_{\beta_1..\beta_l}(x)$ is defined as in (\ref{hatfg})}.

940: 

941: 

942: 

943: We finally note that one can also define a naive extension of the

944: product $\bullet$ of (\ref{dot}) to Grassmann-valued forms with

945: coefficients in $End({\bf E})$: \be \label{bullet_extended} {\hat

946:   u}\bullet {\hat v}=(u\bullet v)\otimes ({\hat f}{\hat

947:   g})=(-1)^{\Delta({\hat u}) rk {\hat v}}{\hat u}\bwe {\hat

948:   v}=(-1)^{\Delta({\hat u}) rk {\hat v}+g({\hat u})\Delta({\hat

949:     v})}{\hat u}\wedge {\hat v}~~, \ee where $({\hat f}{\hat g})$ is

950: again defined as in (\ref{hatfg}).  With this definition, one obtains:

951: \be {\hat u}*{\hat v}=(-1)^{g({\hat u})rk {\hat v}}{\hat u}\bullet

952: {\hat v}~~.  \ee

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: \subsubsection{The extended differential}

957: 

958: The differential on $\Omega^*(L, End(E))$ extends to ${\cal H}_e$ in

959: the obvious manner: \be

960: \label{de}

961: d{\hat u}=du\otimes \alpha~~, \ee on decomposable elements ${\hat u}=u

962: \otimes \alpha$.  The symbol $d$ in the second equality is the

963: differential on ${\cal H}$.  The differential (\ref{de}) is a graded

964: derivation of $*$, with respect to the total degree: \be d({\hat

965:   u}*{\hat v})=(d{\hat u})*{\hat v}+(-1)^{deg {\hat u}} {\hat

966:   u}*d{\hat v}~~.  \ee It is also easy easy to check that: \be \langle

967: d{\hat u},{\hat v}\rangle_e=-(-1)^{deg {\hat u}}\langle {\hat u},

968: d{\hat v} \rangle_e~~.  \ee

969: 

970: \subsection{The extended action and restricted odd symplectic form}

971: 

972: The data of the previous subsection allows one to write an extended

973: action on the subspace ${\cal H}_e^1=\{ {\hat \phi}\in {\cal H}_e |

974: deg {\hat \phi}={\hat 1}\}$ of ${\cal H}_e$: \be

975: \label{extended_action}

976: S_e({\hat \phi})= \int_L{ str_e\left[\frac{1}{2}{\hat \phi} *d{\hat

977:       \phi}+ \frac{1}{3}{\hat \phi}*{\hat \phi}*{\hat \phi}

978:   \right]}~~.  \ee This action was written down in \cite{sc} by

979: analogy with the general extension procedure discussed in

980: \cite{Gaberdiel, Zwiebach_open} \footnote{As the latter translates in

981:   our conventions and with certain modifications.}. It is one of the

982: purposes of this paper to show that $S_e$ plays the role of BV action

983: for the string field theory (\ref{action}).

984: 

985: 

986: On ${\cal H}_e^1$, the product (\ref{star}) agrees with the

987: multiplication $\bullet$ of (\ref{dot}) precisely when the worldsheet

988: $U(1)$ charge of the first factor is odd, in which case its Grassmann

989: degree is even (see equation (\ref{star1})).  If we extend the

990: evaluation map (\ref{evG}) to a map from ${\cal H}_e$ to ${\cal H}$

991: defined through: \be ev_G(u\otimes \alpha):=ev_G(\alpha)u=\alpha_0u~~,

992: \ee we find that: \be {\cal H}^1=ev_G(M_0)~~, \ee where $M_0$ is the

993: subspace of ${\cal H}_e^1$ given by: \be

994: \label{M0}

995: M_0=\{{\hat \phi}\in {\cal H}_e^1||{\hat \phi}|=1\}~~.  \ee This

996: implies that the restriction of $S_e$ to $M_0$ is related to the

997: unextended action of (\ref{action}) through: \be

998: \label{restriction} 

999: ev_G(S_e({\hat \phi}))=S(ev_G({\hat \phi}))~{\rm~for~}

1000: {\hat \phi}\in M_0~~.  \ee

1001: 

1002: \noindent For later reference, we note that the restriction: 

1003: \be

1004: \label{omega0}

1005: \omega_0:=\langle . , .\rangle_e|_{{\cal H}_e^1\times {\cal H}_e^1}

1006: \ee of the extended bilinear form to the subspace ${\cal H}_e^1$ is an

1007: {\em antisymmetric} nondegenerate bilinear form whose values are

1008: Grassmann-odd numbers. This follows from the properties of $\langle .

1009: , . \rangle_e$ discussed in the previous section.  Let us express

1010: $\omega_0$ in terms of the wedge products defined in (\ref{wedge}) and

1011: (\ref{hatuv_wedge}).  Upon using relation (\ref{star}) and the fact

1012: that $deg {\hat u} =deg {\hat v} ={\hat 1}$, one obtains: \be

1013: \label{omega0_rescaling}

1014: \omega_0({\hat u}, {\hat v})=(-1)^{(1-rk {\hat u})rk {\hat

1015:     v}}\int_{L}{ str_e({\hat u} \bwe {\hat v})}~~, \ee which in view

1016: of the selection rules (\ref{selrules}) also reads: \be

1017: \label{omega0_wedge}

1018: \omega_0({\hat u}, {\hat v})=(-1)^{rk {\hat v}} \int_{L}{str_e({\hat

1019:     u}\bwe {\hat v})}=(-1)^{rk {\hat v}+g({\hat u}) \Delta({\hat v})}

1020: \int_{L}{str_e({\hat u}\wedge {\hat v})}~~.  \ee Moreover, we notice

1021: that $\omega_0({\hat u}, {\hat v})$ vanishes unless $g({\hat

1022:   u})+g({\hat v})$ is odd (this follows from the constraints $deg

1023: {\hat u}=deg {\hat v}=odd$ and the selection rule (\ref{dc})); this

1024: establishes that $\omega_0$ takes Grassmann-odd values. These

1025: observations will be useful in Section 7.

1026: 

1027: \subsection{Superspace formulation of the extended action}

1028: 

1029: The extended action (\ref{extended_action}) can be formulated in

1030: superspace language as follows.  Consider the supermanifold ${\cal

1031:   U}:=\Pi TL$ obtained by applying parity reversal on the fibers of

1032: the tangent bundle of $L$. Superfunctions defined on ${\cal L}$ are

1033: (Grassmann-valued) superfields on $L$, with odd superspace coordinates

1034: $\theta^j$ associated with the tangent vectors

1035: $\partial_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}$ defined by a coordinate

1036: system $\{x^j\}_{j=1..3}$ on $L$.

1037: 

1038: Grassmann-valued forms with coefficients in $End({\bf E})$ can be put

1039: into correspondence with superfields valued in $End({\bf E})$ upon

1040: identifying ${\hat u}$ of equation (\ref{gvf}) with: \be

1041: \label{superfield}

1042: {\bf U}(x,\theta)=\sum_{k=0}^3{\theta^{\alpha_1}...\theta^{\alpha_k}

1043:   {\bf U}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k}(x)}~~.  \ee In order to

1044: translate the action (\ref{extended_action}) in superspace language,

1045: one must use the somewhat unusual convention that the components ${\bf

1046:   U}^{(k)}_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k}(x)\in {\hat {\cal E}}$ of superfields

1047: of the form (\ref{superfield}) are multiplied with the product

1048: (\ref{hatfg}) and that the sign obtained when commuting $\theta^j$

1049: with such a component \ is $(-1)^{\sigma({\bf U})}$.  With these

1050: conventions, one can check \cite{sc} that multiplication of

1051: superfields reproduces the product (\ref{star}) for the associated

1052: forms, which allows one to write the extended action as: \be

1053: \label{extended_action_superspace}

1054: S_e({\bf \Phi})= \int_L d^3x\int{d^3\theta str_e\left[\frac{1}{2}{\bf

1055:       \Phi} {\bf D}{\bf \Phi}+ \frac{1}{3}{\bf \Phi}{\bf \Phi}{\bf

1056:       \Phi} \right]}~~, \ee where ${\bf \Phi}$ is the superfield

1057: associated with ${\hat \phi}$ and ${\bf D}=\theta^j{\partial_j}$.  In

1058: this paper, we shall only use the differential form language of

1059: (\ref{extended_action}).

1060: 

1061: \subsection{The underlying superbundle and the physical role of $\Z$-grading}

1062: 

1063: It is clear from our construction that the extended boundary product

1064: $*$ (and thus the extended action (\ref{extended_action})) depend only

1065: on the mod two reduction of the relative D-brane grade $\Delta$. To

1066: formalize this, let us consider the reduction $E=E_{even}\oplus

1067: E_{odd}$ of the $\Z$-grading of ${\bf E}$, where: \bea

1068: E_{even}=\oplus_{n=even}{E_n}~~,~~E_{odd}=\oplus_{n=odd}{E_n}~~.  \eea

1069: This allows us to view ${\bf E}$ as a superbundle \cite{Quillen},

1070: while forgetting the finer data associated with the $\Z$-grading.  It

1071: is clear that the boundary product, extended boundary product and

1072: extended action depend only on this superbundle structure. In

1073: particular, one has only two classes of extended actions. The first

1074: corresponds to the case $E_{even}=0$ or $E_{odd}=0$ and can be

1075: recognized as the extended Chern-Simons action coupled to the bundle

1076: ${\bf E}=E_{odd}$ or ${\bf E}=E_{even}$.  The second corresponds to

1077: $E_{even}\neq 0$ and $E_{odd}\neq 0$ and can be viewed as an extended

1078: version of the `supergroup Chern-Simons action' \cite{supergroupCS}

1079: coupled to ${\bf E}=E_{odd}\oplus E_{even}$.  This agrees with ideas

1080: proposed in \cite{Vafa_cs}.

1081: 

1082: The D-brane grade plays the role of specifying the finer $\Z$-grading

1083: given by the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge.  It is this piece of data which

1084: defines the subspace $\{{\hat \phi}\in {\cal H}^1_e||{\hat \phi}|=1\}$

1085: on which the extended action (\ref{extended_action}) reduces to the

1086: unextended functional (\ref{action}). As we shall see in the next

1087: section, the extended theory can be viewed as a classical BV system,

1088: with $S_e$ playing the role of tree-level master action.  From the BV

1089: perspective, the choice of D-brane grading is what specifies both the

1090: BV ghost number and the so-called {\em classical gauge}. In

1091: particular, two theories which have the same underlying superbundle

1092: but distinct choices of $\Z$-grading have the same tree-level BV

1093: actions but correspond to different choices for these two pieces of

1094: data.  Since the ghost grading is physically relevant (in particular,

1095: as we recall at the end of Section 4.1.3, it specifies the algebra of

1096: classical on-shell gauge-invariant observables, given the other

1097: tree-level BV data), different choices of D-brane grading lead to {\em

1098:   different} physical theories, in spite of the fact that the

1099: difference may not be manifest in the BV action itself.  This is the

1100: crucial conceptual distinction between our approach and the proposals

1101: of \cite{Vafa_cs}.

1102: 

1103: 

1104: 

1105: \section{The extended action as a classical master action}

1106: 

1107: In this section we show that the extended action satisfies the

1108: classical master equation with respect to a BV bracket induced by an

1109: odd symplectic form associated to the extended bilinear form. We also

1110: show that $S_e$ reduces to the unextended action $S$ in a certain

1111: `classical gauge'.  These extremely general results are valid for an

1112: arbitrary collection of graded branes (of distinct grades) wrapping

1113: the cycle $L$, and hold for any topology of the cycle and background

1114: connection.

1115: 

1116: Our approach uses a certain variant of the geometric BV framework

1117: developed in \cite{Witten_antibracket, Henneaux_geom, Khudaverdian}

1118: and \cite{Kontsevich_Schwarz,Schwarz_geom, Schwarz_semiclassical,

1119:   Schwarz_symms, Schwarz_superanalogues}.  This formalism has the

1120: advantage that it is computationally compact and well-adapted to

1121: topologically-nontrivial situations. In fact, it turns out that the

1122: current version of the geometric BV formalism is incomplete, and we

1123: shall have to extend it in an appropriate manner. The problem is that

1124: the geometric description presented in the references just cited does

1125: not keep track of the BV ghost number. Indeed, the geometric formalism

1126: is usually discussed in terms of a P-manifold, i.e. a supermanifold

1127: endowed with an odd symplectic form. While this correctly considers

1128: the Grassmann parity of various BV fields, it fails to account for the

1129: ghost grading.  This $\Z$-grading on the space of superfunctions plays

1130: a crucial role in the bottom-up (or homological) approach to BV

1131: quantization \cite{FHST, FH, Stasheff_bv, Henneaux_lectures, Gomis}

1132: and in many questions of direct physical significance. For example, it

1133: is a central result of the BV formalism that the BRST cohomology in

1134: {\em ghost} degree zero computes the space of on-shell gauge-invariant

1135: observables of the system. Since the current geometric formulation

1136: does not consider the ghost grading, it does not allow for a

1137: description of this (and other) fundamental results.  In particular,

1138: two {\em distinct} BV systems can have the same supermanifold

1139: interpretation and the same BV action, so they cannot be distinguished

1140: by the current geometric approach. This can lead to confusion when

1141: applied to our models. To avoid such problems, one must refine the

1142: geometric formulation by explicitly including the ghost grading. This

1143: can be done with the help of $\Z$-{\em graded supermanifolds}, which

1144: were recently discussed in \cite{Voronov}. We start with a brief

1145: account of graded supermanifolds and continue by presenting a

1146: $\Z$-graded version of the geometric BV formalism. We then apply it to

1147: our theories in order to obtain a complete description of the

1148: associated BV systems.  Most of this section is formulated in an

1149: entirely general manner, and may be of independent interest for

1150: foundational studies of BV quantization.

1151: 

1152: \subsection{Covariant description of classical BV systems in the graded 

1153:   supermanifold approach}

1154: 

1155: \subsubsection{Supermanifold conventions}

1156:  

1157: We remind the reader that there are two major proposals for a rigorous

1158: definition of supermanifolds, the so-called Berezin-Konstant

1159: \cite{Berezin} and DeWitt-Rogers \cite{DeWitt, Rogers} theories.  The

1160: major difference between the two is that the definition of a

1161: DeWitt-Rogers supermanifold requires the choice of an auxiliary

1162: Grassmann algebra $G$, the `algebra of constants'. Berezin's approach

1163: is based on an `intrinsic' sheaf of superalgebras, which leads to a

1164: formulation in terms of ringed spaces (`superschemes'). In this

1165: theory, the manifold has only even points, while the odd coordinates

1166: appear as a form of `algebraic fuzz'. By contrast, the DeWitt-Rogers

1167: theory constructs supermanifolds which possess both even and odd

1168: points, thus leading to a geometrization of the odd directions; this

1169: geometric description of odd coordinates depends on the algebra of

1170: constants $G$.  It is a basic result that the set of $G$-valued points

1171: (defined in a manner similar to that employed in scheme theory) of a

1172: Berezin supermanifold defines a DeWitt-Rogers supermanifold

1173: \footnote{More precisely, it defines a so-called

1174:   $H^\infty$-supermanifold \cite{Rogers}.}  (though not every

1175: DeWitt-Rogers supermanifold can be obtained in this manner

1176: \cite{Rogers}).  Since the extended theory (\ref{extended_action})

1177: incorporates the auxiliary Grassmann algebra $G$, we shall employ the

1178: formalism due to DeWitt and Rogers.  Thus all of our supermanifolds

1179: are understood in the DeWitt-Rogers sense \footnote{The formalism we

1180:   use can in fact be applied to so-called $G^\infty$-supermanifolds,

1181:   which are a generalization of $H^\infty$-supermanifolds

1182:   \cite{Rogers}.}.

1183: 

1184: Given a (complex) DeWitt-Rogers supermanifold $M$ (modeled over the

1185: algebra of constants $G$), its tangent space at a point $p$ is a

1186: super-bimodule $T_pM$ over $G$ (see Appendix A), whose left and right

1187: module structures are compatible: \be \alpha

1188: X_p=(-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon(X_p)}X_p\alpha~~, \ee for $\alpha$

1189: an element of $G$ and $X_p$ an element of $T_pM$.  We make the

1190: convention that $\epsilon$ denotes the $\Z_2$-degree of an element in

1191: the space to which it belongs.  Thus $\epsilon_\alpha$ is the

1192: Grassmann parity of $\alpha$, while $\epsilon(X_p)$ is the parity of

1193: $X_p$ with respect to the $\Z_2$-grading on $T_pM$. The disjoint union

1194: of the tangent spaces gives the tangent bundle $TM$.

1195: 

1196: Globally defined $G$-valued functions on $M$ form a commutative

1197: $\Z_2$-graded ring ${\cal F}(M,G)$ with respect to pointwise

1198: multiplication, with: \be \epsilon_F={\hat 0}~{\rm~if~}F(p)\in

1199: G_0~{\rm~for~all~}p\in M~~,~~ \epsilon_F={\hat 1}~{\rm~if~}F(p)\in

1200: G_1~{\rm~for~all~}p\in M~~.  \ee This is also a left- and right-

1201: $\Z_2$-graded algebra over the ring of constants $G$.  Left and right

1202: derivations of this algebra give so-called left and right vector

1203: fields on $M$ (this is discussed in more detail in Appendix B).  The

1204: spaces of left/right vector fields are graded in the obvious manner,

1205: with even and odd derivations corresponding to even and odd vector

1206: fields.  It is customary to identify left and right derivations, and

1207: we shall do so in the following (see Appendix B for details of this

1208: construction). This allows us to speak simply about vector fields.

1209: With this convention, a vector field $X$ can act both to the left (as

1210: a left derivation) and to the right (as a right derivation), with the

1211: two actions related by applying the sign rule. We shall indicate the

1212: left and right actions by superscript arrows pointing respectively to

1213: the right and left. For every function $F$ we thus have: \be

1214: \label{done}

1215: F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}=

1216: (-1)^{\epsilon_F\epsilon_X}\stackrel{\rightarrow}{X}F:=dF(X)~~, \ee

1217: where $dF$ is by definition the differential of $F$. This is a

1218: complex-linear function defined on the space of vector fields, which

1219: is also $G$-linear in the obvious sense: \be

1220: \label{lr_linear}

1221: dF(X\alpha)=dF(X)\alpha~~,~~dF(\alpha~X)=(-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon_F}

1222: \alpha~dF(X)~~.  \ee It induces $G$-linear functionals $d_pF$ on each

1223: of the tangent spaces $T_pM$.

1224: 

1225: The space of vector fields is endowed with a Lie bracket, which in

1226: terms of the action on functions is given by: \be

1227: F\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{[X,Y]}:=-

1228: F(\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{Y}-

1229: (-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_Y}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{Y}

1230: \stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}) \Longleftrightarrow

1231: \stackrel{\longrightarrow}{[X,Y]}F=

1232: (\stackrel{\rightarrow}{X}\stackrel{\rightarrow}{Y}-

1233: (-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_Y}

1234: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{Y}\stackrel{\rightarrow}{X})F~~.  \ee This

1235: operation satisfies $\epsilon_{[X,Y]}=\epsilon_X+\epsilon_Y$ and is

1236: graded-symmetric and $G$-bilinear: \be

1237: \label{Lie}

1238: \left[X,Y\right]~~=-(-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_Y}\left[Y,X\right]~~,~~

1239: \left[\alpha X,Y\beta\right] =~~~ \alpha \left[X,Y\right]\beta~~.  \ee

1240: It also satisfies the graded Jacobi identity: \be

1241: [[X,Y],Z]+(-1)^{\epsilon_X(\epsilon_Y+\epsilon_Z)}[[Y,Z],X]+

1242: (-1)^{\epsilon_Z(\epsilon_X+\epsilon_Y)}[[Z,X],Y]=0~~.  \ee Endowed

1243: with this commutator, the space of vector fields becomes a

1244: $\Z_2$-graded Lie algebra (Lie superalgebra).

1245: 

1246: 

1247: The space of functionals $\eta(X)$ obeying $G$-linearity constraints

1248: of the type (\ref{lr_linear}) forms a $\Z_2$-graded $G$-bimodule in

1249: the obvious manner. This is the space $\Omega^1(M)$ of one-forms on

1250: $M$. One defines higher rank forms with the help of the wedge product:

1251: \be

1252: \label{fwedge}

1253: \rho\wedge \eta=\rho\otimes

1254: \eta-(-1)^{\epsilon_\rho\epsilon_\eta}\eta\otimes \rho~~, \ee which

1255: has the graded symmetry property: \be \rho\wedge

1256: \eta=(-1)^{\epsilon_\rho\epsilon_\eta+1}\eta\wedge \rho~~.  \ee Upon

1257: taking iterated wedge products one obtains forms of arbitrary ranks

1258: and (\ref{fwedge}) extends to such forms in the obvious fashion.  One

1259: also has an exterior differential, obtained by extending (\ref{done}).

1260: In particular, a two-form $\omega(X,Y)$ on $X$ is a $G$-valued

1261: complex-bilinear functional on vector fields which has the properties:

1262: \bea

1263: \label{forms}

1264: \epsilon_{\omega(X,Y)}~~~

1265: &=&~~~~~\epsilon_X+\epsilon_Y+\epsilon_\omega~~\nn\\

1266: \omega(\alpha X,Y\beta)&=&(-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\omega}\alpha

1267: \omega(X,Y)\beta~~\\

1268: \omega(X,Y)~~&=&(-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_Y+\epsilon_\omega}\omega(Y,X)~~.\nn

1269: \eea The quantity $\epsilon_\omega\in \{{\hat 0},{\hat 1}\}$ defines

1270: its parity: $\omega$ is even if $\epsilon_\omega={\hat 0}$ and odd if

1271: $\epsilon_\omega={\hat 1}$.  A two-form $\omega$ is called {\em

1272:   symplectic} if it is nondegenerate and closed $(d\omega=0$).

1273: 

1274: 

1275: Local coordinates give independent Grassmann-valued functions $z^a$

1276: defined on an open subset of $M$, whose parities we denote by

1277: $\epsilon_a:=\epsilon(z_a)$. Given such coordinates, one has

1278: locally-defined vector fields

1279: $\partial^l_a=(-1)^{\epsilon_a}\partial^r_a$ (of parity $\epsilon_a$),

1280: which are uniquely determined by: \be

1281: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{\partial^l_a}z^b=

1282: z^b\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial^r_a}=\delta^b_a~~.  \ee Their action

1283: on a function $F$ defines its left and right derivatives: \be

1284: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{\partial^l_a}F= \frac{\partial_lF}{\partial

1285:   z^a}=(-1)^{\epsilon_F\epsilon_a}dF(\partial^l_a)~~,~~

1286: F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial^r_a}=\frac{\partial_rF}{\partial z^a}=

1287: dF(\partial^r_a)~~.  \ee For the coordinate functions one obtains: \be

1288: dz^a(\partial^r_b)=(-1)^{\epsilon_a}dz^a(\partial^l_b)=\delta^a_b~~.

1289: \ee This allows us to write $dF$ in the form: \be

1290: \label{dF}

1291: dF=\frac{\partial_rF}{\partial

1292:   z^a}dz^a=dz^a\frac{\partial_lF}{\partial z^a}

1293: =(-1)^{\epsilon_a(\epsilon_F+1)} \frac{\partial_lF}{\partial

1294:   z^a}dz^a~~.  \ee Given a vector field $X$, one can expand it locally

1295: as: \be X=X^a_l\partial^l_a=\partial^r_aX^a_r~~, \ee which defines its

1296: left and right coefficients $X^a_l$ and $X^a_r$ (=locally defined

1297: Grassmann-valued functions).  Equation (\ref{dF}) then gives: \be

1298: dF(X)=\frac{\partial_rF}{\partial z^a}X^a_r=

1299: (-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_F}X^l_a\frac{\partial_lF}{\partial z^a}~~.

1300: \ee Let us next consider the local expression of an {\em odd}

1301: symplectic form $\omega$. If one defines its coefficients through: \be

1302: \label{omega_components}

1303: \omega_{ab}:=\omega(\partial^r_a, \partial^r_b)=

1304: (-1)^{\epsilon_a+\epsilon_b}\omega(\partial^l_a, \partial^l_b)

1305: =(-1)^{\epsilon_a}\omega(\partial^l_a, \partial^r_b)

1306: =(-1)^{\epsilon_b}\omega(\partial^r_a, \partial^l_b)~~, \ee then it is

1307: easy to check that: \be \omega=-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{ab}dz^b\wedge

1308: dz^a~~ \ee (note the reversed order in the wedge product). Its value

1309: on an arbitrary pair of vector fields then follows from the

1310: bi-linearity property listed in (\ref{forms}): \be

1311: \omega(X,Y)=(-1)^{(\epsilon_X+\epsilon_a)\epsilon_b}\omega_{ab}X^a_rY^b_r~~.

1312: \ee Definition (\ref{omega_components}) and relations (\ref{forms})

1313: imply the properties: \be

1314: \epsilon(\omega_{ab})=\epsilon_a+\epsilon_b+1~~,~~

1315: \omega_{ab}=-(-1)^{\epsilon_a\epsilon_b}\omega_{ba}~~.  \ee

1316: 

1317: \subsubsection{$\Z$-graded supermanifolds}

1318: 

1319: The collection ${\cal F}=({\cal F}(U,G))$ of $G$-valued functions

1320: defined on open subsets $U$ of $G$ forms a sheaf of superalgebras with

1321: respect to the $\Z_2$-grading given by $\epsilon$.  A {\em

1322:   $\Z$}-graded supermanifold \cite{Voronov} is a supermanifold endowed

1323: with a $\Z$-grading $s$ on this sheaf.  This $\Z$-grading is required

1324: to be compatible with pointwise multiplication $s(FG)=s(F)+s(G)$ and

1325: with restriction from an open set to its open subsets. We also require

1326: $s(\alpha F)=s(F\alpha)=s(F)$ for $\alpha\in G$.  The $\Z_2$-grading

1327: $\epsilon$ need not be the mod~2 reduction of $s$; in fact, this is

1328: almost never the case if one works with DeWitt-Rogers

1329: supermanifolds\footnote{The reason is that $\epsilon$ must satisfy

1330:   $\epsilon(F\alpha)=\epsilon_F+\epsilon_\alpha$, while $s$ satisfies

1331:   $s(F\alpha)=s(F)$. Hence $\epsilon =s~(mod~2)$ would require

1332:   $\epsilon_\alpha=0$ for all $\alpha\in G$, which is only possible if

1333:   $G$ has no odd generators.}.

1334: 

1335: A $\Z$-grading on ${\cal F}$ can be specified by giving an atlas

1336: $\{(U, z^a_U)\}$ of local coordinates and picking integer grades

1337: $s_a^U$ for $z^U_a$ such that the change of coordinates from $z^U_a$

1338: to $z^V_a$ (when $U$ intersects $V$) is compatible with these degrees.

1339: For simplicity, let us restricts the elements of ${\cal F}(U,G)$ to be

1340: functions which are polynomial in coordinates\footnote{One can also

1341:   consider formal power series, which gives a formal $\Z$-graded

1342:   supermanifold. If one wishes to extend this beyond formal power

1343:   series, one has to deal with issues of convergence, which we wish to

1344:   avoid.}.  Such a function has the form: \be

1345: \label{function}

1346: F(p)=\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{a_1..a_k}{\alpha_{a_1...a_k}

1347:   z^{a_1}_U(p)...z^{a_k}_U(p)}\Leftrightarrow

1348: F=\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{a_1..a_k}{\alpha_{a_1...a_k}

1349:   z^{a_1}_U...z^{a_k}_U}~~, \ee where $\alpha_{a_1..a_k}$ are elements

1350: of $G$ and the sum runs over monomials of degree smaller than some

1351: positive integer $N$.  We extend $s_a$ to a $\Z$-grading on ${\cal

1352:   F}(U,G)$ by declaring that

1353: $s(z^{a_1}...z^{a_k})=s_{a_1}+...+s_{a_k}$. A function

1354: (\ref{function}) is $s$-homogeneous of degree $\sigma$ if all of the

1355: monomials appearing in its expansion satisfy

1356: $s(z^{a_1}...z^{a_k})=\sigma$. It is clear that this grading is

1357: compatible with pointwise multiplication and restriction to open

1358: subsets of $U$, and satisfies $s(\alpha F)=s(F\alpha)=s(F)$.

1359: 

1360: If $V$ is another coordinate neighborhood in the distinguished atlas

1361: (such that $U$ intersects $V$), then on the intersection $U\cap V$ one

1362: can express $z^a_V$ as: \be z^a_V=z^a_V(z_U)~~, \ee where we assume

1363: that the transition functions are polynomial. The compatibility

1364: condition requires that $s_a$ coincide with the degree of the function

1365: $z^a_V(z_U)$, defined with respect to the coordinates $z^U$. This

1366: assures us that the degree of a function in ${\cal F}(U\cap V,G)$ does

1367: not depend on the coordinates in which it is computed, and thus we

1368: have a well-defined $\Z$-grading on the sheaf ${\cal F}$\footnote{To

1369:   globalize this argument one needs to assume the existence of an

1370:   appropriate partition of unity etc.}.

1371: 

1372: 

1373: Notice that the Grassmann coefficients $\alpha$ play no role the

1374: grading $s$, i.e.  one can formally write $s(\alpha_{a_1..a_k})=0$.

1375: As mentioned above, the Grassmann grading $\epsilon_F$ of a function

1376: $F$ need not coincide with the mod~2 reduction of its $\Z$-grading.

1377: For example, if $F=\alpha z^{a_1}...z^{a_k}$, then

1378: $\epsilon_F=\epsilon_\alpha+\epsilon_{a_1}+...+\epsilon_{a_k}$, but

1379: $s_F=s_{a_1}+..+s_{a_k}$, so that $s_F (mod~2)$ may differ from

1380: $\epsilon_F$ even if one chooses $s_a$ such that $s_a

1381: (mod~2)=\epsilon_a$. This mismatch between $\Z_2$-grading and

1382: $\Z$-grading is due to the presence of the Grassmann algebra of

1383: constants $G$, and thus is an inescapable feature of working with

1384: DeWitt-Rogers supermanifolds.  The $\Z$ and $\Z_2$-gradings $s$ and

1385: $\epsilon$ must be viewed as independent pieces of data.

1386: 

1387: The integer grading on Grassmann-valued functions allows us to

1388: introduce $\Z$-gradings on the spaces of vector fields and

1389: differential forms.  Since vector fields $X$ are complex-linear maps

1390: from ${\cal F}$ to itself, we shall say that $X$ is $s$-homogeneous of

1391: degree $\sigma$ if: \be

1392: \label{sX}

1393: s(F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X})=s(F)+s_X~~ \ee for some integer $s_X$

1394: which defines the $s$-degree of $X$.  It is clear that

1395: $s([X,Y])=s_X+s_Y$.

1396: 

1397: We shall say that a local coordinate system is {\em $s$-homogeneous}

1398: if the associated coordinate functions $z^a$ are $s$-homogeneous

1399: elements of ${\cal F}$. In this case, we denote $s(z^a)$ by $s_a$.

1400: Given an $s$-homogeneous coordinate system, it is clear that

1401: $s(F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial^r_a})=

1402: s(\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\partial^l_a}F) =s(F)-s_a$, which implies:

1403: \be s(\partial^r_a)=s(\partial^l_a)=-s_a~~.  \ee This allows us to

1404: introduce a $\Z$-grading on the tangent spaces $T_pM$ by using

1405: $X_p=(\partial^r_a)_pX^r_a(p)$ and the rule $s(X^r_a(p))=0$ (since

1406: $X^a_r(p)$ is a Grassmann constant, i.e.  an element of $G$).  It is

1407: clear that this grading is independent of the choice of

1408: $s$-homogeneous coordinates; it can be defined more invariantly by

1409: considering localization of vector fields.  This $\Z$-grading, as well

1410: as the $\Z$-grading (\ref{sX}) on vector fields, have no direct

1411: relation to the $\Z_2$-grading $\epsilon$.

1412: 

1413: If $\eta$ is a linear functional on vector fields, then we define its

1414: $s$-degree through: \be s(\eta(X))=s(X)+s_\eta~~.  \ee In

1415: $s$-homogeneous coordinates, the relation

1416: $dz^a(\partial^r_b)=\delta^a_b$ implies: \be s(dz^a)=s(z^a)=s_a~~.

1417: \ee Moreover, we obtain: \be

1418: s(dF)=s_F~~,{\rm~i.e.~~~}s(dF(X))=s_F+s_X~~, \ee and

1419: $s(\frac{\partial_lF}{\partial z^a})=s(\frac{\partial_rF}{\partial

1420:   z^a})= s_F-s_a$.

1421: 

1422: This grading extends to multilinear forms in the obvious manner.  For

1423: a two-form, we have: \be s(\omega(X,Y))=s(X)+s(Y)+s_\omega~~ \ee

1424: (notice that $\omega(X,Y)$ is an element of ${\cal F}(M,G)$).  In

1425: $s$-homogeneous local coordinates, this gives: \be

1426: s(\omega_{ab})=s_\omega -s_a-s_b~~, \ee where $\omega_{ab}$ is the

1427: function $z\rightarrow \omega_{ab}(z)$.

1428: 

1429: \subsubsection{Basics of the geometric framework}

1430: 

1431: We now give a brief outline of a $\Z$-graded version of the geometric

1432: BV formalism. This is a supergeometric version of the symplectic

1433: formalism of Hamiltonian mechanics, endowed with the supplementary

1434: data of an integer-valued grading (the ghost grading).  Its starting

1435: point is a {\em graded P-manifold}, i.e. a graded DeWitt-Rogers

1436: supermanifold $M$ (modeled\footnote{In our case $n$ will be infinite,

1437:   as always in field theory. We shall neglect the well-known problems

1438:   with infinite-dimensional supermanifolds (see, for example,

1439:   \cite{Schmitt}). In fact, we shall later apply this formalism to

1440:   linear supermanifolds only, for which the treatment can be made

1441:   rigorous in terms of Banach supermanifolds.  The condition `modeled

1442:   on $\R^{n,n}$' means that one has an equal number of even and odd

1443:   coordinates; in our application, this can be formulated in terms of

1444:   countable coordinate frames.} on $\R^{n,n}$), endowed with an {\em

1445:   odd} symplectic form $\omega$ which is $s$-homogeneous of degree

1446: $s_\omega=-1$

1447: 

1448: Given a P-manifold, the odd symplectic form allows one to define a

1449: (right) Hamiltonian vector field $Q_F$ associated with an arbitrary

1450: (Grassmann-valued) function $F$ on $M$: \be dF(X)=\omega(Q_F,X)~~.

1451: \ee This equation is sensible since both the left and right hand sides

1452: are linear with respect to the right $G$-module structure on vector

1453: fields; non-degeneracy of $\omega$ assures the existence of a unique

1454: solution.

1455: 

1456: It is clear from this definition that: \be Q_{\alpha

1457:   F}=(-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha}\alpha Q_F~~,~~Q_{F\alpha}=Q_F\alpha~~, \ee

1458: for any Grassmann constant $\alpha$.

1459: 

1460: Since the symplectic form satisfies $\epsilon_\omega={\hat 1}$ and

1461: $s_\omega=-1$, the vector field $Q_F$ has parity

1462: $\epsilon_{Q_F}=\epsilon_F+{\hat 1}$ and ghost number $s_{Q_F}=s_F+1$.

1463: In local coordinates $z^a$, one has the expansions

1464: $Q_F=Q^a_{F,l}\partial^l_a=\partial^r_aQ^a_{F,r}$, with the

1465: components: \be

1466: Q^a_{F,l}=(-1)^{\epsilon_F+\epsilon_a+1}\frac{\partial_lF}{\partial

1467:   z^b} \omega^{ba}~~,~~

1468: Q^a_{F,r}=(-1)^{\epsilon_a+1}\omega^{ab}\frac{\partial_rF}{\partial

1469:   z^b}~~, \ee where $\omega^{ab}$ is the inverse of the matrix

1470: $\omega_{ab}$: \be

1471: \omega^{ab}\omega_{bc}=\omega_{cb}\omega^{ba}=\delta^a_c~~.  \ee Note

1472: the properties: \be \epsilon(\omega_{ab})=\epsilon_a+\epsilon_b+1~~,

1473: ~~s(\omega^{ab})=s_a+s_b+1~~,~~

1474: \omega^{ab}=-(-1)^{(\epsilon_a+1)(\epsilon_b+1)}\omega_{ba}~~.  \ee

1475: 

1476: Given two functions $F,G$ on $M$\footnote{We sometimes use the symbol

1477:   $G$ to denote a Grassmann-valued function on $M$.  This should not

1478:   be confused with the underlying Grassmann algebra, which is denoted

1479:   by the same letter.}, we define their {\em odd Poisson bracket}

1480: (antibracket) through: \be

1481: \label{antibracket}

1482: \{F,G\}=-\omega(Q_F, Q_G)=-dF(Q_G)=(-1)^{(\epsilon_F+1)(\epsilon_G+1)}

1483: dG(Q_F)= \frac{\partial_rF}{\partial z^a}\omega^{ab}

1484: \frac{\partial_lG}{\partial z^b}~~.  \ee One has

1485: $\epsilon_{\{F,G\}}=\epsilon_F+\epsilon_G+1$ and

1486: $s(\{F,G\})=s_F+s_G+1$.  It is easy to check the properties: \bea

1487: \{FG,H\}=F\{G,H\}+(-1)^{\epsilon_F\epsilon_G}G\{F,H\}~~&,&~~

1488: \{F,GH\}=\{F,G\}H+(-1)^{\epsilon_G\epsilon_H}\{F,H\}G~~\nn\\

1489: \{\alpha F,G\beta\}=\alpha\{F,G\}\beta~~~&,&~~

1490: \{F,G\}=-(-1)^{(\epsilon_F+1)(\epsilon_G+1)}\{G,F\}~~.  \eea as well

1491: as the odd graded Jacobi identity: \be

1492: \{\{F,G\},H\}+(-1)^{(\epsilon_F+1)(\epsilon_G+\epsilon_H)}\{\{G,H\},F\}+

1493: (-1)^{(\epsilon_H+1)(\epsilon_F+\epsilon_G)}\{\{H,F\},G\}~~.  \ee

1494: 

1495: In particular, the space of $G$-valued functions on $M$ forms an odd

1496: Lie superalgebra \footnote{An odd Lie superalgebra \cite{Manin} is

1497:   simply the parity change of a Lie superalgebra.  This is obtained by

1498:   reversing the parity of all elements, while leaving the Lie bracket

1499:   unchanged. Together with pointwise multiplication of functions, the

1500:   antibracket endows the space ${\cal F}(M,G)$ with the structure of a

1501:   so-called {\em odd Poisson algebra} or {\em Gerstenhaber algebra}.}

1502: with respect to the antibracket. Equation (\ref{antibracket}) shows

1503: that: \be

1504: \label{act}

1505: F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{Q_G}=-\{F,G\}\Longleftrightarrow

1506: ~\stackrel{\rightarrow}{Q_G}F=-(-1)^{\epsilon_F(\epsilon_G+1)}\{F,G\}~~.

1507: \ee Together with the Jacobi identity, this implies: \be

1508: \label{morphism}

1509: Q_{\{F,G\}}=[Q_F,Q_G]~~.  \ee Thus the map $F\rightarrow Q_F$ acts as

1510: an `odd morphism' (the composition of a morphism of $\Z_2$-graded Lie

1511: algebras with parity change).  This translates the odd Lie

1512: superalgebra language appropriate for functions into the $\Z_2$-graded

1513: Lie algebra language relevant for vector fields.

1514: 

1515: In the context of BV quantization, the antibracket is interpreted as

1516: the BV bracket.  For any function $F$, one has\footnote{Note that

1517:   (\ref{antibracket}) implies $\omega(Q_F,Q_F)=-dF(Q_F)=0$ if $F$ is

1518:   odd.}: \be \{F,F\}=-\omega(Q_F, Q_F)=-dF(Q_F)~~,~~

1519: Q_{\{F,F\}}=[Q_F,Q_F]~~.  \ee Hence given an action (even function of

1520: ghost degree zero) $S_{BV}$ on our supermanifold, the classical master

1521: equation can be written in the equivalent forms: \be

1522: \label{master}

1523: \{S_{BV}, S_{BV}\}=0\Leftrightarrow QS_{BV}=0\Leftrightarrow

1524: \omega(Q,Q)=0\Leftrightarrow [Q,Q]=0\Leftrightarrow

1525: Q^2(F)=0~{~\rm~for~all~}F~~, \ee where we defined $Q:=Q_{S_{BV}}$. It

1526: is clear that $\epsilon(Q_F)={\hat 1}$ and $s(Q_F)=+1$.  In

1527: particular, a classical BV system defines a so-called {\em

1528:   QP-manifold} \cite{Kontsevich_Schwarz}, i.e. a P-manifold endowed

1529: with an odd nilpotent vector $Q$ field which preserves the odd

1530: symplectic form.

1531: 

1532: We remind the reader that an odd vector field $Q$ on a supermanifold

1533: is called {\em nilpotent} (or {\em homological}) if it satisfies

1534: $[Q,Q]=0\Leftrightarrow Q^2F=0{\rm~for~all~}F$. Given such a vector

1535: field, the space ${\cal F}(M,G)$ of globally defined Grassmann-valued

1536: functions (viewed as a complex vector space) becomes a complex with

1537: respect to the differential $Q$. If the underlying supermanifold is

1538: $\Z$-graded, and if $Q$ has $\Z$-degree equal to $+1$, then $({\cal

1539:   F}(M,G),Q)$ is a $\Z$-graded cochain complex. The main result of the

1540: bottom-up approach to BV quantization is that, for $Q=Q_{BV}$, the

1541: cohomology of this complex in integer degree zero computes the space

1542: of gauge-invariant functionals on the shell of the associated

1543: classical action (the relation between the BV action and the classical

1544: action is described in geometric terms in the next section). Since the

1545: space of such observables has direct physical meaning, it is clear

1546: that two BV systems which have different ghost gradings (but the same

1547: underlying manifold and odd symplectic form) must be considered as

1548: distinct. Otherwise, there would be no clear way of recovering the

1549: classical data from the geometric formalism -- in particular, one

1550: would reach the paradox that two classical systems with very different

1551: algebras of on-shell gauge-invariant observables are equivalent,

1552: provided that they differ `only' by the choice of ghost grading, a

1553: statement which is clearly incorrect.  This observation justifies the

1554: need for a $\Z$-graded geometric formalism, and is crucial for a

1555: correct understanding of graded D-brane systems. We believe that a

1556: correct geometric description of BV systems must systematically

1557: consider the ghost grading.  Below, we limit ourselves to

1558: re-formulating some basic results of the geometric framework (which

1559: will be needed in our application) in the graded manifold language.

1560: 

1561: \subsubsection{Gauges and BRST transformations}

1562: 

1563: In the geometric formalism, a {\em gauge} corresponds to the choice of

1564: a Lagrangian sub-supermanifold of $M$, i.e. a sub-supermanifold ${\cal

1565:   L}$ whose total dimension is half of the total dimension of $M$

1566: \footnote{If a supermanifold is modeled on $\R^{p|q}$, then its total

1567:   dimension is $p+q$.} and with the property that $\omega$ restricts

1568: to zero on ${\cal L}$.  To make contact with the bottom-up approach,

1569: one must also assume that ${\cal L}$ is $s$-{\em homogeneous}, i.e.

1570: its tangent bundle $T{\cal L}$ decomposes as a direct sum of

1571: $s$-homogeneous subbundles of $TM|_{\cal L}$: \be T{\cal

1572:   L}=\oplus_{s\geq 0}{TM|_{\cal L}(s)}~~, \ee where $TM|_{\cal L}(s)$

1573: is the subbundle of $TM|_{\cal L}$ consisting of elements of ghost

1574: degree equal to $s$ \footnote{It is easy to see that $TM=T_{+}M\oplus

1575:   T_{-}M$ (where $T_{\pm}M=\oplus_{\pm s\geq 0}{T(s)}$) gives a

1576:   Lagrangian decomposition of $TM$; this follows from the condition

1577:   $s_\omega=-1$. An $s$-homogeneous Lagrangian submanifold is an

1578:   integral submanifold for the Frobenius distribution $T_{+}M$.  This

1579:   distribution is clearly integrable, since $s([X,Y])=s(X)+s(Y)\geq 0$

1580:   for all vector fields $X,Y$ satisfying $s(X), s(Y)\geq 0$.}.

1581:  

1582: The path integral in this gauge is given by integrating

1583: $e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar }S_{BV}}|_{\cal L}=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar }S_{\cal

1584:     L}}$ along ${\cal L}$, where $S_{\cal L}:=S_{BV}|_{\cal L}$ is the

1585: restriction of $S_{BV}$ to ${\cal L}$. This is a global version of the

1586: usual description of gauges in terms of fields and antifields and

1587: gauge-fixing fermions. We shall follow common practice and omit the

1588: word `super' when talking about submanifolds of a supermanifold.  We

1589: remind the reader that an odd vector field on $M$ can be viewed as an

1590: odd section of $TM$ or an even section of the parity changed bundle

1591: $\Pi TM$. It is sometimes convenient to work with even sections only,

1592: in which case the parity of a vector field is made clear by the

1593: presence or absence of parity change on the underlying bundle. We

1594: shall sometimes use this convention in what follows. Therefore, a

1595: section of a bundle will always mean an even section unless explicitly

1596: stated otherwise.

1597: 

1598: 

1599: Let us recall from \cite{Kontsevich_Schwarz} how the BRST

1600: transformations of the gauge-fixed action are realized in the

1601: geometric formalism.  Choosing a gauge ${\cal L}$, one constructs a

1602: symmetry of $S_{\cal L}$ as follows.  Upon restricting $Q$ to ${\cal

1603:   L}$, one obtains a section of the bundle $\Pi TM|_{\cal L}$. In

1604: order to produce an (odd) vector field on ${\cal L}$, one considers

1605: the decomposition $TM|_{\cal L}=T{\cal L}\oplus N{\cal L}$, where: \be

1606: N{\cal L}=\oplus_{s<0}{TM|_{\cal L}(s)}~~.  \ee It is clear from the

1607: condition $s_\omega=-1$ that this is a Lagrangian splitting of the

1608: restricted tangent bundle $TM|_{\cal L}$, i.e. $\omega$ vanishes on

1609: $T{\cal L}\times T{\cal L}$ and $N{\cal L}\times N{\cal L}$ and is

1610: non-degenerate on $T{\cal L}\times N{\cal L}$ and on $N{\cal L}\times

1611: T{\cal L}$.  As explained in more detail below, this decomposition of

1612: $TM|_{\cal L}$ is related to the field-antifield split of the local

1613: formalism.

1614: 

1615: One has a similar decomposition $\Pi TM|_{\cal L}=\Pi T{\cal L}\oplus

1616: \Pi N{\cal L}$ of the parity changed bundle.  If $T, R$ are the

1617: associated projectors of $\Pi TM|_{\cal L}$ onto $\Pi T{\cal L}$ and

1618: $\Pi N{\cal L}$, then the relations: \be

1619: \label{qgen}

1620: q:=TQ|_{\cal L}~~,~~q^*:=RQ|_{\cal L} \ee define sections of $\Pi

1621: T{\cal L}$ and $\Pi N {\cal L}$ which give a decomposition of $Q$ on ${\cal

1622:   L}$: \be

1623: \label{Qdec}

1624: Q|_{\cal L}=q+q^*~~.  \ee It is clear that the operators $T$ and $R$

1625: are $s$-homogeneous of degree zero, so that the vector fields $q$ and

1626: $q^*$ are $s$-homogeneous of degree $+1$.  More generally, vectors

1627: $u\in TM|_{\cal L}$ decompose as $u={\bf u}+{\bf u}^*$, with ${\bf

1628:   u}\in T{\cal L}$ and ${\bf u}^*\in N{\cal L}$.  Upon using this in

1629: the defining relation for $Q$, one obtains: \be dS_{BV}(u)=\omega(u,

1630: Q)=\omega({\bf u}, q^*)+ \omega({\bf u}^*, q)~~.  \ee which combines

1631: with $dS_{BV}(u)=dS_{BV}({\bf u})+dS_{BV}({\bf u}^*)= dS_{\cal L}({\bf

1632:   u})+dS_{BV}({\bf u}^*)$ to give: \be

1633: \label{first}

1634: dS_{\cal L}({\bf u})=\omega({\bf u}, q^*)~~,~~ dS_{BV}({\bf

1635:   u}^*)=\omega({\bf u}^*, q)~~.  \ee The second equation shows that

1636: the first order term in the Taylor expansion of $S_{BV}$ in antifields

1637: is proportional with $q$. The first implies that the value of $q^*$ at

1638: a point $p$ in ${\cal L}$ vanishes precisely when $p$ is critical for

1639: $S_{\cal L}$.  Hence the critical set of $S_{\cal L}$ is the locus

1640: where $Q$ is tangent to ${\cal L}$.  Combining this with equation

1641: (\ref{Qdec}) and using the nilpotence of $Q$ shows that $q$ squares to

1642: zero `on the shell of $S_{\cal L}$': \be [q,

1643: q]=0~~{\rm~on~}~Crit(S_{\cal L})~~.  \ee

1644: 

1645: We finally note from (\ref{qgen}) and (\ref{master}) that $q$

1646: generates a symmetry of the gauge fixed action: \be

1647: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{q}S_{\cal L}=0~~.  \ee It is clear that $q$ is

1648: the BRST generator in the gauge $\cal L$.

1649: 

1650: 

1651: 

1652: \subsubsection{The coordinate description}

1653: 

1654: 

1655: We now sketch how the local description arises in the geometric

1656: formalism. Given a gauge ${\cal L}$, one can locally identify $M$ and

1657: the total space of the bundle $N{\cal L}$.  One chooses

1658: $s$-homogeneous coordinates $z^\alpha$ and $z^*_\alpha$ along ${\cal

1659:   L}$ and the fiber of $N{\cal L}$ such that $(z^*_\alpha, z^\alpha)$

1660: are Darboux coordinates for $\omega$, i.e. : \be

1661: \epsilon(z^*_\alpha)+\epsilon(z^\alpha)={\hat 1}~~{\rm~and~}~~

1662: \omega_{\alpha^*\beta}=-\omega_{\beta\alpha^*}=\delta_{\alpha,\beta}~~.

1663: \ee and such that $s(z^*_\alpha)+s(z^\alpha)=-1$\footnote{Note that

1664:   one need not assume $\epsilon(z^\alpha)=s(z^\alpha) (mod~2)$ and

1665:   $\epsilon(z^*_\alpha)=s(z^*_\alpha) (mod~2)$. In fact, this is

1666:   impossible to arrange if the classical action $S$ contains

1667:   Grassmann-odd variables.}.

1668: 

1669: 

1670: In this case, the odd symplectic form reduces to: \be

1671: \label{Darboux}

1672: \omega=dz^*_\alpha\wedge dz^\alpha~~.  \ee One can identify $z^\alpha$

1673: and $z^*_\alpha$ with the fields and antifields of the traditional

1674: formalism.  In such coordinates, the BV bracket has the familiar form:

1675: \be

1676: \label{Darboux_bracket}

1677: \{F,G\}= \frac{\partial_r F}{\partial z^\alpha} \frac{\partial_l

1678:   G}{\partial z^*_\alpha}- \frac{\partial_r F}{\partial z^*_\alpha}

1679: \frac{\partial_l G}{\partial z^\alpha} ~~, \ee and the Lagrangian

1680: manifold ${\cal L}$ is locally described by the equations

1681: $z^*_\alpha=0$.

1682: 

1683: 

1684: 

1685: \subsubsection{The geometric meaning of BV `quantization'}

1686: 

1687: The procedure of BV `quantization' translates as follows.  One starts

1688: with a so-called `classical gauge' ${\cal L}$, and with a {\em

1689:   classical action} $S_{\cal L}=S_{BV}|_{\cal L}$ defined on ${\cal

1690:   L}$.  This gauge is typically not convenient for the purpose of

1691: quantization, in that $S_{\cal L}$ is degenerate (has degenerate

1692: Hessian) on ${\cal L}$, which in field-theoretic applications leads to

1693: `infinite factors' in the path integral and the impossibility of

1694: defining propagators. A degenerate Hessian signals the existence of

1695: flat directions for $S$, which in conveniently chosen local

1696: coordinates $z=(z^a)$ means that $S$ depends only on a subset

1697: $x=(z^j)$ of $(z^a)$, which in practice is the subset of coordinates

1698: with ghost degree $s(z^j)=0$.  To avoid such problems, one picks

1699: another gauge ${\cal L}'$ such that the Hessian of $S_{\cal L'}$ is

1700: nondegenerate.  This allows for the definition of propagators in the

1701: new gauge, which provides a starting point for perturbative

1702: renormalization of the associated path integral.

1703: 

1704: The BV procedure can be seen as a systematic approach to performing

1705: the change of gauge from ${\cal L}$ to ${\cal L}'$. This is done by

1706: first extending the classical action $S_{\cal L}$ to the BV action

1707: $S_{BV}$, and then restricting the latter to ${\cal L}'$ to obtain a

1708: candidate for a meaningful definition of the path integral (this

1709: process can be described locally in the traditional language of

1710: gauge-fixing fermions).  In its most general form \cite{Schwarz_geom},

1711: the central result is that two gauges ${\cal L}_1$ and ${\cal L}_2$

1712: are physically equivalent provided that their bodies (even parts) are

1713: homologous in the body of $M$ and that the BV action satisfies the

1714: quantum generalization of the classical master equation. It is

1715: important to realize, however, that this statement need not be valid

1716: in more general situations.  There is no reason to expect that

1717: `topologically inequivalent' gauges ${\cal L}_1$ and ${\cal L}_2$ lead

1718: to equivalent path integrals.

1719: 

1720: 

1721: \subsubsection{The BV algorithm}

1722: 

1723: The full BV data is rarely known in practical applications. In a

1724: typical situation, one is only given the action $S:=S_{\cal L}$ in a

1725: classical gauge. Since the classical gauge is degenerate, one has no

1726: apriori knowledge of any of the data $M$, $\omega$ or $S_{BV}$. In

1727: this case, one recovers a BV system $(M,\omega, S_{BV}, {\cal L})$

1728: (such that $S_{BV}|_{\cal L}=S$) in the following constructive manner.

1729: First, one has to decide on a gauge algebra, i.e. an algebra of

1730: symmetries of $S$. It should be stressed that the choice of gauge

1731: algebra is not uniquely determined by $S$, since one can insist to

1732: choose a strict subalgebra of the maximal algebra of gauge symmetries

1733: of the classical action\footnote{We shall encounter this phenomenon in

1734:   Section 7, when discussing the BV action for D-brane pairs with

1735:   relative grading greater than one.}; this choice is dictated by the

1736: physical interpretation of the model.  Then one constructs a BV system

1737: through the following two-step procedure:

1738: 

1739: \ 

1740: 

1741: (1) Perform the BRST extension of $S(x)$, by applying the BRST

1742: procedure for the given gauge algebra (the precise choice of algebra

1743: influences the result of this step).  This enlarges the classical

1744: system from the set of classical fields $x$ to the set of BV fields

1745: $z^\alpha=(x, c_1, c_2,..)$, where $c_k$ are ghosts at generation $k$.

1746: It also produces a nilpotent odd vector field $q$ (the BRST generator)

1747: acting on the enlarged collection of fields.  The number of ghost

1748: generations is dictated by the degree of reducibility of the gauge

1749: algebra. After extracting the complete set of ghosts $c_k$, introduce

1750: antifields $z^*_\alpha=(x^*, c_1^*,c_2^*,..)$ for the classical fields

1751: and ghosts.  The BV fields and antifields $(z^\alpha, z^*_\alpha)$ are

1752: identified with Darboux coordinates of $M$.  This allows one to

1753: locally recover both the supermanifold $M$ and the odd symplectic form

1754: $\omega$ upon using relation (\ref{Darboux}). The Lagrangian

1755: submanifold ${\cal L}$ which defines the classical gauge is recovered

1756: through the equation $z^*_\alpha=0$. The fibers of the Lagrangian

1757: complement $N$ of $T{\cal L}$ are locally defined by the directions

1758: $z^\alpha=ct$.

1759: 

1760: Knowledge of the correct collection of BV fields and antifields allows

1761: one to enlarge the degenerate classical action $S(x)$ by adding the

1762: so-called first order action $S_1(z^*,z)=z^*_\alpha q^\alpha(z)$.  $S$

1763: and $S_1$ are the first two terms in the expansion of the BV action in

1764: antifields.

1765: 

1766: \ 

1767: 

1768: (2) The odd symplectic form $\omega$ recovered in the first step

1769: defines the BV bracket $\{.,.\}$. To recover the full BV action, one

1770: must solve the master equation $\{S_{BV}, S_{BV}\}=0$ with the ansatz

1771: $S_{BV}=\sum_{k\geq 0}{S_k}$, where $S_k$ is the $k^{th}$ order term

1772: in the Taylor expansion in antifields. The first two terms $S_0=S$ and

1773: $S_1$ are known from Step (1).

1774: 

1775: 

1776: \subsection{Realization of the geometric data and check of the master equation}

1777: 

1778: \subsubsection{The graded P-manifold}

1779: 

1780: \paragraph{The supermanifold}

1781: 

1782: Remember that the unextended total boundary space ${\cal H}$ is a

1783: $\Z$-graded vector space with respect to the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge

1784: $|~.~|$. The mod $2$ reduction of $|~.~|$ makes ${\cal H}$ into a

1785: vector superspace ($\Z_2$-graded vector space): \be {\cal H}={\cal

1786:   H}_{even}\oplus {\cal H}_{odd}~~, \ee where: \bea {\cal

1787:   H}_{even}&=&\{u\in {\cal H}||u|=even\}= \oplus_{k+n-m=even~}

1788: {\Omega^k(L)\otimes \Gamma(Hom(E_m,E_n))}~~,\nn\\

1789: {\cal H}_{odd}~&=&\{u\in {\cal H}||u|=odd~~\}=\oplus_{k+n-m=odd~~}

1790: {\Omega^k(L)\otimes \Gamma(Hom(E_m,E_n))}~~.  \eea

1791: 

1792: 

1793: To construct the supermanifold relevant for the geometric BV

1794: formalism, we consider a new $\Z$-grading $s$ on ${\cal H}$ which is

1795: related to $|~.~|$ by: \be s(u)=1-|u|~~.  \ee The vector space ${\cal

1796:   H}$ endowed with this grading will be denoted by ${\tilde {\cal

1797:     H}}$. The mod~2 reduction of $s$ makes ${\tilde {\cal H}}$ into a

1798: vector superspace: \be {\tilde {\cal H}}={\tilde {\cal

1799:     H}}_{even}\oplus {\tilde {\cal H}}_{odd}~~, \ee where ${\tilde

1800:   {\cal H}}_{even}={\cal H}_{odd}$ and ${\tilde {\cal H}}_{odd~}

1801: ={\cal H}_{even}$.

1802: 

1803: It is clear that the superspaces ${\cal H}$ and ${\tilde {\cal H}}$

1804: differ by parity change.  They define infinite-dimensional complex

1805: linear supermanifolds (in the sense of Berezin), which we denote by

1806: $L({\tilde {\cal H}})$ and $L({\cal H})$. Their $G$-valued points

1807: define DeWitt-Rogers supermanifolds: \be M:=L({\tilde {\cal

1808:     H}})(G)=({\tilde {\cal H}}\otimes G)^0= {\tilde {\cal

1809:     H}}_e^0={\cal H}_e^1~~,~~ P=L({\cal H})(G)=({\cal H}\otimes

1810: G)^0={\cal H}_e^0~~, \ee where we defined ${\tilde {\cal

1811:     H}}_e:={\tilde {\cal H}}\otimes G$.  In these equations, ${\cal

1812:   H}_e$ and ${\tilde {\cal H}}_e$ are viewed as vector superspaces,

1813: and we used the obvious relation: \be {\tilde {\cal H}}_e=\Pi {\cal

1814:   H}_e~~.  \ee

1815: 

1816: \paragraph{The graded manifold structure}

1817: 

1818: We will mainly be interested in the linear supermanifold $M$, on which

1819: we now introduce a structure of $\Z$-graded manifold.  For this,

1820: consider a homogeneous basis $e_a$ of ${\cal H}$, with

1821: $|e_a|:=|a|\Rightarrow s(e_a)=s_a:=1-|a|$.  Then every element ${\hat

1822:   \phi}$ of ${\cal H}^1_e$ has the expansion: \be {\hat

1823:   \phi}=\sum_{a}{e_a\otimes {\hat \phi}^a}~~, \ee with ${\hat

1824:   \phi}^a\in G$ and $g({\hat \phi}^a)=deg {\hat \phi}-|e_a| (mod~2)=

1825: 1-|e_a| (mod~2)=s_a (mod~2)$.  This allows us to define maps

1826: $z^a:{\cal H}_e\rightarrow G$ through $z^a({\hat \phi})={\hat

1827:   \phi}^a$, which have parities $\epsilon_a=g_a=s_a (mod~2)$ as

1828: $G$-valued functions.  They give (global) coordinates on the

1829: supermanifold $M$. Coordinates for $M$ obtained in this manner will be

1830: called {\em homogeneous linear coordinates}.

1831: 

1832: 

1833: The collection of homogeneous linear coordinates associated to all

1834: homogeneous bases $(e_a)$ of ${\cal H}$ forms a distinguished atlas

1835: for our supermanifold. Such coordinates are endowed not only with a

1836: $\Z_2$-degree $\epsilon_a=\epsilon(z^a)$, but also with a $\Z$-valued

1837: degree $s(z^a):=s_a=s(e_a)$, such that $\epsilon_a=s_a (mod~2)$. As

1838: explained in subsection 4.2., this can be used to define a

1839: $\Z$-grading $s$ on the sheaf ${\cal F}$ of $G$-valued functions, if

1840: one restricts the latter to consist of functions which are polynomial

1841: in coordinates. This grading on ${\cal F}$ will play the role of ghost

1842: grading in the BV formalism.

1843: 

1844: \paragraph{Vector fields as nonlinear operators}

1845: Since $M$ is a linear supermanifold, vector fields on $M$ can be

1846: viewed as maps of the form $X:{\hat \phi}\rightarrow ({\hat \phi},

1847: {\bf X}({\hat \phi}))\in M\times {\tilde {\cal H}}_e$, where ${\bf X}$

1848: is a (generally nonlinear) operator from $M$ to ${\tilde {\cal H}}_e$.

1849: Even ($\epsilon_X={\hat 0}$) and odd ($\epsilon_X={\hat 1}$) vector

1850: fields correspond to operators ${\bf X}$ from $M$ to ${\cal H}_e^1$

1851: and $M$ to ${\cal H}_e^0$ respectively.

1852: 

1853: In homogeneous linear coordinates $z^a$, the vector fields

1854: $\partial^r_a$ correspond to the constant operators ${\hat

1855:   \phi}\rightarrow e_a\otimes 1_G$. One has $s(\partial^r_a)=-s_a$ and

1856: $\epsilon(\partial^r_a)=\epsilon_a=s_a (mod~2)$.  For an arbitrary

1857: vector field $X=\partial^r_aX^a_r$, one has ${\bf X}({\hat

1858:   \phi})=e_a\otimes X^a_r({\hat \phi})$ (with $X^a_r({\hat \phi})\in

1859: G$). Since $z^a({\bf X}({\hat \phi}))=X^a_r({\hat \phi})$, the vector

1860: field $X$ can be recovered from the operator ${\bf X}$ through the

1861: relation: \be (z^a\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X})({\hat \phi})=X^a({\hat

1862:   \phi})= z^a({\bf X}({\hat \phi}))~~.  \ee Note that one can expand:

1863: \be {\bf X}({\hat \phi})={\bf X}_0+{\bf X}_1({\hat \phi})+ {\bf

1864:   X}_2({\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi})+{\bf X}_3({\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi},

1865: {\hat \phi})+...~~, \ee where ${\bf X}_k: ({\tilde {\cal H}}\otimes

1866: G)^{\otimes k}\rightarrow {\tilde {\cal H}}\otimes G$ are

1867: $G$-multilinear operators. It is not hard to check that the vector

1868: field $X$ is $s$-homogeneous of degree $\sigma$ if and only if ${\bf

1869:   X}_k$ are $s$-homogeneous of degree $-\sigma$, i.e.: \be s({\bf

1870:   X}_k({\hat \phi}_1, ..., {\hat \phi}_k))= s({\hat

1871:   \phi}_1)+...+s({\hat \phi}_k)-\sigma~~.  \ee

1872: 

1873: By localizing the description of vector fields to a point ${\hat

1874:   \phi}$ of $M$, one obtains the identification: \be T_{\hat

1875:   \phi}M={\tilde {\cal H}}\otimes G={\tilde {\cal H}}_e~~, \ee which

1876: holds both as an isomorphism of right G-supermodules and as an

1877: isomorphism of $\Z$-graded vector spaces (the $\Z$-grading on both

1878: sides being given by the ghost degree $s$).  It follows that the total

1879: space of the tangent bundle to $M$ can be identified with: \be

1880: \label{tb}

1881: TM=M\times {\tilde {\cal H}}_e~~.  \ee The left G-supermodule

1882: structure on $T_{\hat \phi}M$ is defined through\footnote{Note that

1883:   the exponent in (\ref{lrmod}) involves $\epsilon(X_{\hat \phi})= deg

1884:   X_{\hat \phi}+{\hat 1}$ and {\em not} $deg X_{\hat \phi}$.  This is

1885:   due to the presence of parity reversal in the isomorphism of

1886:   superspaces $T_{\hat \phi}M={\tilde {\cal H}}_e=\Pi{\cal H}_e$.}:

1887: \be

1888: \label{lrmod}

1889: \alpha X_{\hat \phi}= (-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon(X_{\hat

1890:     \phi})}X_{\hat \phi}\alpha~~, \ee where $\alpha\in G$ and

1891: $\epsilon_\alpha=g(\alpha)$.

1892: 

1893: 

1894: \paragraph{The odd symplectic form}

1895: 

1896: The extended bilinear form $\langle . , . \rangle_e$ on ${\cal H}_e$

1897: allows us to define the following two-form on $M$: \be

1898: \label{omega}

1899: \omega_{\hat \phi}(X_{\hat \phi}, Y_{\hat \phi}):=

1900: (-1)^{\epsilon(X_{\hat \phi})}\langle X_{\hat \phi}, Y_{\hat

1901:   \phi}\rangle_e~~, \ee where ${\hat \phi}$ is a point in $M$ and

1902: $X_{\hat \phi}, Y_{\hat \phi}\in T_{\hat \phi}M={\tilde {\cal

1903:     H}}\otimes G$ are tangent vectors to $M$ at ${\hat \phi}$.  It is

1904: easy to check that $\omega$ is an {\em odd symplectic form} on $M$,

1905: and that $s_\omega=-1$.  The last statement follows upon choosing a

1906: homogeneous basis $s_a$ of ${\cal H}$ and considering the coefficients

1907: of $\omega$ in this basis: \be \omega_{ab}=(-1)^{\epsilon_a}\langle

1908: e_a, e_b\rangle=ct~~, \ee where we used the identification

1909: $\partial^r_a=e_a\otimes 1_G$ and the fact that $\langle e_a\otimes

1910: 1_G, e_b\otimes 1_G\rangle_e= \langle e_a, e_b\rangle$. The selection

1911: rules (\ref{selrules}) allow us to restrict to the case

1912: $|e_a|+|e_b|=3\Leftrightarrow s_a+s_b=-1$. In this case, one has

1913: $s(\omega_{ab})=-s_a-s_b-1$, where we used the fact that $\omega_{ab}$

1914: is a constant and thus $s(\omega_{ab})=0$.  This implies that

1915: $s_\omega=-1$.  We conclude that $(M, \omega)$ is a (DeWitt-Rogers)

1916: graded P-manifold.  Note that the restriction of $\omega$ to the even

1917: component $TM^0\approx {\cal H}_e^1$ of the tangent bundle coincides

1918: with the form $\omega_0=\langle ., .\rangle_e|_{M\times M}$ of

1919: equation (\ref{omega0}).  In fact, $\omega$ is completely determined

1920: by this restriction and by the requirement that it must be an odd

1921: form. This observation will be useful in Section 7.

1922: 

1923: The extended action (\ref{extended_action}) is an (even) function

1924: defined on $M$. To check that its ghost degree equals zero, we first

1925: notice that the operator $d$ and extended boundary product $*$ satisfy

1926: $s(d{\hat \phi})=s({\hat \phi})-1$ and $s({\hat \phi}_1*{\hat \phi}_2)

1927: =s({\hat \phi}_1)+s({\hat \phi}_2)-1$. Since $d$ and $*$ are right

1928: $G$-linear and bilinear respectively, they define a nonlinear operator

1929: ${\bf W}({\hat \phi})=\frac{1}{2}d{\hat \phi}+ \frac{1}{3}{\hat

1930:   \phi}*{\hat \phi}$ which is $s$-homogeneous of degree $-1$.  This in

1931: turn defines a vector field $W$ of ghost degree $+1$ on $M$.  On the

1932: other hand, the identity operator ${\bf I}:{\hat \phi}\rightarrow

1933: {\hat \phi}$ defines a vector field $I$ of ghost degree zero.  It is

1934: then clear that $S_e$ can be written in the purely geometric form: \be

1935: S_e=\omega(I, W)~~, \ee which obviously has ghost degree zero (since

1936: $\omega$ has ghost degree $-1$).  We are now ready to apply the

1937: geometric formalism to the system $(M, S_e, \omega)$ in order to show

1938: that the extended action satisfies the classical master equation.

1939: 

1940: 

1941: \subsubsection{The odd vector field $Q$ }

1942: 

1943: As discussed above, the odd Hamiltonian vector field $Q:=Q_{S_e}$ can

1944: be viewed as a (non-linear) map ${\bf Q}$ from $M$ to $P$.  To obtain

1945: an explicit formula for ${\bf Q}$, we compute the variation of

1946: $S_e({\hat \phi})$ under an infinitesimal change of ${\hat \phi}$: \be

1947: \delta S_e({\hat \phi})=\langle d{\hat \phi}+\frac{1}{2}[{\hat

1948:   \phi},{\hat \phi}]_*, \delta {\hat \phi} \rangle_e= -\omega_{\hat

1949:   \phi}( d{\hat \phi}+\frac{1}{2}[{\hat \phi},{\hat \phi}]_*, \delta

1950: {\hat \phi})~~, \ee which means that the differential of $S_e$ has the

1951: form: \be dS_e(X)=\omega(Q, X)~~, \ee with: \be

1952: \label{bfQ}

1953: {\bf Q}({\hat \phi})=-(d{\hat \phi}+\frac{1}{2}[{\hat \phi},{\hat

1954:   \phi}]_*)~~.  \ee

1955: 

1956: \subsubsection{Check of the master equation}

1957: 

1958: Relation (\ref{bfQ}) implies: \be \omega(Q,Q)({\hat \phi})=

1959: \omega_{\hat \phi}({\bf Q}({\hat \phi}), {\bf Q}({\hat \phi}))

1960: =-\langle d{\hat \phi}, d{\hat \phi}\rangle_e- 2\langle d{\hat \phi},

1961: {\hat\phi}^{*2}\rangle_e- \langle {\hat \phi}^{*2}, {\hat

1962:   \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e~~, \ee where we use the notation $\phi^{*n}$ to

1963: indicate the $n^{th}$ power of $\phi$ computed with the product $*$.

1964: It is easy to check that all three terms vanish upon using the

1965: properties of $\omega$ and the condition $deg {\hat \phi}={\hat 1}$.

1966: Indeed: \be \langle d{\hat \phi}, d{\hat \phi}\rangle_e= \langle {\hat

1967:   \phi}, d^2{\hat \phi}\rangle_e=0~~, \ee \bea \langle d{\hat \phi},

1968: {\hat \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e= \langle{\hat \phi}, (d{\hat \phi})*{\hat

1969:   \phi}\rangle_e &-&\langle{\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi}*d{\hat

1970:   \phi}\rangle_e= -\langle d{\hat \phi})*{\hat \phi}, {\hat

1971:   \phi}\rangle_e

1972: -\langle {\hat \phi}^{*2}, d{\hat \phi}\rangle_e=~~~~~~\nn\\

1973: &=&-2\langle d{\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e\Longrightarrow

1974: \langle d{\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e=0~~, \eea and finally:

1975: \bea \langle{\hat \phi}^{*2}, {\hat \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e

1976: &=&\langle{\hat \phi}, {\hat \phi}^{*3}\rangle_e=- \langle{\hat

1977:   \phi}^{*3}, {\hat \phi}\rangle_e= -\langle{\hat \phi}^{*2}, {\hat

1978:   \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e~~ \Longrightarrow \langle{\hat \phi}^{*2}, {\hat

1979:   \phi}^{*2}\rangle_e=0~~.\nn \eea We conclude that $\omega({\bf Q},

1980: {\bf Q})=0$, which in view of equations (\ref{master}) implies that

1981: $S_e$ satisfies the classical master equation $\{S_e,S_e\}=0$, with

1982: respect to the BV bracket induced by $\omega$.

1983: 

1984: \subsubsection{The classical gauge}

1985: 

1986: Let us consider the decompositions: \bea

1987: M=\oplus_{s}{M_s}~~,~~P=\oplus_{s}{P_s}~~, \eea where $M_s={\tilde

1988:   {\cal H}}^s\otimes G_{s~(mod~2)}= {\cal H}^{1-s}\otimes

1989: G_{s~(mod~2)}$, $P_s={\tilde {\cal H}}^s\otimes G_{(1-s)~(mod~2)}=

1990: {\cal H}^{1-s}\otimes G_{(1-s)~(mod~2)}$ denote the the subspaces of

1991: $M$ and $P$ spanned by elements ${\hat \phi}$ of ghost number $s$.

1992: The space $M_0={\tilde {\cal H}}^0\otimes G_0= {\cal H}^1\otimes G_0$

1993: was considered in equation (\ref{M0}) of Section 3.2.  As mentioned

1994: there, the unextended string field $\phi$ can be related to the

1995: component ${\hat \phi}_0$ of ${\hat \phi}$ along this subspace: \be

1996: {\hat \phi}_0=\phi\otimes 1_G+{\hat \phi}_0^\mu\xi_\mu~~, \ee where

1997: $\xi^\mu$ are the odd generators of $G$ (see relation \ref{Ggens}).

1998: Since it is easy to include the evaluation map $ev_G$ in relations

1999: such as (\ref{restriction}), we shall denote ${\hat \phi}_0$ by $\phi$

2000: in order to simplify notation. This allows us to view the unextended

2001: string field as the component of ${\hat \phi}$ along $M_0$.

2002: 

2003: The selection rule (\ref{dc}) for the symplectic form implies that the

2004: subspaces: \bea

2005: \label{lagr_dec}

2006: {\cal L}&=&\{{\hat \phi}\in M|s({\hat \phi})\geq 0\}= \oplus_{s\geq

2007:   0}{M_s}

2008: ~~\nn\\

2009: {\cal N}&=&\{{\hat \phi}\in M|s({\hat \phi})<0\}=\oplus_{s<0}{M_s}

2010: \eea give a Lagrangian decomposition of $(M, \omega)$ (viewed as an

2011: odd symplectic vector space).  In particular, ${\cal L}$ is a

2012: Lagrangian submanifold of $M$, and we can identify $T{\cal L}={\cal

2013:   L}\times {\cal L}$ and $N{\cal L}={\cal L}\times {\cal N}$ (then

2014: $TM|_{\cal L}(s)={\cal L}\times M_s$).

2015: 

2016: 

2017: 

2018: The same selection rule shows that the restriction of $S_e$ to ${\cal

2019:   L}$ coincides with $S$ (up to application of $ev_G$). It follows

2020: that $S_e$ plays the role of BV action for the classical action $S$,

2021: while ${\cal L}$ describes the associated `classical gauge'. Since

2022: $S_e|_{\cal L}=S$ depends only on the component of ${\hat \phi}$ along

2023: $M_0$, the classical action $S_{\cal L}$ has degenerate Hessian on

2024: ${\cal L}$. Note that the classical gauge ${\cal L}$ is entirely

2025: determined by the ghost grading $s$.

2026: 

2027: 

2028: Following standard BV procedure, we define BV {\em fields}

2029: $\boldphi\in {\cal L}$ and {\em antifields} $\boldphi^*\in {\cal N}$

2030: as the components of ${\hat \phi}$ along ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal N}$.

2031: This gives the decomposition ${\hat \phi}=\boldphi+\boldphi^*$.  The

2032: component $\phi\in M_0$ of $\boldphi$ is the unextended string field,

2033: while the higher components $c_{s}\in M_{s}$ ($s\geq 1$) play the role

2034: of ghosts.  The highest component $\phi^*\in M_{-1}$ of $\boldphi^*$

2035: is the antifield of $\phi$, while the lower components $c^*_{s}\in

2036: M_{-1-s}$ $(s\geq 1$) are the antifields of $c_s$. Hence one has the

2037: decomposition: \be

2038: \label{fa_expansion}

2039: {\hat \phi}=... +c^*_2+ c^*_1+\phi^*+\phi+c_1+c_2+...~~, \ee which we

2040: also write in the form: \be {\hat \phi}=\oplus_{s}{\phi_s}~~, \ee

2041: where $\phi_0:=\phi$, $\phi_{-1}=\phi^*$, $\phi_s=c_s$ and

2042: $\phi_{-1-s}=c_s^*$ for $s\geq 1$. We have $\boldphi=\oplus_{s\geq

2043:   0}{\phi_s}$ and $\boldphi^*=\oplus_{s<0}{\phi_s}= \oplus_{s\geq

2044:   0}{\phi^*_s}$.  Note the relations: \be

2045: \phi_{-1-s}=\phi^*_s~{\rm~for~}s\geq 0~,~ rk \phi^*_s + rk

2046: \phi_s=3~,~\Delta(\phi^*_s)+\Delta(\phi_s)=0~,~ g(\phi^*_s) +

2047: g(\phi_s)={\hat 1}~~, \ee which are due to the selection rules for

2048: $\omega$.

2049: 

2050: 

2051: \subsubsection{BRST transformations in the classical gauge}

2052: 

2053: Applying parity change to the bundle decomposition $TM|_{\cal

2054:   L}=T{\cal L}\oplus T{\cal N}$ gives $\Pi TM|_{\cal L}=\Pi T{\cal

2055:   L}\oplus \Pi N{\cal L}$, with $\Pi T{\cal L}={\cal L}\times \Pi

2056: {\cal L}$ and $\Pi N{\cal L}={\cal L}\times \Pi {\cal N}$, with $\Pi

2057: {\cal L}$ and $\Pi {\cal N}$ given by the following complementary

2058: subspaces of ${\cal H}_e$: \be

2059: \label{pN}

2060: \Pi {\cal L}=\oplus_{s\geq 0}{P_s}~~,~~ \Pi {\cal

2061:   N}=\oplus_{s<0}{P_s}~~, \ee where used the obvious identity $\Pi

2062: M_s=P_s$.  Since ${\cal L}$ is a vector space and the bundle $\Pi

2063: T{\cal L}={\cal L}\times \Pi {\cal L}$ is trivial, the odd vector

2064: field $q$ of (\ref{qgen}) can be identified with an even nonlinear

2065: operator ${\bf q}$ from ${\cal L}$ to $\Pi {\cal L}$.  Relation

2066: (\ref{qgen}) then translates as: \be

2067: \label{BRST}

2068: {\bf q}(\boldphi)= T({\bf Q}(\boldphi))=

2069: -T\left(d\boldphi+\frac{1}{2}[\boldphi,\boldphi]_*\right)~~, \ee where

2070: $T$ is the projector of $P$ onto $\Pi {\cal L}$, taken parallel with

2071: the subspace $\Pi {\cal N}$ (the projector on parity changed BV

2072: fields).

2073: 

2074: \subsubsection{Expansion of $S_e$ in antifields}

2075: 

2076: We end this section by writing the extended action in a form which

2077: will be useful later. It is easy to check that: \be

2078: \label{Sexp}

2079: S_e({\hat \phi})=S(\phi)-\langle \boldphi^*, {\bf Q}

2080: (\boldphi)\rangle_e+\langle \boldphi,\boldphi^*~*\boldphi^*\rangle_e=

2081: S(\phi)-\langle \boldphi^*, {\bf q} (\boldphi)\rangle_e+\langle

2082: \boldphi,\boldphi^*~*\boldphi^*\rangle_e~~.  \ee This expression

2083: corresponds to the expansion of $S_e$ in antifields around the

2084: classical gauge ${\cal L}$.

2085: 

2086: \section{Graded D-brane pairs \label{sec:gradedpairs}}

2087: 

2088: \subsection{`Component' description of graded pairs} 

2089: 

2090: If one restricts to the case of graded D-brane pairs, our string field

2091: theory can be described as follows (figure 1).  Using the labels $a,b$

2092: to denote the associated graded branes, with underlying flat bundles

2093: $E_a$ and $E_b$ living on $L$, one can take the grade of $a$ to be

2094: zero without loss of generality.  If $n$ denotes the grade of $b$,

2095: then the relative grade $grade(b)-grade(a)$ is $n$. The theory has

2096: four boundary sectors, which we denote by $Hom(a,a)$, $Hom(b,b)$ (the

2097: diagonal sectors) and $Hom(a,b)$, $Hom(b,a)$ (the off-diagonal, or

2098: boundary condition changing sectors). They are the off-shell spaces of

2099: states for strings stretching from $a$ to $a$, $b$ to $b$, $a$ to $b$

2100: and $b$ to $a$ respectively. The localization arguments of

2101: \cite{Witten_CS}, combined with the shift of $U(1)$ charge discussed

2102: in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}, lead to the identifications: \bea

2103: \label{homs}

2104: Hom^k(a,a)=\Omega^k(End(E_a)) &,& Hom^k(b,b)=

2105: \Omega^k(End(E_b)) \nn\\

2106: Hom^k(a,b)=\Omega^{k-n}(Hom(E_a,E_b)) &,& Hom^k(b,a)=\Omega^{k+n}

2107: (Hom(E_b,E_a))~, \eea where $k$ is the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge. The

2108: relation between the charge $|~.~|$ and form rank is given by

2109: (\ref{ghost_mn}): \be |u_{AB}|=rk u_{AB}+grade(B)-grade(A)~~{\rm~for~}

2110: u_{AB}\in Hom(A, B)~, \ee for all $A,B\in \{a,b\}$.  In equations

2111: (\ref{homs}), we let $k$ take any integer value and define the space

2112: of forms of negative ranks (or ranks greater than three) on $L$ to be

2113: zero. Thus non-vanishing states in the sectors $Hom(a,b)$ and

2114: $Hom(b,a)$ have charges $k=n,n+1,n+2$ or $n+3$ and

2115: $k=-n,-n+1,-n+2,-n+3$ respectively.  It follows that the total

2116: boundary space ${\cal H}=Hom(a,a)\oplus Hom(b, a)\oplus Hom(a,b)\oplus

2117: Hom(b,b)$ has non-vanishing components of charges $k=\{-n,\dots

2118: ,\,-n+3\} \cup \{n,\dots ,\, n+3\}\cup \{0,\dots,\,3\}$.

2119: 

2120: \hskip 1.0 in

2121: \begin{center} 

2122:   \scalebox{0.6}{\input{pair.pstex_t}}

2123: \end{center}

2124: \begin{center} 

2125:   Figure 1. {\footnotesize Boundary sectors for a pair of graded

2126:     D-branes wrapping the same special Lagrangian cycle. The two

2127:     D-branes $a$ and $b$ are thickened out for clarity, though their

2128:     (classical) thickness is zero.}

2129: \end{center}

2130: 

2131: 

2132: The various boundary sectors carry BRST operators $d_{aa}, d_{ab},

2133: d_{ba}$ and $d_{bb}$ given by the covariant differentials twisted with

2134: the flat connections $A_a$ and $A_b$.  One also has a modification of

2135: the boundary product: \be

2136: \label{cdot}

2137: u_{BC}\bullet u_{AB}=(-1)^{[grade(B)-grade(C)]\,rk u_{AB}}

2138: \,u_{BC}\wedge u_{AB}~~, \ee for all $A,B,C\in \{a,b\}$.

2139: 

2140: Upon using this data, one can write the explicit form of the string

2141: field action (\ref{action}) for such a system. In this case, the

2142: graded bundle is ${\bf E}=E_a\oplus E_b$, and the string field $\phi$

2143: is a (worldsheet charge one) element of the total boundary space

2144: ${\cal H}=\Omega^*(L)\otimes \Gamma(End({\bf E}))$.  It can be

2145: represented as a matrix of bundle-valued forms: \be

2146: \phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc} \phi^{(1)}_{aa}~~~&~~~\phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}\\

2147:     \phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}&\phi^{(1)}_{bb}\end{array}\right]~~,

2148: \label{eq:morphisms}

2149: \ee with: \bea \phi^{(1)}_{aa}\in

2150: Hom^1(a,a)=\Omega^1(End(E_a))&,&\phi^{(1)}_{bb}\in Hom^1(b,b)=

2151: \Omega^1(End(E_b))\nn\\

2152: \phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}\in Hom^1(a,b)=\Omega^{1-n}(Hom(E_a,E_b)) &,&

2153: \phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}\in Hom^1(b,a)=\Omega^{1+n}(Hom(E_b,E_a))\nn~,~~~~~

2154: \eea where the superscripts in round brackets indicate form rank.

2155: 

2156: Given two states $u,v\in {\cal H}$, represented by the matrices

2157: $u=\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_{aa}&u_{ba}\\

2158:     u_{ab} & u_{bb}\end{array}\right]$ and

2159: $v=\left[\begin{array}{cc} v_{aa}&v_{ba}\\

2160:     v_{ab} & v_{bb}\end{array}\right]$, their boundary product

2161: (\ref{dot}) is given by: \be u\bullet v:=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}

2162:     u_{aa}\bullet v_{aa}+u_{ba}\bullet v_{ab}

2163:     &{~}& u_{aa}\bullet v_{ba} +u_{ba}\bullet v_{bb}\\

2164:     u_{ab}\bullet v_{aa}+ u_{bb}\bullet v_{ab} &{~}& u_{bb}\bullet

2165:     v_{bb} + u_{ab}\bullet v_{ba}

2166: \end{array}\right]~~.

2167: \label{cdot'}

2168: \ee We also have the fiberwise supertrace on $End({\bf E})$: \be

2169: str\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_{aa}&u_{ba}\\

2170:     u_{ab} &

2171:     u_{bb}\end{array}\right]=tr_{a}(u_{aa})+(-1)^ntr_{b}(u_{bb})~~,

2172: \ee and the total worldsheet BRST operator: \be

2173: d\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_{aa}&u_{ba}\\

2174:     u_{ab} & u_{bb}\end{array}\right]=

2175: \left[\begin{array}{cc} d_{aa}u_{aa}&d_{ba}u_{ba}\\

2176:     d_{ab}u_{ab} & d_{bb}u_{bb}\end{array}\right]~~, \ee as well as

2177: the boundary bilinear form: \be \langle u, v

2178: \rangle=\int_{L}{str(u\bullet v)}=\int_{L}{\left[~tr_a(u_{aa}\bullet

2179:     v_{aa}+ u_{ba}\bullet v_{ab})+(-1)^n tr_b(u_{ab}\bullet

2180:     v_{ba}+u_{bb}\bullet v_{bb})~\right]}~~, \ee where $tr_a$ and

2181: $tr_b$ denote the fiberwise trace on the bundles $End(E_a)$ and

2182: $End(E_b)$.

2183: 

2184: With these notations, the string field action (\ref{action}) expands

2185: as: \bea

2186: \label{action_pair}

2187: S(\phi)&=&\int_{L}{str\left[\,{1\ov 2}\phi \bullet d

2188:     \phi +\frac{1}{3}\phi\bullet \phi\bullet \phi \right]} \\

2189: =&\frac{1}{2}&\int_{L}{\left[tr_a(\phi_{aa}\bullet d\phi_{aa}+

2190:     \phi_{ba}\bullet d\phi_{ab})+

2191:     (-1)^n~tr_b(\phi_{bb}\bullet d\phi_{bb}+\phi_{ab}\bullet d\phi_{ba})\right]}+\nn\\

2192: &\frac{1}{3}&\int_{L}{\left[tr_a(\phi_{aa}\bullet \phi_{aa}\bullet

2193:     \phi_{aa}+ \phi_{aa}\bullet \phi_{ba}\bullet

2194:     \phi_{ab}+\phi_{ba}\bullet \phi_{bb}\bullet \phi_{ab}

2195:     +\phi_{ba}\bullet \phi_{ab}\bullet \phi_{aa})\right]}+\nn\\

2196: &\frac{1}{3}&\int_{L}{(-1)^n\left[tr_b(\phi_{bb}\bullet

2197:     \phi_{bb}\bullet \phi_{bb}+ \phi_{bb}\bullet \phi_{ab}\bullet

2198:     \phi_{ba}+\phi_{ab}\bullet \phi_{aa}\bullet \phi_{ba}

2199:     +\phi_{ab}\bullet \phi_{ba}\bullet \phi_{bb})\right]} ~~.\nonumber

2200: \eea Since the rank of a form on the three-cycle $L$ lies between $0$

2201: and $3$, one can distinguish the cases $n=-2,-1,0,1,2$ as well as the

2202: `diagonal' case $|n|\geq 3$.

2203: %In the last situation, the boundary condition changing sectors

2204: %reduce to the null vector space, so one has two independent topological 

2205: %D-branes (no nonzero boundary condition changing states). 

2206: Notice that one can easily translate from negative to positive $n$ by

2207: reversing the roles of $a$ and $b$, so we can further restrict to

2208: $n=0,1$ or $2$.  The case $n=0$ gives the usual Chern-Simons theory on

2209: the direct sum bundle $E_a\oplus E_b$. The case $n\geq 3$ gives a

2210: graded sum of two Chern-Simons theories.  Hence the interesting cases

2211: are $n=1$ and $n=2$.

2212: 

2213: \subsection{Comparison of worldsheet BRST cohomologies}

2214: 

2215: Let us compare the physical (charge one) worldsheet BRST cohomology

2216: for the cases $n=0,1,2$. The cohomology of the BRST operator $d$ has

2217: the direct sum decomposition: \be H^1_d({\cal H})=H^1(End(E_a))\oplus

2218: H^1(End(E_b))\oplus H^{1+n}(Hom(E_b,E_a)) \oplus

2219: H^{1-n}(Hom(E_a,E_b))~~.  \ee Hence it suffices to compare the

2220: `off-diagonal components' $H^1_{od}=H^{1+n}(Hom(E_b,E_a))\oplus

2221: H^{1-n}(Hom(E_a,E_b))$.  Since $H^{1+n}(Hom(E_b,E_a))\approx

2222: H^{2-n}(Hom(E_a, E_b))$ by Poincar\'e duality, one obtains:

2223: 

2224: \ 

2225: 

2226: (1) ($n=0$) $H^1_{od}\approx H^1(Hom(E_a,E_b))\oplus

2227: H^2(Hom(E_a,E_b))$.

2228: 

2229: (2) ($n=1$) $H^1_{od}\approx H^0(Hom(E_a,E_b))\oplus

2230: H^1(Hom(E_a,E_b))$.

2231: 

2232: (3) ($n=2$) $H^1_{od}\approx H^0(Hom(E_a,E_b))$.

2233: 

2234: (4) ($n\geq 3$) $H^1_{od}\approx 0$.

2235:  

2236: \ 

2237: 

2238: It is clear from this that $H^1_d({\cal H})$ will generally be

2239: different for various $n$. For the simple case when $E_a\approx

2240: E_b={\cal O}_L$ (the trivial line bundle on $L$), endowed with the

2241: trivial flat structures, one obtains:

2242:  

2243: \ 

2244: 

2245: (1) ($n=0$) $dim H^1_{od}=2b_1(L)$.

2246: 

2247: (2) ($n=1$) $dim H^1_{od}=1+b_1(L)$.

2248: 

2249: (3) ($n=2$) $dim H^1_{od}=1$.

2250: 

2251: (4) ($n\geq 3$) $dim H^1_{od}=0$~~,

2252:  

2253: \ 

2254: 

2255: \noindent where $b_1(L)$ is the first Betti number of $L$ 

2256: (we assume that $L$ is connected, so that $dim H^0(L)=1$). Since $L$

2257: is compact, the dimension $dim H^1_d({\cal H})=2b_1(L)+dim H^1_{od}$

2258: counts the number of independent physical degrees of freedom. It

2259: follows that our theories are generally inequivalent.  The case

2260: $b_1(L)\geq 2$ (for example a special Lagrangian 3-torus, with

2261: $b_1(L)=3$) allows us to distinguish between all four classes based on

2262: this simple argument.  Including the `conjugate' cases $n<0$, we

2263: conclude that there are in general {\em six} distinct types of D-brane

2264: pairs, which shows that the $\Z$-valued D-brane grade has physical

2265: consequences.  This is true even though D-brane pairs whose relative

2266: gradings coincide modulo two (such as the pairs with $n=-1$, $n=+1$,

2267: or the pairs $n=-2$, $n=0$ and $n=2$) have the same classical master

2268: action. As mentioned above, the difference between such theories can

2269: be understood at the BV level as resulting from inequivalent choices

2270: for the ghost grading and classical gauge.

2271: 

2272: 

2273: \section{Composite formation and acyclicity} 

2274: 

2275: \subsection{Vacuum shifts and D-brane composites}

2276: 

2277: As discussed in some detail in \cite{sc} (upon following the general

2278: framework of \cite{com1, com3}), D-brane composite formation can be

2279: described by the simple device of shifting the string vacuum.  This

2280: results from the observation \cite{com1} that a vacuum shift will

2281: generally break the decomposition of the total boundary space ${\cal

2282:   H}$ into boundary sectors, thereby forcing a change in our D-brane

2283: interpretation\footnote{This process admits an elegant mathematical

2284:   description in the language of differential graded categories

2285:   \cite{com1}, but no familiarity with category theory is required for

2286:   reading the present paper.}. In the case of graded D-brane pairs,

2287: this process can be described as follows.  Suppose that we are given a

2288: (worldsheet charge one) solution $\phi$ to the string field equations

2289: of motion: \be

2290: \label{eom}

2291: \frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi}=0\Longleftrightarrow d\phi+\phi\bullet

2292: \phi=0~~, \ee and with the property that at least one of the

2293: components $\phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}$ and $\phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}$ is nonzero. If

2294: one shifts the string vacuum through $\phi$, then the BRST operator

2295: around the new vacuum is given by: \be

2296: \label{d'}

2297: d'_\phi~u=du+[\phi,u]_\bullet=du+\phi\bullet u -(-1)^{|u|}u\bullet

2298: \phi ~~, \ee where $[u,v]_\bullet= u\bullet v-(-1)^{|u||v|}v\bullet u$

2299: stands for the {\em graded} commutator with respect to the boundary

2300: product $\bullet$ and $U(1)$ charge $|~.~|$, and $u$ is an element of

2301: the total boundary space ${\cal H}$. The string field equations of

2302: motion (\ref{eom}) are equivalent with the condition that $d'_\phi$

2303: squares to zero. The important observation is that $d'_\phi$ does not

2304: preserve the original boundary sectors $Hom(a,a)$, $Hom(a,b)$ etc, due

2305: to non-vanishing of either $\phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}$ or $\phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}$.

2306: Hence one cannot interpret the new background as a collection of two

2307: D-branes. In fact, there is no decomposition of ${\cal H}$ into new

2308: boundary sectors which would satisfy the basic conditions for such an

2309: interpretation (these conditions can be formulated \cite{com1} as the

2310: existence of a category structure compatibile with $d'_\phi$ and with

2311: the boundary product and bilinear form).  Hence the new vacuum must be

2312: interpreted as a single object, namely as a composite of the original

2313: branes.  In this case, ${\cal H}$ is viewed as the boundary sector of

2314: strings `stretching from this composite to itself', though whether

2315: such an interpretation can be implemented in some sort of sigma model

2316: requires a case by case analysis. The issue of some sigma model

2317: representation for such composites is secondary for our purpose, since

2318: we are interested in {\em off-shell} string dynamics, for which it is

2319: natural to take the string field theory approach as fundamental. From

2320: our perspective, {\em all} D-brane composites constructed in this

2321: manner are equally `fundamental', and their inclusion in the theory is

2322: a dynamical requirement. Whether the entirety of this dynamics admits

2323: some open sigma model interpretation is irrelevant for our

2324: considerations.

2325: 

2326: 

2327: \subsection{Graded D-brane composites as a  

2328:   representation of the extended moduli space}

2329: 

2330: Let us consider an ungraded topological D-brane $a$ wrapping $L$, i.e.

2331: a flat bundle $E$ on $L$, with underlying connection $A$. The string

2332: field theory for strings whose endpoints lie on $a$ is described

2333: \cite{Witten_CS} by the Chern-Simons field theory on $E$.  The

2334: associated moduli space ${\cal M}$ of string vacua is the moduli space

2335: of flat connections on $E$, which can be described through rank one

2336: solutions $\phi\in \Omega^1(End(E))$ to the Maurer-Cartan equation for

2337: the commutator algebra of the graded associative algebra

2338: $(\Omega^*(L),\wedge)$, which is the boundary algebra of topological

2339: A-type strings stretching from $a$ to $a$: \be

2340: \label{mc0}

2341: d\phi+\frac{1}{2}[\phi,\phi]_\wedge=0 \Longleftrightarrow

2342: d\phi+\phi\wedge \phi=0~~, \ee divided through the gauge group

2343: generated by transformations of the form: \be

2344: \label{gauge_pair0}

2345: \phi\rightarrow \phi-d\alpha-[\phi,\alpha]_\wedge~~.  \ee In these

2346: equations, $[u,v]_\wedge=u\wedge v -(-1)^{rk u~rk v} v \wedge u$ is

2347: the graded commutator built from the usual wedge product of

2348: $End(E)$-valued forms and taken with respect to the grading given by

2349: form rank. Since $rk\alpha=rk\phi -1$ it follows that in equation

2350: (\ref{gauge_pair0}) the graded commutator is a genuine commutator.

2351: The tangent space to this moduli space is given by $H^1(End(E))$, as

2352: can be seen by considering the linearized form of (\ref{mc}) and

2353: (\ref{gauge_pair0}).

2354: 

2355: An important problem in open topological string theory and mirror

2356: symmetry is to understand the significance of the so-called {\em

2357:   extended moduli space} ${\cal M}_e$, obtained by considering

2358: deformations along directions in the other cohomology groups, namely

2359: $H^0(End(E))$, $H^2(End(E))$ and $H^3(End(E))$. The extended moduli

2360: space can be defined formally through the so-called `extended

2361: deformation theory' of \cite{Kontsevich_Felder}, which gives a precise

2362: technique for constructing a (formal) supermanifold ${\cal M}_e$ whose

2363: tangent space at the origin is given by the full cohomology group

2364: $H^*(End(E))$. Since $H^1(End(E))$ is a subspace of $H^*(End(E))$, the

2365: unextended moduli space ${\cal M}$ can be identified with a

2366: submanifold of ${\cal M}_e$.  Points in the complement ${\cal

2367:   M}_e-{\cal M}$ are understood as `generalized' vacua of the open

2368: string theory in the given boundary sector, i.e. topological string

2369: backgrounds which do not have an immediate geometric interpretation.

2370:  

2371: The formal approach of extended deformation theory tells us nothing

2372: about the physical significance of the generalized backgrounds

2373: described by points lying in ${\cal M}_e-{\cal M}$. This problem has

2374: obstructed efforts to fulfill the program outlined in

2375: \cite{Witten_nlsm, Witten_mirror} of gaining a better understanding of

2376: mirror symmetry through a study of extended moduli spaces. It is a

2377: remarkable fact (pointed out in \cite{sc}) that the theory of graded

2378: D-branes allows us to give an {\em explicit} physical description of

2379: such points.

2380: 

2381: To understand this, let us consider the case of graded D-branes $a$

2382: and $b=a[n]$ on $L$, whose underlying flat bundles coincide

2383: ($E_a=E_b:=E$) and whose grades differ by $n$.  In this case, the

2384: string field $\phi$ belongs to the space ${\cal

2385:   H}^1=\Omega^1(End(E))^{\oplus 2}\oplus \Omega^{1-n}(End(E))\oplus

2386: \Omega^{1+n}(End(E))$, and the classical equation of motion

2387: (\ref{eom}) is replaced by the Maurer-Cartan equation for the

2388: commutator algebra of the boundary algebra ${\cal H}$, which gives the

2389: equation of motion (\ref{eom}) for the string field theory

2390: (\ref{action_pair}): \be

2391: \label{mc}

2392: d\phi+\frac{1}{2}[\phi,\phi]_\bullet=0~~, \ee with the gauge group

2393: generated by transformations of the form (\ref{gauge}), which in our

2394: case become: \bea

2395: \label{gauge_pair}

2396: \delta\phi^{(1)}_{aa}~~~&=&-d\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}-

2397: [\phi^{(1)}_{aa},\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}]_{\bullet}-

2398: \phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}\bullet\alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}-

2399: \alpha^{(n)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}~~\nn\\

2400: \delta\phi^{(1)}_{bb}~~~&=&-d\alpha^{(0)}_{bb}-

2401: [\phi^{(1)}_{bb},\alpha^{(0)}_{bb}]_{\bullet}-

2402: \phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}\bullet

2403: \alpha^{(n)}_{ba}-\alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}\bullet\phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}~~\nn\\

2404: \delta\phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}&=&-d\alpha^{(n)}_{ba}-

2405: \phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}\bullet\alpha^{(0)}_{bb}-\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}\bullet

2406: \phi^{(1+n)}_{ba}-

2407: \phi^{(1)}_{aa}\bullet\alpha^{(n)}_{ba}-\alpha^{(n)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(1)}_{bb}~~\\

2408: \delta\phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}&=&-d\alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}-

2409: \phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}\bullet\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}-\alpha^{(0)}_{bb}

2410: \bullet\phi^{(1-n)}_{ab}-

2411: \phi^{(1)}_{bb}\bullet\alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}-\alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}

2412: \bullet\phi^{(1)}_{aa}~~,\nn \eea with a parameter

2413: $\alpha=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}& \alpha^{(n)}_{ba}\\

2414:     \alpha^{(-n)}_{ab}&\alpha^{(0)}_{bb}\end{array}\right]$, where

2415: forms of rank outside of the range $0..3$ are of course vanishing.

2416: 

2417: As in (\ref{d'}), the graded commutator is now taken with respect to

2418: the boundary product $\bullet$ and worldsheet charge $|~.~|$.  For

2419: $n=0$, this equation describes deformations of the block-diagonal flat

2420: connection $A=A_a\oplus A_a$ to a flat connection on the bundle

2421: $E\oplus E$ (which need not have block-diagonal form).  However, the

2422: moduli space of solutions of (\ref{mc}) for $0<|n|<3$ contains slices

2423: of the {\em extended} moduli space of flat connections on $E$.  For

2424: example a graded D-brane system with $n=1$ contains deformations

2425: generated by $H^0(End(E))$ and $H^2(End(E))$, while for $n=2$ we

2426: obtain deformations generated by $H^3(End(E))$.  Hence {\em one

2427:   represents extended deformations of $E$ through condensation of

2428:   boundary condition changing operators in a pair of graded

2429:   topological D-branes based on $E$} (figure 2).

2430: 

2431: \hskip 1.0 in

2432: \begin{center} 

2433:   \scalebox{0.5}{\input{moduli.pstex_t}}

2434: \end{center}

2435: \begin{center} 

2436:   Figure 2. {\footnotesize Points in the extended moduli space of an

2437:     ungraded D-brane $a$ can be represented through condensation of

2438:     boundary condition changing operators between $a$ and one of its

2439:     higher shifts $b=a[n]$. For example, deformations along

2440:     $H^0(End(E))$, $H^1(End(E))$ and $H^2(End(E))$ can be represented

2441:     by condensing operators in the sectors $Hom(a,a[1])$, $Hom(a,a)$

2442:     and $Hom(a[1],a)$ respectively.}

2443: \end{center}

2444: 

2445: \ 

2446: 

2447: 

2448: A complete description of the extended moduli space requires

2449: consideration of all graded branes $a[n]$ with $n\in \Z$, and is

2450: discussed at that level of generality in \cite{sc}; the condensates

2451: resulting from a given graded D-brane pair only describe various

2452: slices through ${\cal M}_e$. One approach to the physical significance

2453: of points in ${\cal M}_e-{\cal M}$ is to study the quantum dynamics of

2454: the associated string field theories. A first step in this direction

2455: is the BV analysis carried out in this paper.  This interpretation of

2456: graded D-brane condensates is the main reason for our interest in

2457: graded Chern-Simons theory.

2458: 

2459: \subsection{Acyclic composites}

2460: 

2461: The composite resulting from a condensation process can happen to be

2462: {\em acyclic}, i.e. the cohomology of the shifted BRST operator $d'$

2463: may vanish in all degrees.  In this case, the theory expanded around

2464: the composite contains only BRST trivial states, and the resulting

2465: point in the (extended) moduli space can be interpreted as a closed

2466: string vacuum.

2467: 

2468: 

2469: \paragraph{Observation} The axioms of string field theory imply that the 

2470: bilinear form $\langle .,. \rangle$ induces a perfect pairing between

2471: the BRST cohomology groups $H^k_{d'}({\cal H})$ and

2472: $H^{3-k}_{d'}({\cal H})$ for any worldsheet $U(1)$ charge $k$.  In

2473: particular, acyclicity of a composite can be established by checking

2474: vanishing of only half of the cohomology groups $H^k_{d'}({\cal H})$.

2475: 

2476: \subsection{Acyclic composites for $n=1$} 

2477: 

2478: \subsubsection{Assumptions}

2479: 

2480: In this subsection we discuss a particular class of condensation

2481: processes which is somewhat similar to tachyon condensation in bosonic

2482: string theory in that it produces acyclic composites. Condensation

2483: processes of the type discussed below can take place for a graded

2484: D-brane pair satisfying the conditions:

2485: 

2486: \ 

2487: 

2488: (1) the relative grade of the pair is $n=1$

2489: 

2490: \ 

2491:  

2492: (2) $E_a$ and $E_b$ are isomorphic {\em as flat bundles}.

2493: 

2494: \ 

2495: 

2496: (3)

2497: $H^1(End(E_a))=H^1(End(E_b))=H^1(Hom(E_a,E_b))=H^2(Hom(E_a,E_b))=0$.

2498: 

2499: \ 

2500: 

2501: The argument presented below is closely related to ideas of

2502: \cite{Vafa_cs}, though our physical realization seems to be different.

2503: 

2504: It is not hard to see that condition (2) amounts to the existence of a

2505: {\em covariantly constant} isomorphism between $E_a$ and $E_b$. This

2506: means a bundle isomorphism $f:E_a\rightarrow E_b$ which satisfies

2507: $df=0$ \footnote{It is not hard to see that such a map gives an

2508:   isomorphism of the underlying flat structures. In the language of

2509:   flat connections, the condition $df=0$ implies that $f$ induces a

2510:   gauge transformation which takes $A_a$ to $A_b$ (one obtains

2511:   $A_b=fA_af^{-1}-(df)f^{-1}$ upon choosing local frames for $E_a$ and

2512:   $E_b$). Alternately, $f$ gives an isomorphism between flat

2513:   trivializations of $E_a$ and $E_b$.}  (remember that the

2514: differential $d$ on $Hom(E_a, E_b)$ is coupled to the background flat

2515: connections $A_a$ and $A_b$).  The constraints on the first cohomology

2516: of $E_a$ and $E_b$ mean that these flat connections possess no

2517: deformations.

2518: 

2519: \subsubsection{Construction of acyclic composites}

2520: 

2521: With the assumptions discussed above, one can construct a solution

2522: $\phi$ of the string field equations of motion which leads to an

2523: acyclic D-brane composite. Indeed, let us look for a solution of the

2524: form $\phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\\phi_{ab}^{(0)} &0

2525: \end{array}\right]$. In this case, the equations of motion 

2526: $d\phi+\phi\bullet\phi=0$ reduce to $d\phi_{ab}^{(0)}=0$, which says

2527: that $\phi_{ab}^{(0)}$ is covariantly constant section of

2528: $Hom(E_a,E_b)$.  We shall further require that $\phi^{(0)}_{ab}$ is a

2529: bundle isomorphism, which is possible in view of our second

2530: assumption. Condensation of the boundary condition changing state

2531: $\phi^{(0)}_{ab}$ leads to a new D-brane background which can be

2532: viewed as composite of the D-branes $a$ and $b$.  The theory expanded

2533: around this background is endowed with the shifted BRST operator given

2534: by $d'_\phi~u=d\phi+[\phi,u]_\bullet$.  We wish to show that $d'_\phi$

2535: has trivial cohomology. Since $n=1$, the total boundary space of our

2536: D-brane system has non-vanishing components of charge $k=-1,0,1,2,3$

2537: and $4$.  Moreover, Poincar\'e duality identifies the worldsheet BRST

2538: cohomologies in degrees $k$ and $3-k$, so that it suffices to show

2539: vanishing of $H^k_{d'}({\cal H})$ for $k=-1, 0$ and $1$.

2540: 

2541: \subsubsection{Proof of acyclicity}

2542: 

2543: \paragraph{Vanishing of $H^{-1}_{d'_\phi}({\cal H})$}

2544: 

2545: A state of charge $-1$ has the form $u=\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 &

2546:     u_{ba}^{(0)}\\0 & 0 \end{array}\right]$. In this case, the BRST

2547: closure condition $d'_\phi u=0\Leftrightarrow du+\phi\bullet

2548: u+u\bullet \phi=0$ is equivalent with: \be

2549: u^{(0)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(0)}_{ab}=0~~,~~ du^{(0)}_{ba}=0~~,~~

2550: \phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet u_{ba}^{(0)}=0~~.  \ee Since $\phi^{(0)}_{ab}$

2551: is a bundle isomorphism, this is equivalent with $u_{ba}^{(0)}=0$ i.e.

2552: $u=0$, which shows that $H^{-1}_{d'_\phi}({\cal H})=0$.

2553: 

2554: \paragraph{Vanishing of $H^0_{d'_\phi}({\cal H})$}

2555: 

2556: Given a charge zero state $u=\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_{aa}^{(0)}&

2557:     u_{ba}^{(1)}\\0 & u_{bb}^{(0)} \end{array}\right]$, the BRST

2558: closure condition $d'_\phi u=0\Leftrightarrow du+\phi\bullet

2559: u-u\bullet \phi =0$ reads: \be

2560: \label{closed0}

2561: du_{aa}^{(0)}=u^{(1)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~,~~

2562: du^{(1)}_{ba}=0~~,~~ \phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet

2563: u^{(0)}_{aa}=u^{(0)}_{bb}\bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~,~~

2564: du_{bb}^{(0)}=-\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet u_{ba}^{(1)}~~.  \ee On the

2565: other hand, the exactness condition

2566: $u=d'_\phi\alpha=d\alpha+\phi\bullet \alpha+\alpha\bullet\phi$ (for an

2567: element $\alpha=\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \alpha_{ba}^{(0)}\\0 & 0

2568:   \end{array}\right]$ of charge $-1$) is equivalent with: \be

2569: \label{exact0}

2570: u^{(0)}_{aa}=\alpha^{(0)}_{ba}\bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~,~~

2571: u^{(1)}_{ba}=d\alpha^{(0)}_{ba}~~,~~

2572: u^{(0)}_{bb}=\phi^{(0)}_{ab}\bullet \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}~~.  \ee

2573: 

2574: The assumption $H^2(Hom(E_a,E_b))=0\Leftrightarrow

2575: H^1(Hom(E_b,E_a))=0$ allows us to solve the second equation of

2576: (\ref{closed0}) in the form: \be

2577: \label{ex1}

2578: u^{(1)}_{ba}=d\alpha^{(0)}_{ba}~~, \ee with $\alpha^{(0)}_{ba}$ a

2579: section of $Hom(E_b,E_a)$, determined up to \be

2580: \label{amb}

2581: \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}\rightarrow \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}+f^{(0)}_{ba}~~, \ee

2582: where $f^{(0)}_{ba}$ is a {\em covariantly constant} section of

2583: $Hom(E_b, E_a)$.  Upon substituting (\ref{ex1}) into the first and

2584: fourth equations of (\ref{closed0}), these can be solved as: \be

2585: \label{ex2}

2586: u^{(0)}_{aa}=\alpha^{(0)}_{ba}\bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}+f^{(0)}_{aa}~~

2587: \ee and \be

2588: \label{ex3}

2589: u^{(0)}_{bb}=\phi^{(0)}_{ab}\bullet \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}+f^{(0)}_{bb}~~,

2590: \ee where $f^{(0)}_{aa}$ and $f^{(0)}_{bb}$ are covariantly constant

2591: sections of $End(E_a)$ and $End(E_b)$ and we used

2592: $d\phi^{(0)}_{ab}=0$.  Using these expressions in the third equation

2593: of (\ref{closed0}) gives: \be \label{ex20} \phi^{(0)}_{ab}\bullet

2594: f^{(0)}_{aa}=f^{(0)}_{bb}\bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~, \ee a condition

2595: which can be satisfied upon choosing

2596: $f^{(0)}_{bb}=\phi^{(0)}_{ab}f^{(0)}_{aa}(\phi^{(0)}_{ab})^{-1}$ (this

2597: is covariantly constant since each of the factors is).  With this

2598: choice, both $f^{(0)}_{aa}$ and $f^{(0)}_{bb}$ can be eliminated from

2599: (\ref{ex2}) and (\ref{ex3}) upon using the freedom (\ref{amb}) to

2600: redefine: \be\label{shift0} \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}\rightarrow \alpha^{'(0)}_{ba}:=

2601: \alpha^{(0)}_{ba}+ f^{(0)}_{aa}\bullet (\phi^{(0)}_{ab})^{-1}~~.  \ee

2602: This shows that equations (\ref{ex1}), (\ref{ex2}) and (\ref{ex3}) can

2603: be brought to the form (\ref{exact0}). We conclude that

2604: $H^0_{d'_\phi}({\cal H})$ vanishes as well.

2605: 

2606: 

2607: \paragraph{Vanishing of $H^1_{d'_\phi}({\cal H})$}

2608: 

2609: If $u=\left[\begin{array}{cc} u_{aa}^{(1)}& u_{ba}^{(2)}\\u_{ab}^{(0)}

2610:     & u_{bb}^{(1)} \end{array}\right]$ is a state with $|u|=1$, then

2611: the BRST closure condition $d'_\phi u=0\Leftrightarrow

2612: du+[\phi,u]_\bullet =0$ is equivalent with the system: \bea

2613: \label{closed}

2614: du_{aa}^{(1)}+u^{(2)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(0)}_{ab}&=&0~~\nn\\

2615: du^{(2)}_{ba}&=&0~~\nn\\

2616: du_{ab}^{(0)}+\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet u^{(1)}_{aa}+u^{(1)}_{bb}\bullet

2617: \phi^{(0)}_{ab}&=&0~~\\

2618: du_{bb}^{(1)}+\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet u_{ba}^{(2)}&=&0~~.\nn \eea

2619: 

2620: 

2621: Using the assumption $H^2(Hom(E_b,E_a))=0$, the second equation can be

2622: solved as: \be

2623: \label{exact1}

2624: u_{ba}^{(2)}=d\alpha_{ba}^{(1)}~~, \ee for some one form

2625: $\alpha_{ba}^{(1)}$ with coefficients in $Hom(E_b,E_a)$. Upon

2626: substituting this into the first equation and using

2627: $d\phi^{(0)}_{ab}=0$, one obtains: \be

2628: \label{exact2}

2629: u_{aa}^{(1)}=d\alpha_{aa}^{(0)}-\alpha^{(1)}_{ba}\bullet\phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~,

2630: \ee for some section $\alpha_{aa}^{(0)}$ of $End(E_a)$.  To arrive at

2631: this equation, we made use of the assumption $H^1(End(E_a))=0$.  The

2632: section $\alpha^{(0)}_{aa}$ is determined up to transformations of the

2633: form: \be

2634: \label{ambiguity}

2635: \alpha_{aa}^{(0)}\rightarrow \alpha_{aa}^{(0)}+f^{(0)}_{aa}~~, \ee

2636: with $f_{aa}^{(0)}$ a {\em covariantly constant} (flat) section of

2637: $End(E_a)$.  Using the solution for $u^{(2)}_{ba}$ and the condition

2638: $d\phi^{(0)}_{ab}=0$, we can similarly solve the last equation of

2639: (\ref{closed}): \be

2640: \label{exact3}

2641: u_{bb}^{(1)}=d\alpha_{bb}^{(0)}+\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet

2642: \alpha^{(1)}_{ba}~~, \ee where we used the assumption

2643: $H^1(End(E_b))=0$. Finally, combining (\ref{exact1}) and

2644: (\ref{exact2}) allows us to solve the third equation in

2645: (\ref{closed}): \be

2646: \label{exact4_intmd}

2647: u_{ab}^{(0)}=\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet

2648: \alpha_{aa}^{(0)}-\alpha^{(0)}_{bb} \bullet

2649: \phi^{(0)}_{ab}+f^{(0)}_{ab}~~, \ee with $f_{ab}^{(0)}$ a covariantly

2650: constant section of $Hom(E_a,E_b)$.

2651: 

2652: Since both sections $f^{(0)}_{ab}$ and $\phi_{ab}^{(0)}$ of

2653: $Hom(E_a,E_b)$ are covariantly constant, the section

2654: $g^{(0)}_{aa}:=(\phi_{ab}^{(0)})^{-1}\circ f_{ab}^{(0)}$ of $End(E_a)$

2655: satisfies $dg^{(0)}_{aa}=0$. Upon using the ambiguity

2656: (\ref{ambiguity}), we can therefore absorb $f_{aa}^{(0)}$ in

2657: $\alpha_{aa}^{(0)}$ by defining: \be

2658: \alpha_{aa}^{'(0)}=\alpha_{aa}^{(0)}+g_{aa}^{(0)}~~.  \ee This allows

2659: us to re-write (\ref{exact4_intmd}) in the

2660: form: \be u_{ab}^{(0)}=\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet

2661: \alpha_{aa}^{'(0)}-\alpha_{bb}^{(0)} \bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~.  \ee

2662: 

2663: Hence we can assume without loss of generality that

2664: $\alpha_{aa}^{(0)}$ has been chosen such that: \be

2665: \label{exact4}

2666: u_{ab}^{(0)}=\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet

2667: \alpha_{aa}^{(0)}-\alpha^{(0)}_{bb} \bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}~~.  \ee

2668: The last step is to define the state $\alpha=\left[\begin{array}{cc}

2669:     \alpha_{aa}^{(0)}&\alpha_{ba}^{(1)}\\0 & \alpha_{bb}^{(0)}

2670:   \end{array}\right]$, which has charge zero.  It is then easy to

2671: check that equations (\ref{exact1}), (\ref{exact2}) and (\ref{exact3})

2672: and (\ref{exact4}) are equivalent with the condition: \be

2673: u=d'_\phi\alpha=d\alpha+[\phi,\alpha]_\bullet~~.  \ee Thus every

2674: $d'_\phi$-closed degree one state is $d'_\phi$-exact, which means that

2675: the BRST complex of $d'_\phi$ is also trivial in degree one. This

2676: shows that the composite obtained by condensation of $\phi_{ab}^{(0)}$

2677: is acyclic.

2678: 

2679: Note that the boundary condition changing state $\phi^{(0)}_{ab}$ is

2680: physical, since it is BRST-closed and has charge $1$.  In fact, the

2681: (`unshifted') BRST cohomology $H^1_d({\cal H}_{ab})$ in degree one

2682: coincides with the space $H^0_d(Hom(E_a,E_b))$ of covariantly constant

2683: sections of $Hom(E_a,E_b)$.

2684: 

2685: 

2686: \paragraph{Observations} 

2687: 

2688: (1) We wish to stress that one does {\em not} need to consider the

2689: extended action (\ref{extended_action}), nor the extended boundary

2690: space ${\cal H}_e$, in order to understand condensation processes.

2691: 

2692: (2) We mention that the assumption $E_a\approx E_b$ is necessary only 

2693: for establishing acyclicity in the sector with $U(1)$ charge $-1$.

2694: In the sector with vanishing $U(1)$ charge,

2695: this condition can be avoided by choosing

2696: $f_{aa}^{(0)}=g_{ba}^{(0)}\bullet \phi^{(0)}_{ab}$ and 

2697: $f_{bb}^{(0)}=\phi^{(0)}_{ab}\bullet g_{ba}^{(0)}$ 

2698: in equations (\ref{ex2}) and (\ref{ex3}), where

2699: $g_{ba}$ is a covariantly constant section of

2700: $Hom(E_b,~E_a)$. Then equation (\ref{ex20}) is automatically satisfied

2701: and one shifts $\alpha_{ba}^{(0)}$ to $\alpha_{ba}^{'(0)}=\alpha_{ba}^{(0)}+

2702: g_{ba}^{(0)}$ instead of equation (\ref{shift0}). 

2703: Hence vanishing of $H_{d'}^0({\cal H})$ 

2704: can be established without requiring 

2705: invertibility of $\phi^{(0)}_{ab}$. A similar 

2706: modification of the argument is possible when showing 

2707: vanishing of $H^1_{d'}({\cal H})$; namely one chooses $f_{ab}^{(0)}$ 

2708: to be of the form $f_{ab}^{(0)}=\phi_{ab}^{(0)}\bullet g_{aa}^{(0)}$,

2709: with  $g_{aa}^{(0)}$ a covariantly constant section of $End(E_a)$.

2710: However, the condition that $\phi_{ab}$ is invertible is crucial 

2711: for assuring vanishing of $H^{-1}_{d'}({\cal H})$. 

2712: 

2713: (3) The fact that a D-brane pair satisfying our conditions can

2714: condense to an acyclic composite gives some justification for viewing

2715: these systems as `topological brane-antibrane pairs'.  However, we

2716: were able to establish the existence of such processes only under

2717: restrictive topological assumptions on the original background. To

2718: understand just how restrictive our hypotheses are, consider the case

2719: of two singly-wrapped graded D-branes, for which $E_a=E_b={\cal O}_L$,

2720: the trivial line bundle over $L$ (endowed with the trivial flat

2721: connection $A_a=A_b=0$).  In this situation, our argument requires

2722: vanishing of the cohomology group $H^1(L)\approx H^2(L)$, which in

2723: particular means that the cycle $L$ must be a rational homology sphere. 

2724: It is well-known that Calabi-Yau threefolds contain a wealth of 

2725: special Lagrangian cycles which do not satisfy this 

2726: condition (for example, special Lagrangian

2727: 3-tori, which according to the conjecture of \cite{SYZ} should give a

2728: fibration of $X$ if $X$ admits a geometric mirror). Our argument does

2729: not apply to such cycles, even in the singly-wrapped case. It is an

2730: interesting problem to study composite formation in this more general

2731: situation.

2732: 

2733: 

2734: \section{Direct construction of the master action for D-brane pairs} 

2735: 

2736: In this section we give a direct construction of the classical BV

2737: actions for the string field theories of graded D-brane pairs. This

2738: will allow us to recover the extended theory (\ref{extended_action})

2739: by applying the more familiar cohomological formalism.  Moreover, we

2740: shall give a BV level proof that there are precisely six inequivalent

2741: classical BV actions, namely those associated to the relative gradings

2742: $n=0,\,\pm1,\,\pm2$ and $(n\ge 3,\,\,n\le-3)$, thus leading to a

2743: $\Z_6$ multiplicity of such systems. This gives the string field

2744: theory realization of an observation made in

2745: \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}.

2746: 

2747: As already mentioned at the end of Section 4, the BV algorithm

2748: prolongs a basis for the space of classical fields to a basis ${\cal

2749:   B}= (e^{*\alpha}, e_{\alpha})$ for the space of extended fields,

2750: which is Darboux for the underlying odd symplectic form. Since the

2751: coefficients of the latter are particularly simple in this basis, the

2752: BV bracket takes the form (\ref{Darboux_bracket}).

2753: 

2754: In this section we apply the BV algorithm in a component approach, and

2755: carry out the computations in terms of the usual wedge product of

2756: forms (which we shall write as juxtaposition in order to simplify

2757: notation), rather than in terms of the extended boundary product $*$

2758: used in the previous section.  This makes for an explicit

2759: presentation, at the cost of introducing somewhat complicated

2760: formulae. A more synthetic description (which uses the results of the

2761: geometric formalism in order to simplify certain steps) is given in

2762: the next section.  As discussed in Section 5 \ref{sec:gradedpairs}, it

2763: is enough to consider the cases with relative grading $n\equiv

2764: n_b-n_a\ge 0$, since the rest can be obtained by reversing the roles

2765: of $a$ and $b$ \footnote{Two D-brane pairs with relative gradings $n$

2766:   and $-n$ are related by the conjugation operation discussed in

2767:   \cite{sc}. While this is a `symmetry' at the classical level, two

2768:   systems related in this manner should not be identified. The

2769:   conjugation symmetry of \cite{sc} is akin to the charge conjugation

2770:   of particle physics, and conjugated configurations must be

2771:   considered physically distinct.}.

2772: 

2773: 

2774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2775: \subsection{The BV action for $n=1$ }

2776: 

2777: $${}$$

2778: 

2779: 

2780: 

2781: For the case $n=1$, the classical fields are two one-forms, a two-form

2782: and a zero-form: \be {\phi}=\pmatrix{ \phi^{(1)} & \phi^{(2)}\cr

2783:   \phi^{(0)} & \phi^{'(1)} \cr}~~.

2784: \label{eq:n=1}

2785: \ee In terms of the usual wedge product (\ref{wedge}), the classical

2786: action (\ref{action_pair}) reads: \bea S(\phi)=\int_L &&tr_a\left[

2787:   {1\ov 2}\left(\p{1}d\p{1}-\p{2}d\p{0}\right)+{1\ov

2788:     3}\left(\p{1}\p{1}\p{1}+

2789:     \p{1}\p{2}\p{0}\right)\right]~~  \\

2790: -\int_{L}&&tr_b\left[{1\ov

2791:     2}\left(\hp{1}d\hp{1}-\p{0}d\p{2}\right)+{1\ov 3}\left(

2792:     \hp{1}\hp{1}\hp{1}+\hp{1}\p{0}\p{2}\right)\right]~~.\nn \eea

2793: 

2794: Upon substituting $\alpha=-C_1\lambda$ into the gauge transformations

2795: (\ref{gauge_pair0}), where $\lambda$ is a Grassmann-odd constant

2796: parameter and: \be C_1=\pmatrix{ c_1^{(0)} & c_1^{(1)}\cr 0&

2797:   {c'}_1^{(0)} \cr}~~,

2798: \label{eq:n1gen1}

2799: \ee is the corresponding matrix of ghosts, we find the BRST

2800: transformations of the physical fields: \bea &&\delta^{(1)}\p{1}=

2801: \left[dc_1^{(0)}+[\p{1},\,c_1^{(0)}]- c_1^{(1)}\p{0}\right]\lambda

2802: \nonumber\\

2803: &&\delta^{(1)}\p{2}=

2804: \left[dc_1^{(1)}+(\p{1}c_1^{(1)}+\p{2}{c'}_1^{(0)} -c_1^{(0)}\p{2}+

2805:   c_1^{(1)}\hp{1})\right]\lambda

2806: \nonumber\\

2807: &&\delta^{(1)}\p{0}= (\p{0}c_1^{(0)}-{c'}_1^{(0)}\p{0})\lambda\nonumber\\

2808: &&\delta^{(1)} \hp{1}=\left[d{c'}_1^{(0)}

2809:   +[\hp{1},\,{c'}_1^{(0)}]-\p{0}c_1^{(1)}\right] \lambda

2810: \label{brst}~~.

2811: \eea Requiring nilpotence of $\delta^{(1)}$ leads to the following

2812: ghost transformations: \be \delta^{(1)} c_1^{(0)}= c_1^{(0)}

2813: c_1^{(0)}\lambda~~, ~~\delta^{(1)} {c'}_1^{(0)}= {c'}_1^{(0)}

2814: {c'}_1^{(0)}\lambda~~, ~~\delta^{(1)}

2815: c_1^{(1)}=(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}{c'}_1^{(0)})\lambda~~.

2816: \label{ghn1brst0}

2817: \ee

2818: 

2819: It is easy to see that the gauge transformations (\ref{gauge_pair})

2820: vanish on-shell for a particular choice of parameters.

2821: Oversimplifying, consider the transformation\footnote{We remind the

2822:   reader that the cohomological (BRST) approach extends the gauge

2823:   algebra ${\bf g}$ of Subsection 2.2.2 to the jet bundle associated

2824:   with our fields. Thus, one views the various partial derivatives of

2825:   a generator as being independent quantities.  This is why we can

2826:   consider `differential zero modes', i.e. expressions involving the

2827:   exterior derivative of some generator. The jet bundle extension is a

2828:   standard device for describing the on-shell algebraic structure of

2829:   gauge transformations and observables, and forms the heart of the

2830:   modern approach to BRST quantization. We refer the reader to

2831:   \cite{Stasheff_bv} for an elegant review of the jet bundle formalism

2832:   and further references.}  $\delta\p2 = -d\alpha^{(1)} -\p1

2833: \alpha^{(1)}+ \alpha^{(1)}\hp1$ and take $\alpha^{(1)}$ to be of the

2834: form $\alpha^{(1)}

2835: =-(d\beta^{(0)}+\p{1}\beta^{(0)}+\beta^{(0)}\hp{1})$, with

2836: $\beta^{(0)}$ a section of $Hom(E_b,E_a)$.  Substituting this into the

2837: gauge transformation, one finds that $\delta\p2$ vanishes when $\p1$

2838: and $\hp1$ satisfy their equations of motion (in this exemplification

2839: we ignored the role of $\alpha^{(0)}$ and $\alpha^{'(0)}$ in the BRST

2840: transformation).  It follows that our gauge algebra is {\em

2841:   reducible}.  In such a situation, one must introduce ghosts for

2842: ghosts.  Accordingly, we consider a second generation ghost: \be

2843: C_2=\pmatrix{ 0 & c_2^{(0)}\cr 0 & 0\cr}~~,

2844: \label{eq:n1gen2}

2845: \ee which allows us to extend the BRST transformation of $c_1^{(1)}$

2846: by adding: \bea

2847: &&{\delta}_2c_1^{(1)}=\left(dc_2^{(0)}+\p{1}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp{1}

2848: \right) \lambda~~.  \eea Allowing $\delta_2$ to act trivially on the

2849: physical fields $\phi$ and requiring nilpotence of $\delta^{(2)}\equiv

2850: \delta^{(1)}+\delta_2$ leads to the following corrections to the

2851: transformations of $c_1^{(0)}$ and ${c'}_1^{(0)}$: \be

2852: {\delta}_2c_1^{(0)}=c_2^{(0)}\p{0}\lambda~~,~~

2853: {\delta}_2{c'}_1^{(0)}=\p{0}c_2^{(0)}\lambda~~ \ee and specifies the

2854: BRST transformation of the second generation ghost: \bea \delta_2

2855: c_2^{(0)}=(-c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)})\lambda~~.

2856: \label{ghn1brst1}

2857: \eea Since there are no further zero modes, the gauge algebra is first

2858: order reducible and the full BRST transformations are given by: \bea

2859: \delta\equiv \delta^{(2)}=\delta^{(1)}+\delta_2

2860: \label{eq:fullBRSTn1}

2861: \eea where we let $\delta^{(1)}$ act trivially on second generation

2862: ghosts: $\delta^{(1)} c_2^{(0)}=0$.

2863: 

2864: 

2865: The BV construction now introduces antifields $\Phi^*, C_1^*$ and

2866: $C_2^*$ for each of the fields $\phi, C_1$ and $C_2$: \be

2867: \Phi^*=\pmatrix{ \phi^{*(2)}&\phi^{*(3)}\cr

2868:   \phi^{*(1)}&\phi'^{*(2)}\cr}~~,~~ C_1{}^*=\pmatrix{ c_1^{*(3)} & 0

2869:   \cr c_1^{*(2)} & {c'}_1^{*(3)}\cr}~~,~~ C_2{}^*=\pmatrix{ 0 & 0\cr

2870:   c_2^{*(3)} & 0\cr}~~.  \ee

2871: \noindent 

2872: Note that the antifield of each matrix block sits in the transposed

2873: position in the full matrix, for example ($\phi^{(1)}$,

2874: $\phi^{*(2)}$), ($\phi^{'(1)}$, $\phi^{'*(2)}$), ($\phi^{(2)}$,

2875: $\phi^{*(1)}$) and ($\phi^{(0)}$, $\phi^{*(3)}$) form field-antifield

2876: pairs.  The classical action $S$ is extended by adding a term of the

2877: form $S_1=tr(\Phi^* \delta\phi/\lambda+ C_1^* \delta

2878: C_1/\lambda+\dots)$~.  The Grassmann parities of antifields are chosen

2879: such that $S_1$ is even: $g({\rm field})+g({\rm antifield})={\hat

2880:   1}~(mod~2)$.

2881: 

2882: Following this procedure we write the first order action: \bea S_1&&

2883: =\int_L\,tr_a\Big[~

2884: \phi^{*(2)}\left(dc_1^{(0)}+[\p{1},\,c_1^{(0)}]-c_1^{(1)}\p{0}\right)

2885: \nonumber\\

2886: &&~~~~~~~~ +c_1^{*(3)}\left(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}\p{0}\right)

2887: +\phi^{*(3)}\left( \p{0}c_1^{(0)}-{c'}_1^{(0)}\p{0} \right)\Big]\nn\\

2888: &&+\int_L\,tr_b\Big[~ \phi^{*(1)}\left(

2889:   dc_1^{(1)}+(\p{1}c_1^{(1)}+\p{2}{c'}_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(0)}\p{2}+

2890:   c_1^{(1)}\hp{1}) \right)\nn\\

2891: &&~~~~~~~~+

2892: \phi'^{*(2)}\left(d{c'}_1^{(0)}+[\hp{1},\,{c'}_1^{(0)}]-\p{0}c_1^{(1)}\right)

2893: \nonumber\\

2894: &&~~~~~~~~+

2895: c_1^{*(2)}\left(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}{c'}_1^{(0)}+dc_2^{(0)}+\p{1}c_2^{(0)}-

2896:   c_2^{(0)}\hp{1}\right)

2897: \nonumber\\

2898: && {}~~~~~~~+

2899: {c'}^{*(3)}_1\left({c'}_1^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)}+\p{0}c_2^{(0)}\right) +

2900: c_2^{*(3)}\left( -c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)} \right)

2901: \Big]~~.  \eea

2902: 

2903: Higher order terms in the antifield expansion $S_{BV}=S_0+S_1+S_2+...$

2904: are constructed from the requirement that $S_{BV}$ satisfies the

2905: master equation.  Since vanishing of $\left\{S,\,S_1\right\}$ is

2906: guaranteed by gauge invariance of the classical action, the next step

2907: is to compute the BV bracket $\left\{S_1,\,S_1\right\}$ and find a

2908: non-vanishing result, linear in antifields\footnote{In fact, the BRST

2909:   transformation of $c_2^{(0)}$ can also be inferred from the

2910:   requirement $\left\{S_1,\,S_1\right\}$ contains no terms which are

2911:   independent of antifields. }.  Thus, we have to supplement $S_1$ by

2912: a further term $S_2$ quadratic in antifields, such that $\{ S_1,

2913: S_1\}+2\{S ,S_2\}=0$.  It is not very hard to check that the choice:

2914: \be S_2=\int_L\,tr_a\left(c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(1)} \phi^{*(2)}-

2915:   c_2^{(0)}\phi'^{*(2)}\phi^{*(1)}\right) ~~, \ee assures that the BV

2916: action: \bea

2917: \label{bv1}

2918: S_{BV}=S+S_1+S_2 \eea obeys the master equation. Some details of the

2919: relevant computation are given in Appendix C.

2920: 

2921: To show that the BV action coincides with the coordinate-free

2922: expression (\ref{extended_action}), we set: \bea

2923: \label{coords1}

2924: {\hat \phi}&=&\pmatrix{ c_1^{(0)}+\phi^{(1)}-\phi^{*(2)} +c_1^{*(3)}&

2925:   c_2^{(0)}+c_1^{(1)}+\p{2} -\phi^{*(3)}\cr

2926:   \phi^{(0)}+\phi^{*(1)}+c_1^{*(2)}+c_2^{*(3)}& {c'}_1^{(0)}

2927:   +\hp{1}+{\phi'}^{*(2)}-{c'}_1^{*(3)}

2928:   \cr}\nn\\

2929: &=&c_2+c_1+\phi+\phi^*+c_1^*+c_2^*~~,

2930: \label{eq:superfieldn1}

2931: \eea where we defined: \be \phi^*=\pmatrix{

2932:   -\phi^{*(2)}&-\phi^{*(3)}\cr \phi^{*(1)}&\phi'^{*(2)}\cr}~~,~~

2933: c_1{}^*=\pmatrix{ c_1^{*(3)} & 0 \cr c_1^{*(2)} &

2934:   -{c'}_1^{*(3)}\cr}~~,~~ \ee and: \be

2935: c_1=C_1~~,~~c_2=C_2~~,~~c_2{}^*=C_2^*~~,

2936: \label{notghn1}

2937: \ee notations which will be useful in the next section.  Counting

2938: worldsheet $U(1)$ charges and Grassmann parities shows that ${\hat

2939:   \phi}$ is an element of $M={\cal H}_e^1$.  Relation (\ref{coords1})

2940: can be viewed as the expression of the vector ${\hat \phi}$ in the

2941: particular linear coordinates on $M$ built by the BV algorithm.

2942: 

2943: One can check by direct computation that substitution of

2944: (\ref{coords1}) into the extended action (\ref{extended_action})

2945: recovers the expanded form (\ref{bv1}) upon expressing everything in

2946: terms of the usual wedge product.  This shows that the BV action

2947: (\ref{bv1}) is simply the form of the extended action in the

2948: particular linear coordinates (\ref{coords1}).  To show equivalence

2949: with the geometric formalism of Section 4, we must also check that

2950: (\ref{coords1}) gives Darboux coordinates for the odd symplectic form

2951: (\ref{omega}).  As mentioned in Subsection 4.8.1, the odd symplectic

2952: form is completely determined by its restriction to {\em even} vector

2953: fields, which can be identified with the form $\omega_0$ of equation

2954: (\ref{omega0_wedge}). It thus suffices to check that

2955: (\ref{omega0_wedge}) reduces to Darboux form in the coordinates

2956: (\ref{coords1}).  This follows by direct computation upon substituting

2957: (\ref{coords1}) into (\ref{omega0_wedge}) \footnote{To obtain Darboux

2958:   coordinates per se, one must choose bases for the spaces of

2959:   bundle-valued forms corresponding to each block in the decomposition

2960:   of our matrices of morphisms. We leave the details to the reader.}:

2961: \bea \omega_0=tr_a\Big[ &&(\delta c_1^{*(3)}\we \delta

2962: c_1^{(0)}-\delta c_1^{(0)}\we\delta c_1^{*(3)})+

2963: (\delta\phi^{*(2)}\we \delta\p1 - \delta\p1\we\delta\phi^{*(2)})\nn\\

2964: +&&(\delta c_2^{*(3)}\we\delta c_2^{(0)}-\delta c_2^{(0)}\we \delta

2965: c_2^{*(3)})

2966: +(\delta c_1^{*(2)}\we\delta c_1^{(1)}-\delta c_1^{(1)}\we \delta c_1^{*(2)})\nn\\

2967: +&&(\delta\phi^{*(1)}\we \delta\p2-\delta\p2\we\delta\phi^{*(1)})\Big]\nn\\

2968: +tr_b\Big[&& (\delta {c'}_1^{*(3)}\we\delta {c'}_1^{(0)}-\delta

2969: {c'}_1^{(0)}\we\delta {c'}_1^{*(3)})

2970: +(\delta\phi'^{*(2)}\we \delta\hp1-\delta\hp1\we\phi'^{*(2)})\nn\\

2971: +&&(\delta\phi^{*(3)}\we

2972: \delta\p0-\delta\p0\we\delta\phi^{*(3)})\Big]~~.  \eea We conclude

2973: that the homological construction for a D-brane pair with relative

2974: grading $n=1$ agrees with the BV system discussed in Section 4.

2975: 

2976: \subsection{The BV action for $n=2$}

2977: 

2978: We next consider D-brane pairs with relative grading $n=2$. For such

2979: systems, the classical fields are two one-forms and a three form: \be

2980: \phi =\pmatrix{ \phi^{(1)} & \phi^{(3)}\cr 0 & {\phi'}^{(1)} \cr}~~.

2981: \ee Since $n$ is even, the relative grading plays no role in the

2982: boundary product $\bullet$, which reduces to the usual wedge product

2983: (\ref{wedge}).  The classical action is: \bea

2984: \label{action_2}

2985: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!  S(\phi)&&=\int_L {tr_a\left[\frac 12

2986:     \p1 d\p1+\frac 13 \p1\p1\p1\right]} +\int_{L}{tr_b\left[\frac 12

2987:     \hp1 d\hp1+\frac 13 \hp1\hp1\hp1 \right]}~~.  \eea Note that the

2988: field $\phi^{(3)}$ does not appear in the action, and thus its

2989: components define classical flat directions in the moduli space of the

2990: theory.  We stress that, even though the action (\ref{action_2}) is

2991: invariant with respect to the shift symmetry $\phi^{(3)}\rightarrow

2992: \phi^{(3)}+b^{(3)}$ (with $b^{(3)}$ an arbitrary 3-form valued in the

2993: bundle $Hom(E_b,E_a))$, we do {\em not} include such symmetries in our

2994: gauge algebra. The reason is that a nonzero background value of

2995: $\phi^{(3)}$ corresponds to condensation of boundary condition

2996: changing states between the graded branes $a$ and $b$, and thus leads

2997: to a {\em physically relevant} shift of the string vacuum.  This

2998: forbids us to identify $\phi^{(3)}$ and $\phi^{(3)}+b^{(3)}$.  This

2999: means that we cannot treat shifts of $\phi^{(3)}$ as {\em gauge}

3000: symmetries.

3001: 

3002: 

3003: Since one of the classical fields is a massless 3-form, we expect

3004: first, second and third generation ghosts: \be C_1=\pmatrix{

3005:   c_1^{(0)}&c_1^{(2)}\cr 0&{c'}_1^{(0)}\cr}~~,~~ C_2=\pmatrix{

3006:   0&c_2^{(1)}\cr 0&0\cr}~~,~~ C_3=\pmatrix {0&c_3^{(0)}\cr 0&0\cr}~~.

3007: \ee The BRST transformations of the classical fields read: \bea

3008: \delta^{(1)}\p1=\left(dc_1^{(0)}+[\p{1},\,c_1^{(0)}]\right)\lambda~~,~~

3009: \delta^{(1)}\hp1=\left(d{c'}_1^{(0)}+[\hp{1},\,{c'}_1^{(0)}]\right)\lambda\\

3010: \delta^{(1)}\p3=\left(dc_1^{(2)}-c_1^{(2)}\hp{1}+\p{1}c_1^{(2)}-c_1^{(0)}\p{3}+

3011:   \p{3}{c'}_1^{(0)}\right)\lambda~~.

3012: \label{brst2o}~~\nn

3013: \eea The transformations of first generation ghosts are derived by

3014: requiring nilpotence of $\delta^{(1)}$ on $\phi$: \be \delta^{(1)}

3015: c_1^{(2)}=\left(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(2)}+c_1^{(2)}{c'}_1^{(0)}\right)\lambda~~,~~

3016: \delta^{(1)} c_1^{(0)}=c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(0)}\lambda~~,~~ \delta^{(1)}

3017: c_1^{'(0)}=c_1^{'(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)}\lambda~~.  \ee Once again,

3018: (\ref{brst2o}) has on-shell zero modes, which requires us to extend

3019: the BRST transformation of $c_1^{(2)}$ by adding the variation: \be

3020: \delta_2 c_1^{(2)}

3021: =(dc_2^{(1)}+\p{1}c_2^{(1)}+c_2^{(1)}\hp{1})\lambda~~.

3022: \label{eq:2ndgengh}

3023: \ee Allowing $\delta_2$ to act trivially on the physical fields

3024: ($\delta_2\phi=0$) and requiring nilpotence of

3025: $\delta^{(2)}=\delta^{(1)}+\delta_2$ implies that the second

3026: generation ghosts must transform as \be {\delta_2

3027:   c_2^{(1)}}=(-c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(1)}+ c_2^{(1)}{c'}_1^{(0)})\lambda~~.

3028: \ee Equation (\ref{eq:2ndgengh}) has further zero modes which lead to

3029: the third generation ghosts and to the transformations: \be {\delta_3

3030:   c_2^{(1)}}=\left(dc_3^{(0)}-c_3^{(0)}\hp{1}+\p{1}c_3^{(0)}\right)\lambda~~,~~

3031: \delta_3

3032: c_3^{(0)}=\left(c_1^{(0)}c_3^{(0)}+c_3^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)}\right)\lambda~~.

3033: \label{eq:3rdgengh}

3034: \ee Since there are no further zero modes, the theory is second order

3035: reducible and we conclude that the full BRST transformations are given

3036: by: \be

3037: \delta\equiv\delta^{(3)}=\delta^{(2)}+\delta_3=\delta^{(1)}+\delta_2+\delta_3

3038: \label{eq:fullBRSTn2}

3039: \ee where $\delta^{(1)}$ acts trivially on the second and third

3040: generation ghosts, $\delta_2$ acts trivially on the physical fields

3041: and the third generation ghosts and $\delta_3$ acts trivially on the

3042: physical fields and the first generation ghosts.

3043: 

3044: We next add the antifields: \be \Phi^*=\pmatrix{ \phi^{*(2)}& 0\cr

3045:   \phi^{*(0)}&{\phi'}^{*(2)}\cr}~~,~~ C_1^*=\pmatrix{ c_1^{*(3)}&0\cr

3046:   c_1^{*(1)} &{c'}_1^{*(3)}\cr}~~,~~ C_2^*=\pmatrix{ 0&0\cr c_2^{*(2)}

3047:   &0\cr}~~,~~ C_3^*=\pmatrix{ 0&0\cr c_3^{*(3)}&0\cr}~~, \ee and build

3048: the first order action $S_1$ as in the previous section.

3049: 

3050: Since $\{S_1, S_1\}$ does not vanish, the last step is to add a term

3051: $S_2$ quadratic in antifields, such that the classical master equation

3052: is satisfied.  This leads to the full BV action: \bea

3053: \label{bv2}

3054: S_{BV}=\int_L\, tr_a&&\Big[{1\ov 2}\p{1}d\p{1}+{1\ov 3}\p{1}\p{1}\p{1}

3055: +\phi^{*(2)}\left(dc_1^{(0)}+[\p{1},\,c_1^{(0)}]\right)\nn\\

3056: &&+c_1^{*(3)}\,c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(0)}

3057: -c_3^{(0)}\left({\phi'}^{*(2)}c_1^{*(1)}-c_1^{*(1)}\phi^{*(2)}

3058:   +\phi^{*(0)}

3059:   c_1^{*(3)}-{c'}^{*(3)}_1\phi^{*(0)} \right)\nn\\

3060: &&+c_2^{(1)}\left({\phi'}^{*(2)}\phi^{*(0)}+\phi^{*(0)}\phi^{*(2)}\right)\Big]

3061: +\nn\\

3062: +\int_L\,tr_b&&\Big[ {1\ov 2}\hp{1}d\hp{1}+{1\ov 3}\hp{1}\hp{1}\hp{1}

3063: +{\phi'}^{*(2)}\left(d{c'}_1^{(0)}+[\hp{1},{c'}_1^{(0)}]\right)\nn\\

3064: &&+\phi^{*(0)}\left(dc_1^{(2)}-c_1^{(2)}\hp{1}+\p{1}c_1^{(2)}-c_1^{(0)}

3065:   \p{3}+\p{3}c_1^{'(0)}\right)\nn\\

3066: &&

3067: +c_1^{*(1)}\left(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(2)}+c_1^{(2)}{c'}_1^{(0)}+dc_2^{(1)}+\p{1}c_2^{(1)}

3068:   +c_2^{(1)}\hp{1}\right)

3069: \nonumber\\

3070: &&

3071: +c_2^{*(2)}\left(dc_3^{(0)}-c_3^{(0)}\hp{1}+\p{1}c_3^{(0)}-c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(1)}

3072:   +c_2^{(1)}{c'}_1^{(0)}\right)

3073: \nonumber\\

3074: &&+{c'}^{*(3)}_1{c'}_1^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)}-

3075: c_3^{*(3)}\,\left(c_1^{(0)}c_3^{(0)}+c_3^{(0)}{c'}_1^{(0)}\right)

3076: \Big]~~.  \eea A brief discussion on the master equation can be found

3077: in Appendix C.

3078: 

3079: This action can be cast into the form (\ref{extended_action}) provided

3080: that we identify the extended string field with: \bea

3081: \label{coords2}

3082: {\hat \phi}&=&\pmatrix{ c_1^{(0)}+\phi^{(1)}-\phi^{*(2)} +c_1^{*(3)}&

3083:   c_3^{(0)}+c_2^{(1)}+c_1^{(2)}+ \phi^{(3)}\cr -\phi^{*(0)}+c_1^{*(1)}

3084:   -c_2^{*(2)}+c_3^{*(3)}&

3085:   {c'}_1^{(0)} +\hp{1}-{\phi'}^{*(2)}+ {c'}^{*(3)}_1\cr}~~\nn\\

3086: \nn\\

3087: &=&c_3+c_2+c_1+\phi+\phi^*+c_1^*+c_2^* +c_3^*~~,

3088: \label{eq:superfieldn2}

3089: \eea where we defined: \be \phi^*=\pmatrix{-\phi^{*(2)}& 0\cr

3090:   -\phi^{*(0)}&-{\phi'}^{*(2)}\cr}~~,~~ c_2^*=\pmatrix{ 0&0\cr

3091:   -c_2^{*(2)} &0\cr}~~ \ee and \be

3092: c_1=C_1~~,~~c_2=C_2~~,~~c_3=C_3~~,~~c_1^*=C_1^*~~,~~c_3^*=C_3^*~~.

3093: \label{ghn2}

3094: \ee We have $deg{\hat \phi}={\hat 1}$, as required.  Note that for

3095: $n=2$, the graded trace $str_e$ in (\ref{extended_action}) coincides

3096: with the ordinary trace.  One checks again by direct computation that

3097: (\ref{coords2}) gives Darboux coordinates for the odd symplectic form

3098: and that the extended action (\ref{extended_action}) reduces to

3099: (\ref{bv2}) in this basis.

3100: 

3101: \subsection{The BV action for $n=0$ }

3102: 

3103: We next consider D-brane pairs with relative grading $n=0$.  In this

3104: case, the gauge algebra is irreducible and one needs only first

3105: generation ghosts.  The physical fields and their ghosts are given by:

3106: \be \phi=\pmatrix{ \phi^{(1)} & {\check\phi}^{(1)}\cr

3107:   {\tilde\phi}^{(1)} & {\phi'}^{(1)} \cr} ~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~

3108: c_1=\pmatrix{ c_1^{(0)} & {\check c}_1^{(0)}\cr {\tilde c}_1^{(0)}&

3109:   {c'}_1^{(0)} \cr}

3110: \label{fields0}~~.

3111: \ee Because the relative shift vanishes, the product $\bullet$ is the

3112: usual wedge product of forms and the classical action is the CS action

3113: for $E_a\oplus E_b$.  Axelrod and Singer \cite{AS1} quantized the same

3114: classical theory, in the Faddeev-Popov approach. They expressed the

3115: gauged fixed action as an `extended CS action', where the top form in

3116: the extended string field $\hat\phi$ is constrained to vanish. Here we

3117: show that the BV construction yields the same extended action, but for

3118: us the top form is unconstrained \footnote{This BV action is of course

3119:   well-known (see, for example, \cite{Ikemori}).}.

3120: 

3121: The BV action for this system is: \be

3122: \label{bv0}

3123: S_{BV}=\int_L~tr_{E_a\oplus E_b}\left[{1\ov 2}\phi d\phi+{1\ov

3124:     3}\phi\phi\phi +\phi{}^*\left(dc_1+\phi

3125:     c_1-c_1\phi\right)+c_1^*c_1c_1 \right]~~, \ee where \be

3126: \Phi^*=\pmatrix{ \phi^{*(2)} & \phi^{*(2)}\cr \phi^{*(2)}&

3127:   {\phi'}^{*(2)} \cr} ~~{\rm~and~}~~ c_1^*=\pmatrix{ c_1^{*(3)} &

3128:   c_1^{*(3)}\cr c_1^{*(3)} & c^{'*(3)}_1 \cr}

3129: \label{eq:antifn=0}

3130: \ee are the antifields associated with (\ref{fields0}).

3131: 

3132: To present $S_{BV}$ in the form (\ref{extended_action}), one defines

3133: the extended string field: \be

3134: \label{coords0}

3135: \hat \phi=c_1+ \phi + \phi^* + c_1^*~~, \ee where $\phi^*:=-\Phi^*$.

3136: Upon substituting this into (\ref{extended_action}), we recover the BV

3137: action (\ref{bv0}).  It is also easy to check that (\ref{coords0})

3138: gives Darboux coordinates for the odd symplectic form.

3139: 

3140: 

3141: \subsection{The BV action for $n\geq 3$}

3142: 

3143: For relative grading $n\ge 3$, the physical field contains two

3144: one-forms: \be {\phi}=\pmatrix{ \phi^{(1)} & 0 \cr 0 & {\phi'}^{(1)}

3145:   \cr} \ee and the action appears as the direct sum or difference

3146: (according to the supertrace prescription) of two Chern-Simons terms:

3147: \bea S=\int_{L}{tr_a\left[

3148:     \frac{1}{2}{\phi}{}^{(1)}d{\phi}{}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}

3149:     ({\phi}{}^{(1)})^3\right]}+(-1)^n \int_{L}{tr_b\left[

3150:     \frac{1}{2}{\phi'}{}^{(1)}d{\phi'}{}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}

3151:     ({\phi'}{}^{(1)})^3\right]}~~.\label{truncation} \eea

3152: 

3153: Based on this form, it would naively seem that we can obtain the BV

3154: action simply as a sum or difference of the classical master actions

3155: associated with the two Chern-Simons theories,

3156: $S_{BVnaive}=S_{BV}^a+S_{BV}^b~$, where, according to the discussion

3157: of the previous subsection, the BV actions for the two sectors have

3158: the extended Chern-Simons form.  However, this conclusion does not

3159: take into account the physically correct form of the gauge algebra.

3160: Indeed, a direct sum construction of the BV action is only justified

3161: if {\em both} the action and the gauge algebra are of direct sum form.

3162: 

3163: 

3164: A systematic approach to the analysis of pairs with $n\geq 3$ is

3165: afforded by the device of `gauging zero' \cite{warren}, which in our

3166: case amounts to formally applying the BRST procedure to forms of ranks

3167: higher than $3$. For this, we shall pretend that an $(n+1)$-form is

3168: not identically vanishing in three dimensions\footnote{For the

3169:   rigorous reader, we note that this procedure can be justified in the

3170:   jet bundle approach \cite{Stasheff_bv, Barnich}.  Consider the

3171:   bundle ${\cal W}=End({\bf E})= End(E_a\oplus E_b)$, whose typical

3172:   fiber we denote by $W$.  One defines local coordinates $x^i$ on the

3173:   base manifold and $u^a$ on the fiber. The infinite jet bundle

3174:   $J^\infty {\cal W}$ is a prolongation of ${\cal W}$ to an

3175:   infinite-dimensional vector bundle with coordinates $u_I^a=(u^a,

3176:   u_{i_1}^a, u_{i_1 i_2}^a, \dots)$ where $i_k\in \{1, 2, 3\}$ and the

3177:   indices are symmetrized; the coordinates $u_I=u_{i_1..i_k}$, for a

3178:   symmetric multi-index $I=(i_1\dots i_k)$, are viewed as formal

3179:   partial derivatives of $u_a$ and regarded as functionally

3180:   independent. A section $\sigma$ of the jet bundle decomposes as

3181:   $\sigma =\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\sigma_k}$, according to the number $k$

3182:   of formal derivatives; the component $\sigma_0$ defines a section of

3183:   the unextended bundle ${\cal W}$.  A section $s$ of ${\cal W}$ (with

3184:   components $u^a\circ s =s^a$) induces a section of $J^\infty {\cal

3185:     W}$, the {\em associated jet} $j^\infty s$, which has the property

3186:   $u_I^a\circ j^\infty s = \partial_{i_1}\partial_{i_2}\dots

3187:   \partial_{i_r}s^a$. This decomposes in a sum $j^\infty s=(j^\infty

3188:   s)_0+(j^\infty s)_1+(j^\infty s)_2+\dots~$.  The zeroth component of

3189:   the jet is the original section, $(j^\infty s)_0=s$. One can also

3190:   define forms on the infinite jet bundle: an element $\omega^{(r,s)}$

3191:   of the {\em variational bicomplex} $\Omega^{*,*}(J^\infty {\cal W})$

3192:   can be locally expressed in the basis $\theta_{I_1}^{a_1} \wedge

3193:   \dots\theta_{I_r}^{a_r}\wedge dx^{i_1}\wedge\dots \wedge dx^{i_s}$

3194:   where the {\em contact forms} $\theta_I^a=du_I^a-\sum_{i=1}^3

3195:   u_{Ii}^a dx^i$ span the vertical directions, and have the property

3196:   $(j^\infty s)^*(\theta^a_I)=d(\partial_I\varphi^a)-

3197:   (\partial_{Ii}s^a)dx^i =0$.  The space ${\cal H}$ of classical

3198:   fields is the space of sections of ${\cal W}\otimes \Lambda^*T^*L$,

3199:   which prolongs to the space $\Omega^{0,*}(J^\infty{\cal W})$ of {\em

3200:     horizontal forms}.  Hence given a classical field

3201:   $\phi=\sum_{s=1}^3{\phi_{i_1\dots i_s} dx^{i_1}\wedge \dots \wedge

3202:     dx^{i_s}}$, we can define its jet $j^\infty(\phi)= \sum_{s=1}^3{

3203:     j^\infty(\phi_{i_1\dots i_s})dx^{i_1}\wedge \dots \wedge

3204:     dx^{i_s}}\in \Omega^{0,*}(J^\infty{\cal W})$, whose zeroth

3205:   component $j(\phi)_0$ coincides with $\phi$.  The trick of

3206:   introducing forms of rank higher than three can be understood as

3207:   working with elements of $\Omega^{*,*}(J^\infty {\cal W})$. For our

3208:   purpose, a `formal $k$-form' $\omega$ is an element of the

3209:   variational bicomplex having total degree $p+q=k$. This can be

3210:   decomposed as $\omega=\omega^{(k,0)}\oplus \omega^{(k-1,1)} \oplus

3211:   \omega^{(k-2,2)} \oplus \omega^{(k-3,3)}$ and has a horizontal

3212:   component $\omega^{(0,k)}$ if and only if the formal rank $k$ lies

3213:   between $0$ and $3$.  A similar construction can be given for the

3214:   various ghost generations, upon considering Grassmann-valued forms.

3215:   At the end, we shall `evaluate' all such forms, i.e. take the zeroth

3216:   jet component of their horizontal projection, which is a

3217:   (Grassmann-valued) section of the physical bundle ${\cal W}\otimes

3218:   \Lambda^*T^*L$. This defines a BV field, i.e. an element of the

3219:   extended boundary space ${\cal H}_e$.  It is clear that `evaluation'

3220:   in this sense applied on $\omega$ will produce zero unless the

3221:   formal rank $k$ belongs to $0..3$, in which case the result of

3222:   evaluation will be the zeroth jet component of $\omega^{(0,k)}$,

3223:   i.e. a `true' $k$-form field. This recovers the procedure of

3224:   \cite{warren}.}, and declare that the physical fields are \be

3225: {\phi}=\pmatrix{ \phi^{(1)} & \p{n+1} \cr 0 & {\phi'}^{(1)} \cr}~~.

3226: \ee

3227: 

3228: We next perform the BV construction taking this as a starting point.

3229: Forms of ranks higher than 3 will be set to zero only in the final

3230: result.

3231: 

3232: Correspondingly, we have the BRST variations: \bea

3233: \delta^{(1)}\p1=\left(dc^{(0)}_1+[\p{1},\,c_1^{(0)}]\right)\lambda~~,~~

3234: \delta^{(1)}\hp1=\left(d c'{}^{(0)}_1+[\hp{1},\, c'{}_1^{(0)}]\right)

3235: \lambda~~~~~~~\nn\\

3236: \delta^{(1)}\p{n+1}=\left(d c^{(n)}_1 +(-1)^{1+n}

3237:   c^{(n)}_1\hp{1}+\p{1} c^{(n)}_1+\p{n+1} c'{}^{(0)}_1-

3238:   c^{(0)}_1\p{n+1}\right)\lambda~~.~~~~~~~ \eea

3239: 

3240: These extend to nilpotent transformations provided that we use the

3241: following variations of the ghosts: \bea \delta^{(1)}

3242: c^{(0)}_1&=&c^{(0)}_1c^{(0)}_1\lambda ~~;~~~ \delta^{(1)}

3243: c'{}^{(0)}_1=c'{}^{(0)}_1c'{}^{(0)}_1\lambda ~~;~~~ \delta^{(1)}

3244: c'{}^{(n)}_1=(c{}^{(0)}_1c{}^{(n)}_1+c{}^{(n)}_1c'{}^{(0)}_1)\lambda

3245: \label{eq:lev1}~~.~~~~~~~ 

3246: \eea One can write the following more synthetic form of the first

3247: level BRST transformations: \be \delta^{(1)}

3248: \phi=\left(dC_1+[\phi,\,C_1]_\bullet\right)\lambda~~,~{\rm with}~~~~

3249: C_1=\pmatrix{ c^{(0)}_1& c^{(n)}_1\cr 0& c'{}_1^{(0)}\cr}~~.

3250: \label{eq:lev1mat}

3251: \ee

3252: 

3253: On the classical shell the transformation $\delta^{(1)}\p{n+1}$ has a

3254: residual local invariance given by \be \delta_2 c{}^{(n)}_1=\left(d

3255:   c{}^{(n-1)}_2 +\p{1} c^{(n-1)}_2+ (-1)^n

3256:   c^{(n-1)}_2\hp{1}\right)\lambda~~, \ee where $c^{(n-1)}_2$ is the

3257: second generation ghost.  With the notations introduced in Sections

3258: 7.1 and 7.2, the full BRST transformations

3259: $\delta^{(2)}\equiv\delta^{(1)}+\delta_2$ at the second level coincide

3260: with $\delta^{(1)}$ when acting on $\phi^{(1)}$, ${\phi'}{}^{(1)}$,

3261: $c_1^{(0)}$, ${c'}{}_1^{(0)}$, and act on $c_1^{(n)}$ as: \bea

3262: \label{unu}

3263: \delta^{(2)}c^{(n)}_1 =(d c{}^{(n-1)}_2 +\p{1} c^{(n-1)}_2+

3264: (-1)^nc^{(n-1)}_2\hp{1} +

3265: c{}^{(0)}_1c{}^{(n)}_1+c{}^{(n)}_1c'{}^{(0)}_1)\lambda~~.  \eea The

3266: transformations of second generation ghosts are determined by

3267: requiring nilpotence of (\ref{unu}).  On the other hand, on-shell zero

3268: modes of (\ref{unu}) lead to ghosts of the next generation.

3269: 

3270: Since we want to discuss all cases with $n\geq 3$, we give an

3271: inductive proof that the BRST transformations of the $k^{th}$

3272: generation ghosts have the form: \bea

3273: \label{k1}

3274: \delta^{(k)}c{}^{(n-k+1)}_{k}&=&\left(d c{}^{(n-k)}_{k+1} +\p{1}

3275:   c^{(n-k)}_{k+1}+ (-1)^{n-k+2}

3276:   c^{(n-k)}_{k+1}\hp{1}\right.\nonumber\\

3277: &{}&~~~~+(-1)^{k+1}\left.c{}^{(0)}_1 c{}^{(n-k+1)}_k+c{}^{(n-k+1)}_k

3278:   c'{}^{(0)}_1\right)\lambda~~.  \eea Assume that (\ref{k1}) holds for

3279: the $k-1$ ghosts: \bea \delta^{(k-1)}c{}^{(n-k+2)}_{k-1}&=&\left(d

3280:   c{}^{(n-k+1)}_{k} +\p{1} c^{(n-k+1)}_{k}+ (-1)^{n-k+1}

3281:   c^{(n-k+1)}_{k}\hp{1}\right.\nonumber\\

3282: &+&(-1)^{k}\left.c{}^{(0)}_1 c{}^{(n-k+2)}_{k-1}+c{}^{(n-k+2)}_{k-1}

3283:   c'{}^{(0)}_1\label{k2}\right)\lambda\label{doi1}~~.  \eea Then

3284: nilpotence of the BRST transformation of the $(k-1)^{th}$ generation

3285: ghost implies: \be \delta_{k-1} c_k{}^{(n-k+1)}=\left((-1)^{k+1}

3286:   c_1^{(0)}c_k{}^{(n-k+1)} +c_k{}^{(n-k+1)} c'{}_1^{(0)}

3287: \right)\lambda

3288: \label{doi2}~~.

3289: \ee We finally note that the BRST transformations (\ref{doi2}) have

3290: the following on-shell zero modes: \be \delta_k

3291: c_{k}^{(n-k+1)}=\left(d c{}^{(n-k)}_{k+1} +\p{1} c^{(n-k)}_{k+1}+

3292:   (-1)^{n-k+2} c^{(n-k)}_{k+1}\hp{1} \right)\lambda\label{trei}~~.

3293: \ee We recover the full BRST transformation (\ref{k1}) as the sum of

3294: (\ref{doi2}) and (\ref{trei}),

3295: $\delta^{(k)}c_{k}^{(n-k+1)}=\sum_{j=1}^k \delta_j c_{k}^{(n-k+1)}

3296: =(\delta_{k-1} +\delta_k) c_{k}^{(n-k+1)}$, where we used the fact

3297: that all transformations with the exception those of levels $k-1$ and

3298: $k$ act trivially on $c_{k}^{(n-k+1)}$.

3299: 

3300: Note that the Grassmann parity of the ghosts depends on the generation

3301: number \be

3302: \label{gparity}

3303: g(c_k^{(n-k+1)})=(-)^k~~.  \ee

3304: 

3305: We now set to zero all forms of ranks higher than $3$, which

3306: eliminates all ghosts except for those of ranks between zero and

3307: three.  The ansatz: \bea

3308: \label{coords_general}

3309: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!  \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!  &&{\hat\phi}=

3310: \nonu\\

3311: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!  \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! &&\!\!\!\!\!  \pmatrix{

3312:   c_1^{(0)}+\phi^{(1)} - \phi^{*(2)}+c_1^{*(3)}&

3313:   c_{n+1}^{(0)}+c_{n}^{(1)}+c_{n-1}^{(2)}+c_{n-2}^{(3)} \cr

3314:   (-)^{n+1}c_{n-2}^{*(0)}+c_{n-1}^{*(1)}-(-)^{n}c_{n}^{*(2)}+

3315:   c_{n+1}^{*(3)} & c_1^{'(0)}+\phi^{'(1)}-(-)^{n}\phi^{'*(2)} +(-)^n

3316:   c_1^{'*(3)}

3317:   \cr}\nonumber\\

3318: \eea shows that the resulting BV action coincides with the extended

3319: action (\ref{extended_action}). It is also easy to check that

3320: (\ref{coords_general}) define Darboux coordinates for the odd

3321: symplectic form (\ref{omega}). Moreover, because of equation

3322: (\ref{gparity}), the degree of the extended string field is~$1$.

3323: 

3324: 

3325: 

3326: \subsection{On the equivalence of the extended actions with $n\ge 3$}

3327: 

3328: Given the fact that the classical actions and physical fields of the

3329: theories with relative grading $n\ge 3$ are identical, we could

3330: attempt to relate the extended actions by a canonical transformation.

3331: As shown in the previous subsection, in these cases the extended

3332: action can be obtained by adding a vanishing $(n+1)$-form in the

3333: sector $Hom(E_a,\,E_b)$.  Without this trick, one would conclude that

3334: the BV action is the graded sum of the two master actions

3335: corresponding to $E_a$ and $E_b$.  Therefore, it seems natural to

3336: inquire whether the extended action can be expressed in this form.  We

3337: will first isolate from the extended action the graded sum part and

3338: then search for a canonical transformation which annihilates the

3339: remnant.

3340: 

3341: 

3342: Let the extended field ${\hat\phi}$ for some grade difference $n\ge 3$

3343: be \be {\hat \phi}={\hat\phi_0}+{\hat c}+{\hat c}{}^*~~, \ee where:

3344: \bea

3345: {\hat\phi}_0&=&\pmatrix{c_1^{(0)}+\phi^{(1)}+\phi^{*(2)}+c_1^{*(3)}&0\cr

3346:   0& c'{}_1^{(0)}+\phi'{}^{(1)}+\phi'{}^{*(2)}+c'{}_1^{*(3)} \cr}

3347: \equiv

3348: \pmatrix{{\phi}&0\cr 0&{\phi}'\cr}   \nonumber \\

3349: \nn\\

3350: \nn\\

3351: {\hat

3352:   c}&=&\pmatrix{0&c_{k+3}^{(0)}+c_{k+2}^{(1)}+c_{k+1}^{(2)}+c_{k}^{(3)}

3353:   \cr 0&0\cr}\equiv \pmatrix{0&c\cr 0&0\cr} \nn\\

3354: \nn\\

3355: {\hat c}{}^*&=&\pmatrix{0&0\cr

3356:   c_{k+3}^{*(0)}+c_{k+2}^{*(1)}+c_{k+1}^{*(2)}+c_{k}^{*(3)}

3357:   &0\cr}\equiv \pmatrix{0& 0 \cr c^*&0\cr}~~.  \eea Then the extended

3358: action is: \be S_e =S_e ({\hat \phi}_0)+\int_L\,str_e\Big[ {\hat c}^*

3359: *\big(d{\hat c}+{\hat \phi}_0*{\hat c}+{\hat c}*{\hat

3360:   \phi}_0\big)\Big]~~, \ee where $S_e({\hat \phi}_0)$ is the graded

3361: sum of the two BV actions corresponding to $E_a$ and $E_b$. We now

3362: look for a canonical transformation which annihilates the last term of

3363: the previous equation: \bea

3364: \label{Delta_S}

3365: \Delta S_e \equiv S_e({\hat\phi})-S_e({\hat\phi}_0)&=&(-1)^n

3366: \int_L\,tr_b\Big[ c{}^**\left(dc+\phi * c+c *\phi'\right)

3367: \Big]\nn\\

3368: &=&\int_L\,tr_a\Big[ c*\left(-dc{}^*+\phi' * c{}^*+c{}^* * \phi\right)

3369: \Big]~~.  \eea

3370: 

3371: Let $\Psi$ be the generator of this canonical transformation, a

3372: Grassmann-odd function of fields and antifields whose ghost number

3373: equals $-1$.  If $ad_\Psi(F):=\{\Psi,F\}$ is the left adjoint action

3374: of $\Psi$ on Grassmann-valued functions $F$ of fields and antifields,

3375: then the associated one-parameter group of canonical transformations

3376: acts as $e^{t ad_\Psi}F$.  Notice that the BV bracket of two monomials

3377: of degrees $p$ and $q$ in fields and antifields gives either zero or a

3378: homogeneous polynomial of degree $p+q-2$.  Since (\ref{Delta_S})

3379: contains terms of degrees $2$ and $3$ in fields and antifields, it

3380: follows that the adjoint action of a term of order $p$ in the Taylor

3381: expansion of $\Psi$ will produce zero or a sum of polynomials of

3382: degrees $p$ and $p+1$. This implies that the only source of quadratic

3383: terms in $e^{t ad_\Psi}\Delta S_e$ is the quadratic term in the

3384: expansion of $\Psi$ acting an arbitrary number of times on the

3385: quadratic term in the expansion of $\Delta S_e$.  Therefore, a crucial

3386: property of the desired generator $\Psi$ is that the action of $e^{t

3387:   ad_\Psi}$ on the quadratic part of $\Delta S_e$ vanishes.

3388: 

3389: If we also also require that $S_e({\hat \phi}_0)$ be invariant under

3390: the canonical transformation we are looking for, it follows that the

3391: only choice (up to a factor) for the quadratic term in $\Psi$ is \be

3392: \Psi_2=\int_L str_e[{\hat c}*{\hat c}{}^*]=

3393: \int_Ltr_a[c*c{}^*]=-(-)^n\int_Ltr_b[c{}^* * c]~~, \ee since

3394: $S_e({\hat \phi}_0)$ is independent of the pair $({\hat c}, {\hat

3395:   c}^*)$.  The fact that $\Delta S_e$ is linear in fields and

3396: antifields, \be tr_a[c{\partial \ov \partial c}\Delta S_e]=\Delta

3397: S_e~~~~~~~ tr_b[c{}^*{\partial \ov \partial c{}^*}\Delta S_E]=\Delta

3398: S_e \ee implies that: \be ad_{\Psi_2}\Delta S_e\equiv \{\Psi_2,\,

3399: \Delta S_e\}=-(1+(-1)^n)\Delta S_e~~.  \ee It follows that a finite

3400: transformation of $\Delta S_e$ has the form: \be e^{t

3401:   ~ad_{\Psi_2}}\Delta S_e = {1\ov 2} \left(1-(-1)^n\right)\Delta S_e

3402: +{1\ov 2} \left(1+(-1)^n\right)e^{-2t}\Delta S_e~~.

3403: \label{eq:cannytransf}

3404: \ee We therefore find that for odd $n$ the canonical transformation

3405: generated by $\Psi_2$ maps $\Delta S_e$ to itself. In particular,

3406: since $\Psi_2$ was unique up to a factor, this implies that $\Delta

3407: S_e$ cannot be removed. Hence $S_e$ cannot be canonically transformed

3408: into a difference of CS actions for $n=2k+1\geq 3$.

3409: 

3410: For even $n$, the transformation (\ref{eq:cannytransf}) multiplies

3411: $\Delta S_e$ by the factor $e^{-2t}$ which is non-vanishing for any

3412: finite $t$. In the limit $t\rightarrow +\infty$, $\Delta S_e$ is

3413: mapped to zero. Thus, by choosing $\Psi=\Psi_2$ it seems that we can

3414: remove the full $\Delta S_e$. Unfortunately, the limit $t\rightarrow

3415: +\infty$ describes a point in the closure of the space of canonical

3416: transformations and it is not clear whether such a transformation is

3417: indeed allowed.

3418: 

3419: Thus, the extended actions with relative grading $n\ge 3$ (with $n$ of

3420: a given parity) do not seem to be canonically equivalent, even though

3421: their classical counterparts are. However, this does not necessarily

3422: mean that the physical phenomena described by them are different,

3423: since the differences between the actions arise, as shown in the

3424: previous section, by gauging the symmetries associated to a vanishing

3425: field. In \cite{warren} a rather similar situation was analyzed (the

3426: classical action was taken to vanish and the BV action was constructed

3427: using the gauge symmetries of a 5-form field strength coupled to

3428: gravity, in four dimensions). The conclusion of the analysis was that

3429: the vanishing of physical observables survives quantization and the

3430: fields introduced by the BV construction contribute only to gauge

3431: dependent correlation functions. The analogy with the situation in

3432: that paper suggests that once quantization is performed, the

3433: off-diagonal sector $Hom(E_a,\,E_b)$ does not contribute to any

3434: observable, and the equivalence of classical actions with $n\geq 3$

3435: extends to an equivalence between the algebras of observables at the

3436: quantum level.

3437: 

3438: 

3439: 

3440: \section{Relation between the constructive and geometric approach}

3441: 

3442: 

3443: As discussed in Sections 4 and 7, the role of $S_e$ as a tree-level BV

3444: action for graded D-brane pairs can be understood from two quite

3445: different perspectives, a `top-down' approach which makes use of the

3446: geometric formalism and a `bottom-up' approach which uses the standard

3447: homological approach.  While the geometric formalism has the advantage

3448: of extreme generality (for example, it applies to an arbitrary number

3449: of graded D-branes, for which direct computation in components is

3450: impractical) and conceptual elegance, the discussion of Section 7 is

3451: more explicit and constructive (providing, in particular, a deeper

3452: understanding of the origin of various ghosts). In this section we

3453: explain the relation between the two descriptions, and give a more

3454: synthetic formulation of the recursive computations of the previous

3455: section.

3456: 

3457: It is clear from the direct analysis of the previous section that the

3458: gauge algebra of our models is generally reducible.  Therefore, the

3459: BRST procedure extends $S$ by adding the first order action $S_1$,

3460: which is built recursively from a tower of ghosts of various

3461: generations, accompanied by the corresponding antifields.  This leads

3462: to successive extension of the string field $\phi$ to enlarged

3463: collections of fields $\boldphi^{(k)}$ and antifields

3464: $\boldphi^{*(k)}$.  At each step $k$, one builds the $k^{th}$

3465: approximation $S_1^{(k)}$ (defined on ${\cal L}^{(k)}\oplus {\cal

3466:   N}^{(k)}$) to the first order action: \be

3467: \label{Sk}

3468: S^{(k)}_1(\boldphi^{(k)}, \boldphi^{*(k)})= -\omega(\boldphi^{*(k)},

3469: {\bf q}^{(k)}(\boldphi^{(k)}))~~, \ee where ${\bf q}^{(k)}$ is the

3470: BRST generator at order $k$ (identified with a nonlinear operator

3471: acting on the linear space of truncated fields).  The procedure stops

3472: at the step $k_m=\sigma+1$ dictated by order of reducibility $\sigma$

3473: of the gauge algebra. Then ${\bf q}^{(k_m)}={\bf q}$ and

3474: $S_1=S^{(k_m)}_1=-\omega(\boldphi^*, {\bf q}(\boldphi))$. In view of

3475: (\ref{Sexp}), the full master action $S_{BV}=S_e$ is obtained from

3476: $S+S_1$ by adding the following term quadratic in in antifields: \be

3477: S_2(\boldphi^*,\boldphi)=\omega(\boldphi, \boldphi^**\boldphi^*)~~.

3478: \ee To describe this in the geometric language of Section 4, we

3479: consider the expansion $\boldphi=\sum_{s\geq 0}{\phi_s}$, with

3480: $\phi_s\in M_s$.  The BRST operator (\ref{BRST}) has the form: \be

3481: {\bf q}(\boldphi)=\oplus_{s\geq 0}{{\bf q}_s(\boldphi)}~~, \ee with

3482: ${\bf q}_s(\boldphi)\in \Pi M_s=P_s$.  Expanding (\ref{BRST}) gives:

3483: \be {\bf q}_s(\boldphi)=-d\phi_{s+1}-\sum_{i+j=s+1}{\phi_i*\phi_j}~~.

3484: \ee Consider the subspaces: \be {\cal L}^{(k)}:=\oplus_{0\leq s\leq

3485:   k}{M_{s}}~~,~~ {\cal R}^{(k)}:=\oplus_{s>k}{M_{s}}~~, \ee which give

3486: complementary ascending and descending sequences of approximations for

3487: ${\cal L}$: \bea

3488: \label{chains}

3489: & &{\cal L}^{(0)}~\subset {\cal L}^{(1)}~\subset {\cal

3490:   L}^{(2)}~\subset ...

3491: ~\subset{\cal L}^{(k_m)}={\cal L}~~\nn\\

3492: & &0={\cal R}^{(k_m)}\subset {\cal R}^{(k_{m-1})}\subset

3493: ...\subset {\cal R}^{(1)}\subset{\cal R}^{(0)}~~,\\

3494: & &{\cal L}^{(k)}\oplus {\cal R}^{(k)}={\cal L}~~.\nn \eea We also

3495: define ${\cal N}^{(k)}= \oplus_{-k\leq s<0}{M_{s}}$, which give an

3496: ascending sequence of approximations for ${\cal N}$.  Then the $k$-th

3497: approximation to ${\bf q}$ is obtained as: \be {\bf

3498:   q}^{(k)}=P^{(k)}{\bf q}|_{{\cal L}^{(k)}}~~, \ee where $P^{(k)}$ is

3499: the projector of $\Pi{\cal L}$ onto $\Pi {\cal L}^{(k)}$, parallel

3500: with the subspace $\Pi{\cal R}^{(k)}$.  Defining: \be

3501: \boldphi^{(k)}:=\sum_{0\leq s\leq k}{\phi_s}\in {\cal L}^{(k)}~~,~~

3502: \boldphi^{*(k)}:=\sum_{0\leq s\leq k}{\phi^*_s}\in {\cal N}^{(k)}~~,

3503: \ee we can write: \be {\bf q}^{(k)}(\boldphi^{(k)})= \oplus_{0\leq

3504:   s\leq k}{{\bf q}^{(k)}_s(\boldphi^{(k)})}~~, \ee with: \be

3505: \label{qk}

3506: {\bf q}^{(k)}_s(\boldphi^{(k)})= -d\phi_{s+1}-\sum_{\tiny

3507:   \begin{array}{c}i+j=s+1\\0\leq i,j \leq k

3508: \end{array}}{\phi_i*\phi_j}~~.

3509: \ee This explicit expression for ${\bf q}^{(k)}$ allows us to recover

3510: the truncation $S_1^{(k)}$ of the first order action upon applying the

3511: prescription (\ref{Sk}).  For comparison with the case of D-brane

3512: pairs, we list the first three approximations $k=1,2,3$.

3513: 

3514: \paragraph{First approximation}

3515:         

3516: The first order extended field and antifield are: \bea

3517: {\boldphi}^{(1)}=\phi+c_1~~,~~{\boldphi}^{*(1)}=\phi^*+c_1^*~~.  \eea

3518: Expanding (\ref{qk}) gives: \bea

3519: \label{brst1}

3520: -{\bf q}_0^{(1)}(\boldphi^{(1)})&=&dc_1+\phi*c_1+c_1*\phi~~\nn\\

3521: -{\bf q}_1^{(1)}(\boldphi^{(1)})&=&c_1*c_1~~.  \eea \footnote{In the

3522:   previous section we used the infinitesimal BRST transformation

3523:   denoted by $\delta$. As usual, the infinitesimal transformations are

3524:   given by the action of the generator multiplied by the parameter of

3525:   the transformation.  In our case, at the first step in the iterative

3526:   procedure, we have: \bea \delta\boldphi^{(1)}\equiv -{\bf

3527:     q}^{(1)}({\boldphi}^{(1)})\lambda~~, \nn \eea where $\lambda$ is a

3528:   Grassmann-odd constant which plays the role of parameter for the

3529:   BRST transformations. Projecting this relation onto $M_0({\hat 0})$

3530:   and $M_1({\hat 1})$ we find the infinitesimal transformations used

3531:   previously: \bea

3532: \label{brst1lambda}

3533: \delta^{(1)}\phi=(dc_1+\phi*c_1+c_1*\phi)\lambda~~,

3534: ~~\delta^{(1)}c_1=(c_1*c_1)\lambda~~.\nn \eea }.  For D-brane pairs

3535: with relative grading $n=0$ the gauge algebra is irreducible ($o=0$)

3536: and $S_1=S_1^{(1)}$.

3537: 

3538: 

3539: \paragraph{Second approximation}

3540: 

3541: For this, one introduces second generation ghosts $c_2$ and antighost

3542: $c^*_2$.  The BRST transformations of the extended field

3543: ${\boldphi}^{(2)}=\phi+c_1+c_2$ have the expanded form: \bea

3544: \label{brst2}

3545: -{\bf q}^{(2)}_0(\boldphi^{(2)})&=&dc_1+\phi*c_1+c_1*\phi~~\nn\\

3546: -{\bf q}^{(2)}_1(\boldphi^{(2)})&=&dc_2+\phi*c_2+c_2*\phi+c_1*c_1~~\\

3547: -{\bf q}^{(2)}_2(\boldphi^{(2)})&=&c_2*c_1+c_1*c_2~~.\nn \eea The

3548: second approximation $S_1^{(2)}$ to $S_1$ is given by (\ref{Sk}) with

3549: the antifields ${\boldphi}^{*(2)}=\phi^*+c_1^*+c_2^*$.  For D-brane

3550: pairs of relative grading $n=1$, the gauge algebra is first stage

3551: reducible ($o=1$) and $S_1=S_1^{(2)}$.

3552: 

3553: 

3554: \paragraph{Third approximation}

3555: 

3556: We continue by adding a third generation ghost $c_3$ and antifield

3557: $c_3^*$.  This gives the extended field

3558: ${\boldphi}^{(3)}=\phi+c_1+c_2+c_3$, whose components has the BRST

3559: transformations (\ref{qk}): \bea

3560: \label{brst3}

3561: -{\bf q}^{(3)}_0(\boldphi^{(3)})&=&dc_1+\phi*c_1+c_1*\phi~~\nn\\

3562: -{\bf q}^{(3)}_1(\boldphi^{(3)})&=&dc_2+\phi*c_2+c_2*\phi+c_1*c_1~~\nn\\

3563: -{\bf q}^{(3)}_2(\boldphi^{(3)})&=&dc_3+\phi*c_3+c_3*\phi+c_2*c_1+c_1*c_2\\

3564: -{\bf q}^{(3)}_3(\boldphi^{(3)})&=&c_2*c_2+c_1*c_3+c_3*c_1~~.\nn \eea

3565: The third approximation $S_1^{(3)}$ is constructed from (\ref{Sk})

3566: with the antifields ${\boldphi}^{*(3)}=\phi^*+c_1^*+c_2^*+c_3^*$. This

3567: coincides with the full first order action for the case of relative

3568: grading $n=3$.  For D-brane pairs with relative grading $n=2$, the

3569: gauge algebra is second order reducible ($o=2$) and $S_1=S_1^{(3)}$.

3570: 

3571: 

3572: To check agreement with previous computations, let us first consider

3573: the case $n=1$.  It is not hard to check that upon inserting

3574: (\ref{coords1}) into (\ref{brst2}) one recovers equation

3575: (\ref{eq:fullBRSTn1}) of the previous section.  For $n=2$ one recovers

3576: the BRST transformations (\ref{eq:fullBRSTn2}) upon inserting

3577: (\ref{coords2}) into (\ref{brst3}).  It is also easy to check that the

3578: difference between $\delta^{(k)}=-{\bf q}^{(k)}\lambda$ and

3579: $\delta^{(k-1)}=-{\bf q}^{(k-1)}\lambda$ of this section produces

3580: $\delta_{k}$ of the previous section.  It is clear that the covariant

3581: formulation given above can be generalized to systems containing more

3582: than two graded D-branes.

3583: 

3584: \section{Conclusions and directions for further research}

3585: 

3586: We studied graded D-brane systems along the lines proposed in

3587: \cite{sc}, showing that the extended action written down in that paper

3588: plays the role of classical master action for the string field theory

3589: of such backgrounds. We gave a completely general proof of the master

3590: equation by making use of a certain $\Z$-graded version of the

3591: geometric BV formalism, which is based on the concept of graded

3592: supermanifolds recently introduced by T. Voronov. We argued that

3593: graded supermanifolds are the correct framework for a covariant

3594: description of BV systems, and discussed the basics of the geometric

3595: approach within this context. These results are of independent

3596: interest for foundational studies of BV quantization.

3597: 

3598: We also performed a direct construction of the master action for the

3599: case of graded D-brane pairs. This allowed us to identify the various

3600: components of the extended string field as ghosts and antifields

3601: produced by the BV procedure, and explain their origin in the

3602: reducibility of the gauge algebra.  Upon using the formalism of

3603: \cite{com1} and \cite{com3}, we analyzed formation of D-brane

3604: composites in systems of two graded D-branes, and in particular gave a

3605: rigorous construction of acyclic condensates for the case of unit

3606: relative grading. This gives a detailed implementation and

3607: generalization of ideas proposed in \cite{Vafa_cs}, though in a

3608: somewhat different context.

3609: 

3610: For the case of graded D-brane pairs, we showed that the six classical

3611: theories corresponding to various relative grades arise through

3612: different choices of ghost grading and classical gauge for two

3613: underlying master actions, the extended Chern-Simons and extended

3614: super-Chern-Simons functionals.  We also showed that these theories

3615: are inequivalent in the case when the underlying special Lagrangian

3616: three-cycle is topologically nontrivial.  This sheds new light on the

3617: `mod~6~periodicity' of the D-brane grade discussed from a worldsheet

3618: perspective in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}.

3619: 

3620: Our results can be viewed as a starting point for the quantization of

3621: such systems.  As already pointed out in \cite{sc}, the string field

3622: theory of graded D-branes gives a concrete representation of points of

3623: the {\em extended} boundary moduli space, thereby holding the promise

3624: for a better understanding of its physical significance. This should

3625: be of direct relevance for the homological mirror symmetry programme.

3626: A quantum analysis of our theories around such backgrounds should lead

3627: to new physical information, as well as to certain extensions of

3628: various geometric invariants. This and related matters are the subject

3629: of ongoing research. Here we only note that a thorough study away from

3630: the large radius limit must take into account destabilization and

3631: other instanton effects \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2, boundary}.

3632: 

3633: Let us finally mention that a similar analysis can be carried out for

3634: the open B-model, in which case one deals with (graded) D6-branes

3635: wrapping the entire Calabi-Yau manifold. In that case, the relevant

3636: string field theory is a graded version of holomorphic Chern-Simons

3637: theory \cite{com3, Diaconescu}. It is clear that all of our

3638: constructions have a parallel in such situations, provided that one

3639: makes the appropriate modifications.  Since the B model does not

3640: receive instanton corrections, the BV systems associated to graded

3641: B-type branes should be viewed as a description of the associated

3642: deformation theory; for example, they allow for a classification of

3643: the local string field observables, which can be used to deform such

3644: models. Some of these issues are currently under investigation.

3645: 

3646: 

3647: 

3648: \acknowledgments{ We thank W.~Siegel, M.~Ro\v{c}ek , S.~Vandoren, and

3649:   D.~E.~Diaconescu for interesting conversations and interest in our

3650:   work.  The authors are supported by the Research Foundation under

3651:   NSF grant PHY-9722101.

3652: 

3653: \appendix

3654: 

3655: 

3656: \section{Graded supermodules and super-bimodules}

3657: 

3658: Consider an associative superalgebra $G$ ($\Z_2$-graded associative

3659: algebra with a unit).  We remind the reader that a {\em right/left

3660:   supermodule} $U$ over $G$ is a $\Z_2$-graded right/left G-module

3661: such that the scalar multiplication $U\times G\rightarrow U$

3662: (respectively $G\times U\rightarrow U$) is homogeneous of degree zero:

3663: \be deg(u\alpha)=degu+deg\alpha~~{\rm~respectively~}deg(\alpha

3664: u)=degu+deg\alpha \ee where $deg$ denotes the grading on $U$ or $G$. A

3665: {\em super-bimodule} $U$ is simultaneously a left and right $G$-module

3666: such that the left and right scalar multiplications are compatible:

3667: \be \alpha u=(-1)^{deg\alpha~deg u}u\alpha~~.  \ee It is clear that

3668: this relation determines one scalar multiplication given the other, so

3669: a left or right supermodule can be made into a super-bimodule in a

3670: unique manner.

3671: 

3672: \section{Left and right vector fields}

3673: 

3674: Consider a DeWitt-Rogers supermanifold $M$ modeled over the algebra of

3675: constants $G$. The space ${\cal F}(M,G)$ of G-valued (smooth)

3676: functions is then a super-bimodule over $G$ with respect to pointwise

3677: scalar multiplication: \be (F\alpha)(p)=F(p)\alpha~~,~~(\alpha

3678: F)(p)=\alpha F(p)~~.  \ee It is also a ring with respect to pointwise

3679: multiplication of functions: \be (FG)(p)=F(p)G(p)~~.  \ee Combining

3680: the two structures, we obtain a superalgebra over $G$; this

3681: statement means that one has relations such as $\alpha FG=

3682: (-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon_F}F\alpha G=

3683: (-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha(\epsilon_F+\epsilon_G)}FG\alpha$.

3684: 

3685: A left (right) vector field on $M$ is a left (right) graded derivation

3686: of this algebra. For left vector fields, this means: \be

3687: X_l(F\alpha)=X_l(F)\alpha~~,~~X_l(FG)=X_l(F)G+

3688: (-1)^{\epsilon_F\epsilon_{X_l}}FX_l(G)~~, \ee while for right vector

3689: fields one requires: \be X_r(\alpha F)=\alpha

3690: X_r(F)~~,~~X_r(FG)=FX_r(G)+ (-1)^{\epsilon_G \epsilon_{X_r}}X_r(F)G~~.

3691: \ee In these relations, $\epsilon_{X_l}$ and $\epsilon_{X_r}$ are the

3692: vector field parities. One also defines scalar multiplications: \be

3693: (\alpha X_l)(F):=\alpha X_l(F)~~,~~(Y_l\alpha)(F)=Y_l(F)\alpha~~.  \ee

3694: With these operations and grading (and the obvious definition of

3695: addition), the space ${\cal X}_l(M)$ of left derivations of ${\cal

3696:   F}(M)$ is a left $G$-supermodule, while the space ${\cal X}_r(M)$ of

3697: right derivations is a right $G$-supermodule.

3698: 

3699: It is common procedure to identify left and right vector fields on $M$

3700: in the following manner. If $X_l$ is a left vector field, one defines

3701: $\phi(X_l)$ by: \be \phi(X_l)(F):=(-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_F}X_l(F)~~.

3702: \ee It is the easy to check that $\phi$ is a degree zero isomorphism

3703: between the graded Abelian groups $(X_l(M),+)$ and $(X_r(M),+)$.

3704: Moreover, one has the property: \be

3705: \label{phi_mult}

3706: \phi(\alpha~X_l)=(-1)^{\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon_X}\phi(X_l)\alpha~~.

3707: \ee This allows one to identify ${\cal X}_l(M)$ and ${\cal X}_r(M)$ to

3708: a single abstract space ${\cal X}(M)$, the space of vector fields on

3709: $M$.  This space inherits left and right module structures from

3710: $X_l(M)$ and $X_r(M)$, and relation (\ref{phi_mult}) shows that the

3711: two structures are compatible. Thus ${\cal X}(M)$ is a super-bimodule

3712: over $G$. An element $X$ of ${\cal X}(M)$ can be viewed as a pair

3713: $(X_l, X_r)$ with $X_l\in {\cal X}_l(G)$ and $X_r\in {\cal X}_r(G)$,

3714: where $X_l$ and $X_r$ are $\phi$-related, i.e.  $X_r=\phi(X_l)$. In

3715: this situation, one uses the notation: \be

3716: X_l:=\stackrel{\rightarrow}{X}~~,~~X_r:=\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}~~,

3717: \ee and writes $\stackrel{\rightarrow}{X}F$ for $X_l(F)$ and

3718: $F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}$ for $X_r(F)$.  With these notations, the

3719: $\phi$-relatedness condition becomes: \be

3720: \stackrel{\rightarrow}{X}F=(-1)^{\epsilon_X\epsilon_F}

3721: F\stackrel{\leftarrow}{X}~~.  \ee This is the rigorous construction

3722: behind the conventions used in Section 4.1. We warn the reader that

3723: the vector fields $\partial^l_a$ and $\partial^r_a$ defined in that

3724: section do {\em not} form a $\phi$-related pair, in spite of the

3725: similarity with the notation used in this appendix.  In the body of

3726: this paper, we use exclusively the convention that left and right

3727: vector fields are identified to abstract objects $X$, and the left and

3728: right components of $X$ are denoted by superscript arrows as explained

3729: above.

3730: 

3731: 

3732: 

3733: \section{Direct check of the master equation for D-brane pairs}

3734: 

3735: In this appendix we exemplify the steps needed for the proof that the

3736: BV action satisfies the master equation.  We choose to take here an

3737: easier (but equivalent) path, namely we prove that the BRST

3738: transformations are nilpotent. More precisely, we show that: \be

3739: \delta({\lambda_2})\delta({\lambda_1}) \hat\phi=\{\{\hat\phi,

3740: S_{BV}\lambda_1\},S_{BV}\lambda_2\}=0~~, \ee where $\lambda_1,

3741: \lambda_2$ are anti-commuting constants \footnote{Each block component

3742:   in the matrix $\hat\phi$ can be viewed locally as a matrix of forms.

3743:   For example, $(\phi^{(1)})^{ji}$ and its antifield

3744:   $(\phi^{*(2)})^{ij}$ have indices $i,j=1,\dots rk E_a $ while

3745:   $(\phi^{(0)})^{ik}$ and its antifield $(\phi^{(3)})^{ki}$ have

3746:   indices $i=1,\dots rk E_a$, $k=1,\dots rk E_b$. To avoid complicated

3747:   notation we suppress all such indices.}  .  For the case with

3748: relative grading $n=1$, consider the BRST transformations of $\p1$:

3749: \bea

3750: \label{sss}

3751: \delta({\lambda_2})\delta({\lambda_1}) \p1&&=\{\left(dc_1^{(0)}

3752:   -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(1)}\p0-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(1)}\right)\lambda_1,

3753: S_{BV}\lambda_2\}\nonu\\

3754: &&=\left[ -d((c_1^{(0)})^2+c_2^{(0)}\p0) +

3755:   ((c_1^{(0)})^2+c_2^{(0)}\p0)\p1

3756:   -\p1((c_1^{(0)})^2+c_2^{(0)}\p0)\right.

3757: \nonu\\

3758: && +(dc_1^{(0)} -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(1)}\p0-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(1)})c_1^{(0)}\nonu\\

3759: &&+ c_1^{(0)}(dc_1^{(0)} -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(1)}\p0-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(1)})\nonu\\

3760: && +(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}c_1^{'(0)}+dc_2^{(0)}+\p1c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp1)\p0\nonu\\

3761: && +(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})\phi^{*(1)} +c_1^{(1)}(\p0c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{'(0)}\p0)\nonu\\

3762: &&

3763: \left.-c_2^{(0)}(-d\p0+\p0\p1-\hp1\p0-\phi^{*(1)}c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{'(0)}\phi^{*(1)})

3764: \right]\lambda_1\lambda_2=0~~.  \eea We similarly have: \bea

3765: \delta({\lambda_2})\delta({\lambda_1})

3766: \p0&&=\{\left( \p0c_1^{(0)}+c_1^{'(0)}\p0\right)\lambda_1, S_{BV} \lambda_2\}\nonu\\

3767: &&=\left[-(\p0c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{'(0)}\p0)c_1^{(0)}+\p0(c_2^{(0)}\p0+(c_1^{(0)})^2)\right.\nonu\\

3768: &&\left.-((c_1^{'(0)})^2+\p0c_2^{(0)})\p0-

3769:   c_1^{'(0)}(\p0c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{'(0)}\p0)\right]\lambda_1\lambda_2=0~~,

3770: \eea as well as: \bea \delta({\lambda_2})\delta({\lambda_1})

3771: \p2&&=\{\left(dc_1^{(1)}+\p2c_1^{'(0)}-c_1^{(0)}\p2+\p1c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}\hp1

3772:   +\phi^{*(2)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}\phi^{'*(2)}\right)\lambda_1, S_{BV} \lambda_2\}\nonu\\

3773: &&=\left[-(d(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}c_1^{'(0)}+dc_2^{(0)}+\p1c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp1)\right.\nonu\\

3774: &&-(\p1(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}c_1^{'(0)}+dc_2^{(0)}+\p1c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp1)\nonu\\

3775: &&-(c_1^{(0)}c_1^{(1)}+c_1^{(1)}c_1^{'(0)}+dc_2^{(0)}+\p1c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp1)\hp1\nonu\\

3776: &&+(dc_1^{(1)}+\p2c_1^{'(0)}-c_1^{(0)}+c_1^{(1)}\hp1+\p1c_1^{(1)}+\phi^{*(2)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}\phi^{'*(2)})c_1^{'(0)}\nonu\\

3777: &&+c_1^{(0)}(dc_1^{(1)}+\p2c_1^{'(0)}-c_1^{(0)}+c_1^{(1)}\hp1+\p1c_1^{(1)}+\phi^{*(2)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}\phi^{'*(2)})\nonu\\

3778: &&+((c_1^{(0)})^2+c_2^{(0)}\p0)\p2-\p2((c_1^{'(0)})^2+\p0c_2^{(0)})\nonu\\

3779: &&-c_1^{(1)}(dc_1^{'(0)}+\hp1c_1^{'(0)}-c_1^{'(0)}\hp1-\p0c_1^{(1)}-\phi^{*(1)}c_2^{(0)})\nonu\\

3780: &&(dc_1^{(0)}+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(0)}\p1+c_1^{(1)}\p0-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(1)})c_1^{(1)}\nonu\\

3781: &&+\phi^{*(2)}(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})-(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})\phi^{'*(2)}\nonu\\

3782: &&+(d\p1+\p1{}^2+\p2\p0-\phi^{*(2)}c_1^{(0)}-c_1^{(0)}\phi^{*(2)}-c_1^{(1)}

3783: \phi^{*(1)}+c_2^{(0)}

3784: c_1^{*(2)})c_2^{(0)}\nonu\\

3785: &&+c_2^{(0)}(-d\hp1-\hp1{}^2-\p0\p2-c_1^{'(0)}\phi^{'*(2)}

3786: -\phi^{'*(2)}c_1^{'(0)}+\phi^{*(1)}c_1^{(1)}\nonu\\

3787: &&\left.-c_1^{*(2)}c_2^{(0)})\right]\lambda_1\lambda_2=0~~.  \eea

3788: 

3789: Nilpotence of the BRST transformations in the ghost sector follows

3790: from similar calculations. For instance: \bea

3791: \delta_{\lambda_2}\delta_{\lambda_1}c_2^{(0)}&=&\{(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})\lambda_1, S_{BV} \lambda_2\}\nonu\\

3792: &=&\left[c_1^{(0)}(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})-((c_1^{(0)})^2+c_2^{(0)}\p0)c_2^{(0)}\right.\nonu\\

3793: &+&\left.c_2^{(0)}((c_1^{'(0)})^2+\p0c_2^{(0)})+((c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})c_1^{'(0)})\right]

3794: \lambda_1\lambda_2=0~~.  \eea To prove the master equation, one must

3795: also analyze the transformation of antifields.

3796: 

3797: 

3798: Let us now exemplify nilpotence of the bracket for the case of

3799: relative grading $n=2$. For $\phi^{(1)}$, one has: \bea

3800: \delta_{\lambda_2}\delta_{\lambda_1}\p1&&=\{\left(dc_1^{(0)}

3801:   -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{*(1)}-c_2^{(1)}

3802:   \phi^{*(0)}\right)\lambda_1,

3803: S_{BV}\lambda_2\}\nonu\\

3804: &&=\left[-d((c_1^{(0)})^2-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(0)})-\p1 ((c_1^{(0)})^2-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(0)})\right.\nonu\\

3805: &&+((c_1^{(0)})^2-c_2^{(0)}\phi^{*(0)})\p1+c_1^{(0)}( dc_1^{(0)}

3806: -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{*(1)}-c_2^{(1)}\phi^{*(0)})

3807: \nonu\\

3808: &&+(dc_1^{(0)}

3809: -c_1^{(0)}\p1+\p1c_1^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}c_1^{*(1)}-c_2^{(1)}\phi^{*(0)})c_1^{(0)}+(c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(0)}+c_2^{(0)}c_1^{'(0)})c_1^{*(1)}

3810: \nonu\\

3811: &&-c_2^{(0)}(d\phi^{*(0)}+\hp1 \phi^{*(0)}-\phi^{*(0)}\p1-c_1^{*(1)}c_1^{(0)}+c_1^{'(0)}c_1^{*(1)})\nonu\\

3812: &&-(dc_2^{(0)}-c_2^{(0)}\hp1+\p1c_2^{(0)}-c_1^{(0)}c_2^{(1)}+c_2^{(1)}c_1^{'(0)})\phi^{*(0)}\nonu\\

3813: &&+\left.c_2^{(1)}(\phi^{*(0)}c_1^{(0)}+

3814:   c_1^{'(0)}\phi^{*(0)})\right]\lambda_1\lambda_2=0~~.  \eea

3815: 

3816: 

3817: 

3818: 

3819: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

3820:   

3821: \bibitem{Douglas_Kontsevich}{M.~R.~Douglas, {\em D-branes, Categories

3822:       and N=1 Supersymmetry}, hep-th/0011017.}  \bibitem{com1}{

3823:     C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Generalized complexes and string field

3824:       theory}, hep-th/0102122.}  \bibitem{com3}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em

3825:       Unitarity, D-brane dynamics and D-brane categories},

3826:     hep-th/0102183. } \bibitem{Aspinwall}{P.~S.~Aspinwall,

3827:     A.~Lawrence, {\em Derived Categories and Zero-Brane Stability},

3828:     hep-th/0104147.}  \bibitem{Diaconescu}{D.~E.~Diaconescu, {\em

3829:       Enhanced D-Brane Categories from String Field Theory},

3830:     hep-th/0104200.}  \bibitem{sc}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Graded

3831:       Lagrangians, exotic topological D-branes and enhanced

3832:       triangulated categories}, hep-th/0105063}

3833: \bibitem{Oz_superconn}{ M.~Alishahiha, H.~Ita, Y.~Oz, {\em On

3834:       Superconnections and the Tachyon Effective Action},

3835:     hep-th/0012222.}  \bibitem{Oz_triples}{Y.~Oz, T.~Pantev,

3836:     D.~Waldram, {\em Brane-Antibrane Systems on Calabi-Yau Spaces},

3837:     hep-th/0009112.}  \bibitem{Fukaya}{K.~Fukaya, {\em Morse homotopy,

3838:       $A^\infty$-category and Floer homologies}, in {\em Proceedings

3839:       of the GARC Workshop on Geometry and Topology}, ed. by

3840:     H.~J.~Kim, Seoul national University (1994), 1-102; {\em Floer

3841:       homology, $A^\infty$-categories and topological field theory},

3842:     in {\em Geometry and Physics}, Lecture notes in pure and applied

3843:     mathematics, {\bf 184}, pp 9-32, Dekker, New York, 1997; {\em

3844:       Floer homology and Mirror symmetry, I}, preprint available at

3845:     $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

3846: \bibitem{Fukaya2}{K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H.~Ohta, K.~Ono, {\em

3847:       Lagrangian intersection Floer theory - anomaly and obstruction},

3848:     preprint available at

3849:     $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

3850: \bibitem{Kontsevich_recent}{M.~Kontsevich, Y.~Soibelman, {\em

3851:       Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations},

3852:     math.SG/0011041.}  \bibitem{Ooguri}{ H.~Ooguri, Y.~Oz, Z.~Yin,

3853:     {\em D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors}, Nucl.Phys.

3854:     {\bf B477} (1996) 407-430.}  \bibitem{Kontsevich}{M.~Kontsevich,

3855:     {\em Homological algebra of mirror symmetry}, Proceedings of the

3856:     International Congress of Mathematicians, (Zurich, 1994),

3857:     120--139, Birkhauser, alg-geom/9411018.}

3858: \bibitem{Vafa_cs}{C.~Vafa, {\em Brane/anti-Brane Systems and $U(N|M)$

3859:       Supergroup}, hep-th/0101218.}  \bibitem{Kontsevich_Schwarz}{ M.

3860:     Alexandrov, M. Kontsevich, A. Schwarz, O. Zaboronsky, {\em The

3861:       Geometry of the Master Equation and Topological Quantum Field

3862:       Theory}, Int.J.Mod.Phys. {\bf A12} (1997) 1405-1430,

3863:     hep-th/9502010.}  \bibitem{Voronov}{T.~Voronov, {\em Graded

3864:       manifolds and Drinfeld doubles for Lie bialgebroids},

3865:     math.DG/0105237.}  \bibitem{Witten_CS}{ E.~Witten,{\em

3866:       Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory}, The Floer

3867:     memorial volume, 637--678, Progr. Math., 133, Birkhauser, Basel,

3868:     1995, hep-th/9207094.}  \bibitem{Seidel}{P.~Seidel, {\em Graded

3869:       Lagrangian submanifolds}, Bull. Soc. Math. France {\bf 128}

3870:     (2000), 103-149, math.SG/9903049.}

3871: \bibitem{Bismut_Lott}{J.~M.~Bismut and J.~Lott, {\em Flat vector

3872:       bundles, direct images and higher analytic torsion}, J. Amer.

3873:     Math Soc {\bf 8} (1992) 291.}  \bibitem{Quillen}{D.~Quillen, {\em

3874:       Superconnections and the Chern character}, Topology, {\bf 24},

3875:     No.1.(1085), 89-95.}  \bibitem{Gaberdiel}{ M.~Gaberdiel,

3876:     B.~Zwiebach, {\em Tensor constructions of open string theories

3877:       I:Foundations}, Nucl. Phys {\bf B505} (1997) 569,

3878:     hep-th/9705038.}  \bibitem{Zwiebach_open}{ B.~Zwiebach, {\em

3879:       Oriented open-closed string theory revisited}, Annals. Phys.

3880:     {\bf 267} (1988), 193, hep-th/9705241.}  \bibitem{supergroupCS}{

3881:     J.~H.~Horne, {\em Skein relations and Wilson loops in Chern-Simons

3882:       gauge theory}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B334} (1990) 669; Bourdeau, E.J.

3883:     Mlawer, H. Riggs and H.J. Schnitzer, {\em The quasirational fusion

3884:       structure of $SU(M|N)$ Chern-Simons and W-Z-W theories}, Nucl.

3885:     Phys. {\bf B372} (1992) 303; L. Rozansky and H. Saleur, {\em

3886:       Reidemeister torsion, the Alexander polynomial and $U(1,1)$

3887:       Chern-Simons theory}, J. Geom. Phys. {\bf 13} (1994) 105.}

3888: \bibitem{Witten_antibracket}{E.~Witten, {\em A note on the antibracket

3889:       formalism}, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A5} (1990) 487.}

3890: \bibitem{Henneaux_geom}{M.~Henneaux, {\em Geometric Interpretation of

3891:       the Quantum Master Equation in the BRST--anti-BRST Formalism},

3892:     Phys. Lett. {\bf B282} (1992) 372, hep-th/9205018.}

3893: \bibitem{Khudaverdian}{O.~M.~Khudaverdian, A.~P.~Nersessian, {\em On

3894:       the Geometry of the Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism}, Mod. Phys.

3895:     Lett. {\bf A8} (1993) 2377-2386, hep-th/9303136.}

3896: \bibitem{Schwarz_geom}{A.~Schwarz, {\em Geometry of Batalin-Vilkovisky

3897:       quantization}, Commun.Math.Phys. {\bf 155} (1993) 249-260.}

3898: \bibitem{Schwarz_semiclassical}{A.~Schwarz, {\em Semiclassical

3899:       approximation in Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism},

3900:     Commun.Math.Phys. {\bf 158} (1993) 373-396.}

3901: \bibitem{Schwarz_symms}{A.~Schwarz, {\em Symmetry transformations in

3902:       Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism}, Lett.Math.Phys. {\bf 31} (1994)

3903:     299-302.}  \bibitem{Schwarz_superanalogues}{A.~Schwarz, {\em

3904:       Superanalogs of symplectic and contact geometry and their

3905:       applications to quantum field theory}, hep-th/9406120.}

3906: \bibitem{FHST}{J.~M.~L.~Fisch, M.~Henneaux, J.~Stasheff,

3907:     C.~Teitelboim, {\em Existence, Uniqueness And Cohomology Of The

3908:       Classical BRST Charge With Ghosts Of Ghosts},

3909:     Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 120} (1989) 379.}

3910: \bibitem{FH}{J.~M.~Fisch and M.~Henneaux, {\em Homological

3911:       Perturbation Theory And The Algebraic Structure Of The Antifield

3912:       - Antibracket Formalism For Gauge Theories}, Commun.~Math.~Phys.

3913:     {\bf 128} (1990) 627.}  \bibitem{Stasheff_bv}{ J.~Stasheff, {\em

3914:       The (secret ?) homological algebra of the Batalin-Vilkovisky

3915:       approach}, Secondary calculus and cohomological physics (Moscow,

3916:     1997), 195--210, Contemp. Math. {\bf 219} (1998), hep-th/9712157.}

3917: \bibitem{Henneaux_lectures}{M.~Henneaux, {\em Lectures On The

3918:       Antifield - BRST Formalism For Gauge Theories}, Nuclear Physics

3919:     B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 18A} (1990).}  \bibitem{Gomis}{J.~Gomis,

3920:     J.~Paris, S.~Samuel, {\em Antibracket, Antifields and Gauge-Theory

3921:       Quantization}, Phys.Rept. {\bf 259} (1995) 1-145.}

3922: \bibitem{Berezin}{F.~A.~Berezin, {\em The Method of Second

3923:       Quantization}, Pure and Appl. Phys. {\bf 24}, Academic Press,

3924:     New -York, 1966.}  \bibitem{DeWitt}{B.~DeWitt, {\em

3925:       Supermanifolds}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1984.}

3926: \bibitem{Rogers}{A.~Rogers, {\em A global theory of supermanifolds},

3927:     J.~Math.~Phys {\bf 21} (1980) 1352-1365.}

3928: \bibitem{Schmitt}{T.~Schmitt: {\em Supergeometry and Quantum Field

3929:       Theory, or: What is a Classical Configuration?}, Rev.Math.Phys.

3930:     {\bf 9} (1997) 993-1052, hep-th/9607132.}

3931: \bibitem{Manin}{Yu.~I.~Manin {\em Three constructions of Frobenius

3932:       manifolds: a comparative study}, Asian J. Math. {\bf 3} (1999),

3933:     no. 1, 179--220, math.QA/9801006. }

3934: \bibitem{Kontsevich_Felder}{M.~Kontsevich, {\em Deformation

3935:       quantization of Poisson Manifolds}, I, mat/9709010.}

3936: \bibitem{Witten_nlsm}{ E.~Witten, {\em Topological sigma models},

3937:     Commun. Math. Phys.  {\bf 118} (1988),411.}

3938: \bibitem{Witten_mirror}{E.~Witten, {\em Mirror manifolds and

3939:       topological field theory}, Essays on mirror manifolds, 120--158,

3940:     Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, hep-th/9112056.}

3941: \bibitem{SYZ}{A.~Strominger, S.-T.~Yau, E.~Zaslow, {\em Mirror

3942:       Symmetry is T-Duality} Nucl.Phys. {\bf B479} (1996) 243}

3943: \bibitem{AS1}{S.~Axelrod, I.~M.`Singer, {\em Chern-Simons perturbation

3944:       theory}, Proceedings of the XXth International Conference on

3945:     Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, 2

3946:     (New York, 1991), 3--45, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ,

3947:     1992, hep-th/9110056.}  \bibitem{Ikemori}{H.~Ikemori, {\em

3948:       Extended form method of antifield-BRST formalism for topological

3949:       quantum field theories}, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 10} (1993)

3950:     233, hep-th/9206061.}  \bibitem{Barnich}{G.~Barnich, R.~Fulp,

3951:     T.~Lada, J. Stasheff, The sh Lie structure of Poisson brackets in

3952:     Field Theory, Commun.~Math.~Phys.{\bf 191} (1998) 585.}

3953: \bibitem{warren}{W. Siegel, {\em Quantum Equivalence of Different

3954:       Field Representations}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B103} (1981) 107.}

3955: \bibitem{boundary}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Instanton amplitudes in

3956:       open-closed topological string theory}, hep-th/0011257.}

3957: 

3958: 

3959: 

3960: 

3961: 

3962: \end{thebibliography}

3963: 

3964: \end{document}

3965: 

3966: