The pure spinor formalism for superstrings ∗

†
Guhan Sukumaran
Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics
University of Bonn, Germany

January 21, 2011

1 Introduction
Pure spinor formalism was born as a result of the need for a manifestly space-time su-
persymmetric and Lorentz symmetric formalism. Such manifest symmetries simplify the
calculation of scattering amplitudes. The tree-level scattering amplitudes provide the α′
or higher-derivative corrections to the super-Einstein-Hilbert and super-Yang-Mills effective
actions, while loop-level amplitudes provide the gs corrections to the same. We will first
briefly review the Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz and Green-Schwarz formalisms to motivate the
need for pure spinor formalism. For reviews, see [18], [19], [20], [21].

1.1 Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz (RNS)

The RNS formalism is based upon spacetime vectors - X m and ψ m - which are scalars (X m )
or spinors (ψ m ) of the two-dimensional worldsheet. This lack of spacetime fermions forces
the use of some not-so-straight-forward constructions of fermionic vertex operator by using
spin fields built through bosonization of worldsheet spinors, ψ m (Ch.13 of [1], Ch.10 of [2]).
In addition, since ψ m are worldsheet fermions, multi-loop amplitudes require summing over
different spin structures. Because of these complexities, in more than two decades, scattering
amplitudes using the RNS formalism have been computed up to 6 fermions at tree level [3],
up to 4 fermions at 1-loop [4] and 4 bosons with no fermions in 2-loops [5]. Furthermore,
RNS scattering amplitudes are calculable only in the presence of NS-NS background fields,
but not R-R fields. Since R-R fields support curved spacetimes, RNS formalism is not suited
for such backgrounds.

1.2 Green-Schwarz (GS)

The GS formalism is based upon worldsheet bosons, X m , Θα ; m = 0, ..., 9, α = 1, ..., 16,
which are spacetime vectors and spinors respectively. It possesses manifest spacetime super-
symmetry and can, in principle, be used to describe strings in RR (curved) backgrounds.
But the drawback is that, it has a fermionic symmetry which has been gauge-fixed only in
∗
Talk delivered at a graduate student seminar at Bonn
†
guhan (at) th.physik.uni-bonn (dot) de

1
light-cone quantization and thus making Lorentz symmetry non-manifest. This light cone
gauge leads to unphysical singularities in the worldsheet diagrams. Because of the hidden
Lorentz symmetry, these unphysical singularities must cancel, however, this is difficult to
show explicitly. This is reflected in the fact that, up to now, only 4-point tree and 1-loop
amplitudes have been explicitly computed using this formalism [6].
For a start, let us take the GS action:
1
Z √
S= d2 z hhab Πa · Πb , (1)
2π

α
where, Πm m m β
a = ∂a X − iθ γαβ ∂a θ . The complication that arises when quantizing this action
can be seen by computing (here, in conformal gauge) the canonical momentum, pα , conjugate
to θα :
i i
pα = (γm θ)α [Πm + (θγ m ∂1 θ)] (2)
2 2
As it depends on θα it defines a constraint on phase space:
i i
dα = pα − (γm θ)α [Πm + (θγ m ∂1 θ)] (3)
2 2
Such an expression for the canonical momenta would have classified the constraints entirely
as second-class type of constraints, if not for the Virosoro (mass-shell) constraint Πm Πm
that makes some of them second-class and the rest as first-class (κ-symmetry). There is a
standard way to deal with second-class constraints (through Dirac’s modification of Poisson
bracket). But here, it becomes very hard to disentangle the two types covariantly in gauges
other than light cone.

1.3 Siegel’s extension of GS

Siegel [7] proposed to solve the above problem by treating pα as an independent variable, as
in the following action:
1 1
Z
S= d2 z[ ∂X m ∂Xm + pα ∂θα ] (4)
2π 2
Together with this action, one should add an appropriate set of first-class constraints to
reproduce the spectrum. Plugging in results from a λ = 1 bc CFT (in the notation of [2]),
the energy-momentum tensor for the above action is seen to be
1
T (z) = − ∂X m ∂Xm − pα ∂θα (5)
2
and the central charge for all of pα and θβ is given by cf = −2×16 which makes c = 10−32 =
−22. This non-vanishing central charge was one major difficulty in Siegel’s approach to the
GS formalism.

Another difficulty was the difference between the Lorentz current of the fermionic variables
as derived from Siegel’s action (Σmn = 21 (pγ mn θ)) - and that derived from RNS formalism
(Σmn m n
RN S = ψ ψ ). The difference comes from the OPE of these currents: The douple pole co-
efficient of Σmn (w)Σpq (z) is 4, while that of Σmn mn
RN S ΣRN S is 1. However, pure spinor formalism
started from where Siegel’s approach stopped.

2
2 Pure spinor
Howe was one of the earliest to recognize that pure spinors simplify the description of super-
Yang-Mills and supergravity e.o.m and gauge invariances [8][9] in the context of superparti-
cles. Later, Berkovits extended it to the case of superstrings. The pure spinors formalism
adds 16 complex spacetime bosonic spinors (ghosts), λα (α = 1, ..., 16) to the already existing
X m , θα along with the 10 dimensional pure spinor condition: λα γαβ
m β
λ = 0, where γαβm
is the
ten dimensional 16 x 16 Pauli matrices. The result is a vanishing central charge and the
right coefficient in the OPE of Lorentz current.

Cartan and Chevalley gave the general definition for pure spinors in even dimensions (d = 2n)
as
m ...m
λα γαβ1 j λβ = 0 (j < n)
m ...m
where γαβ1 j is the symmetrized product of j Pauli matrices. In particular, for d = 2, 4, 6,
the pure spinor space coincides with the space of SO(d) Weyl spinors.

2.1 Solving the pure spinor condition

Naively, it would seem that the 10 pure spinor conditions would leave us with (16-10) degrees
of freedom for λα , but that is not the case. To see this, we Wick rotate to Euclidean signature.
The pure spinors transform in the 16 of SO(10). Under SO(10) → U(5) ≃ SU(5) × U(1) we
have that 16 → 15/2 ⊕ 101/2 ⊕ 5−3/2 . Denoting the sixteen components of the pure spinor in
the U(5) variables by λα = λ+ ⊕ λab ⊕ λa ; a, b = 1, ..., 5 with λab = −λab . In these variables,
the solution of the pure spinor condition λα γαβ m β
λ = 0 is given by
1
λ+ = es ; λab = uab ; λa = − e−s ǫabcde ubc ude (6)
8
Hence, the pure spinor space is seen to be a complex eleven-dimensional space.

The pure spinor ghosts contribute Lorentz current, Nmn = wγ mn λ, such that the total,
Mmn = Σmn + N mn , has the same form of OPE as in RNS case. This SO(10) Nmn decom-
poses under U(5) as n ⊕ nba ⊕ nab ⊕ nab that transform as 10 ⊕ 240 ⊕ 102 ⊕ 10−2 . In terms
of the pure spinor ghosts, they are given as:
 
1 1 ab 5 5
n = −√ uab v + ∂t − ∂s
5 4 2 2
1
nab = ubc v ac − δba ucdv cd
5
n = −es v ab
ab
 
−s cd 1 cd
nab = e 2∂uab − uab ∂t − 2uab ∂s + uac ubd v − uab ucdv
2

2.2 Action
The conformal gauge-fixed, worldsheet action of the pure spinor superstring is:
 
1 1
Z
2 m α α
S0 = dz ∂X ∂Xm + pα ∂θ − wα ∂λ
2π 2

3
where the ghost fields en In terms of the parametrizations above, the ghost part of the action
becomes
 
1 1 ab
Z
2
Sλ = d z −∂t∂s + v ∂uab
2π 2
where wα , t(z) and v ab (z) are the conjugate momenta for λα , s(z) and uab (z). The OPEs are
given by:
t(y)s(z) → ln(y − z)
ab
δcd
v ab (y)ucd(z) → 2
y−z

The energy-momentum tensor for Sλ is given by

1
Tλ (z) = v ab ∂uab + ∂t∂s + ∂ 2 s
2
The central charge for ghost can be computed from the coefficient of the fourth order pole
in the OPE Tλ (y)Tλ (z):
1 ab
: v (y)∂ucd(z) :: ∂uab (z)v cd (y) : + : ∂t(y)∂s(z) :: ∂s(z)∂t(y) :
4
ab cd
δcd δab 1 11
= + =
(y − z)4 (y − z)4 (y − z)4
This implies that cgh = 22. Since there are no poles between the ghost and physical variables,
ctot = c + cgh = 0.

We can define the ghost number ng of any state U(y) by

I
[ dzJgh (z), U(y)] = ng U(y)

where the ghost current is given by [18]

1
Jgh (z) = uab v ab + ∂t + 3∂s (= λα wα )
2

Note that Tλ can be rewritten in terms of Lorentz current and ghost current as
1 1
Tλ = Nmn N mn − J 2 − ∂J
10 8
and λα carries ghost number 1.

To extend the above open string pure spinor formalism to closed strings, include the right
α α
moving superspace variables (pα , θ ), the ghost system (wα , λ ), its pure spinor condition
and the nilpotent BRST operator I
α
Q= dzλ dα

4
The closed string analysis then proceeds by combining the left and right sectors. The con-
structions that we saw so far are called the minimal pure spinor formalism in some recent
literatures, while the non-minimal formalism refers to introducing a further pair of pure
spinors - say, (eα , fα ) (and their conjugate momenta) for each left/right sector. These new
pure spinors are also made interdependent through the relation, eγ m f = 0. This was done
to simplify loop-amplitude calculations.

2.3 The BRST operator

The pure spinor formalism comes with a BRST operator,
I
QBRST = λα (z)dα (z) (7)

where λα are the pure spinors and dα are the GS phase-space constraint derived earlier.
Using the OPEs of X m , θα , pα , it can be shown that Q2BRST is zero only if λγ m λ = 0. We
still lack a first-principle derivation of the BRST operator by a gauge fixing procedure. For
a review of generic aspects of BRST quantization, see [10]

2.4 Vertex operator

Physical open string states are defined as ghost number one states in the cohomology of
QBRST defined earlier. For a state with (mass)2 = n/2, the unintegrated vertex operators,
U, are constructed from arbitrary combinations of X m , θα , dα , λα , N mn and J such that their
ghost number is one and conformal weight is n. Among these, dα , Nmn and J carry confor-
mal weight one and λα carries ghost number one. Then, applying QBRST U = 0 gives the
equation of motion for the superfields.

For example: The massless open string states are ghost number one, weight zero opera-
tors
U (1) = λα Aα (X, θ)
The BRST cohomology conditions give

U (1) ≃ U (1) + QΩ(0)

where Ω(0) is a scalar superfield. These imply a ten dimensional e.o.m - λα λβ Dα Aβ = 0 - with
gauge transformations - δAβ = Dβ Ω(0) . With some ten dimensional dirac matrix identities,
these can be shown to imply that Aβ is a super-Maxwell spinor superfield in ten dimensions.

Similarly, the massless closed superstring can be described by the ghost number (1,1) vertex
operator
α
U (1,1) = λα λ Aαβ (X, θ, θ)
Applying the BRST and dirac matrix calculus shows that this is the ten dimensional super-
gravity multiplet complete with the graviton, gravitino and RR fields. Note that, unlike the
RNS formalism, there was no need for a GSO projection to get the SUSY spectrum and, the
R and NS sectors are treated on equal footing in the superfield.

Integrated vertex operators, V , are obtained using the identity ∂V = QU.

5
2.5 Curved backgrounds
The pure spinor action in curved target space is obtained by adding to the flat target space
action, the integrated massless vertex operators (of the forms provided above) and covari-
antizing with respect to the ten dimensional super-reparametrization. Covariantizing refers
to rewriting the worldsheet variables as their sum/difference such that the superfields trans-
form covariantly under the N=1 D=10 susy for open strings and N=2 D=10 for closed strings.

The pure spinor sigma model for the closed string supergravity background, for example,
takes the form [11]
Z
S = d2 (GM N (Z) + BM N (Z))∂Z M ∂Z N + F αβ dα dβ + ... + Sλ + Sλ

β
where Z M = (X m , θα , θ ) are coordinates on R10|32 superspace; GM N , BM N , F αβ , ... are back-
ground superfields (RR fields are part of the lowest component of F αβ ).
The BRST operator is QBRST = Q + Q. Imposing the condition that Q(Q) is nilpotent
and holomorphic (antiholomorphic) yields the ten dimensional supergravity field equations.
Classical BRST invariance gives the classical equations, while quantum BRST condition is
expected to give the α′ corrections.

The supersymmetric Born-Infeld equations for an open string with a super-Maxwell back-
ground field was derived in [12]

3 Conclusion
The symmetry-preserving properties of the pure spinor formalism makes tree and loop ampli-
tude calculations simpler. So far, this has yielded N-point tree amplitudes with an arbitrary
number of fermions [13], 5-point 1-loop amplitudes with upto four fermions [14] and 4-point
2-loop amplitudes with upto four fermions [15] [16]. The equivalence of this formalism to
RNS formalism has been proven wherever results are available on both sides. But some open
still problems remain: (1) A first principle derivation of BRST operator is lacking. (2) There
is no water-tight argument yet for the unitarity of the amplitudes. (3) Compactification of
pure-spinor formalism is an ongoing issue. There has been some results in AdSn × S n spaces
in Heterotic CY compactification [17]. (4) Pure spinors for M-theory.

References
[1] D. Lüst and S. Theisen, Lectures on string theory, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

[2] J. Polchinski, String theory - I & II, Cambridge University press, 2005.

[3] V.A. Kostelecky, O. Lechtenfeld, S. Samuel, D. Verstegen, S. Watamura and D. Sahdev,

The Six-Fermion Amplitude in the Superstring, Phys. Lett. B183 (1987) 299.

[4] J. Atick and A. Sen, Covariant One-Loop Fermion Emission Amplitudes in Closed String
Theories, Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987) 317.

6
[5] E. D’Hoker and D. Phong, Two-Loop Superstrings VI: Non-Renormalization Theorems
and the 4-point Function, Nucl. Phys. B715 (2005) 3, hep-th/0501197.

[6] M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Supersymmetrical String Theories, Phys. Lett. B109
(1982) 444.

[7] W. Siegel, Classical Superstring Mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B 263, 93 (1986).

[8] P. Howe, Pure spinors lines in superspace and ten-dimensional supersymmetric theories,
Phys.Lett.B258:141-144, 1991, Addendum-ibid.B259:511, 1991.

[9] P. Howe, Pure spinors, function superspaces and supergravity theories in ten dimensions
and eleven dimensions, Phys.Lett.B273:90-94, 1991.

[10] J.W. van Holten, Aspects of BRST quantization, arXiv:hep-th/0201124v1.

[11] N. Berkovits and P. S. Howe, Ten-dimensional supergravity constraints from the pure
spinor formalism for the superstring, Nucl. Phys. B 635 (2002) 75 [arXiv:hep-th/0112160].

[12] N. Berkovits and V. Pershin, Supersymmetric Born-Infeld from the Pure Spinor For-
malism of the Superstring, hep-th/0205154.

[13] N. Berkovits and B. Vallilo, Consistency of super-Poincare covariant superstring tree

amplitudes, JHEP 0007:015, 2000, [arXiv] hep-th/0004171.

[14] C. Mafra and C. Stahn, The One-loop Open Superstring Massless Five-pint Amplitude
with the Non-Minimal Pure Spinor Formalism, JHEP 0903:126, 2009, arXiv:0902.1539
[hep-th].

[15] N. Berkovits and C. Mafra, Equivalence of two-loop superstring amplitudes in the pure
spinor and RNS formalism, Phys. Revl. Lett. 96: 011602, 2006, hep-th/0509234.

[16] N. Berkovits and C. Mafra, Some Superstring Amplitude Computations with the Non-
Minimal Pure Spinor Formalism, JHEP 0611 (2006) 079, hep-th/0607187.

[17] O. Chandia, W. Linch III and B.C. Vallilo, Compactification of the Heterotic Pure
Spinor Superstring I, arXiv:0907.2247 [hep-th].

[18] N. Berkovits, ICTP lectures on covariant quantization of the superstring, arXiv:hep-

th/0209059.

[19] Y. Oz, The pure spinor formulation of superstrings, arXiv:0910.1195v1 [hep-th].

[20] O. A. Bedoya and N. Berkovits, GGI lectures on the pure spinor formalism of the
superstring, arXiv:0910.2254v1 [hep-th].

[21] C. R. Mafra, Superstring scattering amplitudes with the pure spinor formalism, PhD
thesis, arXiv:0902.1552 [hep-th].