PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 41, NUMBER 12 15 JUNE 1990

Nonpolynomial closed-string field theory

Michio Kaku*
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
(Received 4 May 1989; revised manuscript received 2 February 1990)
Recently, we announced the construction of a new nonpolynomial closed-string field theory
which successfully reproduced all N-point tree amplitudes, thus solving a long-standing problem.
This action generalized the four-string tetrahedron interaction that we introduced earlier, which
was required to derive the Shapiro-Virasoro model. However, we gave no derivation of the nonpo-
lynomial action. In this paper we present the detailed analysis of its derivation. We calculate all
nonpolynomial graphs up to eighth order and their coefficients, and even the coefficients of several
infinite series of polyhedra. We use gauge invariance to calculate all coefficients. Because of an
enormous redundancy created by a web of overconstrained equations, we have multiple checks that
our coefficients are correctly calculated.

I. INTRODUCTION The problem of constructing the nonpolynomial theory

Closed-superstring theory1 gives us the hope of unify-
ing all known interactions. String field theory,* in turn,
gives us the best hope of implementing a fully nonpertur-
bative approach to superstring theory. However, it is
quite embarrassing that a successful covariant closed-
string field theory does not exist, because the fundamen-
tal region of moduli space is either overcounted an
infinite number of times or undercounted.
Recently, we proposed3 that the solution to the prob-
lem of undercounting moduli space is that a previously
overlooked tetrahedron graph needs to be added to fill
the missing integration region for the Shapiro-Virasoro
amplitude. We then announced4 the complete closed-
string action, which was nonpolynomial, where closed
strings of equal parametrization length interacted
through polyhedra. (A slightly different version of the
nonpolynomial action was also independently and simul-
taneously announced by Kugo and co-workers.' Howev-
er, in neither paper were any of the details of the calcula-
tion presented.)
In this paper, we rectify this situation and present the
detailed derivation of the action, giving all polyhedra to
the eighth level and calculating all coefficients to that lev-
el, as well as the coefficients of several infinite series of
polyhedra. Because the system is highly overconstrained,
there are many checks of the correctness of our calcula-
tion.
We note that there is also a second derivation of the
nonpolynomial action, independent of Becchi-Rouet-
Stora-Tyutin (BRST) methods, using geometric string-
field theory.6 In fact, this is how we discovered the non-
polynomial action in the first place. However, this
second proof will be presented in another paper.7 Be-
cause readers may be unfamiliar with the unorthodox
methods introduced in geometric string field theory, we
have carefully written this paper using only familiar
BRST methods and not the techniques of the full
geometric string field theory. Readers interested in this
second proof are advised to consult Refs. 6 and 7.
is complicated by the fact that there are one or more po-
lyhedra at each level. For example, we must include two
polyhedra with 6 faces, 5 polyhedra with 7 faces, and 14
polyhedra with 8 faces (modulo rotations and reflections).
The number of polyhedra at each level in fact grows quite
rapidly.
If we have a series of n-faced polyhedra, then let us in-
dex them by i. Thus, the ith vertex function with the to-
pology of an n-faced polyhedra, which we call ni, is
represented by ( Y n) i. Each of these n-faced polyhedra,
indexed by i, occurs with a distinct coefficient c ( n Ii, i.e.,
T h i action can be shown to have the form
which is invariant under
In this paper, we present only the first derivation of ac-
tion, presenting the measure, the integration region, ver-
tices, the coefficients c ( n ), , a,,and 8, to all orders, etc.
However, we caution the reader that the first proof, using
brute force, requires a key identity that has not been
proven to all orders in perturbation theory. We present a
heuristic proof, but a proof to all orders is still being in-
vestigated. The second proof, using geometric string field
theory directly, does not require this identity.
11. WHY NONPOLYNOMIAL?
In Fig. 1, we see the structure of the geometric theory.
However, for our purposes all we need to know is that
the geometric theory predicts the existence of a four-
string tetrahedron graph (Fig. 2) when we fix the parame-
trization length of all closed strings to be equal.
Even without geometric string field theory, however,

41 3734 @ 1990 The American Physical Society

 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY
Unified String
Geometric String
Field Theory
Interpolating Gauge
Midpoint Gauge Endpoint Gauge
FIG. 1. The gauging of the universal string group uniquely
specifies geometric string field theory. (When we include super-
symmetry, the USG becomes the unified string group.) By
fixing the gauge (i.e., fixing the vierbein), we parametrize the
strings so that they break at their midpoints, end points, or any
point in between which interpolates between the end-point and
midpoint gauge. Thus, geometric string field theory contains all
known consistent string field theories as gauge choices.
we can see the necessity of higher-point contact terms.
First, consider N-point scattering of N closed strings of
equal parametrization length. We know from the dual
model that the region of integration must be the entire
conformal plane. However, consider Fig. 3, where we
have N = 6 charges (of equal absolute magnitude) placed
on this complex z plane (with one point at infinity). In
the complex p plane, each charge is mapped to infinity.
FIG. 2. The tetrahedron graph, representing the collision of
four strings. This graph is necessary to reproduce the Shapiro-
Virasoro model. In general, graphs of this type cannot be pro-
duced if strings interact purely at their midpoints. For these po-
lyhedra, strings can overlap over continuous regions of their pa-
rametrization length: they are simply products of the interpo-
lating vertex.
FIG. 3. The equipotential lines created by N = 6 charges (one
charge at infinity) with the same absolute magnitude placed on
the complex plane. The topology of the equipotential lines is
precisely the topology of an N-sided polygon, i.e., N strings col-
liding at 710. Riemann cuts lie along the equipotential lines
and link pairs of strings. Notice that this diagram does not cor-
respond to a naive midpoint collision of N strings, i.e., inter-
mediate lines can have lengths larger than the length of an
external string. Diagrams such as this intuitively show why
there are missing regions of the Koba-Nielsen space. Because
they are instantaneous Coulomb terms, the N-faced polyhedra
are products of N - 2 interpolating vertices.
In fact, the topology of the complex p plane corresponds
to the topology of N closed-string scattering.
The lines surrounding the various charges in Fig. 3
correspond to a single equipotential line. In Ref. 2, we
showed that equipotential lines have a simple but impor-
tant interpretation: they map out the topology of the in-
teracting strings in physical space. (Notice that this set
of equipotential lines is only possible because there are
Riemann cuts separating the equipotential lines which
encircle two charges.) Notice that the equipotential line
in Fig. 3 in the z plane is mapped to a series of vertical
lines at the slice T = O in the p plane [and not over an ex-
tended region of the ( a , ~complex
) plane].
In p space, it is easy to see that we cannot have all
strings touching each other at their midpoints. In fact, it
is easy to see that strings can overlap with each other
over continuous regions over the length. Thus, this ar-
rangement of charges cannot be explained if closed
strings only interact at their midpoints. In fact this ar-
rangement of charges corresponds to the missing region
of the complex plane.
Notice that the topology of the equipotential lines form
the edges of a polyhedron (a cube). These equipotential
lines can split into two (and not three o r higher) equipo-
tential lines when strings interact. This is because the
merging of four equipotential lines only occupies zero
measure in Koba-Nielsen space; i.e., by infinitessimally
moving the charges we can separate four strings momen-
tarily colliding at one point into a sequence of three
strings colliding at different times. Thus, we d o not have
arbitrary polyhedra, but only ones in which no more than
three edges can meet at once; i.e., the number of corners
 MICHIO KAKU
FIG. 4. A triplet of three unparametrized, oriented strings.
Notice that these strings are defined in physical space-time.
There is no such thing as midpoints for these unparametrized,
physical strings. When parametrized, they can have arbitrary
length.
equals 2(N - 2 ) for N-string scattering.
In summary, there is a finite region of Koba-Nielsen
space where the topology of the graph remains the same
as we move the charges, but where the overlap distances
continuously change. Thus, there is a finite missing re-
gion. In this sense, the n-faced polyhedra can be con-
structed as the ( n -2)nd power of the interpolating ver-
tex, in the same way that the open four-string vertex can
be written as the square of the interpolating vertex (Fig.
4).6 The origin of this fact is that all these terms are in-
stantaneous Coulomb interactions formed when breaking
the gauge invariance of geometric string field theory.
T o give some detail to our intuitive result, let us gen-
eralize the open-string mapping for the closed-string case.
We begin by constructing an Abelian integral w=w,dz
which contains only simple poles and zeros in the com-
plex plane, such that
(This map can be derived easily from the Schwarz-
Christoffel transformation, mapping the flat complex
plane to a Riemann surface describing the collision of N
closed strings.) We define w, to be an Abelian differential
whose square yields a metric gab on the space describing
a conformal surface which is flat everywhere, except at
the points zi, where there are singularities in the curva-
ture. Also, C = 2 ( N -2). The complex points y i in the z
plane will be sent to infinity in the p plane, and corre-
spond to N external closed strings. The complex points zi
are the zeros of the Abelian differential, i.e., the interac-
tion or turning points of the N strings in p space. Alto-
gether, there are 4 N - 8 unknowns in the map, coming
from the zi and the N.
Now let us impose constraints to fix these unknowns, N
and 2,. We first demand that, at infinity, the external
closed strings have equal length. Thus, near y ,,
This, in turn, gives us 2N constraints (for real and imagi-
nary parts):
s+r
we now must also fix the way in two strings
overlap. There are two independent ways in this
can be done.
(a) First, we can describe the scattering of N external
strings where the interaction times are all different and
where strings interact strictly through their midpoints.
These rules generate the familiar Feynman graphs.
(b) Second, we can describe the situation when all in-
teraction times are equal to each other and where closed
strings interact not at their midpoints but interact con-
tinuously over regions less than .rr in length. Thus, the
missing region has the topology of a polyhedron and con-
sists of the product of interpolating vertices, much as in
the open-string case.5
The sum of both integration regions yields the entire
Koba-Nielsen plane, as expected.
Let us set
GiVj+, =Im[p(z, )-p(z, ) ] ( i odd) ,
where we set the imaginary part to zero and 6i is a real
+
number which we set to be T . Thus, the ith and ( i 1)th
string collide and overlap by a parametrization distance
.rr. (If we set 6, to be an arbitrary number, we are in the
interpolating gauge, which smoothly interpolates between
the end-point and midpoint gauges.) Because there are
f C complex equations, and two real equations for each
complex one, we have C - 2 constraints (we subtract two
because the last two conditions are redundant due to
overall conservation of charge, keeping in mind that the
Riemann cuts have charge). Let us now summarize the
counting of unknowns and constraints in the conformal
maD:
2N - 6 unknowns:( N,z, ,
Midpoint scattering:
) .
2N - 6 con~traints:(a,,6~,,+,
This map describes N closed strings colliding via their
midpoints when the interaction times are all different.
However, as we have seen, this does not fill up the miss-
ing region. Let us now explicitly display a second set of
constraints, which correspond to the missing region.
Let us relax the previous constraints, letting the 6,,, be-
come unequal real numbers. We now set
41
- NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY
where 6,,, is a real variable. The first constraint allows
the (real) overlap distance between any two closed strings
to change continuously. The second constraint places all
interaction points directly on top of each other, so the
Missing region:
i 2N - 6 unknowns:(N,zi ) ,
2N -6 constraints:(ai,Rep(zl) the same)
(The missing region can also be understood via group
theory. For open- [closed-]string vertices based on Fig.
5(a) [6(a)]the algebra does not close, and the missing re-
gion is filled by the four-string interaction in Fig. 5(b)
[6(b)]. However, closed-string vertices based on Fig. 7
close properly with no missing region. See Refs. 3, 6, and
7 for details. )
111. MEASURE O F INTEGRATION
Let us define our integration measure. Let N equal the
number of faces of a polyhedra, C equal the number of
corners, and E equal the number of edges. Then
N = N o . faces ,
E=3(N-2)=No. edges, (3.1)
C = 2 ( N - 2 ) = N o . corners .
This has precisely the number of dimensions to fill the
missing region in Koba-Nielsen space, because
No. Koba-Nielsen variables= E - N = 2 N - 6 (3.2)
which is the dimension of moduli space (i.e., two vari-
ables for each vertex minus six variables which are fixed
when we fix projective invariance).
Let a,,, equal the parametrization distance between the
ith and jth string. a,,, equals zero if the ith and jth string
do not overlap in the polyhedra. The total number of a's
equals E = 3 ( N -2 ). The next constraint we must im-
pose is that the total length of each external face is equal
to 2 r :
N
FIG. 5. If we choose (a) as our basic triplet, then the Jacobi
identities generate the unwanted four-string graph in (b). Thus,
(a) is an incorrect definition of a triplet, unless we use four-
string interactions.
3737
polyhedra forms at an instantaneous ~ = 0slice of the
complex plane. We thus have C -2 constraints emerging
from the second constraint. In summary, we now have
the following counting for the missing region:
.
for each j. (Notice that this is true because the a,, are
equal to zero when i and j do not appear in the same
face.)
This, however, is not the only constraint that must be
imposed. In Ref. 3, we found the curious constraint
a,, i r (3.4)
which gave the correct missing region. We now give a
generalization of this strange constraint, and give its ori-
gin.
Let us have an arbitrary polyhedron with N sides, and
then bisect it into two separate clusters of polygons, i.e.,
left and right pieces L and R as in Fig. 8. Let the number
of polygons in the left and right half equal NL and N R ,
such that they sum to N and they are each greater than 1.
Let the perimeter of the line which divides the left and
right halves equal P. Then
i.e., the perimeter between the left and right halves equals
the number of edges along the perimeter. The perimeter,
in turn, can be written as
Now the mysterious constraint (3.4), generalized to all
polyhedra, can be written as
FIG. 6. If we choose (a) as our basic triplet, then the Jacobi
identities generate the unwanted four-string tetrahedron graph,
shown in (b). The nonclosure of the Jacobi identities requires
the addition of the tetrahedron and an infinite number of po-
lyhedra. Thus, in certain gauges, geometric string field theory
will be nonpolynomial.
 MICHIO KAKU
FIG. 7 . A correct definition of a triplet of closed strings,
which satisfies the Jacobi identities without four-string and
higher graphs. In the end-point gauge, geometric string field
theory is thus cubic.
where I labels all possible perimeters one can draw by
cutting a polyhedra into two distinct clusters of polygons.
Notice that this is a nontrivial constraint, which elimi-
nates a vast number of possible polyhedra from the start.
[This origin of this constraint comes from the nonclosure
of the universal string group (USG) in the midpoint
gauge.]
Let us now write down the measure of integration for
the arbitrary case. We find
The first delta function simply fixes all external string
lengths to be 2 7 . The next term enforces the constraint
that all possible perimeters one can draw which divide
the polyhedra in half have a length greater than 2a. The
factor K comes directly from the elimination of the vier-
A
FIG. 8. The splitting of a N-faced polyhedron into a left and
a right polygon with NL and NR faces, respectively. The line
separating these two polygons is called the perimeter.
fi
bein in the midpoint gauge. aiirepresents the reduced set
of independent variables and'z, represents the indepen-
dent Koba-Nielsen variables. When we reduce out the
vierbein, as in Refs. 6 and 7 , we find that its elimination
gives us precisely the correct measure necessary to con-
vert a,] space into the correct Koba-Nielsen space. With
this measure, we can precisely reproduce the dual model
for N-point scattering of closed strings.
These constraints give us a complete description of the
missing region. We will now show this for N = 4 and
N = 5.
For the tetrahedron, we have the constraints
Since there are 2N -6= 2 independent variables, we will
,,
choose a and a 1 3 . It is now a simple matter to solve for
the region of integration:
Missing region:
I
a 1 2 , a I 35 7 ,
a12+a135:7.
In the a ,,-a plane, this missing region corresponds to a
right triangle (see Fig. 9). This, in turn, can be mapped
onto the northern hemisphere of the Riemann sphere and
we find that the missing region actually occupies most of
the complex sphere (see Fig. 10).
Notice that, inside the missing region, closed strings do
not interact at their midpoints. In fact, the overlap of
closed strings is less than 7 ,i.e., the missing region is sim-
ply the square of the interpolating vertex.
For N=5, we now have 2 N - 6 = 4 independent vari-
ables (see Fig. 11). The aij now satisfy
Let us carefully choose our independent variables. We
choose a12,a24,a13,a35.(A naive choice will actually in-
clude unwanted dependent variables because of hidden
FIG. 9. The missing region for the tetrahedron graph. No-
tice that it has three edges, each boundary corresponding to the
configuration where strings interact purely at their midpoints.
The missing region thus smoothly connects the three Mandel-
stam channels. In general, the boundary of the n-faced polyhe-
dra is formed by the interface with the various Mandelstam
channels of the n-string interaction.
 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY
FIG. 10. The missing region mapped onto the Riemann
sphere. The missing region occupies most of the northern and
southern hemispheres, including the poles. The midpoint
scattering (where strings interact purely at their midpoints at
different interaction times) is given by the three disks which sur-
round the missing region.
identities.) Let us now solve for the dependent variables:
Setting the fact that all aij 1T , we now find the complete
description of the missing region:
a,, i a 3 , 1a12+a,, < a 3 , + ~ ,
Missing region: (3.13)
a I 31 a 2 , I a 1 3+a3, <_a,,+.n ,
Obviously, with little effort, we can now calculate the
missing region for all possible polyhedra.
To illustrate the complications that may emerge at
higher levels, let us work out the missing region for the
symmetric N = 6 case, i.e., the cube. In Fig. 12, we have
the labeling of the cube. (See also Fig. 13.) We have 12
variables aij, and 6 constraints, leaving us with 6 indepen-
dent variables, the correct number of Koba-Nielsen vari-
FIG. 11. The labeling of a 5-faced polygon
FIG. 12. The labeling of a cube.
ables for the 6-point function. The choice of these 6 in-
dependent variables, however, is a bit tricky. For exam-
ple, if we choose four of these variables to be the four
parallel lines that form a cube, we find that the sum of
these four edges is equal to a constant, and hence there is
a hidden relationship among them. In fact, most symme-
trical choices have hidden relationships among them.
We thus choose an unsymmetric set of independent
,,,
variables a ,,,a a 34,a36,a4,,a16. The resulting six equa-
tions can be solved, giving us
a26=2~-a16-a36-a46 ,
a23=a16+a36+a46-a12-a25
a 3 s = 2 ~ - 2 a 3 6 - a 3 4 + a 1 2 + a , 5 - a 1 6 - a 4 6,
(3.14)
a , , = 2 ~ + a- ~a ,~, - - ~ ~ , - a ~ ~ - a ~, ~
a 1 5 = - a 1 2 - - a 2 5 - a 4 6 + a 3 4 + a 3 6,
a,, = -a25 + a 3 6 + a 1 6 .
To calculate the missing region, we have to impose
several constraints. First, we must set all aij L T, for both
independent and dependent variables. This constrains
the perimeters of all polygons with 2 faces (and simul-
taneously, 4 faces). However, we also have the condition
that all perimeters of polygons with 3 faces must also be
constrained. This give us yet another set of constraints.
Restricting the perimeter of 3-faced polygons is
equivalent to restricting the interior edges which make
up the polygon. Thus, we must impose the constraints
FIG. 13. In addition to the cube, this 6-faced polyhedron
must also be added to the theory.
3740 MICHIO KAKU 41

where B ( s ,t , u ) represents the Shapiro-Virasoro model,

M ( s , t , u ) represents the contribution from the missing
region (where strings interact continuously along their
parametrization length), and A ( s ) , etc., represent the
naive contribution from midpoint interactions (where
strings can only interact via their midpoints).
Thus, we now have an algorithm by which to construct
the missing region: the boundary of the missing region pre-
By plugging in the value of the dependent variables into cisely connects with the d~jierentMandelstam channels.
these equations, we obtain the restrictions due to the con- We can summarize this discussion with the simple ob-
straint on 3-faced polygons which appear inside the cube. servation
Many of these constraints are actually redundant
These sets of constraints (restricting perimeters of 2-, aM = ( P I= 2.rr for all I ; (3.18)
4-, and 3-faced polygons appearing inside the cube) deter- i.e., the boundary of the missing region is determined by
mine the missing region totally for the cubic interaction. the constraint that all internal perimeters which bisect
The missing region is therefore the polygon equal 2 ~ .
Now let us draw the various polyhedra which satisfy
a,, 5 T , these constraints. In principle, there are a large number
a36 a 12 +025 of equivalent ways we can write down the same polyhe-
Missing region: . a 3 , +a 34 + I 2~ , (3.16)
dra, so let us standardize our results. The following rules
give us a simple way to eliminate redundancies and gen-
5a34+a36 7 erate higher polyhedra for arbitrary N.
(1) We will draw all polygons as flat two-dimensional
a 12 '46 7
objects. These flat diagrams are topologically equivalent
to the equipotential lines we found from the conformal
where we keep in mind that 6 of the 12 all's are depen-
map in two dimensions.
dent variables, and where the last four set of constraints (2) We will always take the largest polygon within the
come from restricting the perimeters of 3-faced polygons. polyhedra as the outer polygon, and inscribe all equipo-
In summary, the missing region is determined totally
tential lines within this polygon. This will eliminate two
by the constraints (3.4) and (3.7) on the perimeters which polyhedra which may look different but actually are the
bisect the polygon. The origin of this important con- same.
straint can be seen from several angles. (3) For simplicity, we will then delete the largest po-
First, it arises naturally from geometric string field
lygon completely.
theory when we make the transition from the end-point
(4) T o eliminate the remaining ambiguity caused by
gauge to the midpoint gauge. Since the end-point gauge
two or more polyhedra which have the same largest po-
is modular invariant to all orders in perturbation theory
lygon, we can distinguish between them by decomposing
(since it reduces to the light-cone theory), it gives us a
each polyhedron into the basic constituent polygons
convenient triangulation of moduli space. When we
which are contained within it.
change the vierbein and slowly go to the midpoint gauge, The advantages of these simple, standardized rules is
the triangulation of moduli space slowly changes, and that we quickly eliminate redundant polyhedra. More-
missing regions gradually open up. (This has been seen over, the resulting diagrams are exactly equivalent to the
explicitly using the Vax computer for the Shapiro-
Virasoro model, where the north pole is just a point in
the end-point gauge, gradually opens up in the interpolat-
ing gauge, and finally occupies most of the northern hem-
isphere in the midpoint gauge.) Since the end-point
gauge was modular invariant, the midpoint gauge gives
us a new triangulation of moduli space, previously un-
known to the mathematicians.
Second, the boundaries of the missing region can be
defined by looking at the intersection between the s-, t-,
and u-channel graphs for the 4-point function and the in-
tersection between the various s,] channels in the N-point
function. As first pointed out in Ref. 3, the s-, t-, and u-
channel graphs cannot be smoothly topologically de-
formed into each other if strings interact at their mid-
FIG. 14. The polyhedra for N=6. O u r rules are (a) the dia-
points. The boundary of the missing region thus con-
gram is two dimensional, (b) the largest polygon appears o n the
nects the three s-, t-, and u-channel graphs, where exter-
outside, and all polygons appear in the interior (c) we delete the
nal strings d o interact at their midpoints:
largest polygon. The advantages of this are (1) it gives us an
easy way to delete redundant graphs and (2) each graph corre-
sponds to a familiar Feynman graph from 4' theory.
 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY

FIG. 16. The polyhedra for N = 8 .

and where 0, and u i overlap with each other from

FIG. 15. The polyhedra for N = 7 .
u i = c i j to u i = h i j (see Fig. 17).
Notice that the origins do not necessarily have to
match for the ith and jth strings. We will multiply the
vertex function with the usual projection operator at each
external leg,

usual, familiar Feynman graphs found in 4~~theory (see
Figs. 14- 16).
With these rules, one can fairly rapidly write down the
polyhedra for N = 9 and N = 10.
IV. MULTIPLICATION RULES
Now let us introduce the multiplication rules for fields.
For brevity, we will simply postulate what they are, but
we emphasize that they can all be derived from first prin-
ciples from geometric string field theory. They are, in
fact, just Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for the USG.
These postulates thus arise from a unifying principle.
Let us first define the base-space structure constant.
Let the edge of the ith polygon within a polyhedra (now
defined in real physical space-time) be labeled by X i ( u i )
where 0 < u i < 2 ~ r .Then let the structure constant for the
USG (in the midpoint gauge), be represented by
N
to ensure the independence of our result on the choice of
origin. (This constraint arises naturally from the U S G . ~ )
T o calculate the tangent-space contribution to the
structure constant (i.e., the ghost sector vertex I V,, ) ),
we simply replace the X with the usual b and c ghost
fields, with small corrections.
Notice that we cannot use the usual definition of the
multiplication of fields. If we did this, then (YE) =0.
However, we can take Y to be Grassmann odd, and A to
be Grassmann even. But we must use unorthodox sym-
metry rules for the vertices to achieve a nonzero answer.
Let us now write down the rules for multiplication of
fields:

i=l j =1

where
Q11 . . = 7?I7 . . Q ( u iLJ- b . . ) Q ( ~ i j,- ~ i )
where
+1
r]..=
lJ
I if a i , f 0
0 otherwise ,
,
FIG. 17. The parametrization for two strings which share a
common boundary along the edges of the polyhedra.
3742 MICHIO KAKU 41

perimeter is 2a. These double vertical barred vertices, we

will see, lie precisely on the boundary of the missing re-
gion as given by (3.18).
Now let us take the variation of the action. We find

where by the angular brackets we mean taking all possi-

ble permutations of the various indices. Notice that, with
the last definition, the product of several Y fields does not
vanish. (See Refs. 6 and 7 for the ghost factors.)
Finally, we would like to introduce the notation 1 1 .
The double vertical bars are formed when we join two
clusters of polygons such that the mutual perimeter
equals 2 ~ i.e.,
; we are at the boundary of the missing re- Notice that this variation is equal to zero if
gion. Thus, the measure for the double vertical bars, in-
stead of being (3.8), is now defined with

Thus, the notation

In this form, this identity may not be very transparent, so
('4'111'42) let us rewrite it in the form

means that the mutual perimeter between Y , and Y2

(which represent clusters of polygons) is taken to be 2a.
Finally, we note that there is more than one polyhedra
at each value of N which satisfy our rules. In fact, we
have 2 different ones at the 6th level, 5 different ones at Notice that everything is encoded within the numbers C,"
the 7th level, and 14 different ones at the 8th level (sub- and c(n )i. In this form, it is easy to see that the vertex is
tracting out those which can be reached by trivial rota- not BRST invariant:
tions). N
2 Q,IV)#O. (5.7)
i =1

Instead, it generates all possible vertices with double vert-

Now, we have carefully made all the definitions and
possess all the tools to write down the action
which we want invariant under
ical bars, i.e., all possible slicings of a polyhedra into left
and right clusters of polygons such that the perimeter is
2T.
Now it is clear why we had to impose the rather
strange-looking constraint, that all perimeters must be
greater than 2 ~ .
Partially solving these equations, we find

Notice that this already gives us the simple constraint, to

We must stress again that each ( Y n )i represents a sum all orders:
over all possible n polyhedra. Thus, this power series is
actually more than a power series in n. It is also a series
within each n, i.e.,
For practice, let us now work out some of the lower
values of the coefficients. For the cubic term, we have

Now let us take the variation of a polyhedra by a field

with parametrization length 2a: If we let g be the coupling constant, then we can set

Notice that we have used the double vertical bars to

denote the fact that 6Y (which represents polygon) as expected.
merges with the rest of the vertex such that the mutual For the tetrahedron graph, we have
 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY 3743

2 cated, because we have five possible polyhedra at this lev-

9' p=-* c;=l. (5.12) el. Once again, the system is highly overconstrained,
a4=7-9
cI c:, yielding
For the N = 5, we have
c ,-
,-- C(7Il - -
5 ---- ~ ( 7-)-
3 -- ~-
30 ~ ( 7 1-
-, -
- 6-~(714
~ ~ ( 6 ) 7~ ~ ( 6 ) 7 ~~ ( 6 ) ~
14 ~ ( 6 ) 28
a5=- c;=+c;. (5.13)
- 9 c(7), - 6 ~ ( 7 1 ,
By now, it is easy to see the overall pattern that is devel- 7 ~ ( 6 ) 7 ~~ ( 6 ' ) ~
oping. Notice that all a, and fin- 2 can be written entire- (5.21)
ly in terms of C;. Even the higher C: can be written in
,- 25
-c,------ c ( 7 ) 1- 75 ~ ( 7 1 1
terms of C:. 28 ~ ( 6 ) 7~ ~ ( 6 ) ~
We now present the general cse.
Let us define a modified factorial consisting totally of
the C;:
This, in turn, yields

where we set C: =2. Then we find Notice that this overconstrained system again confirms
the correct relationship between the C s :

The calculation of all the coefficients at the N = 8 level

(see Fig. 16) is not complete; however, we can also
confirm the fact that these overconstrained equations are
Notice that we have now determined all possible self-consistent and uniquely yield the relative weights for
coefficients in terms of C;. Determining the value of this c ( n I i for 81,82,811:
set of coefficients is the most difficult step in the entire
calculation, because it also requires a complete descrip-
tion of the coefficients c ( n ) i multiplying each n-faced po-
lyhedron. and
The interesting feature of the calculation of the C; and
the c ( n Ii is that the system of constraints is highly over-
determined, creating an intricate web of interlocking con-
ditions. Thus, there are a large number of checks to tell Thus, we find
us when we have made a small error in our calculations.
For the case of N = 5, we find

It is now a simple matter to find relations among cer-

Notice that this result obeys the redundant constraint
For N = 6 , the situation is more complicated because
we have two polyhedra at this level, which we call 6, (the
cube) and 62 (see Figs. 12 and 13). We have
tain infinite sequences of polyhedra and deduce what
must be the final answer.
Let us define the polyhedra n , to be the N-faced po-
lyhedra which generalizes 7, and 8,, i.e., two ( n -2)-
sided polygons which face each other connected by n -2
squares. Let us consider the relationship between the n
+
and n 1 , polyhedra. We find

Notice that this system is overconstrained, giving us

This gives us

and, as an added check on our results,

We also have a reconfirmation that

For N = 7 , the situation becomes much more compli- C,"-,=(-l)"-'+(n -1)C; .

3744 MICHIO KAKU
Similarly, other infinite classes of coefficients can also
be calculated in this straightforward way. Thus, it is not
hard to deduce the general rule for all possible polyhed-
ron.
For example, let us rewrite the equation for the
coefficients at the 7th level in a more transparent fashion:
We immediately recognize the pattern: each numerical
coefficient is simply the total number ways we can rotate
the polyhedron around various axes and obtain the same
polyhedra. This is also verified at selected values for
N = 8 and also for the general case. Let us call this sym-
metry factor s ( n Ii for each polyhedron. Then we have
Notice that the symmetry factor s ( n 1, is 2(n - 2 ) for n
greater than 6 . [We set s ( n ), = 1.]
Notice that we can also write a key identity
~(7)~~(7)~=~(7)~~(7), (5.32)
for i,j = 1,2, . . . , 5. Thus, if we divide out by the symme-
try factor for the n , polyhedra, we have a simple normal-
ization for the series:
5
=c(n),s(n), s ( n ) , 7 ' ( ~ " ). ~ (5.33)
i =1
Using this, let us now rewrite the result for the entire
series. We first write down the values for the various a , :
For arbitrary n, we have
Let us now write down the final power series, dividing
out by the overall symmetry factor of the n , polyhedra
(which, as we have seen, conveniently divides out by all
the symmetry factors of all other polyhedra). We find
-
41
Finally, we can now extract out the coefficient which
will correctly normalize the overall perturbation series.
As we have said, dividing out the symmetry factor s ( n ),
for each polyhedron n, conveniently divides out all the
other symmetry factors as well. This symmetry factor is
2( n - 2 ) (except for the case of n = 4 and n = 6, because of
their unusually high symmetry). We thus define
Our final result is therefore
This is our final result.
Lastly, let us show that the algebra closes when we
take two distinct variations in succession (if we assume
that the equations of motions are satisfied). We find
Now take a second variation
Working out the details, we find
where
Finally, let us give a heuristic "proof' of (5.6) which
will make basic structure of the identity intuitively obvi-
ous. However, more work has to be done to actually
prove it to all orders in perturbation theory.
First, we begin with the observation that the BRST
operator Q, for the rth string acting on the n-faced po-
lyhedra vertex can always be expressed as a line integral
from 0 to 27r:
Furthermore, we can shift the value of u by a small imag-
inary quantity i7 to become the complex variable p. The
value of Q is not changed by this equation. Thus, the
operator expression
 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY
can be rewritten as the sum of line integrals over each
face:
Because the vertex obeys the usual continuity conditions
(4.1) across the various boundaries of the polyhedra, we
can use a trick used by Mandelstam: cancel all contribu-
tions from the line integral except for the regions sur-
rounding each interaction point, where there are poten-
tial infinities. All other contributions outside the vertices
vanish. Thus, we now have line integrals which just sur-
round the corners o r vertices of the polyhedron, labeled
by the index i:
T o evaluate the residue at the interaction point, we now
make the transition from the p plane to the z plane by
making a conformal transformation. Calculating the
residue of the poles due to the map (2.1) is a bit tricky,
because of the presence of Riemann cuts, singularities,
discontinuities, and because yP and V, each transform
under conformal transformations according to their con-
formal weight.
Although the results are rather complicated, we can
use another trick. Notice that we sum over the rtcom-
ponents of the p index. When this summation is carefully
carried out, taking the ghosts into account, only the
imaginary part of L, survives. We notice that the value
of imaginary part of V, at the interaction point is just
But this is precisely the reparametrization operator.
Thus, we can easily show that the dominant terms which
contribute to the poles can be reduced to simple sums of
reparametrizations defined at the interaction points. We
can therefore make the substitution
when the reparametrization operator acts on the ijth
boundary. (There are other ghost contributions, but
these go toward making the measure come out correctly.)
Thus, the action Q on the vertex function will produce
terms such as
However, this is not the correct form for the vertex.
We want a term which is proportional to the derivative
with respect to all perimeters P I .
However, as we have seen, the polyhedron only has
2n - 6 independent variables. Because the measure is ex-
plicitly known in (3.81, we can always change our basic
set of independent variables so that PI is one of them.
Then we calculate
Fortunately, we know all Jacobians required to make the
transition from aij as independent variables to PI as in-
dependent variables.
Notice that alas,, makes contribution to a / a P I even if
the perimeter is quite distant from the ith and jth edge.
Because of the measure (3.8), the vertex must be in-
tegrated over all independent variables within the aij,
which can be converted to integrals over various P I . This
leaves us with terms such as
But this total integral leaves us with precisely the value of
the integrand over the boundary of the missing region,
which satisfies PI = 2a.
Thus, in the measure (3.8), the terms
now converts to the term
i.e., surface integral over the boundary of the missing re-
gion.
Now compare this with the definition of the "double
vertical bars" that we introduced in Sec. IV. Notice that
the definition of the double vertical bar was precisely the
insertion of 6(PI - 2 a ) into the measure.
In summary, the entire effect of x Q r acting on the ver-
tex function was to bisect the vertex function into two
halves, such that the perimeter of the boundary is 277.
This is precisely what happens in (5.6).
As a n independent check on the correctness of this ap-
proach, let us use this method on a simpler problem, the
BRST invariance of the four-string open-string interac-
tion. As before, following Mandelstam, we can convert
the sum of Qr on the vertex function into sums of line in-
tegrals over the joining point u , . However, because the
line integral for open strings defined over 0 < u < a is ac-
tually taken over twice that distance, i.e., 0 < u < 2 a , we
find two contributions to the line integral around the
joining point, one for a, and the other for the complex-
conjugate point o f . These two terms will add to give us
precisely L, -L -,, which is the reparametrization
operator. T o see this, let us first define
(The ghost field c is roughly the same as our field y.)
Then
3746 MICHIO KAKU
Notice that the last step was possible because this term
L,, -Lot has a Fourier expansion in terms of L, -L -,,
which is just the reparametrization operator.
But since we now must integrate over the measure d p
of the four open-string interaction, the integral term sim-
ply creates a total derivative, which results in a boundary
term
The vertex function of the four-string interaction is not
BRST invariant, but instead produces total derivatives,
which are in turn equal to the vertex function defined at
the end points of the interaction uinitial
and a,,,,.
In sum, the simple reason why (5.6) is correct is that
the operator Q contains the reparametrization operator
L, -z-, . When carefully calculating the residue of the
poles at the interaction point and summing over the posi-
tive and negatiue oscillators, only the imaginary part of
L, survives, so Q basically reduces down to this
reparametrization operator. But this means that we have
a total derivative, which in turn means that we must sit
on the boundary of the missing region. Thus, Q acting on
the vertex function must equal a sum over all possible
boundary terms of the missing region.
The rest of the proof requires combinatorics, which we
will present in another paper.
VI. CONCLUSION
Let us now collect all our results. We have defined our
action as power expansion
which we force to be invariant under
This expansion is complicated by the fact that there are
more than one n-faced polyhedra, which we label by the
index i, i.e.,
where
By setting the variation of the action equal to zero, we
wish to calculate the three sets of unknowns:
a, ,p,, c ( n );. This is complicated by the fact that the ver-
tex function is not BRST invariant, but in fact generates
a large number of terms which are total derivatives; i.e.,
they only exist on the boundary of moduli space of the
a,,. We thus find a intricate web of self-consistent condi-
tions, giving us many checks of our results at each stage
of the calculation.
!!
We need the action of the BRST operator on the vertex
function:
( - 1 ) " ( Y " ~ ~ Q+
An) (QY~~Y"-'A)
n -2
+2
cp"(Y" -pIIYpA) =o ,
p=l
where the double vertical bars signify that the boundary
of the perimeter separating the two clusters of polygons is
given by 27~.After an extended calculation, we find
and, finally,
an=--
2,-1
gn-2 ,
~(n)~c(nj,
where the factorial with an overbar is defined in (5.14)
and where s ( n Ii is a symmetry factor, the number of
ways the ith n-faced polyhedra can be rotated and yield
the same polyhedra. It obeys the important result
If we define
(Yn)sym=-- (Yn)
s(n),
then we find our final result for the nth level is
In conclusion, let us make the following remarks.
(1) We have, using standard BRST methods, derived a
nonpolynomial closed-string field theory. We have calcu-
lated the coefficients to eighth order, where there are
many consistency checks. Our coefficients seem to differ
a bit from those of Kugo and collaborators (Ref. 8).
(2) There is also a second derivation of the action, us-
ing geometric string field theory, which we present in
another paper.7 This second derivation, in fact, is how
we first discovered the nonpolynomial action in the first
place. In the geometric approach, the gauge-invariant
theory is actually cubic, but contains a vierbein. When
the parametrization length of the string is gauge fixed to
be 27~,then an infinite number of instantaneous Coulomb
interactions are created, which precisely equal the po-
lyhedra found in this paper. Thus, a polynomial theory
can be converted to a nonpolynomial theory, and vice
versa, i.e.,
( v3)geometric = [ ( Y3 )end point
(Y3+Y4+Y5+
9
. lmidpoint
The reader is advised to consult Refs. 6 and 7 for more
details of the geometric theory.
41 NONPOLYNOMIAL CLOSED-STRING FIELD THEORY
(3) The question of higher loops is presently under in-
vestigation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank J. Lykken and L. Hua for
extensive discussions. We also would like to thank the
'permanent address: Physics Department, City College of the
City University of New York, NY 10031.
'See M. Kaku, Introduction to Superstrings (Springer, New
York, 1988), and references therein.
2 ~Kaku . and K. Kikkawa, Phys. Rev. D 10, 1110 (1974); 10,
1823 (1974).
3 ~Kaku,. Phys. Rev. D 38, 3052 (1988); M. Kaku and J. Lykk-
en, ibid. 38, 3067 (1988).
4M. Kaku, in Functional Integration, Geometry and Strings,
edited by Z . Haba and J. Sobczyk (Birkhauser, Boston, 1989).
5 ~ Kugo,
. H. Kunitomo, and K. Suehiro, Phys. Lett. B 226, 48
3747
organizers of the 25th Winter School of the University of
Wroclaw, 1989, Feb. 20-Mar. 5, 1989, where these re-
sults were first presented. We wish to thank the
US/Japan Cooperative Science Program, Grant No.
NSF-INT-8715626 as well as Grants Nos. NSF-PHY-
86615338 cUNy-FRAP-6-669347, and DE-FG02-
90ER40542.
(1989). See also M. Saadi and B. Zwiebach, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)
192, 213 (1989).
6 ~ Kaku,
. Report No. CCNY-HEP-86-14, 1986 (unpublished);
Report No. CCNY-HEP-87-3, 1987 (unpublished); M. Kaku,
Int. Mod. Phys. A 2, 1 (1987); Phys. Lett. B 200, 22 (1988);
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 659 (1990);see Ref. 1, Chap. 8.
'M. Kaku, Osaka Report No. OU-HET 121, 1989 (unpub-
lished).
8 ~ Kugo
. and K. Suehiro, Report No. KUNS 988 H E (TH)
89/08, 1989 (unpublished).
 FIG. 9. The missing region for the tetrahedron graph. No-
tice that it has three edges, each boundary corresponding to the
configuration where strings interact purely at their midpoints.
The missing region thus smoothly connects the three Mandel-
stam channels. In general, the boundary of the n-faced polyhe-
dra is formed by the interface with the various Mandelstam
channels of the n-string interaction.