Deriving on-shell open string field amplitudes without using Feynman rules

Hiroaki Matsunaga; Toru Masuda

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Deriving on-shell open string field amplitudes without using Feynman rules

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new family of gauge invariant quantities in the cubic open string field theory computes on-shell tree-level scattering amplitudes around D-brane configurations, with the four-tachyon case reproducing the Veneziano amplitude.

desk verdict A genuinely new gauge-invariant route to on-shell OSFT amplitudes that works in every explicit example, with the general proof honestly left open at the formal operator A_Ψ. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09784 v1 pith:FNYBJOUT submitted 2019-08-26 hep-th

Toru Masuda , Hiroaki Matsunaga This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords openstringfieldtheorygaugeinvariantobservablestachyonvacuumhomotopyoperatorscatteringamplitudesVenezianoamplitudeErler-MaccaferrisolutionBRSTcohomology

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that open-string scattering amplitudes around a D-brane configuration can be computed without Feynman rules, entirely from gauge invariant quantities built from the classical solution representing the configuration. The central object is a string field $W_\Psi$ formed from the difference between the solution $\Psi$ and a reference tachyon vacuum solution $\Psi_T$, together with a homotopy operator $A_T$ that trivializes the BRST cohomology at the tachyon vacuum. Inserting physical external states around $W_\Psi$ gives quantities $I^{(N)}_\Psi$ that are invariant under gauge transformations of both the background and the external states, so null states automatically decouple. In the explicit four-tachyon example around an Erler-Maccaferri solution, the formula yields the Veneziano amplitude, suggesting the invariants compute on-shell tree-level amplitudes around the corresponding D-brane.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the string field $W_\Psi = A_T(\Psi-\Psi_T)+(\Psi-\Psi_T)A_T$, where $A_T$ is a homotopy operator for the tachyon vacuum, $Q_T A_T=1$. The antisymmetrized form makes $W_\Psi$ $Q_\Psi$-closed and guarantees that changes in the reference solution or in $A_T$ shift $W_\Psi$ only by $Q_\Psi$-exact terms, which is what makes the invariants gauge invariant. In the Erler-Maccaferri example $W_\Psi$ becomes $\Sigma e^K \bar{\Sigma}$, a wedge-state-like factor of width one, and the difference $A_T - A_\Psi$ plays the role of a propagator fragment. Wedge-state correlation functions on cylinders convert the algebraic integrals into concrete world-sheet integrals, and the boundary term implements the subtraction that turns divergent partial integrals into the $\beta$-function amplitude.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to find a non-zero $Q_T$-closed state at ghost number one (or at the ghost numbers entering $W_\Psi$) at the tachyon vacuum; such a state would prohibit a global $A_T$ with $Q_T A_T=1$. Separately, one could compute $I^{(4)}_\Psi$ for a numerical or identity-based solution and check whether the result remains independent of the choice of $A_T$ and reproduces the known amplitude; any dependence would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the tachyon vacuum as a reference, the authors define $W_\Psi = A_T(\Psi-\Psi_T)+(\Psi-\Psi_T)A_T$, which is closed under $Q_\Psi$, the BRST operator around $\Psi$. For any set of $Q_\Psi$-closed ghost-number-one states $O_i$, the integrals built from $W_\Psi$ and $O_i$ are unchanged when the reference tachyon vacuum, the choice of $A_T$, the classical solution, or the external states are varied by exact terms; the four-point case needs an additional boundary term $K_\Psi$ built from an operator $A_\Psi$ with $Q_\Psi A_\Psi=1$. Evaluating the invariants for the Erler-Maccaferri solution, with external on-shell tachyons, the main term gives a partial-integral representation of the four-point amplitude and the boundary term provides the minimal subtraction that removes divergences. The total is the standard Veneziano amplitude expressed as an Euler $\beta$ function. The paper presents this as evidence that the gauge invariant quantities reproduce on-shell tree-level scattering amplitudes around the D-brane configuration represented by $\Psi$, with no gauge fixing or Feynman propagators.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that a single homotopy operator $A_T$ with $Q_T A_T=1$ exists across the whole state space, i.e. that the tachyon vacuum has trivial BRST cohomology at the relevant ghost number, and if that fails $W_\Psi$ and the invariants built from it are not defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On-shell tree-level amplitudes around any D-brane configuration described by an Erler-Maccaferri solution can be obtained from the invariants, giving the same moduli integrals as first-quantized string theory.
Null-state decoupling is automatic: the invariant is unchanged when any external state is shifted by a $Q_\Psi$-exact term.
The four-tachyon amplitude emerges as the Euler beta function after the boundary term subtracts divergent partial-integral contributions, matching the Veneziano amplitude.
Amplitude computations with these invariants require no gauge fixing and no explicit Feynman propagator.
The result is stable under changing the reference tachyon vacuum solution and under different choices of the homotopy operator $A_T$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the mechanism is general, similar invariants could be built in supersymmetric or closed string field theories wherever a tachyon-vacuum analog with trivial cohomology exists, bypassing diagram-by-diagram moduli decomposition.
The object $W_\Psi$ may be a more fundamental probe of a background than the Ellwood invariant: one insertion gives a tadpole, while multiple insertions give scattering amplitudes, so it may encode both the boundary state and the open-string spectrum.
The formal surface-term expression of $I^{(N)}_\Psi$ hints that amplitudes around a solution could be topological or winding-like quantities, which might imply discrete or quantized behaviour for on-shell amplitudes tied to the background.
A numerical implementation could test universality: evaluate $I^{(4)}_\Psi$ for numerical tachyon-vacuum or multi-brane solutions and compare with known amplitudes; if results depend on regularization, the global homotopy assumption would need refinement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the construction works in every explicit case the authors compute: the three-tachyon amplitude around the perturbative vacuum, the four-tachyon Veneziano amplitude around the Erler-Maccaferri solution, and the fat-state variant in Section 5.4. The match to known results is real. No parameters are fitted — the overall constant C_N is unfixed for N > 4, but for N = 4 the normalization comes from the permutation sum and comes out right. Second, the general N-point invariant depends on a formal operator A_Ψ satisfying Q_Ψ A_Ψ = 1, which cannot exist as an honest state when Q_Ψ has non-trivial cohomology. The authors know this; they say so in Section 4.2 and again in Section 6.1. What they do not do is prove the invariant is independent of which formal inverse you pick.

What is actually new: the family of invariants I_Ψ^(N), the boundary term K_Ψ that cancels contact terms and implements the analytic continuation, and the demonstration that this gauge-fixing-free route reproduces the Veneziano amplitude. The W_Ψ combination itself already appeared in Ellwood's characteristic-projection paper, and the authors credit that in footnote 9. The novelty is in building amplitude-like invariants out of W and showing they work for a class of solutions that is supposed to cover arbitrary D-brane configurations.

The three-point proofs are clean, and the four-point combinatorial invariance argument is intricate but I found no hole. The soft spots, in proportion: the A_Ψ-dependence issue is real and unresolved; the surface-term subtleties of Section 5.5 are only checked for Ψ = 0; the minimal subtraction in 5.3 is guided by the known answer, though as a way of defining the analytic continuation it is defensible; and C_N is not fixed. The A_T existence worry from Section 6.1.6 is real but secondary, since the explicit evaluations only use A_T on a restricted set of states.

The stress-test note about A_Ψ-independence is fair. But it does not sink the paper, because the body is more carefully scoped than the abstract. The abstract says they 'show' the quantities compute amplitudes; what is actually shown is that they compute amplitudes for known solutions, with the general proof listed as an open question in Section 6.1.1. That is a modest overstatement, not a fatal one.

This is a paper for OSFT specialists. It deserves a serious referee; the referee should push on the A_Ψ question and on whether the K_Ψ prescription is unique. Send it to review rather than desk-rejecting it.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs gauge-invariant quantities I_Ψ^(N) in Witten's cubic open string field theory, built from a homotopy operator A_T for the tachyon vacuum and from the state W_Ψ = A_T(Ψ−Ψ_T)+(Ψ−Ψ_T)A_T. For three external states, the quantity I_Ψ = ∫ O_i W_Ψ O_j W_Ψ O_k W_Ψ is shown to be invariant under the relevant gauge transformations and to reproduce the on-shell three-tachyon amplitude for the perturbative vacuum. For N≥4, a boundary term K_Ψ involving a formal inverse A_Ψ of Q_Ψ is added to restore gauge invariance. The paper evaluates the four-point invariant for the Erler–Maccaferri solution and on-shell tachyons, and after a minimal-subtraction regularization obtains the Veneziano amplitude; a fat-external-state version is argued to cover the full moduli space. The authors present the construction as a Feynman-diagram-free way to compute tree-level amplitudes around D-brane configurations and list several related open questions.

Significance. If fully established, the construction would offer a new, gauge-invariant route to perturbative open string amplitudes that avoids gauge fixing and Feynman rules, with potential applications to non-perturbative backgrounds. The paper contains a clean algebraic proof of gauge invariance for the three-point quantity, and the explicit four-tachyon computation reproduces a known amplitude with no fitted parameters. The authors are honest about limitations, explicitly listing the general amplitude identity and the validity of A_T as open questions. The main gap is the status of the formal inverse A_Ψ used for N≥4, which the paper acknowledges does not exist as a state when the cohomology of Q_Ψ is non-trivial, and whose choice-independence is not established. Thus the paper is a valuable exploratory contribution whose central claim, as stated in the abstract, goes beyond what is proven.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Eqs. (71)–(73) and Section 4.3, Eq. (74)] The quantity I_Ψ^(N) for N≥4 is defined using a state A_Ψ satisfying Q_Ψ A_Ψ = 1. As the paper notes, "Since the cohomology of Q_Ψ is not empty in general, there is no A_Ψ which satisfies (71) in any definite sense," and the appeal to defining A_Ψ "when placed at a proper place in a correlation function" is not a mathematical definition. The proofs in Sections 4.1–4.3 cover changes of A_T and gauge transformations of external states, but never show that I_Ψ^(N) is independent of the choice of A_Ψ. Two formal inverses differ by a Q_Ψ-closed element δ of ghost number −1; if δ is not Q_Ψ-exact, the boundary term K_Ψ in Eq. (73) changes by an integral of the form ∫ δ O_1 W O_2 W O_3 W O_4, which is not shown to vanish. Without such an independence proof, I_Ψ^(N) is prescription-dependent, and the abstract's claim that these quantities compute scattering amplitudes is not established.
[Section 5.3, Eqs. (115)–(119)] The four-tachyon calculation relies on a particular regularization of B/K and a minimal-subtraction prescription for g_0(u), with C_α determined from the Laurent expansion of the integrand. The paper does not prove that this prescription is uniquely fixed by the definition of I_Ψ^(4); it is chosen so that the final result matches the known Veneziano amplitude. In the absence of a proof of independence of the regularization (and of the choice of A_Ψ, per the previous comment), the calculation demonstrates consistency with the known amplitude for one prescription rather than showing that the gauge-invariant quantity computes the amplitude.
[Section 4.3, Eq. (74) and following proof] The proof of gauge invariance for N≥4 is incomplete in two respects. First, the transformation of A_Ψ under the replacement of the reference tachyon vacuum (55) and under the gauge transformation of the classical solution (56) is not specified; if A_Ψ transforms non-trivially, the proof must account for its variation, and if it does not transform, the behavior of the combination A_T−A_Ψ must be re-derived. Second, the text says "Let us omit the proof of invariance under the transformations (56)–(58) because the proof is similar," leaving a central part of the claim unverified. The displayed variation of H1234 in Eq. (68) is also presented in a garbled notation (T[]1, T[2]1, etc.) that makes independent verification difficult.
[Section 6.1.1 and Section 6.1.6] The paper itself lists "To prove that the new formula I_Ψ^(N) gives on-shell tree-level scattering amplitudes" and "To investigate the validity of A_T" as open questions. These admissions, together with the issues raised in the previous comments, mean that the statement in the abstract ("For known classical solutions, we show that these gauge invariant quantities compute on shell tree-level scattering amplitudes") is stronger than what is actually proven. The claims should be weakened accordingly, or the missing proofs supplied.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (68)] The displayed variation of H1234 contains a garbled sequence of T symbols and signs; please rewrite with a clearly defined notation and check the signs carefully.
[Section 4.3] The notation A = A_T − A_Ψ is introduced without stating whether A_Ψ is the same formal inverse used in Eq. (73); please define it explicitly at first use.
[Eq. (39)] The proportionality constant and the precise normalization of the on-shell three-tachyon amplitude are not specified; please state the normalization or refer explicitly to the standard result.
[Section 5.3, Eq. (120)] The treatment of the α = −1 case (logarithmic divergence) in the expansion of u^{-α's−2}(1−u)^{-α't−2} is not described; this is needed to justify the claim that the result equals the Euler beta function for all external momenta, not only away from the poles.
[Eq. (71)] The right-hand side of Q_Ψ A_Ψ = 1 is the identity string field; please state this explicitly, since the homotopy interpretation depends on it.
[General presentation] There are several typos and stylistic issues, including "In addittion" in Section 2.1, "appearence" in Section 6.4, and inconsistent use of the identity string field symbol 1; a careful proofreading would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper derives new SFT invariants and validates them against the independent Veneziano amplitude, without fitting parameters or importing its conclusion via self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The gauge-invariant quantities I^(N)_Psi are defined algebraically from W_Psi and A = A_T - A_Psi (Eqs. (50), (72)-(74)); no input is fitted to the four-tachyon result. Section 5 evaluates the invariant for the Erler-Maccaferri solution using standard BCFT correlators (Eqs. (23)-(25)) and obtains the Koba-Nielsen/Veneziano integrand. The boundary term (Sections 5.3-5.4) is regulated by minimal subtraction, which is the standard analytic continuation of the divergent integral and is not a free parameter tuned to the known amplitude. The formal inverse A_Psi is not globally defined when Q_Psi has non-empty cohomology, as the paper acknowledges (Section 4.2 and Section 6.1, item 6); this is a well-definedness/rigor concern, not circularity. The only self-citation appears in the footnote to Section 5.5 (unpublished work of one author with Y. Okawa, partly presented in [43]), but the required surface-term argument is reproduced in equations (132)-(135), so the citation is not load-bearing. No claimed prediction reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed triviality of tachyon-vacuum cohomology, the validity of the Erler-Maccaferri parametrization, and the formal use of A_Psi inside correlation functions. No numerical free parameters are fitted; the only undefined constant is the overall normalization C_N. The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles or forces.

free parameters (1)

C_N = not determined
Overall combinatorial normalization of the N-point invariant in Eq. (74) is left unfixed; the paper lists fixing it as an open problem in Section 6.1.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The BRST cohomology around the tachyon vacuum is trivial at ghost number one, so a homotopy operator A_T with Q_T A_T = 1 exists.
Used in Eq. (30) to define W_Psi; the paper flags potential failure in Section 6.1 item 6 based on numerical results [31,32].
domain assumption The Erler-Maccaferri solution describes arbitrary D-brane backgrounds and satisfies relations (102)-(104) plus the projector property (Sigma*barSigma)^2 = Sigma*barSigma.
These relations are used in Section 5 to evaluate W_Psi and to parametrize external states; the generalized validity is cited to talks [41] and an unpublished work [42].
ad hoc to paper The formal state A_Psi satisfying Q_Psi A_Psi = 1 can be defined inside correlation functions, and the relevant surface terms of the Witten integral vanish.
Introduced in Section 4.2 for the complete N-point formula; the vanishing of surface terms is verified only for Psi = 0 in Section 5.5, so a general proof is missing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deriving on-shell open string field amplitudes without using Feynman rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNYBJOUT

@misc{pith2026190809784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deriving on-shell open string field amplitudes without using Feynman rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNYBJOUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09784}
}

read the original abstract

We present a series of new gauge invariant quantities in Witten's open string field theory. They are defined for a given set of open string states which satisfy the physical state condition around a classical solution. For known classical solutions, we show that these gauge invariant quantities compute on shell tree-level scattering amplitudes around the correspondent D-brane configuration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09784 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) Witten marked the midpoint M on an open string. The left and the right half is represented by L and R, respectively. (b) Φ1 ∗ Φ2 glues R of Φ1 with L of Φ2; Φ1 ∗ Φ2 appears on the dotted line. (c) R Φ glues L and R of Φ. (d) This picture illustrates associativity of ∗ intuitively. 2.2 Realization of the theory using BCFT Remember that the dynamical variable of quantum field theory is a field, which is a function… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) a state φ state expressed with the local coordinate (11) on C2. The unit semi-circle |ξ| = 1 on UHP is mapped to z = ± 1 2 . (b) R φ is given by a correlation function on C1 obtained by identifying L and R of φ state . (c) An illustration of φ state ∗ χ state. (d) An illustration of φ state 1 ∗ ... ∗ φ state n , where fi(z) = f ( 2i−n−1 2 ) s (z). The Witten integral R φ1 ∗ ... ∗ φn is given by a correlation fun… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[2]

The Closed string tadpole in open string ﬁeld theory,

I. Ellwood, “The Closed string tadpole in open string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0808 (2008) 063 [arXiv:0804.1131 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008
[1]

Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,

E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 253

work page 1986
[3]

String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string,

J. Polchinski, “String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string,” Cambridge University Press, 1998

work page 1998
[4]

Modular Invariance in String Field Theory,

S. B. Giddings, E. J. Martinec and E. Witten, “Modular Invariance in String Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 176 (1986) 362

work page 1986
[5]

A Proof that Witten’s open string theory gives a single cover of moduli space,

B. Zwiebach, “A Proof that Witten’s open string theory gives a single cover of moduli space,” Commun. Math. Phys. 142 (1991) 193

work page 1991
[6]

D-Branes, Tachyons, and String Field Theory

W. Taylor and B. Zwiebach, “D-branes, tachyons, and string ﬁeld the- ory,” hep-th/0311017

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

Analytical Solutions of Open String Field Theory,

E. Fuchs and M. Kroyter, “Analytical Solutions of Open String Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 502 (2011) 89 [arXiv:0807.4722 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2011
[8]

Analytic methods in open string ﬁeld theory,

Y. Okawa, “Analytic methods in open string ﬁeld theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 128 (2012) 1001

work page 2012

Show all 68 references

[9]

Algebraic solutions in Open String Field Theory - A Light- ning Review,

M. Schnabl, “Algebraic solutions in Open String Field Theory - A Light- ning Review,” Acta Polytechnica 50, no. 3 (2010) 102 [arXiv:1004.4858 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[10]

Analytic solution for tachyon condensation in open string ﬁeld theory,

M. Schnabl, “Analytic solution for tachyon condensation in open string ﬁeld theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 10 (2006) no.4, 433 [hep- th/0511286]

2006
[11]

Comments on Schnabl’s analytic solution for tachyon con- densation in Witten’s open string ﬁeld theory,

Y. Okawa, “Comments on Schnabl’s analytic solution for tachyon con- densation in Witten’s open string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0604 (2006) 055 [hep-th/0603159]

2006 arXiv
[12]

Wedge states in string ﬁeld theory,

M. Schnabl, “Wedge states in string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0301 (2003) 004 [hep-th/0201095]

2003 arXiv
[13]

Tachyon potentials, star products and universality,

L. Rastelli and B. Zwiebach, “Tachyon potentials, star products and universality,” JHEP 0109 (2001) 038 [hep-th/0006240]. 35

2001 arXiv
[14]

String Field Theory on the Conformal Plane. 1. Kinematical Principles,

A. LeClair, M. E. Peskin and C. R. Preitschopf, “String Field Theory on the Conformal Plane. 1. Kinematical Principles,” Nucl. Phys. B 317 (1989) 411

1989
[15]

String Field Theory on the Conformal Plane. 2. Generalized Gluing,

A. LeClair, M. E. Peskin and C. R. Preitschopf, “String Field Theory on the Conformal Plane. 2. Generalized Gluing,” Nucl. Phys. B 317 (1989) 464

1989
[16]

String Field Theory Solution for Any Open String Background,

T. Erler and C. Maccaferri, “String Field Theory Solution for Any Open String Background,” JHEP 1410 (2014) 029 [arXiv:1406.3021 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[17]

Covariant Quantization of String Based on BRS Invariance,

M. Kato and K. Ogawa, “Covariant Quantization of String Based on BRS Invariance,” Nucl. Phys. B 212 (1983) 443

1983
[18]

Universality of the tachyon potential,

A. Sen, “Universality of the tachyon potential,” JHEP 9912 (1999) 027 [hep-th/9911116]

1999 arXiv
[19]

A Simple Analytic Solution for Tachyon Condensation,

T. Erler and M. Schnabl, “A Simple Analytic Solution for Tachyon Condensation,” JHEP 0910 (2009) 066 [arXiv:0906.0979 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[20]

Observables of string ﬁeld theory,

A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, “Observables of string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0201 (2002) 028 [hep-th/0111092]

2002 arXiv
[21]

Ghost structure and closed strings in vacuum string ﬁeld theory,

D. Gaiotto, L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “Ghost structure and closed strings in vacuum string ﬁeld theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 6 (2003) 403 [hep-th/0111129]

2003 arXiv
[22]

Interpolating string ﬁeld theories,

B. Zwiebach, “Interpolating string ﬁeld theories,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 7 (1992) 1079 [hep-th/9202015]

1992 arXiv
[23]

Boundary State from Ell- wood Invariants,

M. Kudrna, C. Maccaferri and M. Schnabl, “Boundary State from Ell- wood Invariants,” JHEP 1307 (2013) 033 [arXiv:1207.4785 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[24]

Energy from the gauge invariant observ- ables,

T. Baba and N. Ishibashi, “Energy from the gauge invariant observ- ables,” JHEP 1304 (2013) 050 [arXiv:1208.6206 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[25]

Tachyon condensation in string ﬁeld theory,

A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “Tachyon condensation in string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0003 (2000) 002 [hep-th/9912249]

2000 arXiv
[26]

Marginal and scalar solutions in cubic open string ﬁeld theory,

T. Takahashi and S. Tanimoto, “Marginal and scalar solutions in cubic open string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0203 (2002) 033 [hep-th/0202133]

2002 arXiv
[27]

Proof of vanishing cohomology at the tachyon vacuum,

I. Ellwood and M. Schnabl, “Proof of vanishing cohomology at the tachyon vacuum,” JHEP 0702 (2007) 096 [hep-th/0606142]. 36

2007 arXiv
[28]

The Identity string ﬁeld and the tachyon vacuum,

I. Ellwood, B. Feng, Y. H. He and N. Moeller, “The Identity string ﬁeld and the tachyon vacuum,” JHEP 0107 (2001) 016 [hep-th/0105024]

2001 arXiv
[29]

Homotopy Operators and One-Loop Vacuum Energy at the Tachyon Vacuum,

S. Inatomi, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Homotopy Operators and One-Loop Vacuum Energy at the Tachyon Vacuum,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 126 (2011) 1077 [arXiv:1106.5314 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[30]

Homotopy Operators and Identity-Based Solutions in Cubic Superstring Field Theory,

S. Inatomi, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Homotopy Operators and Identity-Based Solutions in Cubic Superstring Field Theory,” JHEP 1110 (2011) 114 [arXiv:1109.2406 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[31]

Physical states at the tachyonic vacuum of open string ﬁeld theory,

S. Giusto and C. Imbimbo, “Physical states at the tachyonic vacuum of open string ﬁeld theory,” Nucl. Phys. B677 (2004) 52 [hep-th/0309164]

2004 arXiv
[32]

The Spectrum of open string ﬁeld theory at the stable tachyonic vacuum,

C. Imbimbo, “The Spectrum of open string ﬁeld theory at the stable tachyonic vacuum,” Nucl. Phys. B 770 (2007) 155 [hep-th/0611343]

2007 arXiv
[33]

Singular gauge transformations in string ﬁeld theory,

I. Ellwood, “Singular gauge transformations in string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0905 (2009) 037 [arXiv:0903.0390 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[34]

Henneaux, Quantization of gauge systems, Princeton University Press (1992)

M. Henneaux, Quantization of gauge systems, Princeton University Press (1992)

1992
[35]

Kugo and I

T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Manifestly Covariant Canonical Formulation of Yang-Mills Field Theories: Physical State Subsidiary Conditions and Physical S Matrix Unitarity, Phys. Lett. B 73 (1978) 459

1978
[36]

Kugo and I

T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Local Covariant Operator Formalism of Non- abelian Gauge Theories and Quark Conﬁnement Problem, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 66 (1979) 1

1979
[37]

String Field Theory as World-sheet UV Regulator,

A. Sen, “String Field Theory as World-sheet UV Regulator,” arXiv:1902.00263 [hep-th]

1902 arXiv
[38]

Connecting Solutions in Open String Field Theory with Singular Gauge Transformations,

T. Erler and C. Maccaferri, “Connecting Solutions in Open String Field Theory with Singular Gauge Transformations,” JHEP 1204 (2012) 107 [arXiv:1201.5119 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[39]

Taming boundary condition changing operator anomalies with the tachyon vacuum,

T. Erler, C. Maccaferri and R. Noris, “Taming boundary condition changing operator anomalies with the tachyon vacuum,” JHEP 1906 (2019) 027 [arXiv:1901.08038 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[40]

Open String Fields as Matrices,

I. Kishimoto, T. Masuda, T. Takahashi and S. Takemoto, “Open String Fields as Matrices,” PTEP 2015 (2015) no.3, 033B05 [arXiv:1412.4855 [hep-th]]. 37

2015 arXiv
[41]

String Field Theory and String Phenomenology,

T. Erler, Talk at “String Field Theory and String Phenomenology,” Harish-Chandra Research Institute, 14 Feb. 2018, http://www.hri.res.in/~strings/erler.pdf C. Maccaferri, Talk at “New Frontiers in String Theory,” Yukawa Institute of Theoretical Physics, 19 July 2018. http://ww...

2018
[42]

Erler, C

T. Erler, C. Maccaferri, to appear
[43]

Comments on new multiple-brane solutions based on Hata-Kojita duality in open string ﬁeld theory,

T. Masuda, “Comments on new multiple-brane solutions based on Hata-Kojita duality in open string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 1405 (2014) 021 [arXiv:1211.2649 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[44]

Light-cone reduction of Witten’s open string ﬁeld the- ory,

H. Matsunaga, “Light-cone reduction of Witten’s open string ﬁeld the- ory,” JHEP 1904 (2019) 143 [arXiv:1901.08555 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Erler and H

T. Erler and H. Matsunaga, to appear
[46]

Universal Solutions in Open String Field Theory,

M. Kudrna and M. Schnabl, “Universal Solutions in Open String Field Theory,” arXiv:1812.03221 [hep-th]

arXiv
[47]

Kudrna, Ph.D

M. Kudrna, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University in Prague, 2019

2019
[48]

Kudrna, M

M. Kudrna, M. Schnabl and J. Vomera, to appear
[49]

Gauge Invariant Overlaps for Classical Solutions in Open String Field Theory,

T. Kawano, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Gauge Invariant Overlaps for Classical Solutions in Open String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 803 (2008) 135 [arXiv:0804.1541 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[50]

The boundary state from open string ﬁelds,

M. Kiermaier, Y. Okawa and B. Zwiebach, “The boundary state from open string ﬁelds,” arXiv:0810.1737 [hep-th]

arXiv
[51]

Ising model conformal bound- ary conditions from open string ﬁeld theory,

M. Kudrna, M. Rapˇ c´ ak and M. Schnabl, “Ising model conformal bound- ary conditions from open string ﬁeld theory,” arXiv:1401.7980 [hep-th]

arXiv
[52]

Budzik, Master’s thesis, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 2019

K. Budzik, Master’s thesis, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 2019

2019
[53]

Budzik, M

K. Budzik, M. Rapˇ c´ ak and J. M. Rojas,to appear
[54]

String ﬁeld theory so- lution corresponding to constant background magnetic ﬁeld,

N. Ishibashi, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “String ﬁeld theory so- lution corresponding to constant background magnetic ﬁeld,” PTEP 2017 (2017) no.1, 013B06 [arXiv:1610.05911 [hep-th]]. 38

2017 arXiv
[55]

Vector proﬁle and gauge invariant observables of string ﬁeld theory solu- tions for constant magnetic ﬁeld background,

N. Ishibashi, I. Kishimoto, T. Masuda and T. Takahashi, “Vector proﬁle and gauge invariant observables of string ﬁeld theory solu- tions for constant magnetic ﬁeld background,” JHEP 1805 (2018) 144 [arXiv:1804.01284 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[56]

Tachyon Vacuum of Bosonic Open String Field Theory in Marginally Deformed Back- grounds,

S. Inatomi, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Tachyon Vacuum of Bosonic Open String Field Theory in Marginally Deformed Back- grounds,” PTEP 2013 (2013) 023B02 [arXiv:1209.4712 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[57]

Gauge Invariant Overlaps for Identity-Based Marginal Solutions,

I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Gauge Invariant Overlaps for Identity-Based Marginal Solutions,” PTEP 2013 (2013) 093B07 [arXiv:1307.1203 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[58]

Comments on observables for identity- based marginal solutions in Berkovits’ superstring ﬁeld theory,

I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Comments on observables for identity- based marginal solutions in Berkovits’ superstring ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 1407 (2014) 031 [arXiv:1404.4427 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Comments on Takahashi-Tanimoto’s scalar solution,

N. Ishibashi, “Comments on Takahashi-Tanimoto’s scalar solution,” JHEP 1502 (2015) 168 [arXiv:1408.6319 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[60]

Observables for identity- based tachyon vacuum solutions,

I. Kishimoto, T. Masuda and T. Takahashi, “Observables for identity- based tachyon vacuum solutions,” PTEP 2014 (2014) no.10, 103B02 [arXiv:1408.6318 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[61]

Regularization of identity based solution in string ﬁeld the- ory,

S. Zeze, “Regularization of identity based solution in string ﬁeld the- ory,” JHEP 1010 (2010) 070 [arXiv:1008.1104 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[62]

Comments on regularization of identity based solutions in string ﬁeld theory,

E. A. Arroyo, “Comments on regularization of identity based solutions in string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 1011 (2010) 135 [arXiv:1009.0198 [hep- th]]

2010 arXiv
[63]

Comments on Lumps from RG ﬂows,

T. Erler and C. Maccaferri, “Comments on Lumps from RG ﬂows,” JHEP 1111 (2011) 092 [arXiv:1105.6057 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[64]

On Multibrane Solutions in Open String Field Theory,

M. Murata and M. Schnabl, “On Multibrane Solutions in Open String Field Theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 188 (2011) 50 [arXiv:1103.1382 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[65]

Multibrane Solutions in Open String Field Theory,

M. Murata and M. Schnabl, “Multibrane Solutions in Open String Field Theory,” JHEP 1207 (2012) 063 [arXiv:1112.0591 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[66]

Winding Number in String Field Theory,

H. Hata and T. Kojita, “Winding Number in String Field Theory,” JHEP 1201 (2012) 088 [arXiv:1111.2389 [hep-th]]. 39

2012 arXiv
[67]

The Phantom Term in Open String Field Theory,

T. Erler and C. Maccaferri, “The Phantom Term in Open String Field Theory,” JHEP 1206 (2012) 084 [arXiv:1201.5122 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[68]

BCFT and OSFT moduli: an ex- act perturbative comparison,

P. V. Larocca and C. Maccaferri, “BCFT and OSFT moduli: an ex- act perturbative comparison,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.11, 806 [arXiv:1702.06489 [hep-th]]. 40

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

The Closed string tadpole in open string ﬁeld theory,

I. Ellwood, “The Closed string tadpole in open string ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 0808 (2008) 063 [arXiv:0804.1131 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008

[2] [1]

Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,

E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 253

work page 1986

[3] [3]

String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string,

J. Polchinski, “String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string,” Cambridge University Press, 1998

work page 1998

[4] [4]

Modular Invariance in String Field Theory,

S. B. Giddings, E. J. Martinec and E. Witten, “Modular Invariance in String Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 176 (1986) 362

work page 1986

[5] [5]

A Proof that Witten’s open string theory gives a single cover of moduli space,

B. Zwiebach, “A Proof that Witten’s open string theory gives a single cover of moduli space,” Commun. Math. Phys. 142 (1991) 193

work page 1991

[6] [6]

D-Branes, Tachyons, and String Field Theory

W. Taylor and B. Zwiebach, “D-branes, tachyons, and string ﬁeld the- ory,” hep-th/0311017

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

Analytical Solutions of Open String Field Theory,

E. Fuchs and M. Kroyter, “Analytical Solutions of Open String Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 502 (2011) 89 [arXiv:0807.4722 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2011

[8] [8]

Analytic methods in open string ﬁeld theory,

Y. Okawa, “Analytic methods in open string ﬁeld theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 128 (2012) 1001

work page 2012