Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Vertex operators for the superstring with manifest $d=6$ $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new superstring vertex operator makes all of d=6 N=1 supersymmetry manifest and derives super-Yang-Mills equations from BRST invariance.

desk verdict Real new construction in the hybrid superstring formalism, but the physical-state claim is compromised because the vertex operator is explicitly BRST-exact. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06194 v4 pith:KTZ7FVL7 submitted 2024-12-09 hep-th

Cassiano A. Daniel This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords superstringhybridformalismsix-dimensionalsupersymmetryvertexoperatorsuper-Yang-MillsBRSTcohomologyscatteringamplitudespurespinor
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

This paper constructs a manifestly spacetime-supersymmetric vertex operator U for the open superstring compactified to six dimensions, using all eight θ coordinates of d=6 N=1 superspace as fundamental worldsheet variables plus unconstrained bosonic ghosts λα. The paper's central claim is that BRST invariance of U under the nilpotent charge ∮ G+ is exactly equivalent to the linearized d=6 N=1 super-Yang-Mills equations of motion in superspace. A sympathetic reader would care because previous six-dimensional hybrid descriptions only made half the supersymmetries manifest and required imposing the constraint Dα=0 by hand, making it impossible to identify where component fields sit or to compute amplitudes with eight θs. The paper also gives a tree-level amplitude prescription, analogous to the non-minimal pure spinor formalism, and verifies it by computing the three-gluon amplitude.

What carries the argument

The central object is the extended BRST supercurrent G+ = G+hyb − λαDα − wαrα, where G+hyb is the positive N=2 supercurrent of the six-dimensional hybrid formalism, Dα = dα2 − e−ρ−iσ dα1 is the harmonic-like constraint whose relaxation is implemented by the unconstrained bosonic ghost λα, and −wαrα is a topological/non-minimal term ensuring that cohomology is independent of the added pairs via the quartet mechanism. The nilpotent charge (G+)0 = ∮G+ then defines physical states as ghost-number-one cohomology classes, and the vertex operator U is built from the d=6 N=1 superfields so that (G+)0U vanishes precisely when the superfields satisfy the linearized SYM equations.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation that would settle the cohomology claim: construct an explicit BRST-invariant vertex operator of ghost number one with non-vanishing on-shell component fields that does not satisfy the d=6 SYM equations (3.8). If such a state exists in the cohomology of (G+)0, the vertex operator U would not uniquely describe the SYM multiplet; conversely, a systematic computation of the ghost number one cohomology (e.g., by spectral sequence or by mapping the physical state conditions to the RNS/standard hybrid spectrum) would settle whether any extra states appear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that, after relaxing the harmonic-like constraint Dα=0 by adding −λαDα to the BRST supercurrent (instead of imposing it by hand), one can write a compactification-independent, ghost-number-one vertex operator U in terms of the usual d=6 N=1 superfields Aαj, Aa, Wαj, Fab. Computing (G+)0 U and organizing the result by powers of the ghost fields shows that BRST invariance forces exactly the linearized d=6 SYM equations (σabc)αβ(∇αj Aβk + ∇βk Aαj)=0 and ∇αj Wβk + (i/2) δkj (σab)βα Fab = 0, along with the definitions of Aa, Wαj, Fab in terms of Aαj and the Lorenz gauge condition ∂aAa=0. The paper also constructs an integrated vertex W=∫(G−)−1U and a tree-level three-point amplitude prescription whose regulator R=exp(λαθα2) makes the amplitude independent of the non-minimal variables; the three-gluon amplitude computed from it matches the standard SYM result.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the BRST cohomology of the extended operator ∮G+ reproduces exactly the massless superstring spectrum — in particular, that adding the unconstrained bosonic ghost λα to relax the constraint Dα=0 does not introduce unwanted physical states beyond the SYM multiplet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the BRST cohomology claim is correct, the massless spectrum of the superstring compactified to six dimensions is exactly the d=6 N=1 SYM multiplet, with all eight supersymmetries realized geometrically on the worldsheet.
  • The amplitude prescription (3.21) should reproduce all n-point tree-level SYM amplitudes from the superstring, not just the three-point one, and it provides the first manifestly d=6 N=1 supersymmetric framework for such computations.
  • Because the b-ghost/G− has no singularities as λα, λα → 0, the same regulator should extend to multiloop amplitudes without the restrictions found in the non-minimal pure spinor formalism.
  • The construction generalizes to massive compactification-independent states, since the formalism is not restricted to the massless superfields used here.
  • The vertex operator automatically incorporates the Lorenz gauge condition ∂aAa=0 as a consequence of (G−)0U=0, tying the superstring gauge fixing to the usual covariant gauge of SYM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's derivation of SYM equations from BRST invariance suggests a pattern: in any dimension where the hybrid formalism exists, relaxing the harmonic constraint with an unconstrained ghost and adding a topological pair may produce a manifestly supersymmetric vertex operator whose BRST invariance encodes the full superspace equations of motion.
  • The relation Dα = eR(pα2 − Qhybα2)e−R (up to θα2 terms) hints that the constraint Dα=0 is physically the statement that the second set of supersymmetry charges acts trivially; the new formalism effectively promotes those 'non-standard' SUSY charges into dynamical BRST-trivial directions.
  • A direct testable extension would be to compute the four-point amplitude with this prescription and compare with the known color-ordered SYM amplitude; agreement would strongly corroborate the cohomology assumption, while disagreement would pinpoint a missing subtlety in the regulator or the integrated vertex operator.
  • The fact that the first line of the integrated vertex (3.12) matches the form conjectured in footnote 3 of ref. [3] suggests that the manifestly supersymmetric integrated vertex for superspace SYM is the universal form ∂θA + Π·A + dW (plus the Lorentz-current term), which may also be the correct integrated vertex in other hybrid-type constructions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the six-dimensional hybrid formalism for the superstring by adding unconstrained bosonic ghost fields and non-minimal variables, so that all eight θ coordinates of d=6 N=1 superspace become fundamental worldsheet variables. It constructs a ghost-number-one unintegrated vertex operator U in Eq. (3.6) and claims that BRST invariance under ∮G+ with G+ = G+_hyb − λ^α D_α − w_α r^α implies the linearized d=6 N=1 super-Yang-Mills equations in superspace, Eqs. (3.8). An integrated vertex operator W is given in Eq. (3.11), and a tree-level amplitude prescription is proposed in Eq. (3.17), using a field V defined by U=(G+)0V. The paper computes the three-gluon amplitude and reports agreement with the standard result.

Significance. If the construction is fully valid, the paper would provide a manifestly d=6 N=1 supersymmetric description of massless superstring vertex operators and a tree-level amplitude prescription analogous to the non-minimal pure spinor formalism, which is a genuinely useful step for compactified superstring computations. The explicit evaluation of the three-gluon amplitude is a valuable consistency check, and the normal-ordering computation of G+_hyb in Appendix C is a substantial technical contribution. However, the central physical interpretation of U as a BRST-cohomology state is not established: U is explicitly (G+)0-exact, and the proof in Appendix E appears to assume the equations of motion it is meant to derive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and §3.4, Eqs. (3.14)–(3.16)] The vertex operator U in Eq. (3.6) is presented as a ghost-number-one state in the cohomology of (G+)0, but Eqs. (3.14)–(3.16) explicitly define V with U=(G+)0V. In ordinary BRST cohomology an exact state is equivalent to zero, so the claim that U represents a physical SYM multiplet requires a nontrivial relative-cohomology statement. The paper does not compute the cohomology of (G+)0 restricted to the subspace annihilated by (~G+_hyb)0, nor does it show that U is nontrivial there. The non-vanishing three-point amplitude (3.20) checks the chosen regulator and the particular V, but it does not validate the cohomology assumption, because the other insertions in (3.17) are not (G+)0-closed. The authors should compute this relative cohomology, or otherwise justify that exactness in the full space is compatible with the physical-state condition stated in §3.3.
  2. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E.3)–(E.4)] The identities used to show that (G+)0U vanishes are introduced as consequences of the Lorenz gauge condition and of Eqs. (E.1) and (E.2), but Eqs. (E.1) are precisely the equations of motion whose derivation from BRST invariance is the paper's central result. Statements such as 'which vanishes by using eqs. (E.1) and (E.2)' therefore make the derivation circular. As written, the proof does not show that (G+)0U=0 implies the SYM equations; it shows that (G+)0U vanishes if the SYM equations are assumed. The computation must be restructured so that the BRST variation of U produces terms proportional to independent combinations whose vanishing yields (E.1), without using (E.1) in the intermediate identities.
  3. [Appendix E, final paragraph] A long list of ghost-structure sectors is dismissed with the statement that they 'can be similarly shown to yield a vanishing result'. Because the paper's main theorem rests entirely on this calculation, and because the calculation as written already has the circularity issue described above, these sectors should either be exhibited explicitly or reduced by a stated systematic argument, such as a basis of independent superfield expressions. As it stands, the reader cannot verify that BRST invariance implies exactly (3.8) and no further constraints.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (3.17)] The integration measure [dλ][dλ]d4r d8θ R is not defined precisely; the reader has to infer which zero modes of the new variables are integrated and how the regulator R in Eq. (3.18) is inserted. Please state the measure explicitly.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (3.20)] The result is described only as 'the sought after result' and 'as expected'. It would be clearer to state explicitly that this is the standard color-ordered three-gluon amplitude with the usual momentum dependence.
  3. [§4, paragraph on six-dimensional pure spinor] The word 'manifst' should be 'manifest', and in the expression '−λαjdαj' the spinor and SU(2) index contractions should be written out to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§3.2, text after Eq. (3.5)] The phrase 'up to terms proportional to θα2' is not fully quantified. Since the similarity transformation is central to the interpretation of G+, please specify exactly which terms are dropped and why they do not affect the subsequent physical-state analysis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The proof that BRST invariance of U implies the SYM equations uses the SYM equations themselves as an input, and the vertex U is explicitly constructed to be (G+)_0-exact.

  1. self definitional [Appendix E, paragraphs following eqs. (E.8), (E.9), (E.10), and final paragraph; main text eq. (3.8)]
    "which vanishes by the SYM equations of motion (E.1) and the superspace definitions (E.2) ... which again vanishes by using eqs. (E.1) and (E.2) ... which vanishes by eq. (E.1b)"

    The appendix announces a proof that BRST invariance of U implies eqs. (E.1), but in the coefficient analysis it repeatedly uses eqs. (E.1) themselves to assert that terms in (G+)_0U vanish. This establishes only the on-shell implication 'SYM equations imply BRST invariance'; the claimed converse is not derived. The final paragraph still asserts that the contributions 'imply' eq. (E.1b), but the exhibited computation has the target equation as an input, so the SYM equations are equivalent to the input by construction rather than being a prediction of the BRST condition.

  2. other [Section 3.4, eqs. (3.14)–(3.16)]
    "Consider V (z) = ∮ dy/(y-z) (-(θ1)^4 e^{2ρ+iσ})(y) U(z), and note that (G+)0V = U by using the fact that (G+)0 annihilates U and the property (G+)0 (-(θ1)^4 e^{2ρ+iσ}) = 1."

    U is presented as a ghost-number-one state in the cohomology of (G+)0, yet the paper explicitly constructs V with (G+)0V = U, making U BRST-exact by construction. In ordinary BRST cohomology an exact state is equivalent to zero, so BRST invariance of U is automatic and carries no physical information. To make U nontrivial one would need a relative cohomology restricted by (~G+_hyb)0, which is never computed; the amplitude prescription then checks a particular regulator and V choice, not the cohomological prediction of the SYM multiplet.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained and does not fit parameters to data; the three-point amplitude is a benchmark against the known SYM result rather than a fitted input. The self-citation to ref. [21] is used for conventions and for a representation of G+_hyb, but the main nilpotence argument does not rest on it, so it is not load-bearing. However, two by-construction reductions affect the central claim. First, the derivation in Appendix E repeatedly uses the target SYM equations of motion to show that the BRST variation vanishes, so the claimed implication 'BRST invariance ⇒ SYM equations' is partially circular: the computation as written verifies the reverse implication and assumes the conclusion in several sectors. Second, the explicit construction of V with (G+)_0V = U makes U exact in the absolute BRST cohomology, contradicting the earlier definition of U as a nontrivial cohomology state; a relative cohomology argument that would rescue the physical-state interpretation is not provided. These issues are specific and quotable, so despite the paper's independent technical content, the central derivation is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The construction rests on the standard hybrid/RNS equivalence and the existence of a c=6 N=2 compactification, plus the quartet mechanism for the new ghost variables. The new worldsheet ghosts are technical gadgets with no independent physical evidence; their acceptance depends on the cohomology argument, which is the weakest assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hybrid formalism is equivalent to the gauge-fixed RNS superstring via a field redefinition.
    Used throughout Section 2 and 3 to justify the worldsheet action (2.1) and the physical state conditions; this equivalence is taken from refs [1],[2],[20] without proof in this paper.
  • domain assumption The compactification sector S_C is a c=6 N=2 superconformal field theory (K3 or T4).
    Appears in eq. (2.1) and Section 2.1; the central charge matching and the N=2 structure require this.
  • domain assumption The non-minimal variables {w,λ,s,r} satisfy the quartet mechanism so that the BRST cohomology is independent of them.
    Section 3.2, paragraph after eq. (3.3d), used to assert that the new variables do not change the physical spectrum; this relies on the standard quartet argument from ref [8].
  • standard math The normal-ordering prescription defined in Appendix B is consistent and is used for all operator products.
    Appendix B defines the prescription; all computations in Appendices C and E rely on it.
invented entities (2)
  • Unconstrained bosonic spinor ghost λ^α and its conjugate momenta w_α
    purpose: To relax the harmonic constraint D_α = 0 in the BRST operator G+ (eq. 3.3b) so that vertex operators can depend on all eight θ coordinates.
    Introduced as fundamental worldsheet fields in Section 3.1; they are gauge/ghost degrees of freedom with no direct physical observable. The paper does not provide a falsifiable handle outside the formalism; their justification is that the central charge vanishes and the cohomology is claimed to be unchanged.
  • Non-minimal variables {λ̄^α, r^α} and conjugate momenta {w̄_α, s_α}
    purpose: To define a regulator R = exp(-λ̄λ + rθ^2) for the scattering amplitude prescription (3.17).
    Borrowed from the non-minimal pure spinor formalism [8]; they are topological variables with no physical content. No independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vertex operators for the superstring with manifest $d=6$ $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTZ7FVL7

@misc{pith2026241206194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vertex operators for the superstring with manifest $d=6$ $\mathcalN=1$ supersymmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTZ7FVL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06194}
}
abstract

By extending the six-dimensional hybrid formalism for the superstring to include $d=6$ $\mathcal{N}=1$ superspace variables along with unconstrained bosonic ghost fields, we construct a manifestly spacetime supersymmetric vertex operator $U$. We demonstrate that the BRST invariance of $U$ implies the $d=6$ $\mathcal{N}=1$ SYM equations of motion in superspace. Furthermore, we show that spacetime supersymmetric scattering amplitudes can be computed in a manner analogous to that of the non-minimal pure spinor formalism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Covariant quantization of the superstring in $\rm AdS_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$ with mixed flux

    hep-th 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A manifestly supersymmetric and quantizable worldsheet action for the mixed-flux AdS3 x S3 x T4 superstring is constructed and shown to be one-loop conformal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Berkovits,A New description of the superstring, in8th Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School: Particles and Fields, pp

    N. Berkovits,A New description of the superstring, in8th Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School: Particles and Fields, pp. 390–418, 4, 1996 [hep-th/9604123]

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Berkovits and C

    N. Berkovits and C. Vafa,N=4 topological strings, Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 123 [hep-th/9407190]

    arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    Berkovits,Super Poincare covariant quantization of the superstring, JHEP 04 (2000) 018 [hep-th/0001035]

    N. Berkovits,Super Poincare covariant quantization of the superstring, JHEP 04 (2000) 018 [hep-th/0001035]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Green, J.H

    M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten,Superstring Theory. Vol. 1: Introduction, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (1988)

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    Friedan, E.J

    D. Friedan, E.J. Martinec and S.H. Shenker,Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986) 93

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Massive Superstring Vertex Operator in D=10 Superspace

    N. Berkovits and O. Chandia,Massive superstring vertex operator in D = 10 superspace, JHEP 08 (2002) 040 [hep-th/0204121]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    The closed-string 3-loop amplitude and S-duality

    H. Gomez and C.R. Mafra,The closed-string 3-loop amplitude and S-duality, JHEP 10 (2013) 217 [1308.6567]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Berkovits,Pure spinor formalism as an N=2 topological string, JHEP 10 (2005) 089 [hep-th/0509120]

    N. Berkovits,Pure spinor formalism as an N=2 topological string, JHEP 10 (2005) 089 [hep-th/0509120]. – 35 –

    arXiv 2005

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Berkovits, E

    N. Berkovits, E. D’Hoker, M.B. Green, H. Johansson and O. Schlotterer,Snowmass White Paper: String Perturbation Theory, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.09099]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Berkovits and C.R

    N. Berkovits and C.R. Mafra,Pure Spinor Formulation of the Superstring and Its Applications, (2024) [2210.10510]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mafra and O

    C.R. Mafra and O. Schlotterer,Tree-level amplitudes from the pure spinor superstring, Phys. Rept. 1020 (2023) 1 [2210.14241]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Berkovits and P.S

    N. Berkovits and P.S. Howe,Ten-dimensional supergravity constraints from the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, Nucl. Phys. B635 (2002) 75 [hep-th/0112160]

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Berkovits,Quantum consistency of the superstring in AdS(5) x S**5 background, JHEP 03 (2005) 041 [hep-th/0411170]

    N. Berkovits,Quantum consistency of the superstring in AdS(5) x S**5 background, JHEP 03 (2005) 041 [hep-th/0411170]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Berkovits, S

    N. Berkovits, S. Gukov and B.C. Vallilo,Superstrings in 2-D backgrounds with RR flux and new extremal black holes, Nucl. Phys. B614 (2001) 195 [hep-th/0107140]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Benakli, N

    K. Benakli, N. Berkovits, C.A. Daniel and M. Lize,Higher-spin states of the superstring in an electromagnetic background, JHEP 12 (2021) 112 [2110.07623]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Berkovits,Quantization of the superstring with manifest U(5) superPoincare invariance, Phys

    N. Berkovits,Quantization of the superstring with manifest U(5) superPoincare invariance, Phys. Lett. B457 (1999) 94 [hep-th/9902099]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P.S. Howe, G. Sierra and P.K. Townsend,Supersymmetry in Six-Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 221 (1983) 331

    1983

  10. [18]

    Berkovits,Quantization of the type II superstring in a curved six-dimensional background, Nucl

    N. Berkovits,Quantization of the type II superstring in a curved six-dimensional background, Nucl. Phys. B565 (2000) 333 [hep-th/9908041]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Koller,A SIX-DIMENSIONAL SUPERSPACE APPROACH TO EXTENDED SUPERFIELDS, Nucl

    J. Koller,A SIX-DIMENSIONAL SUPERSPACE APPROACH TO EXTENDED SUPERFIELDS, Nucl. Phys. B222 (1983) 319

    1983

  12. [20]

    Berkovits, C

    N. Berkovits, C. Vafa and E. Witten,Conformal field theory of AdS background with Ramond-Ramond flux, JHEP 03 (1999) 018 [hep-th/9902098]

    1999 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Daniel,Integrating out the fermions in AdS, 2408.10418

    C.A. Daniel,Integrating out the fermions in AdS, 2408.10418

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Berkovits,Equivalence Proof of Pure Spinor and Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz Superstring Amplitudes, 2411.19778

    N. Berkovits,Equivalence Proof of Pure Spinor and Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz Superstring Amplitudes, 2411.19778

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Berkovits,Relating the RNS and pure spinor formalisms for the superstring, JHEP 08 (2001) 026 [hep-th/0104247]

    N. Berkovits,Relating the RNS and pure spinor formalisms for the superstring, JHEP 08 (2001) 026 [hep-th/0104247]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Grassi and N

    P.A. Grassi and N. Wyllard,Lower-dimensional pure-spinor superstrings, JHEP 12 (2005) 007 [hep-th/0509140]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wyllard,Pure-spinor superstrings in d=2,4,6, JHEP 11 (2005) 009 [hep-th/0509165]

    N. Wyllard,Pure-spinor superstrings in d=2,4,6, JHEP 11 (2005) 009 [hep-th/0509165]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gerigk and I

    S. Gerigk and I. Kirsch,On the Relation between Hybrid and Pure Spinor String Theory, JHEP 03 (2010) 106 [0912.2347]. – 36 –

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Chandia, W.D

    O. Chandia, W.D. Linch, III and B.C. Vallilo,The Covariant Superstring on K3, 1109.3200

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chandia and B.C

    O. Chandia and B.C. Vallilo,Relating theb ghost and the vertex operators of the pure spinor superstring, JHEP 03 (2021) 165 [2101.01129]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Berkovits and M.M

    N. Berkovits and M.M. Leite,First massive state of the superstring in superspace, Phys. Lett. B415 (1997) 144 [hep-th/9709148]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Polchinski,String theory

    J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Howe, K.S

    P.S. Howe, K.S. Stelle and P.C. West,N=1 d = 6 HARMONIC SUPERSPACE, Class. Quant. Grav.2 (1985) 815

    1985

  24. [32]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory, Springer-Verlag (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Mafra,Superstring Scattering Amplitudes with the Pure Spinor Formalism, Ph.D

    C.R. Mafra,Superstring Scattering Amplitudes with the Pure Spinor Formalism, Ph.D. thesis, Sao Paulo, IFT, 2008.0902.1552. – 37 –

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.