Brackets in bosonic string theory

Ljubica Davidovi\'c

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Brackets in bosonic string theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 3-bracket built from doubled string symmetry parameters has a Jacobiator that reduces to a total derivative, vanishing on the closed string.

desk verdict A review with a genuinely new 3-bracket Jacobiator calculation, but the central consistency claim rests on an unproven total-derivative assumption and the derivation is not rigorous as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16329 v1 pith:ZP6JX2E3 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-th

Ljubica Davidović This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords bosonicstringtheorydoublefieldC-bracketCourantalgebroidJacobiidentityworld-sheetanomalyT-dualityPoissonalgebra

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 derives the Jacobiator for a three-bracket constructed from the symmetry-generator parameters of double bosonic string theory, in the same way the two-bracket is obtained from the Poisson bracket of the generators. It claims that the anomaly-free part of this 3-bracket satisfies the Jacobi identity, and that for a generalized linear combination of the two derivative terms the full Jacobiator becomes a total derivative on the world-sheet. Because total derivatives are assumed to cancel for the closed string, the parameter algebra is consistent and the 3-bracket closes. The result matters because brackets govern how string symmetry parameters combine; a non-vanishing Jacobiator would signal that the symmetry algebra fails to be a genuine algebra.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Poisson algebra of doubled symmetry generators $G = \int d\sigma \, \Lambda^{T}\Pi$, where the derivative operator $(\Lambda,\partial) = \xi^{\varepsilon}\partial_{\varepsilon} + \lambda^{\varepsilon}\partial^{\varepsilon}$ carries the parameter couplings. The 3-bracket is defined by the nested Poisson bracket $\{\{G(\sigma),G(\bar{\sigma})\},G(\bar{\eta})\}$ and is related to the 2-bracket by $[[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2],\Lambda_3] = (\Lambda_3,\partial)[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2] - ([\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2],\partial)\Lambda_3$. The load-bearing identity is that the Jacobiator of the generalized bracket reduces to $\kappa D$ applied to a cyclic sum of scalar products, with $D = \kappa^{-1}(\Pi,\partial)$; this is what makes the anomaly a total derivative that the closed-string boundary condition removes.

What would settle it

Evaluate equation (4.20) with explicit smooth, periodic parameter profiles and integrate the total derivative around the closed string; a nonzero value for any allowed triplet $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3$ would falsify the claim. On a world-sheet with a boundary, the same total derivative should leave a nonzero boundary term, making the failure of anomaly cancellation directly visible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the doubled symmetry generator $G = \int d\sigma \, \Lambda^{T}\Pi$ with $\Lambda = (\xi,\lambda)$ and $\Pi = (\pi, \kappa x')$, the Poisson bracket of two generators defines the 2-bracket $[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2] = (\Lambda_2,\partial)\Lambda_1 - (\Lambda_1,\partial)\Lambda_2$. The nested Poisson bracket of three generators defines the 3-bracket $[[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2],\Lambda_3] = (\Lambda_3,\partial)[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2] - ([\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2],\partial)\Lambda_3$, whose anomaly-free part satisfies the Jacobi identity. The anomalous terms assemble into a Jacobiator of the form $\kappa D\big( (\Lambda_1,[\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3]_{\beta,\gamma}) + (\Lambda_2,[\Lambda_3,\Lambda_1]_{\beta,\gamma}) + (\Lambda_3,[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2]_{\beta,\gamma}) \big)$, where $D = \kappa^{-1}(\Pi,\partial)$ acts as a world-sheet derivative. With the generalized bracket $[\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2]_{(\beta,\gamma)} = \beta(\Lambda_2,\partial)\Lambda_1 + \gamma(\Lambda_1,\partial)\Lambda_2$, this Jacobiator is a total derivative, so on the closed string it vanishes and the 3-bracket algebra closes.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that total-derivative terms on the world-sheet cancel for the closed string; if that boundary condition fails, the Jacobiator does not vanish and the claimed consistency of the 3-bracket algebra collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 3-bracket is consistent with the 2-bracket through the relation (4.3), so the extension to triple brackets does not disturb the low-order symmetry algebra.
For any choice of the parameters $\beta,\gamma \in \{0,\tfrac{1}{2},1\}$, the generalized bracket yields a Jacobiator that is a total derivative, so the family of brackets is equally consistent on the closed string.
In the $x$-dependent case, the Jacobiator reduces to $\kappa[(\Lambda_1,[\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3]_{\beta,\gamma}) + \text{cyclic}]'$, again a total derivative in the world-sheet coordinate, so the consistency does not require the doubled-coordinate terms.
If the generator density alone is used, the anomaly remains present as a function of one world-sheet variable, so the closed-string cancellation is essential to the claim.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension would be to compute the same nested Poisson bracket for the $B$- and $\theta$-twisted C-brackets and check whether their 3-bracket Jacobiator also reduces to a total derivative, which would show the consistency is stable under the twists that generate flux backgrounds.
The paper treats the vanishing of total derivatives as an assumption for the closed string; if instead the boundary term is interpreted as a conserved current, it could source edge degrees of freedom in an open-string or D-brane sector, a direction the paper does not pursue.
The reduction of the Jacobiator to a total derivative suggests a general kinematic mechanism: any bracket built from a derivation of the form $(\Lambda,\partial)$ may automatically produce a total-derivative Jacobiator, making the closed-string condition sufficient without further dynamical input.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a review of brackets in bosonic string theory with one genuinely new calculation—the 3-bracket Jacobiator for the C-bracket—but the calculation as written is too sketchy and the central consistency claim depends on an unproven total-derivative assumption. I would not desk-reject it; a serious referee could force the necessary corrections, but as it stands the new result is not established.

What's new and what works: Sections 1–3 are a competent survey of how Courant, Roytenberg, and C-brackets arise from symmetry generators in string theory. The review parts are useful for someone entering the area, and they are honestly framed as a review. The genuinely new piece is Section 4: the 3-bracket (4.2) defined through the double Poisson bracket, and the generalized bracket (4.13) with parameters β, γ. The observation that the Jacobiator of this bracket can be written as a total derivative (4.14), which would vanish on a closed string, is a plausible and potentially useful result. It builds on the author's own earlier work on twisted C-brackets, and the increment is modest but real.

Where it gets soft: First, equation (3.3) displays pairs of identical terms that cancel exactly, so the Poisson bracket as written is wrong—either a typographical disaster or a sign error in the derivation. That needs to be fixed before anything else. Second, the derivation of the Jacobiator relies on distributional identities for products of δ and θ functions, and the paper gives 'one out of three expressions' depending on how δ' is represented, without proving they are equivalent. The statement 'Total derivatives are assumed to be cancelled for the closed string' is an assumption, not a result; the stress-test note is right that a smeared evaluation could retain local terms that are not total derivatives, and the paper does not address boundary terms or θ(0) ambiguities. Third, the generalized bracket (4.13) has parameters that are chosen precisely to make the Jacobiator a total derivative, so the 'consistency' is to some extent put in by hand. That is not automatically a fatal flaw—one can define brackets with desired properties—but it raises the burden to show the bracket is otherwise natural, and the paper does not defend that choice. Finally, there are repeated terminological errors, including 'homeomorphism' for 'homomorphism' for the anchor map, which does not inspire confidence in the rigor of the surrounding math.

Who should read it: specialists in double field theory and generalized geometry who want to see a possible 3-bracket analog of the C-bracket. It deserves peer review because the new formula is plausible and the review portions have value, but the referee should demand a careful derivation with rigorous distribution handling and no cancellation typos. My recommendation: send it to a referee, but only after the author cleans up the algebra.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a review of bracket operations in bosonic string theory, with a new derivation in Sections 3–4. It starts from the C-bracket of double field theory, derives it from the Poisson bracket of symmetry generators of a doubled phase space, and then defines a 3-bracket by taking a double Poisson bracket. The main new claim is that the Jacobiator of this 3-bracket is, after cancellation of the anomaly and use of the closed-string condition, a total world-sheet derivative; with a generalized bracket depending on parameters β,γ it is written as κD[(Λ1,[Λ2,Λ3](β,γ)) + cyclic] and therefore vanishes on the closed string. The paper also surveys algebroid/Courant-algebroid definitions and compares various brackets. The conclusion states that the Jacobiator is found as the law of parameter couplings in the Poisson algebra of the corresponding generators.

Significance. If correct, the result would give a higher-bracket Jacobi consistency condition for the C-bracket and would link the Poisson-algebra derivation of brackets to Courant-algebroid structures. The review portions usefully assemble definitions of Lie, Koszul, Courant, Dorfman, Roytenberg, and C-brackets and their appearances in string theory. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations; the new computation is presented in a condensed, notation-heavy form, so its central claim is not yet verified to the standard expected for a research paper. The main value is the conceptual organization and the proposed framework, conditional on a rigorous derivation.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.11)] The reduction of the anomalous terms to the total-derivative Jacobiator (4.11) is not a well-defined distributional computation. The products δ′(σ−σ̄)θ(σ̄−σ), δ′(σ−σ̄)δ(σ−η̄), and similar terms are manipulated by partial integration without specifying a smearing, and the text itself says that 'depending on the representation' one of three expressions (4.7)–(4.9) is obtained. A single, smeared evaluation is needed to prove that only total-derivative terms survive. The sentence 'Total derivatives are assumed to be cancelled for the closed string' is an assumption, not a derivation; since (4.11) is the paper's central consistency claim, this gap is load-bearing.
[Section 4, after Eq. (4.2)] The text states 'Jacoby identity for this 3-bracket is satisfied' and then later displays a nonzero Jacobiator (4.11). If (4.2) is the bracket whose Jacobi identity is claimed, the relation between these statements is contradictory; if the claim is only that the anomaly-free part is Lie's, that should be stated explicitly and distinguished from the full Jacobiator. The current wording does not allow the reader to tell whether the Jacobi identity is being asserted for the full bracket or only after discarding total derivatives.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.12)–(4.14)] The generalized bracket (4.13) is introduced with free parameters β,γ only after the Jacobiator has already been exhibited in the β,γ-dependent form (4.11). Because (4.14) is then a rewriting of (4.11), the statement that the Jacobiator becomes a total derivative for the generalized bracket is partly forced by the parametrization. The physical origin and allowed values of β and γ are not derived, so the result as stated has a circular flavour and needs to be recast as: for the bracket obtained from the Poisson algebra, the Jacobiator is (4.11), and only then can one ask whether a different parameterization makes it manifestly a total derivative.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.3)] Several lines of (3.3) contain pairs of identical terms with opposite signs that cancel exactly, for example the two ±(1/κ)∂ρξ1∂ρξ2πμ(σ)πν(σ̄) terms and the analogous pairs involving ∂ρλ. If these are typographical errors with barred and unbarred derivatives intended, that must be fixed; if they are not errors, then the nonlocal Pμ-dependent terms announced in the text are absent. Either way, the central computation needs to be corrected before the bracket definition (3.6) can be assessed.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, paragraph beginning 'It all started with Leibniz algebroid'] The text says the Leibniz identity implies 'the anchor being homeomorphism'; the correct term is homomorphism, and the same misuse recurs in the Courant algebroid definitions in the same section.
[Throughout] Numerous typos and misspellings should be corrected, including 'algebroinds', 'parring', 'thoeries', 'weather', 'disjunct', 'Jacoby', and 'trough' in the abstract.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.4)] In the first two displayed lines of (4.4), the two terms inside each bracket appear identical; if one term in each pair is meant to contain a barred derivative, the notation needs to be made explicit.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.7)–(4.9)] The 'or' alternatives for the same quantity should be shown to be equal under the stated distributional identities, or the text should explain why each is acceptable.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.10)] The relation {Pμ,x′ν} = −δνμ δ(σ−σ̄) should be explained more carefully, since Pμ is an integrated variable and the ordering of the arguments in the delta function is not specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Jacobiator computation is a direct calculation; the generalized bracket is a post-hoc rewriting and the total-derivative cancellation is a stated assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central Section 4 calculation computes the 3-bracket Jacobiator from the Poisson bracket of generator densities, with the anomaly displayed in (4.4) before any bracket generalization is introduced. The later 'generalized bracket' (4.13) is defined as a linear combination of the two terms of the 2-bracket, and (4.14) is an algebraic rewriting of the already-computed total-derivative expression (4.11), so the Jacobiator does not reduce to the definition of the generalized bracket. The vanishing conclusion relies on the explicit assumption 'Total derivatives are assumed to be cancelled for the closed string,' which is a physical boundary condition, not a parameter fitted to force the result. Self-citations [31,33,34,35,37] describe prior bracket constructions and T-duality results, but the new 3-bracket anomaly calculation is carried out in the paper itself and does not depend on those citations for its conclusion. The non-uniqueness of the distributional manipulations in (4.7)-(4.9) and the unproven total-derivative cancellation are correctness and rigor concerns, not circularity. Thus no step exhibits an equation reducing to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard Poisson bracket kinematics, the strong constraint of double field theory, and the assumption that total derivatives vanish on the closed string. The only explicitly free numerical parameters are the coefficients β and γ in the generalized bracket (4.13), which are chosen by hand to make the Jacobiator a total derivative. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

beta, gamma in generalized bracket = a,b,c ∈ {0, 1/2, 1}, β=b-c, γ=c-a
These parameters are chosen by hand in equation (4.13) to make the Jacobiator a total derivative and absorb the anomaly; they are not fixed by a principle.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Standard Poisson brackets for doubled phase space variables
Used in Section 3 to compute the generator Poisson brackets; not derived.
domain assumption Total derivatives on the closed string world-sheet can be dropped
Section 4: 'Total derivatives are assumed to be cancelled for the closed string.' This is essential for anomaly cancellation.
domain assumption Strong constraint of double field theory
Invoked in the review of DFT, but the new calculation assumes the doubled fields and parameters obey it without proof.
standard math Anchor map is a homomorphism
The paper uses this property of algebroids but repeatedly writes 'homeomorphism', which is a different concept; in any case it is a standard property.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brackets in bosonic string theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZP6JX2E3

@misc{pith2026241116329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brackets in bosonic string theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZP6JX2E3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16329}
}

read the original abstract

We give a review of brackets and interior products in bosonic string theory, in different representations, used in formulation of a theory and derived in a transformation of related mathematical structures. We consider the C-bracket, defined in double string theory, in a context of Poisson algebra of symmetry generator, and show its connection to prior brackets trough anomaly reduction, and its characteristics related to Courant algebroid definitions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

A. A. Bolibruh, Maxwell equations and diﬀerential forms , MCNMO, Moscow (2002)

work page 2002
[2]

Cattaneo and G

A. Cattaneo and G. Felder, Poisson sigma models and deformation quantization , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 179

work page 2001
[3]

J A de Azcarraga, A M Perelomov and J C Perez Bueno, The Schouten - Nijenhuis bracket, cohomology and generalized Poisson structures, J.Phys.A: Math. Gen. 29 (1996) 7993

work page 1996
[4]

Koszul: Crochet de Schouten-Nijenhuis et cohomol ogie

J.-L. Koszul: Crochet de Schouten-Nijenhuis et cohomol ogie. Ast /acute.ts1erisque, (Numero Hors Serie) (1985) 257

work page 1985
[5]

Tomas Ortin, Gravity and Strings CUP (2004)

work page 2004
[6]

M.B.Green, J. H. Schwartz, E. Witten, Superstring Theory , Cambridge University Press (1987); J. Polchinski, String theory , Cambridge University Press (1998); B. Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory , Cambridge University Press (2004); P.West, Introduction to Strings and Braines , Cambridge University Press (2012)

work page 1987
[7]

Evans, B

M. Evans, B. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 39 (10) (1989) 3016; M. Evans, B.A. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 41 (10) (1990) 3149

work page 1989
[8]

Anton Alekseev and Thomas Strobl, Current Algebras and Diﬀerential Geometry , JHEP 0503 (2005) 035

work page 2005

Show all 42 references

[9]

Meissner and G

K.A. Meissner and G. Veneziano, Physics Letters B 267 (1991) 33

1991
[10]

Siegel, Two–vierbein formalism for string–inspired axionic gravit y, PR D 47 , No

W. Siegel, Two–vierbein formalism for string–inspired axionic gravit y, PR D 47 , No. 12 (1993) 5453

1993
[11]

Giveon, M

A. Giveon, M. Porrati, E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rep. 244, 77 202 (1994); E. Alvarez, L. Alvarez- Gaume, Y. Lozano, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 41 (1995) 1

1994
[12]

Buscher, Phys

T. Buscher, Phys. Lett. B 194, 51 (1987); T. Buscher, Phy s. Lett. 201 (1988) 466. 17

1987
[13]

Branislav Jurˇ co, Jan Vysoky, Courant Algebroid Connections and String Eﬀective Actions, Noncommutative Geometry and Physics 4 (2017) 211

2017
[14]

Alexei Kotov and Thomas Strobl, Generalizing Geometry–Algebroids and Sigma Mod- els, IRMA, Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics 16, Handbook of Pseudo- Riemannian Geometry and Supersymmetry (2010) 209

2010
[15]

A. A. Tseytlin, Duality Symmetric Formulation Of String World Sheet Dynami cs, Phys. Lett. B 242 (1990) 163

1990
[16]

M. J. Duﬀ, Duality Rotations In String Theory , Nucl. Phys. B 335 (1990) 610

1990
[17]

Szabo, Higher Quantum Geometry and Non-Geometric String Theory , Proceedings of Science, Vol

Richard J. Szabo, Higher Quantum Geometry and Non-Geometric String Theory , Proceedings of Science, Vol. 318 (2018) 151

2018
[18]

Olaf Hohm, Dieter Lust and Barton Zwiebach, The Spacetime of Double Field Theory: Review, Remarks, and Outlook , Fortschritte der Physik, Volume 61, Issue 10 (2013) 926

2013
[19]

Davidovi´ c, B

Lj. Davidovi´ c, B. Nikoli´ c and B. Sazdovi´ c, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 576

2015
[20]

Davidovi´ c and B

Lj. Davidovi´ c and B. Sazdovi´ c, Eur. Phys. J.C 72 (2012) 2199

2012
[21]

Haruka Mori, Shin Sasaki and Kenta Shiozawa, Doubled Aspects of Vaisman Algebroid and Gauge Symmetry in Double Field Theory , J. Math. Phys. 61 (2020) 013505

2020
[22]

in Poisson geometry and Lie algebroid theory , The Breadth of Symplectic and Poisson Geometry, chapter in Progress in Mathematics ((PM,Volume 232)) (2003)

Yvette Kosmann-Schwarzbach Quasi, twisted, and all that... in Poisson geometry and Lie algebroid theory , The Breadth of Symplectic and Poisson Geometry, chapter in Progress in Mathematics ((PM,Volume 232)) (2003)

2003
[23]

Nigel Hitchin, Lectures on generalized geometry , Surveys in Diﬀerential Geometry XVI (2011), arXiv:1008.0973 [math.DG]

2011 arXiv
[24]

Theodore James Courant, Dirac Manifolds, Transactions of the American Mathemat- ical Society Vol. 319, No. 2 (1990)

1990
[25]

Diﬀer- ential Geom

Zhang-Ju Liu, Alan Weinstein, Ping Xu, Manin triples for Lie bialgebroids , J. Diﬀer- ential Geom. 45 (3) (1997) 547

1997
[26]

Dmitry Roytenberg, Courant algebroids, derived brackets and even symplectic su per- manifolds, PHD thesis, Department of Mathematics, UC Berkeley (1999)

1999
[27]

Bressler and A

P. Bressler and A. Chervov, Courant algebroids , Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 128 (2005) 3030. 18

2005
[28]

60, Issue 11-12 (2012) 1217

Ralph Blumenhagen, Andreas Deser, Erik Plauschinn and Felix Rennecke, Bianchi Identities for Non–Geometric Fluxes – From Quasi-Poisson St ructures to Courant Al- gebroids, Fortschritte der Physik Vol. 60, Issue 11-12 (2012) 1217

2012
[29]

O. Hohm, D. L¨ ust, B. Zwiebach, The spacetime of double ﬁeld theory: Review, re- marks, and outlook , Fortschritte der Physik 61 Issue 10 (2013) 926

2013
[30]

Siegel, Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings, Phys.Rev

W. Siegel, Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings, Phys.Rev. D 48 (1993) 2826

1993
[31]

Ivaniˇ sevi´ c, Lj

I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c, Lj. Davidovi´ c, B. Sazdovi´ c,Courant bracket found out to be T-dual to Roytenberg one, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 571

2020
[32]

Roytenberg, Quasi-Lie bialgebroids and twisted Poi sson mani folds

D. Roytenberg, Quasi-Lie bialgebroids and twisted Poi sson mani folds. Lett. Math. Phys. 61 (2002) 123

2002
[33]

Davidovi´ c, I

Lj. Davidovi´ c, I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c, B. Sazdovi´ c,Courant bracket as T-dual invariant exten- sion of Lie bracket , JHEP 03 (2021) 109

2021
[34]

Davidovi´ c, I

Lj. Davidovi´ c, I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c, B. Sazdovi´ c,Courant bracket twisted both by a 2-form B and by a bi-vector θ, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 685

2021
[35]

Davidovi´ c, I

Lj. Davidovi´ c, I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c, B. Sazdovi´ c,Twisted C bracket, Fortschritte der Physik 71 (2023)

2023
[36]

Ivaniˇ sevi´ c,Courant algebroids in bosonic string theory (PHD thesis, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, 2023)

I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c,Courant algebroids in bosonic string theory (PHD thesis, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, 2023)

2023
[37]

Ivaniˇ sevi´ c and B

I. Ivaniˇ sevi´ c and B. Sazdovi´ c,Courant algebroid without constraints on ﬂuxes on its Dirac structures, arXiv:2407.10591 [hep-th]

arXiv
[38]

Chen-Te Ma, Gauge Transformation of Double Field Theory for Open String , PR D 92 (2015) 066004

2015
[39]

A Short History , Symmetry, In- tegrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications, SIGMA 9 (2013) 014

Yvette Kosmann–Schwarbach, Courant Algebroids. A Short History , Symmetry, In- tegrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications, SIGMA 9 (2013) 014

2013
[40]

Jean-Paul Dufour and Aıssa Wade, On the local structure of Dirac manifolds , Com- positio Mathematica 144 (2008) 774

2008
[41]

Jotz Lean and C

M. Jotz Lean and C. Kirchhoﬀ-Lukat, Natural lifts of Dorfman brackets , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 22, No. 6 (2018) 14011446

2018
[42]

Chris Hull and Barton Zwiebach, The Gauge Algebra of Double Field Theory and Courant Brackets, JHEP 09 (2009) 090. 19

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. A. Bolibruh, Maxwell equations and diﬀerential forms , MCNMO, Moscow (2002)

work page 2002

[2] [2]

Cattaneo and G

A. Cattaneo and G. Felder, Poisson sigma models and deformation quantization , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 179

work page 2001

[3] [3]

J A de Azcarraga, A M Perelomov and J C Perez Bueno, The Schouten - Nijenhuis bracket, cohomology and generalized Poisson structures, J.Phys.A: Math. Gen. 29 (1996) 7993

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Koszul: Crochet de Schouten-Nijenhuis et cohomol ogie

J.-L. Koszul: Crochet de Schouten-Nijenhuis et cohomol ogie. Ast /acute.ts1erisque, (Numero Hors Serie) (1985) 257

work page 1985

[5] [5]

Tomas Ortin, Gravity and Strings CUP (2004)

work page 2004

[6] [6]

M.B.Green, J. H. Schwartz, E. Witten, Superstring Theory , Cambridge University Press (1987); J. Polchinski, String theory , Cambridge University Press (1998); B. Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory , Cambridge University Press (2004); P.West, Introduction to Strings and Braines , Cambridge University Press (2012)

work page 1987

[7] [7]

Evans, B

M. Evans, B. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 39 (10) (1989) 3016; M. Evans, B.A. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 41 (10) (1990) 3149

work page 1989

[8] [8]

Anton Alekseev and Thomas Strobl, Current Algebras and Diﬀerential Geometry , JHEP 0503 (2005) 035

work page 2005