Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: vertex operators are one of the central objects in string theory . they represent cohomology classes of the brst operator . the brst cohomology depends on the chosen background , and in fact describes the tangent space to the moduli space of backgrounds at the chosen point .    in particular , let us look at the pure spinor superstring theory in expansion around flat space . the structure of massless brst cohomology in flat space is more or less clear , but it appears that it has never been explicitly spelled out in the literature . the present paper is aimed at filling this gap .    for the closed _ bosonic _ string the cohomology was computed in @xcite . we will here do a similar computation for the pure spinor superstring , but with the following difference . it is well known that the physically relevant cohomology problem is the so - called semirelative cohomology @xcite , which is @xmath1 acting on the vertex operators @xmath2 satisfying the following condition : @xmath3 this condition was built - in into the computations of @xcite . in the pure spinor superstring , the construction of the @xmath4-ghost is very subtle . in our paper we will compute the `` naive '' cohomology of @xmath1 , without taking into account ( [ semirelativecondition ] ) . failure to take into account ( [ semirelativecondition ] ) leads to some strange results :    1 . nonphysical vertex operators , _ i.e. _ elements of the brst cohomology which do not correspond to any linearized sugra solutions 2 . absence of the dilaton zero mode 3 . nontrivial cohomology at the ghost number three    problems 1 and 2 are removed if we require the existence of the dilaton superfield @xmath5 ( see @xcite and the discussion in section [ sec : commentonnonphysicalstates ] ) . to defeat the ghost number three cohomology is more difficult . it is dangerous as a potential obstacle for continuing an infinitesimal solution to a finite solution ( _ i.e. _ obstructed deformations of the flat spacetime ) . such obstructions would render the theory physically inconsistent . in bosonic string , all linearized deformations are unobstructed . one explanation is that the _ semi - relative _ cohomology at the ghost number three is zero , and therefore there is no obstacle . more precisely , the higher order correction to @xmath2 are controlled by the string field equation @xcite : @xmath6 since the ghost number four cohomology is zero , @xmath7 is in the image of @xmath8 . in fact , the pre - image could be chosen to be annihilated by @xmath9 , and this shows that eq . ( [ stringfieldequation ] ) can be resolved order by order in the deformation parameter . unfortunately , we do not have such a proof in the pure spinor formalism . it follows from the consistency of @xcite that there is actually no obstacle in extending the infinitesimal deformation to higher orders . even though the ghost number three cohomology is nonzero , the actual obstruction vanishes for physical states . it would be good to have a transparent proof of this fact using the language of brst cohomology and vertex operators . this would probably require the use of the composite @xmath4-ghost .      in the rest of this introductory section we will review general facts about the brst cohomology and its relation to the deformations of the worldsheet sigma - model . then in section [ sec : typeiibvsmaxwell ] we will review the cohomology of the classical electrodynamics , and explain how to reduce the cohomology of the type iib brst operator in flat space to the cohomology of electrodynamics . the relation will involve the computation of the cohomology of the algebra of translations with coefficients in the space of solutions of susy maxwell equations ( section [ sec : cohomologyofclassicalelectrodynamics ] ) and the tensor produce of two copies of such spaces ( section [ sec : cohomologyoftensorproduct ] ) . the results on brst cohomology are summarized in sections [ sec : brstcohomology ] and [ sec : actionofsusy ] . it was shown in @xcite that classical solutions of the type iib supergravity are in one - to - one correspondence with two - dimensional sigma - models satisfying certain axioms . most importantly , there should be two nilpotent odd symmetries @xmath10 and @xmath11 : @xmath12 also , there should be conserved charge known as the `` ghost number '' , with both @xmath10 and @xmath11 having ghost number @xmath13 . suppose that we are given such a sigma - model . a natural question is , how can it be deformed ? deformations of the sigma - model are the deformations of the action : @xmath14 where @xmath15 is some operator . if @xmath15 vanishes on - shell , then such deformation is trivial , as it can be undone by a field redefinition . suppose that the deformation is non - trivial . the condition that the deformed action still has a pair of nilpotent symmetries is equivalent to requiring the existence of @xmath16 and @xmath17 such that on - shell : @xmath18 here @xmath19 means `` equivalent on - shell '' , _ i.e. _ `` equivalent modulo the equations of motion '' . explicitly , ( [ separateqlandqr ] ) implies the existence of infinitesimal transformations @xmath20 and @xmath21 ( vector fields on the field space ) such that : @xmath22 were @xmath23 is the sigma - model lagrangian . ( the @xmath24 of ( [ totalderivativeonshell ] ) may be different from the @xmath25 of ( [ separateqlandqr ] ) because the variation of the lagrangian is proportional to the equations of motion only modulo a total derivative ) . then @xmath26 and @xmath27 are both symmetries of the deformed action ( [ deformationoftheaction ] ) . actually they are nilpotent : @xmath28 this is automatically true because all those anticommutators would be conserved charges of the ghost number two . in this paper we study vertices which are homogeneous polynomials of @xmath29 and @xmath30 . the conserved charges of the ghost number two are polynomials of low degree . therefore if @xmath15 is of large enough degree in @xmath29 and @xmath30 , then the nilpotence condition ( [ anticommutatorautomaticallyzero ] ) is satisfied . it is enough to verify ( [ separateqlandqr ] ) for @xmath31 : @xmath32 conditions ( [ separateqlandqr ] ) and ( [ q ] ) are equivalent , because @xmath33 and @xmath34 are independent , as both left and right ghost number are conserved . in fact , any linear combination @xmath35 with nonzero constant @xmath36 and @xmath37 can be choosen as a brst operator ; all such complexes are quasi - isomorphic to each other . operators @xmath15 satisfying the condition ( [ q ] ) are called `` integrated vertices '' . notice that @xmath38 is a one - form of the ghost number one , and @xmath39 ; this typically and @xmath30 ; some of our results are only valid under the assumption that the degree of the polynomial is large enough ; exceptions may happen for vertices which do not depend on @xmath29 ] implies @xmath41 , because there are no conserved charges of the ghost number two . this @xmath2 is called the _ unintegrated vertex _ corresponding to the integrated vertex @xmath15 : @xmath42 it is also possible to revert this procedure and go from @xmath2 back to @xmath15 . this involves the assumption about the vanishing of the cohomology at the nonzero conformal weight requires the absence of local conserved charges with nonzero ghost number ; going back ( from @xmath2 to @xmath15 ) requires the vanishing of the cohomology in the sector with positive conformal dimension ] . although ( to the best of our knowledge ) the proof of this vanishing theorem has never been given , we feel that the statement is true . notice that the construction of @xcite establishes the correspondence between integrated and unintegrated vertices independently of this assumption . although ( in its current form ) it only works in flat space and in @xmath43 , it also teaches us something about the generic curved background . for example , it tells us that the map @xmath44 is injective . indeed , suppose that existed an integrated vertex @xmath15 such that @xmath45 and @xmath46 ( _ i.e. _ nonzero @xmath15 gives @xmath2 ) . let us expand such @xmath15 in taylor series around a fixed point in the curved space - time , and take the leading term . this should give us the flat space vertex . since the map @xmath44 is injective in flat space , the leading term in @xmath2 should also be nonzero . this means that , if @xmath2 gets killed , then @xmath15 can not survive either .    in any case , our * working hypothesis * is :    * at the linearized level the deformations of the action are in one - to - one correspondence with the brst cohomology of @xmath31 at the ghost number two      if @xmath15 is an integrated vertex operator , then ( [ deformationoftheaction ] ) defines a deformation of the sigma - model action to the first order in @xmath47 . it is natural to ask , if the deformation can be continued to higher orders of @xmath47 . an obstacle can , in principle , arise already at the order @xmath48 . once we deform the action as in ( [ deformationoftheaction ] ) , the brst operator gets deformed : @xmath49 here @xmath50 is such that : @xmath51 where @xmath23 is the sigma - model lagrangian ( the existence of such @xmath50 follows from the fact that @xmath52 is a total derivative on - shell , this is in the definition of an integrated vertex operator ) . let us consider the following expression : @xmath53 where @xmath54 is the hamiltonian generating @xmath55 : @xmath56 it was proven in @xcite that exists a ghost - number - three operator @xmath57 such that : @xmath58 moreover , the cohomology class of @xmath57 is the obstacle for extending the deformation to the order @xmath48 . the same analysis can be extended to higher orders in @xmath47 . [ [ conclusion ] ] conclusion : + + + + + + + + + + +    if the brst cohomology at the ghost number three is zero then any infinitesimal deformation can be continued to a finite deformation , at least as a power series in @xmath47 . however , if the brst cohomology at the ghost number three is nonzero , then there is a potential obstacle . [ [ comment - on - the - derivation - in ] ] comment on the derivation in @xcite + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    in @xcite we concentrated on the perturbation theory around @xmath43 , while in the present paper we work in flat space . some of the assumptions leading to eq . ( [ definitionofobstacle ] ) do not work literally in flat space . for example , conserved charges with nonzero ghost number ( besides the brst charge ) do exist in flat space @xcite . however , these charges do not depend on @xmath29 . if we restrict ourselves to the polynomial expressions with large enough degree , then the arguments of @xcite do apply . [ [ another - way - of - looking - at - the - obstacle ] ] another way of looking at the obstacle + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    suppose that we have an unintegrated vertex operator @xmath2 of the ghost number two . suppose that we deform the action as in ( [ deformationoftheaction ] ) by _ some _ integrated operator @xmath59 ( which is related by the descent procedure to _ some other _ integrated vertex @xmath60 ) . the brst operator gets deformed : @xmath61 . the question is , does @xmath2 survive such a deformation ? in other words it is possible to correct @xmath62 in such a way that @xmath63 ? if the cohomology at the ghost number three is trivial , then this is always possible . otherwise , further analysis is needed : one has to prove that the ghost number three vertex @xmath64 is @xmath8-exact .    [ [ a - simpler - related - phenomenon ] ] a simpler related phenomenon + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    similar thing happens at the ghost number one . in flat space , there is a nontrivial cohomology at the ghost number one , corresponding to the global symmetries . however , a generic perturbation of the flat space will kill all this ghost number one cohomology . this is obvious , as generic linearized sugra solution does not have any global symmetries . what we want to stress , is the cohomological interpretation of why the ghost number one cohomology gets killed : the existence of the ghost number two cohomology .      in this paper we will show that the ghost number three cohomology is nozero . the more or less general example of a cohomologically nontrivial ghost number three vertex can be obtained as follows . let us consider a ghost number two vertex for an exponential linearized solution , for example a ramond - ramond excitation : @xmath65 \right)_{\alpha } p^{\alpha\hat{\beta } }     \left ( ( \theta_r\gamma^m\lambda_r)(\theta_r\gamma_m ) + [ \lambda_r\theta_r^{\geq 4 } ] \right)_{\hat{\beta}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath66 is a constant polarization tensor , @xmath67 . suppose that @xmath68 is a constant vector such that @xmath69 . let us consider :    @xmath70    notice that @xmath71 is brst closed . we will prove in section [ sec : diracdiracsector ] that it is not brst exact , but the relative sign in ( [ v3 ] ) is minus . with the plus sign it would be @xmath72 . also notice that @xmath73 is the ghost number one unintegrated vertex corresponding to the global conserved charge of translations ( the momentum of the string ) . vertices of the ghost number three transform in the same representation of the super - poincare algebra as the linearized sugra solutions . ( in particular , the obstacle for @xmath71 to be brst - exact is in fact the scalar @xmath74 , so all the polarization is in @xmath66 . ) the integrated vertex corresponding to ( [ v3 ] ) can be constructed as follows . let @xmath75 be the integrated vertex corresponging to @xmath76 . let @xmath77 be the conserved current corresponding to @xmath73 : @xmath78 since @xmath75 is an integrated vertex , exists a 1-form @xmath38 such that @xmath79 . let us denote : @xmath80 we have : @xmath81 the next step is : @xmath82 we conclude that @xmath83 is the integrated vertex operator corresponding to @xmath71 . it is a two - form of the ghost number one .    in this paper we will study _ polynomial _ vertices , _ i.e. _ vertices depending on @xmath29 polynomially . the exponential vertices ( [ exponentialv2 ] ) and ( [ v3 ] ) are sums of infinitely many polynomial vertices . indeed , @xmath84 can be decomposed in the taylor series , and the brst operator preserves the degree of a polynomial ( we assign degree @xmath85 to @xmath29 and degree @xmath86 to @xmath30 and @xmath87 ) . polynomial vertices are , essentially , harmonic polynomials of @xmath29 dressed with some appropriate @xmath30-dependence . a low degree example of a polynomial vertex of the ghost number three has been previously constructed in the revised version of @xcite . it is equivalent to the linear term in the expansion of @xmath71 in powers of @xmath29 . we will prove in section [ sec : ghostnumberfour ] that the pure spinor cohomology is zero at the ghost number four . we have proven in @xcite that the pure spinor cohomology is zero at the ghost number greater than four . this implies that the ghost number three cohomology survives the deformation from flat space - time to generic curved space - time . ( however , in the case of a generic curved space - time , there are no ghost number one vertices ; therefore the construction of section [ sec : introghostnumberthree ] does not work . ) consider an unintegrated vertex operator @xmath2 and the corresponding deformation of the sigma - model . can we extend it to the second order in the deformation parameter ? the potential obstacle is the ghost number 3 cohomology class @xmath57 defined in eq . ( [ definitionofobstacle ] ) . it is bilinear in @xmath2 : @xmath88\!]}\ ] ] we will show that @xmath57 transforms in the linearized supergravity multiplet ( _ i.e. _ in the same representation as @xmath2 , modulo some discrete states ) . the map @xmath89 given by ( [ wisgb ] ) defined by ( [ wisgb ] ) should commute with the action of the supersymmetry , in particular with the translations . moreover , one can see that : @xmath90 ( for example , for the linear dilaton background analized in @xcite , @xmath91 $ ] and @xmath92 $ ] . ) this implies that @xmath93\!]}$ ] can only be nonzero if either @xmath94 or @xmath76 is a low degree polynomial .    it should be possible to complete this argument , which would provide a proof of the vanishing of the obstructions to most of the deformations of the flat space at the second order ( but this proof will not work at higher orders ) .      in section [ sec : typeiibvsmaxwell ] we explain how to compute the massless brst cohomology of the type ii sugra by relating it to the brst cohomology of the maxwell theory using the spectral sequence of a bicomplex . in sections [ sec : cohomologyofclassicalelectrodynamics],[sec : zerothcohomology],[sec : cohomologyoftensorproduct ] and [ sec : secondcohomologytensorproduct ] we compute the second page of that spectral sequence . in section [ sec : brstcohomology ] we finally compute the spectrum of massless states , and in section [ sec : actionofsusy ] we study the action of supersymmetry on the ghost number three vertices . for the first reading , we recommend the following sequence :    section [ sec : introduction ] @xmath95 section [ sec : typeiibvsmaxwell ] @xmath95 section [ sec : brstcohomology ] .    then sections [ sec : cohomologyofclassicalelectrodynamics],[sec : zerothcohomology],[sec : cohomologyoftensorproduct ] and [ sec : secondcohomologytensorproduct ] could be read at the second pass . we will compute the cohomology of the type iib brst complex by relating it to the super - maxwell brst complex .      the cohomology of the super - maxwell brst complex : @xmath96 is only nontrivial at the ghost numbers 0 and 1 . at the ghost number 0 the cohomology is constants : @xmath97 . at the ghost number 1 , the cohomology is in one - to - one correspondence with the solutions of the free maxwell equation and the free dirac equation . the vanishing of the cohomology at the ghost numbers two and three is equivalent to the following statements :    1 .   for any current @xmath98 such that @xmath99 always exists the gauge field @xmath100 satisfying @xmath101}=0 $ ] and @xmath102 2 .   for any antichiral spinor @xmath103 exists a chiral spinor @xmath104 such that @xmath105 3 .   for any @xmath106 exists @xmath98 such that @xmath107    [ [ example ] ] example : + + + + + + + +    let us look at the ghost number two cohomology . the leading term in the @xmath30-expansion is either @xmath108 or @xmath109 . let us for example investigate the first possibility . the following expression is in the cohomology of @xmath110 : @xmath111 now let us study the effect of the @xmath112-term in ( [ qsupermaxwell ] ) . for ( [ zeromodeghostnumbertwo ] ) to survive the action of @xmath113 we need : @xmath114 the `` something '' on the right hand side always exists , because any expression of the form @xmath115 $ ] annihilated by @xmath116 is automatically in the image of @xmath116 . it remains to investigate the possibility of ( [ zeromodeghostnumbertwo ] ) being @xmath8-exact : @xmath117 this is possible iff @xmath118 . but for any @xmath119 we can find @xmath120 such that @xmath118 . this implies that any expression of the type ( [ zeromodeghostnumbertwo ] ) is always brst - trivial . the class with the leading term @xmath109 is analyzed similarly . [ [ conclusion-1 ] ] conclusion : + + + + + + + + + + +    @xmath121    here `` @xmath122 '' stands for the direct sum of the space of solutions of the maxwell equations and the space of solutions of the dirac equation . we now want to relate the super - maxwell complex to the type iib sugra complex .    [ [ comment - in - the - revised - version ] ] comment in the revised version + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    it is possible to modify the definition of the brst complex by imposing the constraint that the cochains are annihilated by @xmath123 . in this case @xmath124 is nonzero and in fact isomorphic ( perhaps modulo some zero modes ) to @xmath125  see the recent work @xcite and references there . we do not impose any such constraints . therefore our brst complex has @xmath126 for open strings . but for closed strings , we still get the massless @xmath127 nonzero ( and isomorphic to @xmath128 up to zero modes ) . let us consider the tensor product of two smaxwell complexes : @xmath129 the operator @xmath130 acts on the space of functions @xmath131 . we will denote @xmath10 and @xmath11 the two terms on the right hand side of ( [ brstsmaxwtimessmaxw ] ) . this is the `` doubled '' brst complex . the difference with the type iib sugra brst complex is the splitting @xmath132 . in the type iib brst complex there is no separation of @xmath29 into @xmath133 and @xmath134 : @xmath135 the difference with ( [ brstsmaxwtimessmaxw ] ) is that the left and the right parts have a common @xmath29 instead of separate @xmath133 and @xmath134 ; the operator @xmath136 acts on the space of functions @xmath137 . the computation of the cohomology of ( [ brstsmaxwtimessmaxw ] ) is straightforward , because it is just the tensor product of two maxwell complexes ( [ qsupermaxwell ] ) ; therefore the cohomology is : @xmath138 where the spaces @xmath139 are given by eqs . ( [ smaxw0 ] ) , ( [ smaxw1 ] ) and ( [ smaxwhigher ] ) .      to compute the cohomology of ( [ qsugra ] ) , we relate it to the cohomology of ( [ brstsmaxwtimessmaxw ] ) by the following trick . let us introduce a formal fermionic variable @xmath141 and the operator : @xmath142 ( we call it @xmath143 because it can be thought of as the cohomology of the abelian lie algebra of translations . ) let us consider the bicomplex : @xmath144 consider two ways of computing the cohomology of @xmath145 . we can either compute first the cohomology of @xmath143 , and then consider @xmath146 as a perturbation . or , first compute @xmath147 and then act on it by @xmath143 . this means that there are two different spectral sequences , both converging to @xmath148 . [ [ first - q_rm - lie - then - q_l - q_r ] ] first @xmath143 , then @xmath146 : + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    because of the poincare lemma , the cohomology of @xmath143 is only nontrivial in the ghost number 0 , and is represented by the functions @xmath149 . therefore the type iib brst complex is equivalent to the cohomology of @xmath146 acting on the cohomology of @xmath143 : @xmath150    [ [ first - q_l - q_r - then - q_rm - lie ] ] first @xmath146 , then @xmath143 : + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    now let us first compute the cohomology of @xmath146 , and then consider @xmath143 as a perturbation . the resulting spectral sequence will be denoted @xmath140 . it computes the cohomology of the sugra brst complex : @xmath151 therefore , the only nontrivial components are : @xmath152 all other components are zero . the only potentially nonzero differentials are : @xmath153        therefore , in order to compute the brst cohomology of sugra , we have to :    * first compute the cohomology of @xmath143 with coefficients in spaces of solutions of the classical electrodynamics and their tensor products * then compute the differentials @xmath154    the first step will be elaborated in sections [ sec : cohomologyofclassicalelectrodynamics ] , [ sec : zerothcohomology ] and [ sec : cohomologyoftensorproduct ] , and the second in section [ sec : brstcohomology ] . in the previous section we related the cohomology of the sugra complex to the lie algebra cohomology of the algebra of translations @xmath155 with coefficients in the tensor product of solutions of maxwell and dirac equations . in order to compute it , we will first compute the cohomology with coefficients in the single space of solutions of maxwell and dirac equations . then , in the next section , we will proceed to compute the cohomology with coefficients in the tensor product of two such spaces .      consider the space of solutions of the vacuum maxwell equations : @xmath156 } = 0\ ] ] depending on a parameter @xmath141 , a free grassmann variable . we need to calculate the cohomology of the operator @xmath157 acting on this space . we will start by computing the cohomology of divergenceless currents . consider the space @xmath158 of one - forms @xmath159 satisfying @xmath160 . this is a subspace of the space of all 1-forms @xmath161 : @xmath162 this gives the long exact sequence of cohomology : @xmath163 we conclude : @xmath164 now we proceed to the cohomology of the maxwell complex . a solution of the maxwell equation is completely characterized by its curvature . the space of solutions is therefore the same as the space of closed 2-forms @xmath165 satisfying @xmath166 . it is included in the following short exact sequence : @xmath167 where @xmath168 is the space of all closed 2-forms . the corresponding long exact sequence reads : @xmath169 to calculate the cohomology of @xmath168 we use : @xmath170 and @xmath171 this implies that for @xmath172 : @xmath173 . therefore , we obtain from ( [ longexactsequenceformaxwell ] ) : @xmath174}dx^m\wedge dx^n \\     h^1({\rm maxwell } ) = \ ; & { \bf c}^{d } \oplus \lambda^3{\bf c}^{d}\;:\ ; c_kf_l dx^k\wedge dx^l\;\mbox { \tt\small and } \ ; f_{[klm]}c^kdx^l\wedge dx^m \label{h1maxwell}\\      h^2({\rm maxwell } ) = \ ; & { \bf c } \oplus \lambda^4{\bf c}^{d}\;:\ ; c_kc_ldx^k\wedge dx^l\;\mbox { \tt\small and } \ ; f_{[ijkl]}c^ic^jdx^k\wedge dx^l \label{h2maxwell}\\    h^{n>2}({\rm maxwell } ) = \ ; & \lambda^{n+2}{\bf c}^d\;:\ ; f_{[j_1\ldots j_{n+2 } ] } c^{j_1}c^{j_2}\cdots c^{j_n } dx^{j_{n+1}}\wedge dx^{j_{n+2 } } \end{aligned}\ ] ] notice that all these cohomology classes are represented by the _ constant _ field strength . in other words , the _ dilatation symmetry _ @xmath175 acts as zero in cohomology . let @xmath176 denote the space of solutions of the dirac equations , and @xmath177 the space of chiral - spinor - valued functions , and @xmath178 the antichiral - spinor - valued functions . there is a short exact sequence : @xmath179 this leads to the long exact sequence of the cohomologies : @xmath180 therefore : @xmath181 this is the direct sum : @xmath182 the space @xmath183 can be thought of as the space of functions : @xmath184\;;\;[pq]}(x ) \end{aligned}\ ] ] satisfying : @xmath185\;;\;[pq ] } \;&= 0     \label{leftjacobionfx }     \\ f_{[mn]\;;\;[pq}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{r ] } \;&= 0     \label{rightjacobionfx }     \\      \partial^mf_{[mn]\;;\;[pq ] } \ ; & = 0     \label{lefteqmonfx }     \\ f_{[mn]\;;\;[pq]}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}^q \ ; & = 0     \label{righteqmonfx}\end{aligned}\ ] ] eqs . ( [ leftjacobionfx ] ) and ( [ rightjacobionfx ] ) together imply that : @xmath186 } = & \ ; \mbox{const }     \label{constantfantisymm }     \\ g^{mp}g^{nq}f_{[mn]\;;\;[pq ] } = & \ ; \mbox{const }     \label{constantdoubletrace}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we can write : @xmath187\;;\;[pq ] } \;= \partial_{[m}a^l_{n]\;;\;[pq ] } =     a^r_{[mn]\;;\;[p}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{q]}\ ] ] a consequence of eqs . ( [ leftjacobionfx ] ) , ( [ rightjacobionfx ] ) , ( [ lefteqmonfx ] ) , ( [ righteqmonfx ] ) is the existence of @xmath188 and @xmath189 such that : @xmath190\;;\;p } \;&=\partial_p\phi^r_n \label{phirdef } \\     a^l_{m\;;\;[pq]}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}^q \;&=\partial_m\phi^l_p \label{phildef}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this implies : @xmath191\;;\;[pq]}(x ) =      { 1\over 2 } \partial_q\left (        g^{np}a^r_{[mn]\;;\;p } + \phi^r_m     \right ) =      { 1\over 2}\partial_m\left (        g^{np}a^l_{n\;;\;[pq ] } + \phi^l_q     \right)\end{aligned}\ ] ] let us denote : @xmath192\;;\;p } + \phi^r_m\;,\;\ ; \\ b^l_q \;&= g^{np}a^l_{n\;;\;[pq ] } + \phi^l_q\end{aligned}\ ] ] in particular : @xmath193 although @xmath194;p}$ ] and @xmath195 are only defined by ( [ phirdef ] ) up to : @xmath196;p } & \mapsto a^r_{[mn];p } + \partial_p \chi^r_{mn }   \\ \phi_n^r & \mapsto \phi_n^r + \partial^m \chi_{mn}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] this ambiguity does not affect the definition of @xmath197 ( and similarly @xmath198 ) . notice that : @xmath199 } = \;- \partial_{[p}b^l_{q ] } = \ ; & \mbox{const }        \\ \partial^p b^l_p = \;\partial^p b^r_p = \ ; & \mbox{const}\end{aligned}\ ] ] let us denote : @xmath200 then : @xmath201 } \ ; & = 0   \\ \partial_{(q}a^{-}_{m ) } \ ; & = 0 \label{eqaminus}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the physical meaning of @xmath202 will be explained in section [ sec : cale02 ] . having computed the cohomology of @xmath143 with values in maxwell and dirac solutions , we will now use it to compute the cohomology with values in the tensor product @xmath203 . again , we will use some spectral sequence . in order to distinguish it from the spectral sequence of section [ sec : typeiibvsmaxwell ] , we will use the notation ] @xmath204 ( that other one was denoted @xmath140 ) . the following group is part of the ghost number 3 cohomology : @xmath205 in this section we will calculate this cohomology group . the differential @xmath143 is realized on the space of bispinors @xmath206 satisfying : @xmath207 the differential @xmath143 acts as follows : @xmath208 let us introduce the filtration by the degree @xmath209 : @xmath210 then @xmath211 is the leading ( of degree zero ) term in @xmath143 and @xmath212 is subleading ( of degree one ) . let us calculate the cohomology of @xmath143 using the spectral sequence of this filtration . the first page @xmath213 is : @xmath214 where @xmath215 consists of polynomials with @xmath216 . schematically , @xmath213 consists of expressions of the form @xmath217\ ] ] satisfying both left and right dirac equations , representing the cohomology of @xmath211 . just to remember : @xmath218 where @xmath219 means  degree in @xmath29  . because of section [ sec : cohomologyinmaxwell ] , the cohomology of @xmath211 is localized on @xmath220 , and either @xmath221 or @xmath222 . this means that the only nontrivial components of @xmath213 are the ones represented by the following expressions : @xmath223 here , as usual , we denote @xmath224 . the only nontrivial differential is @xmath225 . the cohomology of this differential is @xmath226 . notice that @xmath227 . indeed , the construction of @xmath228 involves the inversion of @xmath211 and therefore any expression in the image of @xmath229 is necessarily in the image of @xmath230 . but @xmath230 acts as zero on @xmath231 and therefore also on @xmath232 .    therefore our spectral sequence converges at the second page : @xmath233 . the condition that the cohomology class of an expression of the form ( [ cr ] ) is cancelled by the @xmath235 of an expression of the form ( [ p ] ) is : @xmath236 indeed , for any @xmath237 solving the right dirac equation ( [ diracequationonp ] ) we can tautologically write : @xmath238 then ( [ trivialityofr ] ) is the necessary and sufficient condition that @xmath239 satisfies both @xmath240 _ and _ @xmath241 . ( and , moreover , any presentation of @xmath242 as @xmath243 plus @xmath244 will necessarily be of the form ( [ presentationofr ] ) . )    [ [ comment ] ] comment + + + + + + +    those @xmath245 which satisfy @xmath246 are in the kernel of @xmath235 , and therefore they form @xmath247 . they are in the ghost number two cohomology ( the ramond - ramond fields ) . we have previously explained that @xmath229 is zero ; if it were not zero , it would have killed the ghost number two cohomology . notice that any @xmath245 satisfying ( [ trivialityofr ] ) and ( [ diracequationonp ] ) is automatically harmonic : @xmath248 , therefore ( [ trivialityofr ] ) and ( [ diracequationonp ] ) imply that @xmath249 satisfies the left dirac equation : @xmath250 this means that : @xmath251 in the rest of this section we will prove that this is the only obstacle , _ i.e. _ any @xmath249 satisfying ( [ rsatisfiesleftdirac ] ) can be represented as ( [ trivialityofr ] ) , ( [ diracequationonp ] ) .      in this section we will prove that if @xmath249 is a polynomial of nonzero degree ( _ i.e. _ not a constant ) , than ( [ diracoperatorisobstacle ] ) is the only obstacle to the triviality of @xmath249 . notice that it is always possible to solve for @xmath245 to satisfy ( [ trivialityofr ] ) , but @xmath245 will not necessarily satisfy ( [ diracequationonp ] ) . but if the dirac equation ( [ rsatisfiesleftdirac ] ) is satisfied , then we have : @xmath252 we will now prove that ( [ dldrpiszero ] ) and ( [ pisharmonic ] ) imply that exist @xmath253 and @xmath254 such that : @xmath255 this implies that @xmath245 can be chosen to satisfy the right dirac equation , and therefore @xmath249 is in the image of @xmath235 . [ [ proof . ] ] proof . + + + + + +    let us switch from the bispinor notations to the forms notations . the left dirac operator corresponds to @xmath256 while the right dirac operator is @xmath257 . ( [ pisharmonic ] ) implies that @xmath258 while eq . ( [ dldrpiszero ] ) implies that @xmath259 . therefore we have : @xmath260 we will now prove that under the condition ( [ ddeltapiszero ] ) exist @xmath253 and @xmath254 such that : @xmath261 it is useful to keep in mind the cohomology of the de rham @xmath262 on harmonic forms is : @xmath263 ( the @xmath264 is generated by @xmath265 ) . [ [ case - when - p - is - a-5-form ] ] case when @xmath245 is a 5-form + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    in this case we will write @xmath266 instead of @xmath245 . since @xmath267 , exists a harmonic 3-form @xmath268 such that : @xmath269 similarly , as @xmath270 , exists a harmonic 7-form @xmath271 such that : @xmath272 furthermore , there exist harmonic @xmath273 and @xmath274 such that : @xmath275 this implies that @xmath276 and therefore exists a harmonic form @xmath277 such that @xmath278 . similarly , @xmath279 . therefore the following @xmath253 and @xmath254 satisfy ( [ plandpr ] ) : @xmath280    [ [ case - when - p - is - a-3-form - plus-7-form ] ] case when @xmath245 is a 3-form plus 7-form + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the 7-form part of @xmath245 is related to the 3-form part by the condition that @xmath245 is self - dual . in this case we will write @xmath281 instead of @xmath245 . ( this @xmath268 has nothing to do with the @xmath268 of the previous paragraph . ) since @xmath282 and @xmath283 , exists harmonic @xmath273 such that : @xmath284 this implies that @xmath276 . similarly , exists a harmonic @xmath266 such that : @xmath285 this automatically implies : @xmath272 also exists a harmonic @xmath274 such that : @xmath286 we take : @xmath287    [ [ case - when - p - is - a-1-form - plus - a-9-form ] ] case when @xmath245 is a 1-form plus a 9-form + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    now suppose that @xmath288 . let us first assume that the degree of @xmath245 is more than 1 . we have : @xmath289 similarly @xmath290 . now we have : @xmath291 now consider the case when the degree of @xmath245 is one , _ i.e. _ @xmath245 is linear in @xmath29 . in this case we can have @xmath292 . this corresponds to the @xmath249 of ( [ trivialityofr ] ) a constant proportional to unit matrix . the corresonding element of @xmath293 is : @xmath294 it corresponds to the following ghost number three vertex : @xmath295    [ [ conclusion-2 ] ] conclusion + + + + + + + + + +    we conclude that the main obstacle for ( [ cr ] ) to be trivial is @xmath296 . ( and besides that , there is also a case when @xmath249 is a constant times a unit matrix , which results in a nontrivial vertex ( [ vertexghostnumberthreedimfour ] ) . ) if @xmath296 , then there is a nontrivial cohomology class of the form : @xmath297     + r_2[c x_l^2 x_r^{(2m-3 ) } ]     + \ldots + r_{2m-1}[c x_l^{(2m-1 ) } ] \label{seriesforrepresentativeh1diracdirac}\end{aligned}\ ] ] indeed , acting on the leading term @xmath298 with @xmath212 we get an expression of the form @xmath299 $ ] , which does not depend on @xmath133 and therefore is annihilated by @xmath211 . but since @xmath300 , this expression is automatically of the form @xmath301 $ ] . continuing this process we get ( [ seriesforrepresentativeh1diracdirac ] ) . let us consider the ghost number three vertex @xmath71 given by eq . ( [ v3 ] ) , and expand it in the taylor series in @xmath29 and @xmath30 . we assign to @xmath29 degree @xmath85 and to @xmath87 and @xmath30 degree @xmath302 . the brst operator preserves this degree . in particular , every term in the expansion is a brst - closed _ polynomial _ of @xmath303 . it is enough to prove the nontriviality term by term . let us consider the extended space @xmath304 . in this extended space , we get : @xmath305 the corresponding element of @xmath306 is given by : @xmath307 consider the expansion in powers of @xmath133 . the leading term is @xmath308 . we observe :    @xmath309    and @xmath310 satisfies the left dirac equation . therefore ( [ adotcpexp ] ) is equivalent to @xmath311 . comparing this with ( [ seriesforrepresentativeh1diracdirac ] ) , we get :    @xmath312    then ( [ diracoperatorisobstacle ] ) implies that @xmath71 represents a nontrivial cohomology class .    [ [ ghost - number - three - vertex - of ] ] ghost number three vertex of @xcite + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    can be obtained as the first order of expansion of ( [ adotcpexp ] ) in powers of @xmath29 . indeed , at the first order of the @xmath29-expansion @xmath313 . notice that the expression : @xmath314 satisfies the left dirac equation ( we use @xmath315 ) . therefore @xmath313 is equivalent to @xmath316 . therefore the leading term of the @xmath29-linear part of ( [ adotcpexp ] ) is equivalent to @xmath317 which is the leading term of the vertex constructed in @xcite .      in this section we will compute the cohomology of @xmath318 on the solutions of bi - maxwell equations . solutions of bi - maxwell equations are defined as expressions of the form : @xmath319\;;\;[m }     { \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } \right)\ ; dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\;\ ] ] satisfying the left and right maxwell equations : @xmath320\;;\;[m}{\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } = 0 \\     { \partial\over\partial x_l^{[p } } { \cal a}(x_l , x_r)_{q]\;;\;[m } { \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } { \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{n } } = 0\end{aligned}\ ] ] notice that we have left and right indices , separated with the semicolon . we use the notations @xmath321 . the expression @xmath322 means the same as @xmath323 . the sole purpose of such notations is to improve the readability of the formulas , as they allow us to naturally separate left and right indices . [ [ definition ] ] definition + + + + + + + + + +    as in section [ sec : diracdiracsector ] , we will use the filtration by the powers of @xmath133 , _ i.e. _ treat @xmath133 as being small . the elements of @xmath204 are of the type : @xmath324\;dx_r\wedge dx_r + \ldots\ ] ] where @xmath325 stands for terms of the type @xmath326\;dx_r\wedge dx_r$ ] with @xmath327 , which are factored out when we consider @xmath328 modulo @xmath329 . for a polynomial element @xmath330 , of the total order @xmath331 in @xmath133 and @xmath134 , there is an expansion in powers of @xmath133 : @xmath332 where @xmath333 does not depend on @xmath133 , @xmath334 is linear in @xmath133 , _ etc._.    [ [ the - structure - of - e_2pq ] ] the structure of @xmath226 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the following is the most general ( up to the @xmath335-exact terms ) ansatz for the leading term @xmath333 : @xmath336}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; +   \label{ansatzmaxwellmaxwell } \\      \;&+ c^p dx_l^q \wedge dx_l^r\ ; b(x_r)_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; \nonumber \\ \mbox{\small\tt with } \ ; &   a(x_r)_{q\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_m = 0 \label{ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqm}\\     & b(x_r)_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_m = 0 \label{ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqmforb}\\     & \partial^qa(x_r)_{q\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } = 0 \label{ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda}\\ & \partial_{[p}b(x_r)_{qrs]\;;\;[m}\;\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } = 0 \label{ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb}\\     { \cal a}^{(0)}_{q\;;\;m}\ ; & \mbox { \tt\small represents }   \mbox { \tt\small an element of } e_2^{-{m-1\over 2},{m+1\over 2 } } \mbox { \tt\small , see ( \ref{e1pqmaxwellmaxwell})}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath337 and @xmath338\;;\;m}$ ] are polynomials in @xmath134 of the order @xmath331 . they correspond to the two terms in ( [ h1maxwell ] ) . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqm ] ) and ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqmforb ] ) enforce the right maxwell equation . ( the left maxwell equation is automatically satisfied because @xmath339 does not depend on @xmath133 . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) and ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) are the conditions for being in the kernel of @xmath235 . in other words , those are the conditions for the existence of @xmath340 linear in @xmath133 and @xmath341 such that : @xmath342}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; + \nonumber \\     & + \ ;   c^p dx_l^q \wedge dx_l^r\ ; b(x_r)_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ;      \big ) \ ; =     \nonumber \\      = \ ; & c^r{\partial\over\partial x^r_l }     \left (        dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\;\partial_{[p } a^{(1)}(c , x_l , x_r)_{q]\;;\;[m }        \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ;     \right ) \\     \mbox{\tt\small and } & a^{(1)}(x_l , x_r)_{q\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial\over \partial x_r^{n ] } } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial\over\partial x_r^m } \ ; = \ ;   { \partial\over\partial x_l^p}{\partial\over\partial x_l^{[p } } a^{(1)}(x_l , x_r)_{q]\;;\;m } \;= \;0\end{aligned}\ ] ] eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) is the vanishing of the obstacle proportional to the first term in ( [ h2maxwell ] ) , and eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) is to avoid hitting the second term in ( [ h2maxwell ] ) . remember that we are working in the polynomial sector , _ i.e. _ @xmath343}$ ] is a homogeneous polynomial in @xmath134 . let us first assume that the degree of the polynomial is nonzero : @xmath344 } \;\neq\ ; \mbox{const}\ ] ] then ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) implies that we can remove the term @xmath345}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n$ ] , by adding to @xmath346 an element in @xmath347 . indeed , this is equivalent to the existence of the following two objects : * @xmath348 satisfying @xmath349}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{m } = 0 $ ] and * @xmath350 linear in @xmath133 satisfying left and right maxwell equations : @xmath351\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } \;&= 0    \nonumber \\     { \partial\over\partial x_l^p } g(x_l , x_r)_{pq\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } \;&= 0   \nonumber \\ g(x_l , x_r)_{pq\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial\over\partial x_r^{n]}}{\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{m } } \;&= 0 \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ]    such that : @xmath352}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n \ ; + o(x_l ) = \nonumber \\      = \;\;\;\ ; &   c^k\left({\partial\over\partial x^k_l } - { \partial\over\partial x^k_r}\right)\ ; \big(\;\;\ ; dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\ ; c(x_r)_{pq\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n \ ; + \nonumber \\    &    \phantom{c^k\left({\partial\over\partial x^k_r } - { \partial\over\partial x^k_r}\right ) } \;\;+\ ; dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\ ; g(x_l , x_r)_{pq\;;\;[m } { \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over\partial x_r^{n ] } } \;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\;\ ; \big ) \;+   \nonumber \\ \ ; & + c_{p } dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\ ;   \widetilde{a}(x_r)_{q\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\ ; dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; + \ ;   o(x_l ) \ ; \label{removingbterm } \end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath353}$ ] is some correction to the @xmath354}$ ] of ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) . ( in other words , when we gauge away the @xmath355-term , this leads to some change in the @xmath339 term : @xmath356 . ) the existence of such @xmath348 and @xmath350 follows from ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) and the fact that @xmath357 is zero in polinomials of the degree @xmath358 , in the following way in two different ways . first , we use @xmath359 to argue that the leading term can be reduced to the form ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) . then we use the _ vanishing _ of @xmath360 in polynomials of high enough degree to remove the b - term by adding @xmath361 . ] . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) implies that exists @xmath348 satisfying the right maxwell equation , such that : @xmath362 }   = - \partial_{[p } c_{qr]\;;\;[m } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\ ] ] therefore , in computing the first line on the rhs of ( [ removingbterm ] ) , the @xmath363 gives zero as @xmath364 does not depend on @xmath133 , and when acting with @xmath365 , we get : @xmath366}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n \;\ ] ] this has to be understood as an element of @xmath367 , _ i.e. _ modulo the image of @xmath363 . this ambiguity is described by the second line on the rhs of ( [ removingbterm ] ) , the term containing @xmath350 . this term can be used to remove the components other than those listed in eq . ( [ h1maxwell ] ) ; the component @xmath368 corresponds to @xmath369 , and the component @xmath370 kills the b - term . we conclude that we can get rid of the @xmath355-term in ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) by adding to @xmath371 an element in @xmath347 . now let us consider the case when @xmath343}$ ] is constant : @xmath344 } = \mbox{const}\ ] ] consider the total antisymmetrization : @xmath372 } = b_{[pqr\;;\;m}(x_r)\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\ ] ] in this case the @xmath355-term in ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) can not be gauged away , as @xmath373}$ ] represents a nontrivial cohmology class of @xmath374 . however , we will show in section [ sec : ghostnumberfour ] that this is cancelled by the @xmath375 . in other words , for our ansatz to survive on @xmath376 we need to put @xmath373}$ ] to zero : @xmath377 }   = 0\ ] ]      let us therefore assume that @xmath378 . can the remaining @xmath339-term also be in the image of @xmath235 ? let us define the double field strength @xmath379;[mn]}$ ] as follows : @xmath380;[mn ] } = \partial_{[p}a_{q]\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\ ] ] this double field strength has the following properties : @xmath381 } \ ; & = 0 \mbox { \tt\small ( total antisymmetrization ) } \\ \partial_{[p}f_{qr]\;;\;mn } \;&= 0 \\ f_{qr\;;\;[mn}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{k ] } \ ; & = 0 \\     \partial^p f_{[pq];[mn ] } \;&= 0 \\      f_{[pq];[mn ] } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}^m \;&= 0 \\     \delta f_{[pq];[mn ] } = 0\end{aligned}\ ] ]      we will now show that @xmath382 is trivial iff @xmath383 . we have to understand under which conditions the class with the leading term ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) is trivial , _ i.e. _ can be obtained by acting with @xmath318 on something : @xmath384\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\;dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; + \ldots = \\ = \ ; & c^j\left ( { \partial\over\partial x_l^j } - { \partial\over\partial x_r^j}\right)\ ; \left ( dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\ ; w(x_r)_{pq\;;\;[m}{\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\over \partial x_r^{n]}}\ ; dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ; + \ldots \right ) \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] this property is equivalent to the existence of @xmath385 satisfying : @xmath386 } \ ; = \ ; &   \partial^{p } w_{pq \;;\ ; [ m }   \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \label{afromw } \\ \mbox{\tt\small with } \ ; & \partial_{[p}w_{qr]\;;\;[m}\;\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } = 0   \label{wisleftclosed}\\    \mbox{\tt\small and } \ ; &   w_{pq\;;\;[m } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n } = 0    \label{rightmaxwellonw}\end{aligned}\ ] ] notice that the ghost number two vertices correspond to @xmath387 satisfying ( [ wisleftclosed ] ) , ( [ rightmaxwellonw ] ) and @xmath388 } = 0 $ ] instead of ( [ afromw ] ) .    if @xmath339 can be expressed through @xmath57 as in ( [ afromw ] ) , then we have : @xmath389\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } = -\;\partial_{[p}\partial^rw_{q]r\;;\;[m}\;\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } =   { 1\over 2}\partial_r\partial^rw_{pq\;;\;[m}\;\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] }   \;= 0\end{aligned}\ ] ] this means that : @xmath390 we will now prove that this is the only obstacle . in other words , if @xmath383 , then ( [ maxwellmaxwellexpansion ] ) is cohomologically trivial .    let @xmath391 be the space of polynomial expressions of the form : @xmath392 }   \;\ ; \mbox{\tt\small satisfying } \ ; \phi_{[mn } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{k ] }   = 0   \;\ ; \mbox{\tt\small and } \ ; \phi_{mn}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_n = 0\ ] ] let @xmath393 be the subspace of @xmath391 consisting of polynomials of the order @xmath209 in @xmath29 , _ i.e. _ @xmath394 . notice that such @xmath395 are automatically harmonic . the operator @xmath396 acts on such expressions , and is nilpotent : @xmath397    [ [ lemma ] ] lemma + + + + +    @xmath398    indeed , @xmath399 is acyclic , as @xmath400 is the same as already computed in section [ sec : cohomologyinmaxwell ] cohomology of the translations algebra on the solutions of the maxwell equations , and it is zero for @xmath401 . this means that it is always possible to gauge away the term with the highest number of @xmath402 , and therefore the cohomology of @xmath396 is zero . the proof of @xmath403 is identical to the proof of @xmath404 after applying the hodge dual operation on the @xmath341 ghosts . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqm ] ) implies that the expression @xmath405}$ ] belongs to @xmath406 . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) implies that it is annihilated by @xmath407 . since @xmath403 , exists @xmath408 such that : @xmath409 } =   \delta_l \left ( dx_l^p\wedge dx_l^q\;\phi^{(2)}_{pq\;;\;mn } \right)\ ] ] now suppose that @xmath383 . this implies that we can find @xmath410 , @xmath411 , @xmath412 and @xmath413 ( all elements of @xmath391 ) satisfying : @xmath414 } =   ( \delta_l + d_l ) \left ( \phi^{(2)}_{mn } + \phi^{(4)}_{mn } + \phi^{(6)}_{mn } + \phi^{(8)}_{mn } + \phi^{(10)}_{mn } \right)\ ] ] ( here each @xmath415 is a polynomial of the degree @xmath416 in @xmath402 . ) indeed , as elements of @xmath391 are harmonic functions , @xmath417 implies @xmath418 and therefore the existence of @xmath410 such that @xmath419 . and so on until @xmath420 .    since @xmath421 is a top form , exists @xmath422 such that @xmath423 . furthermore , @xmath424 , therefore exists @xmath425 such that @xmath426 . continuing , we get @xmath427 , @xmath428 and finally @xmath429 . let us denote : @xmath430 then we get : @xmath431 } =   ( \delta_l + d_l ) \big ( \phi - ( \delta_l + d_l)\psi\big)\ ] ] notice that @xmath432 is of the form : @xmath433 this concludes the proof that the ansatz ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) is trivial iff @xmath379\;;\;[mn ] } = 0 $ ] . [ [ case - n0 ] ] case @xmath434 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the vanishing lemma ( [ vanishingofcohomologydplusdelta ] ) does not work in the case @xmath434 , in this case the cohomology of @xmath399 is given by the formulas of section [ sec : cohomologyinmaxwell ] with the replacement @xmath435 , @xmath436 . similarly , the cohomology of @xmath407 is obtained via the hodge duality . therefore , it is necessary to repeat the analysis taking into account this nontrivial cohomology . there is no obstacle to satisfy ( [ fromatophi2 ] ) , even if @xmath437 } = \mbox{const}$ ] , because there are no 11-forms and therefore the cohomology of @xmath407 vanishes on expressions which are monomials of the first order in @xmath402 . there are potential obstacles in completing the chain ( [ chainofphis ] ) . we will not do the analysis here , but just point out that by rotational symmetry , the potential obstacles are proportional to the following constant tensors : the total antisymmetrization and the contraction : @xmath438 } \label{totalantisymmc } \\    { \cal c}_n \;&= g^{pm}a_{p\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \label{contractionc}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      consider the following ansatz for the leading term of the expasion in powers of @xmath133 : @xmath439 } dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ] ] where @xmath440 satisfies the maxwell equation @xmath441 . this is in the image of @xmath235 when exists @xmath5 such that : @xmath442 } \ ; = \ ; &   \gamma^k\partial_k \phi_{[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } \label{diracmaxwelltrivialization}\\     \mbox{\small\tt and } \ ; & \phi \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\bf m } = 0 \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] then it follows that @xmath443 } = 0 $ ] and therefore : @xmath444 } = 0\end{aligned}\ ] ] if @xmath440 does not satisfy this equation , then the trivialization ( [ diracmaxwelltrivialization ] ) is impossible . notice that @xmath441 , therefore @xmath445}$ ] is automatically annihilated by @xmath446 . but it is not necessarily annihilated by the left dirac operator . we conclude that @xmath447}$ ] is an obstacle for ( [ diracmaxwellansatz ] ) to be trivial . consider the following ansatz for the leading term : @xmath448 where @xmath440 satisfies the right dirac equation @xmath449 and also @xmath450 . this is trivial if exists @xmath451 such that : @xmath452 this implies that @xmath453 and therefore @xmath454 } = 0 $ ] . therefore @xmath454}$ ] is an obstacle for ( [ maxwelldiracansatz ] ) to be trivial . for the polynomials of nonzero degree this is the only obstacle . indeed , suppose that @xmath455 } = 0 $ ] . as the cohomology of dirac solutions at the nonzero degree is zero , this implies that : @xmath456 where @xmath457 satisfies the right dirac equation . the cohomology of @xmath458 on the solutions of the dirac equation is zero , therefore exists @xmath459 such that @xmath460 where @xmath461 satisfies the dirac equation . this implies ( [ trivialityofpsimaxwelldirac ] ) . the term @xmath462 is generated by two types of terms : @xmath463}\ ;     dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n \;+     \nonumber \\        +     & c^pc^qdx_l^r\wedge dx_l^s \;b_{[pqrs]\,;\,[m}(x_r)\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}\ ;     dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath464}$ ] is a polynomial of degree @xmath331 in @xmath134 . under @xmath465 the first term cancels with the right hand side of eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) , because @xmath466 . the second term for non - constant @xmath467\,;\,[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}$ ] cancels with the right hand side of eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructedb ] ) . the constant @xmath467\,;\,[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } = \mbox{const}$ ] ( _ i.e. _ @xmath468 ) generates @xmath469 ( because @xmath470 ; the @xmath229 acts as @xmath143 on maxwell solutions ) : @xmath471 we are now ready to compute the cohomology of @xmath472 . the corresponding part of @xmath473 consists of two parts : @xmath474 however , there is a nontrivial @xmath475 , which cancels the @xmath476 antisymmetric part of @xmath477 with @xmath478 . we are left with : @xmath479 these vertices are in one - to - one correspondence with the generators of the super - poincare algebra . the corresponding part of @xmath473 consists of three parts : @xmath480      we have already seen that @xmath478 gets killed by the @xmath229 : @xmath481      let us look at @xmath482 . we have : @xmath483 the interpretation is as follows :    * @xmath484 corresponds to the linear dilaton and the `` asymmetric linear dilaton '' ( the nonphysical vertex of @xcite with constant @xmath485 ) * one copy of @xmath486 cancels under @xmath229 with @xmath487 * another copy of @xmath488 is the nsns @xmath355-field strength @xmath489 * two copies of @xmath490 are both unphysical      this was computed in section [ sec : zerothcohomology ] . we identify @xmath492 as @xmath493 ( the gradient of the dilaton ) and @xmath485 is the unphysical state of @xcite . notice that eq . ( [ eqaminus ] ) implies that @xmath494 , _ i.e. _ @xmath485 is a linear function of @xmath29 . notice that eqs . ( [ phildef ] ) and ( [ phirdef ] ) define @xmath495 only up to a constant , and therefore @xmath202 is defined only up to a constant . this is because linear dilaton and linear asymmetric dilaton have already been counted in @xmath496 . [ [ conclusion-3 ] ] conclusion + + + + + + + + + +    as expected , @xmath497 has the quantum numbers of the nsns sector of the linearized type iib sugra , modulo some zero mode subtleties . the symmetric part @xmath498 corresponds to the riemann curvature tensor @xmath499[mn]}$ ] , and the antisymmetric part @xmath500 to @xmath501\;[m } \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n]}$ ] . there are the following nonphysical states :    [ cols="^ , < " , ]     they have the quantum numbers of the adjoint representation of the super - poincare algebra .    in the bosonic string theory , the nonphysical states were removed by imposing the constraint @xmath502 @xcite . this is probably possible also in the pure spinor approach , as the pure spinor @xmath4-ghost was constructed in the nonminimal formalism @xcite . but there is also another way of removing the nonphysical states , which we will now describe . as we discussed in the introduction , the brst closedness of the vertex operator is a necessary and sufficient condition for the corresponding deformation of the classical worldsheet action to have the classical brst invariance . however , at the one - loop level there is an anomaly which is cancelled by the fradkin - tseytlin term @xcite : @xmath503 here @xmath5 is the _ dilaton superfield_. the only place where @xmath5 enters is the fradkin - tseytlin term ( [ fradkintseytlinterm ] ) , which does not matter at the _ classical _ level . it is , in this sense , `` invisible '' in the classical theory . the condition of the one - loop brst invariance implies that @xmath5 is related to the `` visible '' superfields ( those which enter in the main part of the worldsheet action ) by some equations : @xmath504 where @xmath505 and @xmath506 on the right hand side are some function of the `` visible '' superfields . in this sense , @xmath5 is determined , unambiguously up to a constant , from the `` visible '' superfields .    however , it turns out that for some classical backgrounds the equations ( [ dilatonleft ] ) and ( [ dilatonright ] ) are incompatible @xcite . such backgrounds , in our terminology , are _ nonphysical_. being perfectly consistent from the point of view of the classical worldsheet sigma - model , they however fail at the one - loop level . this is somewhat unusual , as the typical situation is that differential equations are `` generally speaking incompatible , but sometimes become compatible '' . here we have the opposite situation . equations ( [ dilatonleft ] ) and ( [ dilatonright ] ) for @xmath5 are compatible for the vast majority of backgrounds , but become incompatible on a finite - dimensional nonphysical component . in other words , * physical and non - physical deformations are `` mutually obstructed''*.     +    roughly speaking , this can be understood as follows . the compatibility conditions for equations ( [ dilatonleft ] ) and ( [ dilatonright ] ) include the equation : @xmath507 both @xmath505 and @xmath508 are defined in terms of other sugra fields , which already satisfy the sugra constraints . these constraints translate into some constraint on @xmath509 ( which is therefore automatically satisfied ) . surprizingly , that automatic constraint seems to be not @xmath510 but rather @xmath511 , _ i.e. _ the _ derivatives _ of @xmath509 being zero ( @xcite , _ cp . ( [ constantfantisymm ] ) and ( [ constantdoubletrace ] ) ) . in order to kill the nonphysical component , we just have to require that this constant is zero ; this is why the nonphysical component is finite - dimensional . we observe that the nonphysical operators seem to be in correspondence with the global symmetries . this should have a natural interpretation in terms of the action of the @xmath4-ghost : @xmath512 but , as we explained :    * instead of imposing the condition @xmath513 , one can request the existence of the dilaton superfield @xmath5    notice that including @xmath5 also solves the following problem . our analysis , based on the naive brst cohomology , failed to identify the dilaton zero mode . but once we include @xmath5 , the dilaton is identified as the lowest component of @xmath5 , and in particular the zero mode of the dilaton is recovered . most of the ghost number three vertex operators transform in the same representation as ghost number two vertex operators . this is in line with the picture : @xmath514 notice that the map ( [ bfromthreetotwo ] ) lowers the polynomial degree of the vertex by 2 , as the @xmath4-ghost should . for example , in the dirac - dirac sector , the ghost number 3 vertex is of the form @xmath242 ; to produce the bispinor field we remove @xmath515 and then act with the left dirac operator : @xmath516 removing @xmath515 lowers the degree by one , and then @xmath517 again lowers the degree by one . let us look more carefully at the subtleties which arise when we consider polynomial vertices of low degree . this is @xmath488 . it cancels with part of @xmath482  see section [ sec : cale11 ] . this is @xmath519 . first of all , we have restrict to the kernel of @xmath520 . this kills one copy of @xmath521 . but also , we have to take a factorspace over the image of @xmath522 . this cancels another copy of @xmath523 against the ( [ constantfantisymm ] ) and one copy of @xmath524 against the ( [ constantdoubletrace ] ) . for example , @xmath525 cancels the diagonal @xmath523 as : @xmath526 and a similar computation shows that @xmath527 cancels a diagonal copy of @xmath524 . another copy of @xmath528 does not seem to cancel with anything : @xmath529      [ [ dirac - dirac - sector ] ] dirac - dirac sector + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    there are the following obstacles to triviality :    1 .   the bispinor @xmath531 , which satisfies both left and right dirac equations 2 . there is also a discrete state ( [ vertexghostnumberthreedimfour ] ) which corresponds to @xmath249 being a constant times the unit matrix    [ [ maxwell - maxwell - sector-1 ] ] maxwell - maxwell sector + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    there are the following obstacles to triviality :    1 . the double field strength @xmath532\;;\;[pq]}$ ] of section [ sec : doublefieldstrength ] 2 . if the double field strength is zero , then there are constant tensors @xmath533 and @xmath534 defined in ( [ totalantisymmc ] ) and ( [ contractionc ] )    first let us look at the double field strength . notice that the formulas of section [ sec : doublefieldstrength ] are almost identical to section ( [ sec : cale02 ] @xmath535 [ sec : zerothcohomology ] ) . the only difference is that the @xmath532\;;\;[pq]}$ ] of section [ sec : zerothcohomology ] is not required to be of the form ( [ definedoublefieldstrength ] ) with @xmath536 satisfying eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) . as the @xmath532\;;\;[pq]}$ ] of section [ sec : doublefieldstrength ] _ is _ required to be of such a form , it automatically satisfies : @xmath191\;;\;[pq]}(x ) \;&=      { 1\over 2 } \partial_{[m } g^{np } a_{n]\;;\;[p}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{q]}\end{aligned}\ ] ] eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwellunobstructeda ] ) implies the existence of @xmath5 such that @xmath537 . taking also into account eq . ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwelleqm ] ) , we get : @xmath538\;;\;[pq]}(x ) =      \partial_m\partial_q \left[{1\over 8}\left(g^{pn}a_{p\;;\;n } - \phi\right)\right]\ ] ] this is the same equation as we got in section ( [ sec : zerothcohomology ] ) , except there is no unphysical @xmath485 . on the other hand , there are @xmath533 and @xmath534 defined in ( [ totalantisymmc ] ) and ( [ contractionc ] ) , which should be mapped by @xmath539 to @xmath540 and the dilaton gradient . also , there is the discrete state ( [ vertexghostnumberthreedimfour ] ) . notice that in our computation we missed the dilaton zero mode , as the corresponding vertex is probably a brst variation of something that is not annihilated by @xmath541 @xcite . it is possible that the discrete state ( [ vertexghostnumberthreedimfour ] ) mapped by @xmath542 to the dilaton zero mode . however , there is also another discrete state at the ghost number three : eq . ( [ discretestatefrome21 ] ) . therefore our computations seem to confirm eq . ( [ bfromthreetotwo ] ) , except that we see _ two _ ghost scalar ghost number three discrete states : eq . ( [ vertexghostnumberthreedimfour ] ) and eq . ( [ discretestatefrome21 ] ) . the term @xmath544 was computed in section [ sec : secondcohomologytensorproduct ] : @xmath471 it cancels with half of : @xmath545 ( and another half of @xmath546 then cancels with @xmath547 ) . this pattern persists for @xmath548 , giving the short exact sequences : @xmath549     \;\stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow}\ ;     \nonumber \\         \;\stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow}\ ; &        [ { \cal e}^{p+2,1 } = \lambda^{p+4}{\bf c}^{10}\oplus \lambda^{p+4}{\bf c}^{10 } ]     \;\stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow}\ ;     \nonumber \\         \;\stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow}\ ; &        [ { \cal e}^{p+4,0 } = \lambda^{p+4}{\bf c}^{10}]\end{aligned}\ ] ]      the term @xmath551 is nonzero , but it cancels with the @xmath229 of @xmath552 .      the space @xmath554 is killed by the @xmath229 of @xmath555 . indeed , let us consider the following element of @xmath555 with constant @xmath556}$ ] : @xmath557}\ ; dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n\ ] ] ( this is a particular case of ( [ ansatzmaxwellmaxwell ] ) with zero @xmath339 and constant @xmath355 . ) being an element of @xmath555 , this is a @xmath341-dependent element of the cohomology of @xmath146 , parametrized by a left times right field strength . we need to act on this by the @xmath375 . for that , we need to know the actual ( @xmath341-dependent ) vertex , which is built using the left and right _ vector potentials _ , _ i.e. _ @xmath558}\ ; x_r^m ( \theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r)$ ] . the @xmath143 on the vertex is not zero : @xmath559 } x_r^m(\theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r ) - c^p x_l^q ( \theta_l\gamma^r\lambda_l ) b_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } c^m(\theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r)\ ] ] but is a pure gauge , namely it is @xmath146 of : @xmath560 } x_r^m ( \theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r )   + c^p x_l^q ( \theta_l\gamma^r\lambda_r ) b_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } c^m x_r^n\ ] ] and the @xmath143 of this gives : @xmath561}x_r^m(\theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r )   + c^p x_l^q ( \theta_l\gamma^r\lambda_r ) b_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } c^m c^n + \\ + c^pc^q x_l^r b_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } c^m ( \theta_r\gamma^n\lambda_r )   - c^p c^q ( \theta_l\gamma^r\lambda_l ) b_{pqr\;;\;[m}\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{n ] } c^m x_r^n\end{aligned}\ ] ] the second row is @xmath562 . and the first row is equivalent , in the maxwell cohomology , to the expression : @xmath563 } ( dx_r^m\wedge dx_r^n - dx_l^m\wedge dx_l^n)\ ] ] where @xmath373}$ ] is defined in ( [ defbpqrmn ] ) this can be used to kill any class of the form : @xmath564}(dx_r^s\wedge dx_r^t - dx_l^s\wedge dx_l^t)\ ] ] in @xmath565 . the classes of the form : @xmath566}(dx_r^s\wedge dx_r^t + dx_l^s\wedge dx_l^t)\ ] ] are not in the image of @xmath229 . however , the @xmath229 of them is nonzero , giving an element of @xmath567 of the form @xmath568 . we conclude that @xmath569 . in this section we will study the action of the supersymmetry on the ghost number three vertices . we will first act by the left supersymmetry on the element of the maxwell - dirac sector , an see that the result is some element of the dirac - dirac sector . then we will act my the left supersymmetry on the dirac - dirac sector , which will bring us back to the maxwell - dirac sector . we will verify that the anticommutator of two supersymmetries is a translation . let us consider an element of the maxwell - dirac sector , of the following form : @xmath570 where @xmath325 stand for elements of the lower degree in @xmath134 ( which have dependence on @xmath133 ) . let us act on it by the _ left _ supersymmetry with the parameter @xmath571 , which we will call @xmath572 . to evaluate the action of this supersymmetry , we will use the formulas from section 6.1.3 of @xcite ( where @xmath572 was denoted @xmath573 , and @xmath571 was called @xmath574 ) . we get the following element of the dirac - dirac sector : @xmath575\epsilon\;\psi_m + \ldots\ ] ] we observe : @xmath576\epsilon\;\psi_m \right ) = \gamma^j{\partial\over\partial x_l^j}\left (        { 9\over 10 }     \hat{x}_l\gamma^m\epsilon\psi_m     \right)\ ] ] this implies that ( [ susyonpsigivesprer ] ) gives the same cohomology class as : @xmath577 in notations of section [ sec : definer ] we have : @xmath578 the obstacle to the triviality is : @xmath579}(x_r)\ ] ] ( this is a bispinor : @xmath580}(x_r))^{\dot{\beta}}$ ] )      we want to calculate the action of the supersymmetry with the parameter @xmath581 on the class : @xmath582 this is a bit tricky , becase the leading term @xmath583 does not contribute , and we have to analyze the subleading term proportional to @xmath133 : @xmath584 where @xmath325 stand for terms of the higher order in @xmath133 . again , we use the formulas from @xcite . when acting by the supersymmetry with the parameter @xmath581 , we are getting the following element of the maxwell - dirac sector : @xmath585}r(x_r ) -        { 1\over 6}\gamma_{m]}c^k\partial_kr(x_r ) +         { 5\over 6}c_{m]}\gamma^k\partial_kr(x_r )     \right)dx_l^n\wedge dx_l^m\end{aligned}\ ] ] this can be written as follows : @xmath586k }   - { 5\over 6 } \gamma_{k[n}\delta^l_{m ] } - { 1\over 6 } \gamma_{nm}\delta^l_k\end{aligned}\ ] ] we can add @xmath587 then we get : @xmath588k }   - { 5\over 6 } \gamma_{k[n}\delta^l_{m ] } + { 5\over 6 } \gamma_{nm}\delta^l_k\end{aligned}\ ] ] now @xmath589}=0 $ ] and @xmath590 . consider the following tensor : @xmath591k }    - { 5\over 6 } \gamma_{k[n}\delta^l_{m ] } + { 5\over 6 } \gamma_{nm}\delta^l_k\ ] ] it satisfies @xmath592}=0 $ ] and @xmath593 . therefore the cohomology class does not change if we replace @xmath594 as follows : @xmath595k}\ ] ] indeed : @xmath596 we conclude that the supersymmetry with the parameter @xmath581 brings @xmath597 to @xmath598 . when @xmath249 is given by ( [ susyonpsigivesr ] ) , we get : @xmath599 this is in agreement with the fact that the anticommutator of two susy transformations is a translation . ghost number three vertices transform in the linearized type iib supergravity supermultiplet . we would like to thank nathan berkovits for useful discussions . this work was supported in part by the ministry of education and science of the russian federation under the project 14.740.11.0347 `` integrable and algebro - geometric structures in string theory and quantum field theory '' , and in part by the rfbr grant 15 - 01 - 99504 `` string theory and integrable systems '' . o.  chandia , a.  mikhailov , and b.  c. vallilo , _ a construction of integrated vertex operator in the pure spinor sigma - model in @xmath600 _ , _ jhep _ * 1311 * ( 2013 ) 124 doi : * 10.1007/jhep11(2013)124 * [ arxiv/1306.0145 ] . o.  a. bedoya , l.  bevilaqua , a.  mikhailov , and v.  o. rivelles , _ notes on beta - deformations of the pure spinor superstring in ads(5 ) x s(5 ) _ , _ nucl.phys . _ * b848 * ( 2011 ) 155215 doi : * 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.02.012 * [ arxiv/1005.0049 ] .
Abstract:

Answer: we study the cohomology of the massless brst complex of the type iib pure spinor superstring in flat space . in particular , we find that the cohomology at the ghost number three is nontrivial and transforms in the same representation of the supersymmetry algebra as the solutions of the linearized classical supergravity equations . modulo some finite dimensional spaces , the ghost number three cohomology is the same as the ghost number two cohomology . we also comment on the difference between the naive and semi - relative cohomology , and the role of b - ghost . * @xmath0 + @xmath0 + vertex operators of ghost number three in type iib supergravity *   +   +