I am trying to understand some general statements made in the lecture notes by Vafa entitled "Lectures on Strings and Dualities" concerning toroidal compactifications (arXiv:hep-th/9702201).

Question 1: First, consider the heterotic string (D = 10) bosonic string compactified on a torus $T^d$. It is stated on page 12 that the space of inequivalent choices of the left and right- moving momenta $(P_L, P_R)$ is given by the coset

$$\frac{SO(d,d)}{SO(d) \times SO(d) \times O(d,d;\mathbb{Z})}$$

I understand that this is basically $\frac{SO(d,d)}{SO(d) \times SO(d)}$ further modded out by the discrete T-duality group $O(d,d;\mathbb{Z})$ which corresponds to Lorentz boosts with integer coefficients. However, in the main text, it is stated that it is $O(d) \times O(d)$ transformations that do not change the string states. So strictly speaking, shouldn't we be modding $SO(d,d)$ by $O(d) \times O(d)$ instead of $SO(d) \times SO(d)$?

Question 2: Now consider $\mathcal{N} = 2$ theories on $T^d$.

The following statement appears on page 13 about the type-IIA and type-IIB theories:

For more general compactification on $T^d$ the part of the T-duality group which does not exchange the two theories is $SO(d,d;\mathbb{Z})$; the elements of T-duality which are in $O(d,d;\mathbb{Z})$ but not in $SO(d,d; \mathbb{Z})$ will exchange IIA and IIB and thus are not symmetries of either one.

So does this mean that the T-duality group consists of transformations that do take IIA to IIB (and vice-versa) but also transformations that do not take IIA to IIB and that the former correspond to $O(d,d;\mathbb{Z}) \setminus SO(d,d;\mathbb{Z})$? So when textbooks make statements like $IIA \leftrightarrow IIB$ under T-duality, they really mean under this set theoretic subtraction?

Question 3: This question, somewhat embarrasingly, is more about notation than physics. On page 13 of the same lecture notes, the following paragraph appears:

In compactifying type II strings on tori, the scalars parametrized by the coset $SO(d,d)/SO(d) \times SO(d)$ correspond to choices of the metric of the torus ($d(d+1)/2$ degrees of freedom) and the antisymmetric field $B_{ij}$ on the torus ($d(d-)1/2$ degrees of freedom).

Here, does the author mean $\frac{SO(d,d)}{SO(d) \times SO(d)}$ or does he mean $(SO(d,d)/SO(d)) \times SO(d)$, i.e. $\frac{SO(d,d)}{SO(d)} \times SO(d)$? The two are vastly different things.

In fact, often he refers to things like $SO(5,5)/SO(5) \times SO(5)$ or $SO(5,5)/SO(5) \times SO(5) \times SO(5,5;\mathbb{Z})$. What is the order in which these are to be read/interpreted?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In response to question 2: $O(d,d;\Bbb Z)\setminus SO(d,d;\Bbb Z)$ does not make much sense (because you haven't specified in what sense you consider $SO$ as a subset of $O$, i.e. how it is embedded). The relevant notions here are subgroups, not subsets; $O\cong \Bbb Z_2\rtimes SO$ (isometries of spheres are generated by rotations plus a reflection), and your question is properly formulated in terms of these subgroups. I guess that it translates to asking whether $\det=-1$ elements are the things that exchange IIA and IIB, while $\det=1$ elements preserve it. $\endgroup$
    – Danu
    Commented Jul 18, 2016 at 16:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In response to your last question, it seems that, in the given context, $SO/SO\times SO$ should be interpreted as $SO/(SO\times SO)$. $\endgroup$
    – Danu
    Commented Jul 18, 2016 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @Danu for your reply. Isn't it natural to think of the orthogonal group as containing the special orthogonal group as a subgroup? Isn't that also the sense implied in this paper when he says "the elements of T-duality which are in $O(d,d;\mathbb{ℤ})$ but not in $SO(d,d;\mathbb{ℤ})$ will exchange IIA and IIB "? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 18, 2016 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The sense implied in the paper is the one I outlined above---from the decomposition I gave you you can see that there are two copies of SO inside O; it is not natural to take one of them out, because taking complements is not a natural thing to do in the context of a group. The elements of O that are not elements of SO are exactly those with $\det=-1$, and this is a more natural way to express your intent. $\endgroup$
    – Danu
    Commented Jul 18, 2016 at 19:14

1 Answer 1


Regarding Question 1, you are talking about bosonic strings, rather than heterotic, since for heterotic strings left- and right- moving modes are compactified on $T^d$ and $T^{16+d}$ (or vice versa). Now, for bosonic strings on $T^d$ the moduli space should be $$M=\frac{O(d,d;\mathbb{R})}{O(d;\mathbb{R})\times O(d;\mathbb{R})\times O(d,d;\mathbb{Z})}$$ because the evenness condition is invariant under $O(d,d;\mathbb{R})$ transformations, and the mass formula $$m^2=2(p_L^2+p_R^2)+...$$ is invariant under $O(d;\mathbb{R})\times O(d;\mathbb{R})$ transformations (see Becker, Becker, Schwarz textbook, pages 270 and 283).

Question 2. As already answered by Danu, in type II superstrings, the transformations of $O(d,d;\mathbb{Z})$ with determinant $-1$ takes you between IIA and IIB (since they change relative chirality of fermions), whereas $det=+1$ transformations are symmetries within IIA and IIB separately (they don't change chiralities). So the moduli spaces of both type II theories (compactified on a torus) are the same.

As for Quation 3, the quotient by a product is the right one.

PS You probably already know the answers, but I'll leave it here anyway.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.