T-duality and α′-corrections

Diego Marqués† and Carmen A. Nuñez† ∗

arXiv:1507.00652v2 [hep-th] 23 Dec 2015

† Instituto de Astronomı́a y Fı́sica del Espacio (IAFE-CONICET-UBA)

∗ Departamento de Fı́sica, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)

{diegomarques, carmen}@iafe.uba.ar

Abstract

We construct an O(d, d) invariant universal formulation of the first-order α′ -corrections of

the string effective actions involving the dilaton, metric and two-form fields. Two free parame-
ters interpolate between four-derivative terms that are even and odd with respect to a Z2 -parity
transformation that changes the sign of the two-form field. The Z2 -symmetric model repro-
duces the closed bosonic string, and the heterotic string effective action is obtained through a
Z2 -parity-breaking choice of parameters. The theory is an extension of the generalized frame
formulation of Double Field Theory, in which the gauge transformations are deformed by a
first-order generalized Green-Schwarz transformation. This deformation defines a duality co-
variant gauge principle that requires and fixes the four-derivative terms. We discuss the O(d, d)
structure of the theory and the (non-)covariance of the required field redefinitions.
Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Universal description of α′ -corrections 5

2.1 Generalized Metsaev-Tseytlin action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Generalized Bergshoeff-de Roo action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 α′ -corrections in Double Field Theory 8

3.1 Generalized fields, projectors and fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Generalized Green-Schwarz transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Gauge invariant action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Parameterization and field redefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Outlook and concluding remarks 22

A Conventions and definitions 25

B From Bergshoeff-de Roo to Metsaev-Tseytlin 28

1 Introduction
T-duality symmetric (double) field theories describing the supergravity limits of string
theory were originally constructed in [1]-[3] and have been studied in many recent papers
(for details and references see [4]). Since T-duality is a symmetry of the string effec-
tive actions to all orders in α′ [5], some effort has been devoted towards developing an
O(d, d) invariant formulation of the higher order contributions. These higher derivative
corrections are important in string phenomenology and cosmology and in string theoretic
studies of black hole entropy, and such formulation could be useful in order to understand
if/how T-duality mixes different orders, and could hopefully become a tool to compute or
provide clues on the α′ -corrections.
Various methods have been used in the early times of string theory to construct the
(super)gravity limits and their higher-derivative corrections. The first calculations used

1
the scattering amplitudes of the massless particles in the tree (or classical) approximation
of the string perturbation theory and effective Lagrangians were constructed to reproduce
this S-matrix [6]. The lagrangians are not unique because covariant redefinitions of the
fields do not affect the scattering amplitudes. Later it was realized that the β-functions of
the non-linear σ-model describing string theory on background fields could be identified
with the equations of motion for the massless string fields [7]. The β-functions depend on
the definition of the couplings and on the renormalization prescription. Thus the effective
action whose equations of motion reproduce them is not unique either. Fermions cannot
be easily incorporated in these approaches, and then other methods were developed which
take supersymmetry as the starting point [8]. These constructions were useful to display
some symmetries of the effective actions that had not been previously appreciated.
There has also been a fair amount of work to understand the duality structure of the
α′ -corrections. Time ago, K. Meissner showed in [9] that, when dimensionally reduced to
one dimension, the α′ -corrections in the closed bosonic string can be expressed solely in
terms of the duality invariant dilaton field and the generalized metric, which is an O(d, d)
group element (see also [10]). The price to pay is that the components of the general-
ized metric involve non-covariant derivatives of the fields. So, while the string effective
actions are defined up to covariant field redefinitions, it appears that non-covariant field
redefinitions are necessary in order to make the O(d, d) symmetry manifest. In other
words, the fields that behave covariantly under diffeomorphisms and Lorentz transforma-
tions are not good candidates to become components of O(d, d) multiplets. Instead, fields
that transform as usual (i.e. à la Buscher [11]) under T-dualities, and more generally
under O(d, d), involve non-covariant redefinitions. A similar result was obtained for the
heterotic string in [12], where the O(d, d) friendly fields were obtained through a Lorentz
non-covariant redefinition of the metric in terms of the spin connection with torsion (a
similar result involving gauge fields was recently found in [13]). Such redefinition had been
previously considered in [14], where it was shown that the usual Green-Schwarz mech-
anism of anomaly cancellation [15] is only consistent with worldsheet supersymmetry if
the metric is non-covariantly redefined. The resulting Lorentz non-singlet metric then
transforms similarly to the heterotic two-form field, which is also a Lorentz non-singlet.

2
 Recently, a method for completing higher derivative corrections was proposed in [16]
using duality symmetries. It is based on the observation that duality symmetries in the
reduced theory highly constrain the form of the unreduced theory. This method was
applied to the closed bosonic string and the full effective action to order α′ was obtained
from the Riemann squared term. Also here it is necessary to include diffeomorphism
non-covariant corrections in the duality covariant scalar matrix.
The tension between (generalized) diffeomorphism covariance and T-duality was first
discussed in [17]-[20] in the context of Double Field Theory (DFT). There, O. Hohm
and B. Zwiebach showed that it is impossible to cast the square of the Riemann tensor
in terms of an O(d, d)-valued generalized metric. After identifying the terms involved
in the obstruction, they showed that a first order in α′ non-covariant redefinition of
the metric could cancel them. Such redefinition is precisely a background independent
generalization of the one performed in [9]. The authors then came to the conclusion that
any O(d, d) invariant formulation of the Riemann tensor squared must necessarily involve
non-covariant gauge transformations of the O(d, d) multiplets which induce non-covariant
field redefinitions of their components. This idea is further supported by the absence of an
O(d, d) covariant generalized Riemann tensor that contains the usual Riemann tensor as
a determined component (see [1],[3],[17],[21],[22]). If such a generalized Riemann tensor
existed, it would have to transform covariantly under the usual generalized Lie derivative.
However, the absence signals the need for a correction to the gauge transformations (which
in turn would require non-covariant field redefinitions).
The first example of an O(d, d) covariant α′ -corrected theory (including gauge transfor-
mations, bracket and action) was presented in [18]. The α′ -contributions are odd under
a Z2 -parity transformation that changes the sign of the two-form field, and then this
theory corresponds neither to the closed bosonic nor to the heterotic string. Being odd
under Z2 -parity, a Riemann squared term is forbidden and, interestingly, the deformed
transformations induce a Green-Schwarz-like transformation of the two-form, so the first
order contributions are purely governed by Chern-Simons terms [20]. Later, in [19], it was
shown that this theory actually belongs to a two-parameter family of theories that inter-
polates between theories with even (DFT+ ) and odd (DFT− ) parity corrections, where

3
DFT+ corresponds to the closed bosonic string while DFT− to the theory in [18]. The
gauge transformations and action were worked out to cubic order in field-perturbations,
and the formulation is metric-like, so the anomalous transformation of the two-form is
due to diffeomorphisms rather than Lorentz transformations.
Following a different approach, the duality structure of the α′ -corrections in the het-
erotic string was recently considered in [23]-[25]. Exploiting the symmetry between
the gauge and torsionful Lorentz connections highlighted in [26], all the first order α′-
corrections were accounted for. The construction in [23] is based on a generalization of
the DFT formulation of the heterotic string introduced in [27]. The gauge and torsionful
spin connections are components of the generalized frame, which is defined in an extended
tangent space. In this formulation the generalized Lie derivative is gauged, and receives
no corrections in the extended space formulation. However, when the gauge transforma-
tions are considered from the double space point of view, α′ -corrections resembling those
in [18]-[19] are induced.
In this paper we present a duality covariant gauge principle that requires and fixes
the first-order contributions of a two-parameter family of theories that includes all the
string effective actions. In the first part of the article we consider a two-parameter de-
formation of the first order α′ -corrections in the string effective actions. We concentrate
on terms involving the metric, the Kalb-Ramond two-form and the dilaton fields, and do
not consider contributions from the gauge sector of the heterotic string in this work. In
Section 2, we compare deformations of the four-derivative terms in the action obtained
by R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin from S-matrix and β−functions calculations in [28] with
deformations of the heterotic string effective action computed from supersymmetry by E.
Bergshoeff and M. de Roo in [26]. We prove that the deformed actions are in fact equal up
to field redefinitions, thus generalizing the result in [29] where the agreement was shown
in the case of the heterotic string. We then construct a manifestly O(d, d) invariant ac-
tion which reproduces these four-derivative corrections. The construction presented in
Section 3 is based on the frame-like formulation of DFT. We introduce a first order in α′
two-parameter deformation of the gauge transformations of the generalized frame which
takes the form of a generalized Green-Schwarz-like transformation that induces, in par-

4
ticular, the anomalous transformation of the two-form field in the heterotic string. These
non-standard transformations constitute a novel duality covariant gauge principle that
demands and determines the structure of the four-derivative corrections. They call for
(Lorentz) non-covariant field redefinitions, which we discuss in detail. Finally, in Section
4, we present the conclusions and outline future directions of research.

2 Universal description of α′ -corrections

The on-shell equivalence between the first order terms in the α′ -expansion of the massless
string fields effective equations of motion and the vanishing of the corresponding two-
loop terms in the Weyl anomaly coefficients of the σ-model was verified by R. Metsaev
and A. Tseytlin in [28]. They showed that the α′ -corrections involving the metric gµν ,
antisymmetric tensor Bµν and dilaton φ fields are parameterized by eight unambiguous
coefficients which are invariant under covariant field redefinitions and must then be de-
termined from the three- and four-point scattering amplitudes of these massless states.
The results for the bosonic, heterotic and type II theories exhibit some differences. In
the string frame, four-derivative corrections are absent in the type II theories, a Riemann
squared correction plus four-derivative terms involving the two-form field appear in the
bosonic and heterotic theories, and the latter contains in addition a Lorentz Chern-Simons
term in the curvature of the two-form. While the effective action of the closed bosonic
string contains only terms with even numbers of Kalb-Ramond fields, and is then even
under a Z2 -parity transformation that changes the sign of Bµν , the heterotic string does
not share this symmetry and, in particular, the Chern-Simons terms break the Z2 -parity
in the effective action.
The supersymmetric completion of the α′ -corrections in the heterotic theory was ob-
tained by E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo making use of a symmetry between the gauge
connection and a spin connection with torsion [26]. Their results for the bosonic sector
were shown in [29] to coincide with those in [28] (modulo field redefinitions).
In this section we consider a two-parameter deformation of the first order α′ -corrections
to the string effective actions. We first write the action in a form that makes it trivial

5
to make contact with the effective action presented by R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin in
[28], for a specific choice of parameters. We then rewrite it to facilitate comparison with
the formulation by E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo in [26]. In Appendix B we give details
of the calculations allowing to go from one to the other, and introduce the required
field redefinitions and boundary terms. The two parameters, which we denote a and
b, can be fixed to reproduce the bosonic string (a, b) = (−α′ , −α′ ), the heterotic string
(a, b) = (−α′ , 0) and (trivially) the type II strings (a, b) = (0, 0) effective actions.

2.1 Generalized Metsaev-Tseytlin action

Consider the zeroth and first-order contributions in the effective action

Z
√

SM T = dx −ge−2φ L(0) + L(1) , (2.1)

where the supra-label specifies the α′ -weight. The zeroth order (two-derivative) part of
the action is just the universal NSNS sector

1 2
L(0) = R − 4∇µ φ∇µ φ + 4∇µ ∇µ φ − H , (2.2)
12

and the first order in α′ (four-derivative) correction obtained in [28] takes the form

a − b µνρ
L(1) = H Ωµνρ (2.3)
4  
a+b µνρσ 1 µνρ σλ 1 4 1 2 2µν
− Rµνρσ R − H Hµσλ Rνρ + H − Hµν H .
8 2 24 8

We use the standard notation for the components and their definitions can be found
in Appendix A. The Metsaev-Tseytlin action is recovered with the following choice of
parameters
 

− 41 α′ bosonic string 


  0 bosonic string
a+b a−b  1 ′
= −λ0 α′ = − 18 α′ heterotic string , = − 8 α heterotic string .
8 
 8 


 0 
 0
type II type II
(2.4)
Notice that for the bosonic string the first term in (2.3) is absent, and only terms
that contain even powers of the three-form H are non-vanishing. As a result the action is

6
symmetric under a Z2 -parity transformation that exchanges the sign of the Kalb-Ramond
two-form
Z2 (B) = −B , (2.5)

i.e. Z2 (L(1) ) = L(1) . The heterotic string is not symmetric under this parity transforma-
tion, because in this case the first term in (2.3) changes sign. There is another interesting
case, corresponding to the choice a + b = 0, in which the first-order corrections are purely
given by the first term in (2.3) and are then odd under Z2 -parity, i.e. Z2 (L(1) ) = −L(1) .
This case is very likely related to one recently introduced in [18] and further discussed in
[20].
The action (2.1) is invariant under diffeomorphisms and gauge transformations of the
two-form. However, Lorentz invariance requires the non-standard Lorentz transformation
of the two-form
MT 1
δΛ Bµν = − (a − b)∂[µ Λa b ων]b a , (2.6)
2
which is necessary for anomaly cancellations in the Green-Schwarz mechanism. Clearly,
this transformation is not present in the bosonic string, but appears as expected in the
heterotic string.

2.2 Generalized Bergshoeff-de Roo action

Consider now the following action

Z 
√ 1 e µνρ e
SBR = dx −ge −2φ
R − 4∇µ φ∇µ φ + 4∇µ ∇µ φ − H Hµνρ
12

a (−) b (−)µν a b (+) b (+)µν a
+ Rµνa R b + Rµνa R b , (2.7)
8 8

where
e µνρ = Hµνρ − 3 aΩ(−) + 3 bΩ(+) .
H (2.8)
2 µνρ 2 µνρ
The case (a, b) = (−α′ , 0) corresponds to the heterotic string, and coincides with the
bosonic sector of the effective action as presented in [26]. For this choice of parameters,
this action was shown in [29] to coincide (modulo field redefinitions and boundary terms)
with the Metsaev-Tseytlin action given above in (2.1) with the same choice of parameters.

7
In Appendix B we generalize the identification, making it valid for any choice of parame-
ters. The field redefinitions involved in the computations are mostly diffeomorphism and
Lorentz covariant, except for a Lorentz non-covariant redefinition of the two-form field
given by (see (B.8))

1
B M T = B BR + ∆B , ∆Bµν = − (a + b)H[µ ab ων]ab . (2.9)
4

The action (2.7) is invariant under diffeomorphisms and gauge transformations of the
two-form. However, Lorentz invariance again requires a non-standard Lorentz transfor-
mation of the two-form

BR a (−) b (+)
δΛ Bµν = − ∂[µ Λa b ων]b a + ∂[µ Λa b ων]b a
2 2
1 1
= − (a − b)∂[µ Λa ων]b a + (a + b)∂[µ Λa b Hν]ba ,
b
(2.10)
2 4

necessary for anomaly cancelations in the Green-Schwarz mechanism. Notice that the field
redefinition (2.9) eliminates the last term in the transformation (2.10) of the two-form,
making it equal to that in (2.6).

3 α′-corrections in Double Field Theory

In this section we introduce the O(d, d) invariant frame-like formulation of Double Field
Theory (DFT) that reproduces the two-parameter deformed action introduced above.
The zeroth order frame-like theory was introduced in [1], further explored in [3], and here
we will mostly follow the conventions of [30]. Our original contribution here is a two-
parameter first-order in α′ deformation of the gauge transformations of the generalized
frame, that takes the form of a generalized Green-Schwarz-like transformation that induces
in particular the anomalous Lorentz transformation of the two-form. We first introduce
the fields, their transformation properties and closure of the algebra, and we finally write
an invariant action to first order in α′ . Then, we show that the action exactly reproduces
the two-parameter action (2.7), when taking the standard solution of the strong constraint
together with a compatible parameterization of fields.

8
3.1 Generalized fields, projectors and fluxes

The DFT action is invariant under global G = O(d, d) transformations, local “double-
Lorentz” H = O(1, d − 1) × O(d − 1, 1) transformations, and infinitesimal generalized
b A constant symmetric and
diffeomorphisms generated by a generalized Lie derivative L.
invertible G-invariant metric ηM N raises and lowers the indices that are rotated by G
(which we label M, N, . . . ). In addition, there are two constant symmetric and invertible
H-invariant metrics ηAB and HAB . The former is used to raise and lower the indices that
are rotated by H (which we label A, B, . . . ), and the latter is constrained to satisfy

HAC η CD HDB = ηAB . (3.1)

b G and H.
The three metrics are invariant under the action of L,
The theory is defined on a double space, in which derivatives ∂M belong to the funda-
mental representation of G. However, a strong constraint

∂M ∂ M · · · = 0 , ∂M . . . ∂ M · · · = 0 , (3.2)

restricts the fields and gauge parameters, the dots representing arbitrary products of them.
While the generalized Lie derivative is generated by an infinitesimal generalized parame-
ter ξ M that takes values in the fundamental representation of G, H-transformations are
generated by an infinitesimal parameter ΛA B . The latter is constrained by the fact that
ηAB and HAB must be H-invariant

δΛ ηAB = ηCB ΛC A + ηAC ΛC B = 0 , δΛ HAB = HCB ΛC A + HAC ΛC B = 0 . (3.3)

The fields of the theory are a generalized frame EM A and a generalized dilaton d. The
generalized frame relates the metric ηAB with ηM N , and the metric HAB with the so-called
generalized metric HM N

ηM N = EM A ηAB EN B , HM N = EM A HAB EN B . (3.4)

As a result of (3.1), the generalized metric is constrained to be G-valued

HM P η P Q HQN = ηM N . (3.5)

9
It is important to point out that the generalized fields and gauge parameters are allowed
to receive corrections that respect the constraints. We will give concrete expressions for
the first order corrections to their components later.
Since the generalized metric is constrained by (3.5), one can define the following pro-
jectors
1 1
PM N = (ηM N − HM N ) , P̄M N = (ηM N + HM N ) , (3.6)
2 2
which satisfy the following identities

PM Q PQ N = PM
N
, P̄M Q P̄Q N = P̄M
N
, PM Q P̄Q N = 0 . (3.7)

In complete analogy, one can define these projectors in flat indices

1 1
PAB = (ηAB − HAB ) , P̄AB = (ηAB + HAB ) , (3.8)
2 2

which satisfy analogous identities

PA C PC B = PAB , P̄A C P̄C B = P̄AB , PA C P̄C B = 0 . (3.9)

Another useful identity is

PM N EN A = EM B PB A , P̄M N EN A = EM B P̄B A . (3.10)

We will use the barred-index notation to denote projections

PM N V N = V M , P̄M N VN = VM , (3.11)

and the following convention for (anti-)symmetrization of barred-indices

1 1
V(M WN ) = (VM WN + VN WM ) , V[M WN ] = (VM WN − VN WM ) , (3.12)
2 2

i.e., only the indices are exchanged and not the bars.
Important objects in the frame-like or flux-formulation of DFT are the generalized
fluxes
FABC = 3EM [A ∂ M E N B E P C] ηN P , (3.13)

10
and the following projections take a predominant role in the α′-deformed theory that we
will introduce

(−)
FM AB = FM AB = P̄M N EN C FCDE PA D PB E , (3.14)
(+)
FM AB = FM AB = PM N EN C FCDE P̄A D P̄B E . (3.15)

Let us finally discuss Z2 transformations. They are generated by matrices ZM N and

ZA B that transform the metrics as follows

Z2 (ηAB ) = ZA C ηCD ZB D = −ηAB , (3.16)

Z2 (HAB ) = ZA C HCD ZB D = HAB , (3.17)

Z2 (ηM N ) = ZM P ηP Q ZN Q = −ηM N . (3.18)

Since indices are raised and lowered with the odd Z2 metrics ηM N and ηAB , the position
of the indices is essential to determine the way in which an object transforms under Z2 -
parity. There is a canonical position of indices that renders the following objects even
under Z2 : ∂M , HM N , EM A , FAB C , ξ M and ΛA B . This in turn implies that the projectors
are exchanged under Z2 , namely Z2 (P• • ) = P̄• • and Z2 (P̄• • ) = P• • , and then
 
(±) B (∓)
Z2 F M A = FM A B . (3.19)

3.2 Generalized Green-Schwarz transformations

The generalized dilaton and frame transform under generalized diffeomorphisms and H-
transformations as
1

δd = ξ P ∂P d − ∂P ξ P ⇔ δe−2d = ∂P ξ P e−2d , (3.20)
2
δEM A
= Lξ EM + δΛ EM A + δeΛ EM A ,
b A
(3.21)

where the generalized Lie derivative governing infinitesimal generalized diffeomorphisms

is given by


Lbξ EM A = ξ P ∂P EM A + ∂M ξ P − ∂ P ξM EP A , (3.22)

and H-transformations split in the usual

δΛ EM A = EM B ΛB A , (3.23)

11
plus a novel two-parameter first-order correction
 
e A B (−) C B (+) C
δΛ EM = a ∂[M ΛC FN ]B − b ∂[M ΛC FN ]B E N A . (3.24)

The parameters (a, b) are both of O(α′ ). This first-order correction suggests that the
component fields parameterizing the generalized fields cannot be the standard ones that
transform covariantly under diffeomorphisms and Lorentz transformations. Instead, they
should correspond to first order non-covariantly redefined fields, and then the generalized
fields must be α′ -corrected E = E (0) + E (1) . The same holds for the gauge parameter
Λ = Λ(0) + Λ(1) . Since (3.24) is already of O(α′ ) through (a, b), only E (0) and Λ(0) are
relevant in this part of the transformations.
For the generalized metric these transformations imply

δHM N = Lbξ HM N + δeΛ HM N , (3.25)

with

Lbξ HM N = ξ P ∂P HM N + ∂M ξ P − ∂ P ξM HP N + ∂N ξ P − ∂ P ξN HM P , (3.26)

and
(−) (+)
δeΛ HM N = 2a ∂(M ΛA B FN )B A + 2b ∂(M ΛA B FN )B A . (3.27)

Notice that the first-order double-Lorentz transformations δeΛ in (3.24) and (3.27) take
the form of a generalized Green-Schwarz transformation for the generalized fields, i.e.
they are structurally similar to (2.10). We will show in the following sections that these
transformations indeed induce the Green-Schwarz transformation (2.10) of the two-form
when the strong constraint is properly solved, plus an anomalous Lorentz transformation
of the metric field, which can however be eliminated through a Lorentz non-covariant field
redefinition. Again, δeΛ H is O(α′ ), and then also the generalized metric is α′ -corrected
H = H(0) + H(1) .
Regarding the transformation of the fluxes, to lowest order in α′ they transform as

δFABC = ξ P ∂P FABC − 3 ∂[A ΛBC] + Λ[A D FBC]D , (3.28)

12
which implies that the projected generalized fluxes transform as connections to lowest
order

(−) (−) (−) (−)

δFM A B = Lbξ FM A B − ∂M ΛA B + FM A C ΛC B − ΛA C FM C B ,
(+) (+) (+) (+)
δFM A B = Lbξ FM A B − ∂M ΛA B + FM A C ΛC B − ΛA C FM C B , (3.29)

with
(±) (±)
(±)
Lbξ FM A B = ξ P ∂P FM A B + ∂M ξ P − ∂ P ξM FP A B . (3.30)
(±)
The fields FM AB appear in the action (to be introduced in the next section) only in terms
that are weighted with a and b. Then, in order to prove the gauge invariance of the action
to O(α′ ), only their lowest order transformations are required.
The above transformations preserve the constraints of the generalized fields (3.4) and
(3.5), and also close to first order
 
δ(ξ1 , Λ1 ) , δ(ξ2 , Λ2 ) = δ(ξ21 , Λ21 ) , (3.31)

where the “brackets” are given by

a b
M
ξ12 = [ξ1 , ξ2 ]M B M A B M A
(C) − Λ[1 A ∂ Λ2] B + Λ[1 A ∂ Λ2] B , (3.32)
2 2
P
Λ12 AB = 2ξ[1 ∂P Λ2] AB − 2Λ[1 A C Λ2] CB (3.33)

+ a ∂[A Λ1CD ∂B] Λ2DC + a ∂[A ΛCD CD CD

1 ∂B] Λ2DC − b ∂[A Λ1 ∂B] Λ2DC − b ∂[A Λ1 ∂B] Λ2DC ,

and the C-bracket is defined as

1 P M 1 P M
[ξ1 , ξ2 ]M P M P M
(C) = ξ1 ∂P ξ2 − ξ2 ∂P ξ1 − ξ1 ∂ ξ2P + ξ2 ∂ ξ1P . (3.34)
2 2
It is interesting to note that due to the constraints (3.3), the α′ -corrected bracket
(3.32) can be re-written as
1 (+) AB

M
ξ12 = [ξ1 , ξ2 ]M
(C) + γ H − γ (−) η AB η CD Λ[1AC ∂ M Λ2]BD , (3.35)
2
where
a±b
γ (±) = − . (3.36)
2
This re-writing allows to facilitate comparison with the deformed brackets introduced in
[19]. There, the parameters γ (−) and γ (+) interpolate between the odd Z2 -parity theory

13
DF T − in [18] obtained through the choice (γ (+) , γ (−) ) = (0, 1) when α′ = 1, and the even
Z2 -parity theory DF T + obtained through the choice (γ (+) , γ (−) ) = (1, 0) corresponding to
the closed bosonic string. It is not evident a priori that both approaches can be compared
because here the deformations are due to double Lorentz parameters ΛAB , and in [19]
are due to generalized diffeomorphisms through KM N = ∂M ξN − ∂N ξM . It would be
interesting to explore the relation between both approaches.
Notice that the Z2 -transformation of the generalized Green-Schwarz transformation
(3.27) is
 
e (−) (+)
Z2 δΛ HM N = 2b ∂(M ΛA B FN )B A + 2a ∂(M ΛA B FN )B A , (3.37)

so the Z2 -transformation effectively exchanges the parameters a ↔ b. Then, the trans-

formation is even under Z2 -parity when a = b (which in turn implies γ (−) = 0) and odd
when a = −b (which in turn implies γ (+) = 0). Any other choice of parameters breaks
Z2 -parity.

3.3 Gauge invariant action

We now have all the ingredients to write down a gauge-invariant action to first order in
α′ Z


S= dXe−2d R + a R(−) + b R(+) , (3.38)

where R is of course defined in the same way as the zeroth order DFT action [2]

R = 4HM N ∂M N d − ∂M N HM N − 4HM N ∂M d∂N d + 4∂M HM N ∂N d

1 1
+ HM N ∂M HKL ∂N HKL − HM N ∂M HKL ∂K HN L . (3.39)
8 2

As explained, the generalized metric is α′ -corrected H = H(0) + H(1) , so even if this

looks like a two-derivative contribution, R involves four-derivative terms through the
corrections to the fields. Of course, in the limit α′ → 0 we should recover the usual
un-corrected action, so R is a good starting point to build the O(α′ ) action. While R is a
scalar under generalized diffeomorphisms, it fails to be gauge invariant under generalized
Green-Schwarz transformations (3.27). Then, additional contributions to the Lagrangian
must be considered to compensate for this failure, which must be scalars themselves under

14
generalized diffeomorphisms as well. It is in this sense that the generalized Green-Schwarz
transformations constitute a gauge principle that requires and fixes the form of the α′-
(±)
corrections. Since (3.27) induces terms that involve the projected generalized fluxes FM AB ,
so must the corrections to the action. In fact, one can show that the required additional
(−)
first-order corrections from the projected fluxes FM AB are given by1
 
(−) (−)BA M N (−) (−)BA
R(−) = −4FM AB FN d + ∂ M N FM AB FN
∂
 
(−) (−)BA M (−) (−)BA
+4FM AB FN ∂ d∂ N d − 4∂ M FM AB FN ∂N d
1 (−) (−)BA M RS N 1 (−)
− FM AB FN ∂ H ∂ HRS + FM AB F (−)N BA ∂ M HRS ∂R HN S
8 2
1 MN   1  
(−) (−)BA (−)
− H ∂M HP Q ∂N FP AB FQ + HRS ∂R FM AB F (−)N BA ∂ M HSN
4 2
1 RS   1
(−) (−)BA (−)
+ H ∂R HP Q ∂P FSAB FQ + HM N ∂M FRAB ∂N F (−)RBA
2 2
(−) (−)BA (−) (−)BA
−FM AB ∂ M HKL ∂K FL − HM N ∂M FRAB ∂ R FN
(−) (−) (−) (−)AC
−4FM AB F (−)N BC ∂ M FN C A + FM AB F (−)M CD FP F (−)P BD
(−) (−)
−FM AB F (−)M A D FP E B F (−)P ED , (3.40)

(+)
and the other first-order corrections from the projected fluxes FM AB are given by
 
(+) (+) (+)BA M N MN (+) (+)BA
R = −4FM AB FN ∂ d +∂ FM AB FN
 
(+) (+)BA M (+) (+)BA
+4FM AB FN ∂ d∂ N d − 4∂ M
FM AB FN ∂N d
1 (+) (+)BA M RS N 1 (+)
− FM AB FN ∂ H ∂ HRS + FM AB F (+)N BA ∂ M HRS ∂R HN S
8 2
1 MN   1  
PQ (+) (+)BA RS (+) (+)N BA
− H ∂M H ∂N FP AB FQ + H ∂R FM AB F ∂ M HSN
4 2
1 RS   1
(+) (+)BA (+)
PQ
+ H ∂R H ∂P FSAB FQ − HM N ∂M FRAB ∂N F (+)RBA
2 2
(+) M KL (+)BA (+) (+)BA
+FM AB ∂ H ∂K FL MN
+ H ∂M FRAB ∂ R FN
(+) (+) (+) (+)AC
−4FM AB F (+)N BC ∂ M FN C A + FM AB F (+)M CD FP F (+)P BD
(+) (+)
−FM AB F (+)M A D FP E B F (+)P ED . (3.41)
1
The full action is frame-like since it depends on the generalized frame through the generalized metric
and the projected fluxes. In would be interesting to see if this hybrid formulation can be written purely
in terms of generalized fluxes as in [30].

15
The three contributions to the Lagrangian are generalized diffeomorphism scalars (modulo
the strong constraint (3.2)), and the full Lagrangian is H-invariant to first order in α′



δ R + aR(−) + bR(+) = Lbξ R + aR(−) + bR(+) . (3.42)

In fact, one can show that the anomalous Lorentz behaviour δeΛ R is exactly cancelled


by δΛ a R(−) + b R(+) . We have verified this explicitly using [31]. Notice also that


δeΛ a R(−) + b R(+) is of higher order, so must not be considered in this computation.
We then conclude that the action (3.38) is invariant under the H and Lb symmetries.
Regarding G-symmetry, recall that in DFT the O(d, d) transformations

hM P ηP Q hN Q = ηM N , (3.43)

act as follows
EM A → hM P EP A , ∂M → hM P ∂P . (3.44)

Then, the action is manifestly O(d, d) invariant since all indices are contracted with the
duality invariant metric. Note however that if one chooses an H-gauge-fixed parame-
terization of the generalized frame (as we will do in the next section), a compensating
H-transformation is required to restore the gauge. This is no problem, as we have seen,
because H is a symmetry of the theory.
Let us finally mention that under the Z2 -parity transformation we find


Z2 R(±) = R(∓) , (3.45)

so again we see that the corrections are even under Z2 -parity for a = b, odd for a = −b,
and the parity is broken for any other choice.

3.4 Parameterization and field redefinitions

Until now we have been general, and have assumed neither a parameterization of the
generalized fields nor any solution to the strong constraint (3.2). Here we give the pa-
rameterizations required to make contact with the deformed Bergshoeff-de Roo form of
the action (2.7).

16
 The G-invariant metric is chosen to be as usual
 
0 δνµ
ηM N =   , (3.46)
ν
δµ 0

and we choose the standard solution to the strong constraint for which

∂M = (∂˜µ , ∂µ ) = (0, ∂µ ) . (3.47)

The flat metrics are parameterized as

   
ab ab
g 0 g 0
HAB =   , ηAB =  , (3.48)
0 gab 0 −gab

and they are left invariant by H-transformations parameterized by

 
(+)a
Λ b 0
ΛA B =   . (3.49)
(−) b
0 Λ a

Here, Λ(+) and Λ(−) are the Lorentz parameters that generate the O(1, d − 1) and O(d −
1, 1)-transformations that leave P̄AB and PAB invariant respectively, and as such satisfy

(±) (±)
Λab = gac Λ(±)c b = −Λba . (3.50)

(±)
The generalized frame is parameterized by two beins ēµ a and a two-form B̄µν
 
(+) µ ab (−) µ
1 ēa −g ēb
EM A = √   . (3.51)
2 ēµ b gba − ēa ρ B̄ρµ ēµ a + g ab ē(−)
(+) (+) (−)
b
ρ
B̄ρµ

The two beins satisfy

ē(±)
a
µ (±) b
ēµ = δab , ē(±)
µ
a (±) ν
ēa = δµν , ēa(±) µ = ḡ µν ēν(±) b gba , (3.52)

and are constrained to reproduce the same symmetric metric ḡµν

(±) ν
ḡµν = ē(±)
µ
a
gab ēν(±) b , ḡ µν = ē(±)
a
µ ab
g ēb . (3.53)

They can be taken to be equal through a gauge fixing condition

(+) a (−) a
ē(+)
µ
b
Λb = ē(−)
µ
b
Λb = ēµ b Λb a , (3.54)

17
that breaks the H-group to the physical Lorentz group parameterized by Λa b . The bars
over the component fields indicate that they are first-order corrected, so for example

ēµ a = eµ a + α′ ∆eµ a , (3.55)

where the un-barred part is of zeroth order, and transforms covariantly under diffeo-
morphisms and Lorentz transformations. However, the first order redefinition ∆eµ a can
induce a non-covariant behavior.
The matrices that generate the Z2 -parity transformations adopt the following param-
eterization    
ab µ
0 g −δν 0
ZA B =   , ZM N =  , (3.56)
ν
gab 0 0 δµ
(±) a (∓) a
and at the level of components they exchange Z2 (ēµ ) = ēµ . So, after the gauge fixing,
they leave the bein (and thus the metric ḡµν ) invariant, but they exchange the sign of the
two-form Z2 (B̄µν ) = −B̄µν , as expected.
The generalized dilaton has the usual expression, which can be written either in terms
of barred or un-barred fields

√ √
e−2d = −ḡe−2φ̄ = −ge−2φ . (3.57)

This is due to the fact that its gauge transformation (3.20) receives no first order correc-
tion. The equation (3.57) defines the corrected dilaton φ̄ = φ + 14 log ḡg . The generalized
metric is parameterized as usual, but with respect to the barred fields
 
µν µρ
ḡ −ḡ B̄ρν
HM N =   . (3.58)
B̄µρ ḡ ρν ḡµν − B̄µρ ḡ ρσ B̄σν

The generalized fluxes appear in the action in terms that are purely of O(α′ ). This
means that we only need their lowest order expressions in terms of the usual bein and

18
two-form, i.e. we can drop the bars from these fields. Their four components are given by
√ (−) 1 (+)
Fabc = 2ωµ[bc ea] µ + √ ωµ[bc ea] µ , (3.59)
2
1 (−) µν c
Fab c = √ ωµab g eν , (3.60)
2
1
Fa bc = − √ ωµ(+)bc ea µ , (3.61)
2
1 √
F abc = − √ ωµ(−)[bc eν a] g µν − 2ωµ(+)[bc eν a] g µν . (3.62)
2
The projected fluxes can be written in components as well. We find that some projections
vanish
(−) (−) ab (+) (+)
FM a b = 0 , FM =0, FM a b = 0 , FM ab = 0 , (3.63)

leaving only the following non-vanishing components

   
µ c µν (−)
1 ec Fab g ωνab
(−)
FM ab = √  = 1 , (3.64)
2 Bµν ec ν Fab c + eµ d gdc Fab c 2 Bµν g νρ ω (−) + ω (−)
ρab µab
   
µ da bc µν (+)bc
1 −e g F g ω
FM
(+)bc
= √ 
d a
= 1 ν
 .
2 −Bµν ed ν g da Fa bc + eµ a Fa bc 2 Bµν g νρ ωρ (+)bc
− ωµ
(+)bc

Now that we have parameterized all the generalized fields, we study the behavior of
the components under generalized transformations. The action (3.38) depends only on the
generalized metric and the projected fluxes, so we will only focus on the transformations
of these objects. Regarding the projected fluxes, as we explained only their lowest order
terms are relevant to O(α′ ) and it can be easily verified that the transformations (3.29)
reproduce the expected transformations for their components (see for example [30]). The
transformation of the generalized metric instead requires a special treatment, as its first
order correction plays a fundamental role in this construction. When the parameteriza-
tion (3.58) is subjected to the transformation (3.25) restricted to the choice (3.47), the
components of the generalized metric transform as
a (−) b (+)
δḡµν = Lξ ḡµν − ω(µa b ∂ν) Λb a − ω(µa b ∂ν) Λb a , (3.65)
2 2
a (−) b b (+)
δ B̄µν = Lξ B̄µν + 2∂[µ ξν] + ω[µa ∂ν] Λb a − ω[µa b ∂ν] Λb a . (3.66)
2 2
We then see that the generalized Green-Schwarz transformation (3.27) affects not only the
two-form, but also the metric. They both receive a non-covariant Lorentz transformation.

19
In order to relate ḡµν to the usual Lorentz-singlet metric gµν that transforms covariantly,
a first-order in α′ Lorentz non-covariant field redefinition is required

a (−) b (−) a b (+) b (+) a

ḡµν = gµν − ωµa ωνb − ωµa ωνb . (3.67)
4 4

For generic values of the parameters (a, b) such a redefinition of the two-form is not
possible. We will comment on this point at the end of this section, and by now let us
simply mention that in the component action that we write down below, B̄ = B BR .
Introducing the non-vanishing components of the projected fluxes (3.64) and the gener-
alized metric (3.58) into (3.38), and performing the field redefinition (3.67), we can finally
write the Lagrangian in components (we have benefited from [31] in this computation)

1 e µνρ e
R + aR(−) + bR(+) = R − 4∇µ φ∇µ φ + 4∇µ ∇µ φ − H Hµνρ
12
a (−) b (−)µν a b (+) b (+)µν a
+ Rµνa R b + Rµνa R b , (3.68)
8 8

where
e µνρ = Hµνρ − 3 aΩ(−) + 3 bΩ(+) .
H (3.69)
2 µνρ 2 µνρ
Written in this way, the invariance under the following transformations to O(α′ ) is man-
ifest

δφ = Lξ φ , (3.70)

δgµν = Lξ gµν , (3.71)

a (−) b (+)
δBµν = Lξ Bµν + 2∂[µ ξν] + ω[µa b ∂ν] Λb a − ω[µa b ∂ν] Λb a . (3.72)
2 2

The action (3.68) exactly coincides with the two-parameter deformations of the Bergshoeff-
de Roo form of the action (2.7). We have then re-formulated such deformations in an
O(d, d)-invariant way (3.38).
Let us conclude this section with some remarks. We have seen that the generalized
metric is α′ -corrected, but it is still symmetric and O(d, d)-valued, and as such can be
parameterized as in (3.58). The barred fields ḡµν and B̄µν are duality covariant, but the
generalized Green-Schwarz transformation induces the Lorentz non-covariant transforma-
tions (3.65), (3.66) of these duality covariant components. In the case of the metric, we

20
have shown how a Lorentz non-covariant field redefinition (3.67) related the duality covari-
ant metric ḡµν with the standard Lorentz-singlet covariant metric gµν . For generic values
of the parameters such a redefinition is not possible for B̄µν . This was expected since a
given choice of parameters reproduces the heterotic string, in which the two-form neces-
sarily acquires the anomalous Lorentz transformation required for anomaly cancellations
in the Green-Schwarz mechanism. However, the two-form in the closed bosonic string
must be a Lorentz-singlet, so when a = b we should be able to remove the Lorentz non-
covariant behavior of the two-form through some non-covariant field redefinition. When
a = b, the redefinition of the metric (3.67) becomes

a a
ḡµν = gµν − ωµa b ωνb a − Hµa b Hνb a . (3.73)
2 8

Regarding the two-form, when a = b its anomalous transformation (3.66)

a
δΛ B̄µν = − H[µa b ∂ν] Λb a , (3.74)
2

can be removed in this case through a Z2 -parity-preserving Lorentz non-covariant field

redefinition
a
B̄µν = Bµν − H[µa b ων]b a . (3.75)
2
The redefinitions (3.73) and (3.75) then take the form of background-independent Lorentz
non-covariant versions of Meissner’s field redefinitions [9]. Then, while gµν and Bµν are
diffeomorphism and Lorentz covariant, ḡµν and B̄µν are Lorentz non-covariant but T-
duality covariant.
Regarding the heterotic case (a, b) = (−α′ , 0), our results predict the field redefini-
tions of [12] that relate the Lorentz-covariant metric with the T-duality covariant one. In
addition, we obtain the anomalous Lorentz transformation of the metric as given in [14],
plus the usual Green-Schwarz transformation of the two-form in terms of ω (−) . Another
interesting example in which the non-covariant Lorentz transformation of the two-form
cannot be removed through a field redefinition is the case (a, b) = (−α′ , α′ ). This the-
ory contains no Riemann squared terms, and the essential first order contributions are
given by Chern-Simons corrections to the curvature of the two-form. Then, being the
corrections odd under Z2 -parity, this case is similar to the one introduced in [18], with

21
the difference that the non-covariance in this case is due to Lorentz and in [18] it is due
to diffeomorphisms.

4 Outlook and concluding remarks

We have shown that the four-derivative terms in the string effective actions admit a
universal description in terms of a two-parameter family of theories. The two parameters
(a and b) interpolate between corrections that are even (a = b) and odd (a = −b) with
respect to a parity transformation that exchanges the sign of the two-form. We have
given two expressions for the two-parameter deformed theory, which are related by field
redefinitions. One of them facilitates comparison with the closed bosonic and heterotic
string effective actions as presented by R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin in [28], and the other
one admits a direct comparison with the heterotic string effective action as formulated
by E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo in [26]. The action depends on the frame, two-form and
dilaton fields, and we have neglected the contributions from the heterotic gauge fields for
simplicity.
We have then reformulated the two-parameter action in the O(d, d) invariant language
of DFT. The first novel contribution is a first-order correction to the gauge transformations
of the generalized fields that takes the form of a generalized Green-Schwarz transformation
(see for example (3.27)), that generically cannot be removed through a duality covariant
generalized field redefinition. This anomalous Lorentz transformation implies that its field
components also transform non-covariantly, as explicitly shown in (3.65)-(3.66). While
this non-covariant behavior can be removed from the metric through a Lorentz non-
covariant first-order field redefinition (3.67), this is not possible in general for the two-
form. For example, when the parameters are chosen to reproduce the heterotic string
effective action, the two-form receives the anomalous Lorentz transformation required for
anomaly cancelation in the Green-Schwarz mechanism (which cannot be removed through
field redefinitions). Instead, in the even parity case there is a Lorentz non-covariant
redefinition of the two-form that renders it covariant, as expected for the closed bosonic
string.

22
 The generalized Green-Schwarz transformation is also very powerful in that it gives
rise to a duality covariant gauge principle that demands and determines the first-order
α′ -corrections in the action. The lowest order DFT action (3.39) is invariant under gen-
eralized diffeomorphisms, but not under these novel higher-derivative Lorentz transfor-
mations. As a consequence, the four-derivative terms (3.40) and (3.41) must be added to
the action in order to cancel the anomalous transformation. When the strong constraint
is solved in the (super)gravity frame and the generalized fields are parameterized accord-
ingly, the resulting four-derivative action (3.68) receives contributions not only from the
explicit four-derivative terms (3.40) and (3.41), but also from the two-derivative terms
(3.39) through the first-order in α′ redefinitions of the fields. When the component fields
parameterizing the generalized fields are specified, the final form of the action exactly
coincides with the two-parameter Bergshoeff-de Roo action discussed in section 2.2.
Similar results where obtained by O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach in [19]. They constructed
a two-parameter O(d, d) invariant theory up to cubic order in perturbations of the fields,
in which the parameters γ (±) interpolate between even (DFT+ ) and odd (DFT− ) Z2 -parity
corrections. Their formulation is metric-like, and then all the fields are Lorentz invariant.
The generalized gauge transformations do receive O(α′ ) corrections, which are generated
by the generalized infinitesimal diffeomorphism parameter ξ M . The duality covariant
fields that appear as components of the O(d, d) multiplets then transform non-covariantly
under diffeomorphisms, rather than Lorentz transformations. Although this is different
from the approach we have followed here, it is possible that both formulations can be
related through local (generalized) field redefinitions like the ones explored in [20]. The
similarity between both approaches is evident to the point that it is natural to identify
the parameters γ (±) = − a±b
2
.
Our work is essentially an O(d, d) invariant re-writing of the first order α′ -corrections
in the string effective actions. At the moment it is unclear if this formulation admits an
extension to higher orders. An important application of this line of research would be to
find a duality covariant gauge principle that requires and fixes the higher-derivative terms
in the α′ -expansion, as it could provide a tool to compute corrections that are otherwise
difficult to calculate through other methods. A less ambitious programme that could give

23
hints on how to proceed in this direction is to rewrite the already known higher derivative
(α′n , n = 2, 3, 4) corrections to the string effective actions in an O(d, d) invariant way.
Other possible directions for future work suggest themselves. It is possible that our
formulation admits a description in terms of an extended-tangent space formulation like
the one considered in [23]-[25], in which the tangent space should be further enhanced
so as to include two spin connections with opposite torsion with duality group O(d +
n, d + n). Understanding the role of supersymmetry would also be of interest, since
one should expect obstructions when attempting to supersymmetrize this theory for a
choice of parameters leaving only even Z2 -parity corrections. Generalized Scherk-Schwarz
reductions like those considered in [32] would also be interesting to examine in order
to find higher-derivative corrections in gauged supergravities and to clarify the relation
between α′ -corrections and non-geometry (see for example [33] and references therein).
Due to the field redefinitions involved in this construction, we expect the duality covariant
scalars of the reduced theory to be related to the diffeomorphism and Lorentz covariant
scalars through O(α′ ) redefinitions that are quadratic in gaugings. A pure generalized
flux formulation of the theory [30] could be useful in understanding these issues. Finally,
the generalized Green-Schwarz transformation might be relevant in the analysis of large
gauge transformations in DFT [34].

Acknowledgments: We are indebted with O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach for many enlight-
ening discussions and comments on the draft, and we also warmly thank O. Bedoya and
J.J. Fernández Melgarejo. We wish to thank O. Hohm for pointing out a mistake in eq.
(3.35) of v1, which has now been corrected. D. M. thanks the Center for Theoretical
Physics at MIT for kind hospitality during the early stages of this work. Support by
the Fulbright Commission, A.S.ICTP, CONICET, UBA and ANPCyT is also gratefully
acknowledged.

24
A Conventions and definitions
In this Appendix we introduce the notation used throughout the paper.
Space-time and tangent space Lorentz indices are denoted µ, ν, . . . and a, b, . . . , re-
spectively. The Lie derivative of a tensor is given by

Lξ Vµ ν = ξ ρ ∂ρ Vµ ν + ∂µ ξ ρVρ ν − ∂ρ ξ ν Vµ ρ . (A.1)

The Christoffel connection is defined in terms of the metric as

1
Γρµν = g ρσ (∂µ gνσ + ∂ν gµσ − ∂σ gµν ) , Γρ[µν] = 0 , (A.2)
2
and transforms anomalously under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms (whenever the Lie deriva-
tive acts on a non-tensorial object, we use the convention that it acts as if it were covariant)

δξ Γρµν = Lξ Γρµν + ∂µ ∂ν ξ ρ , (A.3)

so it allows to define a covariant derivative, given by

∇ρ Vµ ν = ∂ρ Vµ ν − Γσρµ Vσ ν + Γνρσ Vµ σ . (A.4)

The Riemann tensor can be expressed as

Rρ σµν = ∂µ Γρνσ − ∂ν Γρµσ + Γρµδ Γδνσ − Γρνδ Γδµσ . (A.5)

Its symmetries and Bianchi identities are

Rρσµν = gρδ Rδ σµν = R([ρσ][µν]) , Rρ [σµν] = 0 , ∇[µ Rνλ] ρ σ = 0 . (A.6)

Traces of the Riemann tensor give the Ricci tensor and scalar, respectively

Rµν = Rρ µρν , R = g µν Rµν . (A.7)

The (inverse) metric can be written in terms of a (inverse) frame field

gµν = eµ a gab eν b , g µν = ea µ g ab eb ν , (A.8)

where gab is the Minkowski metric, and they satisfy the following identities

ea µ eµ b = δab , eµ a ea ν = δµν , ea µ = g µν eν b gba . (A.9)

25
Under Lorentz and infinitesimal diffeomorphism transformations, the frame field changes
as follows

δeµ a = Lξ eµ a + eµ b Λb a , δea µ = Lξ ea µ − Λa b eb µ , Λab = Λa c gcb = −Λba . (A.10)

We also consider a spin connection defined in terms of the frame field

ωµa b = ∂µ eν b ea ν − Γρµν eρ b ea ν , (A.11)

that transforms as

δωµa b = Lξ ωµa b + ∂µ Λa b + ωµa c Λc b − Λa c ωµc b . (A.12)

Given a Lorentz tensor

δΛ Ta b = Ta c Λc b − Λa c Tc b , (A.13)

we define the Lorentz covariant derivative

Dµ Ta b = ∂µ Ta b + ωµa c Tc b − ωµc b Ta c . (A.14)

The Riemann tensor can also be written as an adjoint Lorentz-valued two-form, expressed
in terms of the spin connection as

Rµνa b = ∂µ ωνa b − ∂ν ωµa b + ωµa c ωνc b − ωνa c ωµc b . (A.15)

This form of the Riemann tensor transforms as

δRµνa b = Lξ Rµνa b + Rµνa c Λc b − Λa c Rµνc b , (A.16)

and is related to the Riemann tensor (A.5) through a frame rotation

Rµνa b eb ρ eσ a = −Rρ σµν . (A.17)

The Lorentz and diffeomorphism covariant derivatives are related as follows

Dµ Ta b = ∇µ Tρ σ ea ρ eσ b for Ta b = Tρ σ ea ρ eσ b . (A.18)

The Chern-Simons three-form is defined as

2
Ωµνρ = ω[µa b ∂ν ωρ]b a + ω[µa b ωνb c ωρ]c a , (A.19)
3
26
and it transforms under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms and Lorentz transformations as

δΩµνρ = Lξ Ωµνρ − ∂[µ ∂ν Λa b ωρ]ba . (A.20)

We also define the spin connections with torsion

(±) b 1
ωµa = ωµa b ± Hµa b , Hµa b = Hµνρ ea ν g ρσ eσ b , (A.21)
2

where the torsion is given by the three form curvature of the Kalb-Ramond two-form

Hµνρ = 3∂[µ Bνρ] = ∂µ Bνρ + ∂ν Bρµ + ∂ρ Bµν , (A.22)

with Bianchi identity

∇[µ Hνρσ] = 0 . (A.23)

Note that we do not include any α′ -correction in the torsion, as we are only interested
in first-order corrections in this paper. We also define powers of the three-form with the
following contractions

H 4 = H µνρ Hµσ λ Hνλ δ Hρδ σ , 2

Hµν = Hµ ρσ Hνρσ , H 2 = Hµνρ H µνρ . (A.24)

When the two-form Riemann tensor is supra-labeled with a sign, we use the convention
that it is defined as in (A.15) but in terms of the spin connection with torsion

(±) b (±) b (±) b (±) c (±) b (±) c (±) b

Rµνa = ∂µ ωνa − ∂ν ωµa + ωµa ωνc − ωνa ωµc . (A.25)

The supra-labeled with a sign torsionful Chern-Simons three-form is accordingly

(±) b (±) a 2 (±) b (±) c (±) a

Ω(±)
µνρ = ω[µa ∂ν ωρ]b + ω[µa ωνb ωρ]c . (A.26)
3

The transformations of the torsionful spin connection, Riemann tensor and Chern-Simons
three-form are as follows

(±) b (±) b (±) c (±) b

δωµa = Lξ ωµa + ∂µ Λa b + ωµa Λc b − Λa c ωµc , (A.27)
(±) b (±) b (±) c (±) b
δRµνa = Lξ Rµνa + Rµνa Λc b − Λa c Rµνc , (A.28)
 
b (±) a
δΩ(±) (±)
µνρ = Lξ Ωµνρ − ∂[µ ∂ν Λa ωρ]b . (A.29)

27
B From Bergshoeff-de Roo to Metsaev-Tseytlin
It is very easy to show that the two-parameter generalization of the Bergshoeff-de Roo
action (2.7) is equivalent to the two-parameter deformation of the Metsaev-Tseytlin ac-
tion (2.1)-(2.3), up to field redefinitions and boundary terms. For the heterotic case
(a, b) = (−α′ , 0), the equivalence was proved in [29], and here we give the general proof
for arbitrary values of the coefficients2 . The zeroth order actions are automatically identi-
cal (both given by (2.2)), so we need to focus attention on the four-derivative corrections.
Using the decomposition of the Riemann tensor with torsion

(±) 1
Rµνab = Rµνab ± D[µ Hν]ab − H[µa c Hν]bc , (B.1)
2
the components of the torsionful Riemann squared terms are
a (−) b (−)µν a b (+) b (+)µν a 1 
Rµνa R b + Rµνa R b = − (a + b) D[µ Hν]ab D µ H νab + Rµνab Rµνab
8 8 8
1
−Hµa c Hνbc Rµνab + Hµac H µa d Hνb c H νbd
8 
1
− Hµab H µ cd Hν ac H νbd (B.2)
8
 
1 µνab 1 µa νbc
+ (a − b) Dµ Hνab R − Dµ Hνab H c H .
4 2
On the other hand, consider the first order in the decomposition of the squared three-form
term
 (1)  
1 e µνρ e 1 µνρ ab

ab 1 b c a
− H Hµνρ = (a + b)H ∂µ Hν ωρab + Hµab Rνρ − Hµa Hνb Hρc
12 8 6
 
1 1
+ (a − b)H µνρ Ωµνρ − Dµ Hν ab Hρab . (B.3)
4 4
Now, using Bianchi identities one can show that the following terms vanish

Dµ Hνab Rµνab = 0 , Dµ Hνab H µa c H νbc = 0 , H µνρ Dµ Hν ab Hρab = 0 , (B.4)

so (B.2) only depends on a + b and is then even under Z2 -parity, and also prove the
following useful identities
1 1
Hµρ λ Hνσλ Rµνρσ = Hµρ λ Hνσλ Rµρνσ , ∇[µ Hν]ρσ ∇µ H νρσ = ∇µ Hνρσ ∇µ H νρσ . (B.5)
2 3
2
Field redefinitions in the context of the heterotic string have also been discussed recently in [35].

28
Adding (B.2) and (B.3), canceling the terms in (B.4) and rewriting some terms as in
(B.5), we find the first order component of the Bergshoeff-de Roo Lagrangian

1 1

L(1) = (a − b)H µνρ Ωµνρ + (a + b)H µνρ ∂µ Hν ab ωρab
4  8
1 3 1
− (a + b) Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − H µνρ Hµσλ Rνρ σλ + H µνρ Hµσ λ Hνλ δ Hρδ σ
8 2 24

1 µ νρσ 1 µρ δ νσλ
+ ∇µ Hνρσ ∇ H + Hµρδ H λ Hνσ H . (B.6)
3 8

The first term in (B.6) is the Chern-Simons term present in the Metsaev-Tseytlin form of
the action (2.3). The second term can be simply removed by a Lorentz non-covariant field
redefinition of the two-form. The last block of terms with coefficient a + b is even under
Z2 -parity, and exactly agrees with the results in [16], where it was shown to coincide
modulo field redefinitions and boundary terms with the Metsaev-Tseytlin form of the
action [28]. In order to make contact with it, we note that
 (1)

L(0) (g + ∆g, B + ∆B, φ + ∆φ) = e2φ ∇µ e−2φ V µ (B.7)
a + b µνρ a+b
+ H Hµσλ Rνρ σλ − Hµρδ H µρ λ Hνσ δ H νσλ
8 32
a+b a + b µνρ

− ∇µ Hνρσ ∇µ H νρσ + H ∂µ Hν ab ωρab ,
24 8

with

1
∆gµν = − (a + b)Hµ ρσ Hνρσ ,
8
1 1
∆Bµν = − (a + b) (∇ρ Hρµν − 2∇ρ φH ρ µν ) − (a + b)H[µ ab ων]ab , (B.8)
4 4
1 µνρ
∆φ = − (a + b)Hµνρ H ,
32

and
1
V µ = − (a + b)H µρσ (∇ν H ν ρσ − 2∇ν φH ν ρσ ) . (B.9)
8
That is, a shift in the zeroth order Lagrangian (2.2) due to the first order field redefinitions
(B.8) (which coincide with those in [16] for the choice of parameters (a, b) = (−α′ , −α′ )
reproducing the bosonic string), produces a covariant boundary term defined by (B.9),
plus the additional terms in the last two lines in (B.7). These terms take the first order

29
Lagrangian (B.6) to the form

1
L(1) = (a − b)H µνρ Ωµνρ (B.10)
4 
1 1
− (a + b) Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − H µνρ Hµσλ Rνρ σλ
8 2

1 µνρ λ δ σ 1 µρ δ νσλ
+ H Hµσ Hνλ Hρδ − Hµρδ H λ Hνσ H ,
24 8

which is exactly the first order correction in the two-parameter Metsaev-Tseytlin action
(2.3).
Then, we have shown that the deformed Bergshoeff-de Roo action exactly coincides
with the deformed Metsaev-Tseytlin action up to field redefinitions and boundary terms.
We note that while the field redefinitions of the metric and dilaton are covariant, the
redefinition of the two-form receives a Lorentz non-covariant contribution from the last
term in ∆Bµν in (B.8).

References
[1] W. Siegel, “Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings,” Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993)
2826 [hep-th/9305073].

W. Siegel, “Two vierbein formalism for string inspired axionic gravity,” Phys. Rev.
D 47 (1993) 5453 [hep-th/9302036].

[2] C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory,” JHEP 0909 (2009) 099
[arXiv:0904.4664 [hep-th]].

C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “The Gauge algebra of double field theory and Courant
brackets,” JHEP 0909 (2009) 090 [arXiv:0908.1792 [hep-th]].

O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Background independent action for double field
theory,” JHEP 1007 (2010) 016 [arXiv:1003.5027 [hep-th]].

O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Generalized metric formulation of double field

theory,” JHEP 1008 (2010) 008 [arXiv:1006.4823 [hep-th]].

30
[3] O. Hohm and S. K. Kwak, “Frame-like Geometry of Double Field Theory,” J. Phys.
A 44 (2011) 085404 [arXiv:1011.4101 [hep-th]].

[4] G. Aldazabal, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “Double Field Theory: A Pedagogical

Review,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 163001 (2013) [arXiv:1305.1907 [hep-th]].

O. Hohm, D. Lst and B. Zwiebach, “The Spacetime of Double Field Theory: Review,
Remarks, and Outlook,” Fortsch. Phys. 61, 926 (2013) [arXiv:1309.2977 [hep-th]].

D. S. Berman and D. C. Thompson, “Duality Symmetric String and M-Theory,”

Phys. Rept. 566, 1 (2014) [arXiv:1306.2643 [hep-th]].

[5] A. Sen, “O(d) x O(d) symmetry of the space of cosmological solutions in string
theory, scale factor duality and two-dimensional black holes,” Phys. Lett. B 271, 295
(1991).

[6] J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, “Dual Models and the Geometry of Space-Time,” Phys.
Lett. B 52, 347 (1974).

T. Yoneya, “Connection of Dual Models to Electrodynamics and Gravidynamics,”

Prog. Theor. Phys. 51, 1907 (1974).

[7] C. G. Callan, Jr., E. J. Martinec, M. J. Perry and D. Friedan, “Strings in Background

Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 262, 593 (1985).

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Effective Field Theory from Quantized Strings,”

Phys. Lett. B 158, 316 (1985).

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Effective Action Approach to Superstring Theory,”

Phys. Lett. B 160, 69 (1985).

[8] S. J. Gates, Jr. and H. Nishino, “New D = 10, N = 1 Superspace Supergravity and
Local Symmetries of Superstrings,” Phys. Lett. B 173, 46 (1986).

S. J. Gates, Jr. and H. Nishino, “Manifestly Supersymmetric O (α′ ) Superstring

Corrections in New D = 10, N = 1 Supergravity Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Lett. B
173, 52 (1986).

31
 E. Bergshoeff, A. Salam and E. Sezgin, “Supersymmetric R**2 Actions, Conformal
Invariance and Lorentz Chern-simons Term in Six-dimensions and Ten-dimensions,”
Nucl. Phys. B 279 (1987) 659.

[9] K. A. Meissner, “Symmetries of higher order string gravity actions,” Phys. Lett. B
392 (1997) 298 [hep-th/9610131].

[10] N. Kaloper and K. A. Meissner, “Duality beyond the first loop,” Phys. Rev. D 56
(1997) 7940 [hep-th/9705193].

N. Kaloper and K. A. Meissner, “Tailoring T duality beyond the first loop,”

hep-th/9708169.

[11] T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma

Models,” Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988) 466.

T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett.

B 194 (1987) 59.

[12] E. Bergshoeff, B. Janssen and T. Ortin, “Solution generating transformations and

the string effective action,” Class. Quant. Grav. 13 (1996) 321 [hep-th/9506156].

[13] O. Hohm, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “Heterotic Effective Action and Duality Symme-
tries Revisited,” JHEP 1502 (2015) 079 [arXiv:1411.5696 [hep-th]].

[14] C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, “World Sheet Supersymmetry and Anomaly Can-
cellation in the Heterotic String,” Phys. Lett. B 178, 187 (1986).

[15] M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Anomaly Cancellation in Supersymmetric D=10

Gauge Theory and Superstring Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 149 (1984) 117.

[16] H. Godazgar and M. Godazgar, “Duality completion of higher derivative corrections,”

JHEP 1309, 140 (2013) [arXiv:1306.4918 [hep-th]].

[17] O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “On the Riemann Tensor in Double Field Theory,” JHEP
1205 (2012) 126 [arXiv:1112.5296 [hep-th]].

32
[18] O. Hohm, W. Siegel and B. Zwiebach, “Doubled α′ -geometry,” JHEP 1402 (2014)
065 [arXiv:1306.2970 [hep-th]].

[19] O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Double field theory at order α′ ,” JHEP 1411 (2014)
075 [arXiv:1407.3803 [hep-th]].

[20] O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Green-Schwarz mechanism and α′ -deformed Courant

brackets,” JHEP 1501 (2015) 012 [arXiv:1407.0708 [hep-th]].

[21] I. Jeon, K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Stringy differential geometry, beyond Riemann,”
Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 044022 [arXiv:1105.6294 [hep-th]].

I. Jeon, K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Differential geometry with a projection: Application

to double field theory,” JHEP 1104 (2011) 014 [arXiv:1011.1324 [hep-th]].

[22] A. Coimbra, C. Strickland-Constable and D. Waldram, “Supergravity as Generalised

Geometry I: Type II Theories,” JHEP 1111 (2011) 091 [arXiv:1107.1733 [hep-th]].

[23] O. A. Bedoya, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “Heterotic α’-corrections in Double Field

Theory,” JHEP 1412 (2014) 074 [arXiv:1407.0365 [hep-th]].

[24] A. Coimbra, R. Minasian, H. Triendl and D. Waldram, “Generalised geometry for

string corrections,” JHEP 1411 (2014) 160 [arXiv:1407.7542 [hep-th]].

[25] K. Lee, “Quadratic α′ -Corrections to Heterotic Double Field Theory,”

arXiv:1504.00149 [hep-th].

[26] E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo, “Supersymmetric Chern-simons Terms in Ten-

dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 218 (1989) 210.

E. A. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo, “The Quartic Effective Action of the Heterotic

String and Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 328 (1989) 439.

[27] O. Hohm and S. K. Kwak, “Double Field Theory Formulation of Heterotic Strings,”
JHEP 1106 (2011) 096 [arXiv:1103.2136 [hep-th]].

33
[28] R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Order alpha-prime (Two Loop) Equivalence of
the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions:
Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,” Nucl. Phys. B 293
(1987) 385.

[29] W. A. Chemissany, M. de Roo and S. Panda, “alpha’-Corrections to Heterotic Super-

string Effective Action Revisited,” JHEP 0708 (2007) 037 [arXiv:0706.3636 [hep-th]].

[30] D. Geissbuhler, D. Marques, C. Nunez and V. Penas, “Exploring Double Field The-
ory,” JHEP 1306 (2013) 101 [arXiv:1304.1472 [hep-th]].

[31] K. Peeters, “Introducing Cadabra: A Symbolic computer algebra system for field
theory problems,” hep-th/0701238 [HEP-TH].

[32] G. Aldazabal, W. Baron, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “The effective action of Double
Field Theory,” JHEP 1111 (2011) 052 [JHEP 1111 (2011) 109] [arXiv:1109.0290
[hep-th]].

D. Geissbuhler, “Double Field Theory and N=4 Gauged Supergravity,” JHEP 1111
(2011) 116 [arXiv:1109.4280 [hep-th]].

[33] D. Andriot, O. Hohm, M. Larfors, D. Lust and P. Patalong, “Non-Geometric

Fluxes in Supergravity and Double Field Theory,” Fortsch. Phys. 60 (2012) 1150
[arXiv:1204.1979 [hep-th]].

D. Andriot and A. Betz, “β-supergravity: a ten-dimensional theory with

non-geometric fluxes, and its geometric framework,” JHEP 1312 (2013) 083
[arXiv:1306.4381 [hep-th]].

R. Blumenhagen, A. Deser, E. Plauschinn, F. Rennecke and C. Schmid, “The In-

triguing Structure of Non-geometric Frames in String Theory,” Fortsch. Phys. 61
(2013) 893 [arXiv:1304.2784 [hep-th]].

R. Blumenhagen, F. Hassler and D. Lst, “Double Field Theory on Group Manifolds,”

JHEP 1502 (2015) 001 [arXiv:1410.6374 [hep-th]].

34
 D. S. Berman and K. Lee, “Supersymmetry for Gauged Double Field The-
ory and Generalised Scherk-Schwarz Reductions,” Nucl. Phys. B 881 (2014) 369
[arXiv:1305.2747 [hep-th]].

W. Cho, J. J. Fernndez-Melgarejo, I. Jeon and J. H. Park, “Supersymmetric gauged

Double Field Theory: Systematic derivation by virtue of Twist,” arXiv:1505.01301
[hep-th].

R. Blumenhagen and R. Sun, “T-duality, Non-geometry and Lie Algebroids in Het-

erotic Double Field Theory,” JHEP 1502 (2015) 097 [arXiv:1411.3167 [hep-th]].

[34] O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Large Gauge Transformations in Double Field Theory,”
JHEP 1302 (2013) 075 [arXiv:1207.4198 [hep-th]].

J. H. Park, “Comments on double field theory and diffeomorphisms,” JHEP 1306

(2013) 098 [arXiv:1304.5946 [hep-th]].

D. S. Berman, M. Cederwall and M. J. Perry, “Global aspects of double geometry,”

JHEP 1409 (2014) 066 [arXiv:1401.1311 [hep-th]].

G. Papadopoulos, “Seeking the balance: Patching double and exceptional field the-
ories,” JHEP 1410 (2014) 089 [arXiv:1402.2586 [hep-th]].

C. M. Hull, “Finite Gauge Transformations and Geometry in Double Field Theory,”

JHEP 1504 (2015) 109 [arXiv:1406.7794 [hep-th]].

U. Naseer, “A note on large gauge transformations in double field theory,” JHEP

1506 (2015) 002 [arXiv:1504.05913 [hep-th]].

[35] X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes, “Connections, Field Redefinitions and Heterotic Su-
pergravity,” JHEP 1412 (2014) 008 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)008 [arXiv:1409.3347
[hep-th]].

35