text:
# Representations of 𝑛-Lie algebras

## 1. Introduction

An algebra $`A=(A,[,])`$ with a $`n`$-multiplication $`[,]:^nAA,(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)[a_1,\mathrm{},a_n]`$ is called it $`n`$-Lie, if

$$[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},[a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}]]=\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^i[[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_i],a_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{a_i},\mathrm{},a_{2n1}],$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}A`$ .

To any $`n`$-Lie algebra one can associate a Lie algebra $`L(A)=^{n1}A,`$ called basic Lie algebra, with a multiplication given by

$$[a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1},b_1\mathrm{}b_{n1}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}[[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},b_i],b_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{b_i},\mathrm{},b_{n1}],$$

or by

$$[a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1},b_1\mathrm{}b_{n1}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^{i+n}[a_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{a_i},\mathrm{},a_n,[a_i,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}]],$$

where $`\widehat{b_i}`$ means that the element $`b_i`$ is omitted.

Example 1. Let $`A=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ under Jacobian map $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)det(_i(a_j)).`$ Then $`A`$ is $`n`$-Lie ,  and its basic algebra is isomorphic to divergenceless vector fields algebra $`S_{n1}`$ .

Example 2. Let $`V_n`$ be $`(n+1)`$-dimensional vector space with a basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_{n+1}\}.`$ Then $`V_n`$ under a $`n`$-Lie multiplication $`[e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}]=(1)^ie_i`$ can be endowed by a structure of $`n`$-Lie algebra. This algebra is called vector products $`n`$-Lie algebra. For $`n=2`$ we obtain well known vector products algebra on $`K^3.`$ ¿From results of  it follows that $`L(V_n)so_{n+1}.`$

Let $`U(L(A))`$ be an universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra $`L(A).`$ Let $`Q(A)`$ be an ideal of $`U(L(A))`$ generated by elements

$$X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}=[a_1,\mathrm{},a_n]a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1)^{i+n}(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_i}\mathrm{}a_n)(a_ia_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}),$$

where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A.`$ Let $`U(A)`$ be a factor-algebra of $`U(L(A))`$ by the ideal $`Q(A).`$

A module $`M`$ of the Lie algebra $`L(A),`$ or $`U(L(A))`$-module, is called module of $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A`$, if $`Q(A)`$ acts on $`M`$ in a trivial way. Such $`n`$-Lie modules have the following property: if $`A`$ is any $`n`$-Lie algebra and $`M`$ is any $`n`$-Lie module over $`A`$, then their semi-direct sum $`A+M`$ is once again $`n`$-Lie algebra. This is the main reason why we consider $`L(A)`$-modules with the condition $`Q(A)M=0`$ as $`n`$-Lie modules.

One can expect that the $`n`$-Lie algebra $`V_n`$ plays in theory of $`n`$-Lie algebras a role like $`sl_2`$ in theory of Lie algebras. The aim of our paper is to describe all finite-dimensional representations of vector products $`n`$-Lie algebra over the filed of complex numbers.

Let $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _{[n+1/2]}`$ be the fundamental weights for $`so_{n+1}.`$ Recall that $`so_4sl_2sl_2`$ and any irreducible $`so_4`$-module can be realized as $`sl_2sl_2`$-module $`M_{t,r}=M_tM_r,`$ where $`M_t`$ denotes $`(t+1)`$-dimensional irreducible $`sl_2`$-module with highest weight $`t.`$

The main result of our paper is the following

###### Theorem 1.1.

$`K=𝐂.`$

i) Any finite-dimensional $`n`$-Lie representation of $`V_n,n2,`$ is completely reducible.

ii) Let $`M_{t,r}`$ be an irreducible $`so_4`$-module with highest weight $`(t,r).`$ Then $`M_{t,r}`$ can be prolonged to $`3`$-Lie module over $`V_3,`$ if and only if $`t=r.`$

iii) Let $`M`$ be an irreducible module of Lie algebra $`so_{n+1},`$ $`n>3,`$ with highest weight $`\alpha .`$ Then $`M`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module of $`V_n,`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ has a form $`t\pi _1,`$ for some nonnegative integer $`t.`$

So, we obtain complete description of finite-dimensional $`n`$-Lie $`V_n`$-modules over $`𝐂.`$ Our result shows that any irreducible $`n`$-Lie representation of $`V_n`$ is ruled by some nonnegative integer $`t`$ as in the Lie case $`V_2sl_2.`$ Call $`t`$ mentioned in theorem 1.1 $`n`$-Lie highest weight.

###### Corollary 1.2.

$`(K=𝐂,n>2)`$ The dimension of any irreducible $`n`$-Lie $`V_n`$-module with highest weight $`t`$ is equal to $`\frac{n+2t1}{n+t1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+t1}{t}\right).`$

For example, the dimension of any irreducible $`V_3`$-module with highest weight $`t`$ is equal to $`(t+1)^2.`$

Remark. If $`n=3`$ and if we allow considering infinite-dimensional modules, then studying of $`V_3`$-representations can be reduced to the problem on describing of $`gl_\lambda `$-modules. A definition of complex size matrices algebra $`gl_\lambda `$ see , . One can prove that $`U(V_3)`$ has a subalgebra isomorphic to $`gl_\lambda gl_\lambda .`$

## 2. $`n`$-Lie modules

Let $`A=(A,\omega )`$ be a $`n`$-Lie algebra with multiplication $`\omega .`$ This means that $`\omega C^n(A,A)`$ is a skew-symmetric polylinear map $`\omega :^nAA`$ with $`n`$ arguments and satisfies the following $`n`$-Lie identity (Leibniz rule)

$$\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},\omega (a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}))=$$

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n1}{}}\omega (a_n,\mathrm{},a_{i1},\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_i),a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n1}),$$

where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}`$ are any elements of $`A`$  The Leibniz rule can be written as follows

$$\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},\omega (a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}))=$$

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{n+i}\omega (\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_i),a_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{a_i},\mathrm{},a_{2n1}),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}A.`$ Here the notation $`\widehat{a_i}`$ means that $`a_i`$ is omitted.

Let $`EndA`$ be a space of linear maps $`AA.`$ Recall that an operator $`DEndA`$ is called derivation, if

$$D(\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},D(a_i),a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_nA.`$ Let $`DerA`$ be a space of derivations of $`A.`$ According $`n`$-Lie identity for any $`n1`$ elements $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}A`$ one can correspond adjoint derivation $`ad\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\}DerA`$ by the rule

$$ad\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\}a=\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n).$$

Call a derivation $`DDerA`$ interior, if there exists some $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}A,`$ such that $`D=ad\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\}.`$ Denote by $`IntA`$ a space of interior derivations of $`A.`$ Then $`DerA`$ is a Lie algebra under commutator $`(D_1,D_2)[D_1,D_2]:=D_1D_2D_2D_1`$ and $`IntA`$ is its Lie ideal. Notice that the commutator of $`IntA`$ can be given by

$$[ad\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\},ad\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}\}]=ad\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1}\},$$

where

$$\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1}\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}\omega (\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},b_i),b_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{b_i},\mathrm{},b_{n1}).$$

By skew-symmetric condition $`\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1}\}`$ can be defined also by

$$\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1}\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^i\omega (\omega (b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1},a_i),a_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{a_i},\mathrm{},a_{n1}).$$

Moreover, the $`(n1)`$-th exterior power $`L(A)=^{n1}A`$ under commutator

$$[a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{n1},b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_{n1}]=c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_{n1}$$

can be endowed by structure of Lie algebra (write $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\}`$ instead of $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{n1}`$ ). The adjoint map

$$^{n1}AIntA,a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}ad\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}\},$$

gives us a homomorphism of Lie algebras. Following L. Takhtajan call $`L(A)`$ a basic Lie algebra of $`A.`$

A vector space $`M`$ is called $`A`$-module, or $`n`$-Lie module over $`A,`$ if there are given $`n`$ polylinear maps

$$\omega _i:A\mathrm{}A\underset{i}{𝑀}A\mathrm{}AM,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

such that

* $`\omega _i(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$ is skew-symmetric by all $`a`$-type arguments
* $$\omega _i(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},a_{i+2},\mathrm{},a_n)=\omega _{i+1}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},a_{i+1},m,a_{i+2},\mathrm{},a_n),$$

for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ and
* $$\omega _n(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},\omega _n(a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n2},m))=$$

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n2}{}}\omega _n(a_n,\mathrm{},a_{i1},\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_i),a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2},m)$$

$$+\omega _n(a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n2},\omega _n(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},m)),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A`$ and $`mM,`$
* $$\omega _{n1}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2},m,\omega (a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}))=$$

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n1}{}}\omega _i(a_n,\mathrm{},a_{i1},\omega _{n1}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2},m,a_i),a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n1}),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2},a_n,\mathrm{},a_{2n1}A`$ and $`mM.`$

If $`M`$ is an $`A`$-module, we will say that there are given representation $`(\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)`$ of $`A`$ on the vector space $`M.`$

So, any module of $`n`$-Lie algebra is an usual module of Lie algebra, if $`n=2.`$ If $`n>2,`$ then any module of $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A`$ is a Lie module of the basic Lie algebra $`L(A)`$ under representation $`\rho :^{n1}AEndM`$ defined by $`\rho (a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1})(m)=\omega _n(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},m),`$ such that

$$\rho (\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=$$

(1)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i+n}\rho (a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_i}\mathrm{}a_n)\rho (a_ia_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A.`$ If $`M`$ is a Lie module over Lie algebra $`L(A)`$ that satisfies the condition (1) for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A,`$ then we will say that Lie module structure on $`M`$ over $`L(A)`$ can be prolonged to a $`n`$-Lie module structure over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A,`$ or shortly that Lie module $`M`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module.

Example. For any $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A`$ its adjoint module, i.e., a module with vector space $`A`$ and the action $`(a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1})b=[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},b]`$ is $`n`$-Lie module.

For Lie algebra $`L`$ denote by $`U(L)`$ its universal enveloping algebra. Let $`Q(A)`$ be an ideal of $`U(L(A))`$ generated by elements

$$X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}=\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_i}\mathrm{}a_n)(a_ia_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}).$$

Let $`\overline{U}(A)`$ be factor-algebra of $`U(L(A))`$ over $`Q(A).`$

Any Lie module of $`L(A)`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module, if and only if it is trivial $`Q(A)`$-module. In other words, there are one-to one correspondence between $`n`$-Lie modules and $`\overline{U}(A)`$-modules. In this sense $`\overline{U}(A)`$ can be considered as universal enveloping algebra of $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A.`$

Let $`A`$ be a $`n`$-Lie algebra and $`M`$ be an $`A`$-module. For simplifying notations we will write $`\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$ instead of $`\omega _i(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n).`$ Then $`n`$-Lie module conditions can be written in a unique way

$$\omega (b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1},\omega (b_n,\mathrm{},b_{2n1}))=$$

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{2n1}{}}\omega (b_n,\mathrm{},b_{i1},\omega (b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1},b_i),\mathrm{},b_{i+1},\mathrm{},b_{2n1}),$$

for any $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{2n1}A+M.`$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A+M`$ be a direct sum of vector spaces $`A`$ and $`M.`$ Endow $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ by the structure of $`n`$-multiplication $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ by the following rules

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n),$$

if $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_nA,`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n)=\omega _i(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n),$$

if $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},a_{i+1},\mathrm{}A,`$ $`mM,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)=0,$$

if at least two elements of the set $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_n\}Q`$ belongs to $`M.`$

It is easy to check that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is skew-symmetric and that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ satisfies the Leibniz rule. So, $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is $`n`$-Lie, if $`A`$ is $`n`$-Lie and $`M`$ is $`n`$-Lie module over $`A.`$ Call $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ semi-direct sum or split extension of $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A`$ by $`A`$-module $`M.`$

Suppose that $`Q`$ is a $`n`$-Lie algebra with abelian ideal $`M,`$ such that $`Q/M`$ is $`n`$-Lie. Then $`M`$ has natural structure of $`n`$-Lie module over factor-algebra $`Q/M.`$ Suppose that $`Q`$ has subalgebra $`A`$ isomorphic to $`Q/M.`$ Then $`Q`$ is isomorphic to the semi-direct sum $`A+M.`$

Let $`M`$ be a $`n`$-Lie module over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A.`$ Let $`M_1`$ be a subspace of $`M,`$ such that $`\omega _i(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},m,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n1})N,`$ for any $`mM_1,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ and $`a_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{a_i},\mathrm{},a_{2n1}A.`$ In such case we will say that $`M_1`$ is $`n`$-Lie submodule or just submodule of $`M.`$ Any module has trivial submodules $`0`$ and $`M.`$ Call $`M`$ irreducible, if any its submodule is trivial. Call $`M`$ completely reducible, if it can be decomposed to a direct sum of irreducible submodules. Equivalent definition: $`M`$ is completely reducible, if for any submodule $`NM`$ one can find additional submodule $`SM,`$ such that $`MNS.`$

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`M`$ be a $`n`$-Lie module over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A.`$ Then any submodule, any factor-module and dual module of $`M`$ are also $`n`$-Lie modules. If $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are $`n`$-Lie modules over $`A,`$ then their direct sum $`M_1M_2`$ is also $`n`$-Lie module.

Proof. Consider $`M`$ as a Lie module of Lie algebra $`L(A).`$ Suppose that $`N`$ is a Lie submodule of $`M.`$ Denote by $`\rho _M`$ and $`\rho _N`$ representations of $`L(A)`$ on modules $`M`$ and $`N`$ correspondingly. By our condition $`M`$ is $`n`$-Lie module, therefore according (1),

$$\rho _M(\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i\rho _M(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_i}\mathrm{}a_n)\rho _M(a_ia_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A.`$ Since $`\rho _N(a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1})(m)=\rho _M(a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1})(m),`$ for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}A`$ and $`mN,`$ we have

$$\rho _N(\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i\rho _N(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_i}\mathrm{}a_n)\rho _N(a_ia_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}A.`$ Therefore, $`N`$ has a structure of $`n`$-module over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A.`$ By similar reasons $`M/N`$ is also $`n`$-Lie module.

It is evident that $`M_1M_2`$ under action $`[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},m_1+m_2]=[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},m_1]+[a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},m_2]`$ is $`n`$-Lie module.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`M`$ be a $`n`$-Lie module over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`A.`$ Then

* $`M`$ is irreducible, if and only if $`M`$ is irreducible as a Lie module over Lie algebra $`L(A).`$
* $`M`$ is completely reducible, if and only if $`M`$ is completely reducible as a Lie module over Lie algebra $`L(A)`$.

Proof. The first statement is evident. Irreducibility of $`M`$ as a Lie module of $`L(A)`$ and irreducibility of $`M`$ as $`n`$-Lie module are equivalent by definition.

Prove the second one. Let $`N`$ and $`S`$ be submodules of $`M`$, such that $`MNS.`$ Then $`N`$ and $`S`$ are Lie submodules of $`M`$ as modules over the Lie algebra $`L(A)`$ and $`MNS`$ as Lie modules. If $`M`$ is completely reducible as Lie module, then for any Lie submodule $`NM`$ one can find another Lie submodule $`S`$, such that $`MNS.`$ By proposition 2.1 $`N`$ and $`S`$ are also $`n`$-Lie submodules. So, $`MNS`$ as $`n`$-Lie modules.

## 3. Vector products $`n`$-Lie algebra and its modules

Let $`V_n`$ be a vector products $`n`$-Lie algebra over $`𝐂.`$ It is $`(n+1)`$-dimensional and the multiplication on a basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ is given by

$$[e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}]=(1)^ie_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

For example, $`V_2`$ is the vector products algebra on $`𝐂^3`$ and as a Lie algebra it is isomorphic to $`sl_2.`$

Recall that the Lie algebra of skew-symmetric $`n\times n`$-matrices $`so_n,`$ $`n3,`$ is semi-simple over $`K=𝐂.`$ More exactly, it is simple, if $`n4`$ and has type $`B_{[n/2]},`$ if $`n`$ is odd and type $`D_{n/2},`$ if $`n`$ is even. If $`n=4,`$ then $`so_4A_1A_1.`$ For $`n=3,`$ $`so_3A_1.`$

For $`\lambda 𝐐`$ denote by $`[\lambda ]`$ a maximal integer, such that $`[\lambda ]\lambda .`$ Let $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _{[n/2]}`$ be the fundamental weights of $`so_n`$ and $`M(\alpha )`$ be the irreducible $`so_n`$-module with highest weight $`\alpha .`$ Any highest weight can be characterized by $`[n/2]`$-typle of nonnegative integers $`\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_{[n/2]}\},`$ namely $`\alpha =_{i=1}^{[n/2]}\alpha _i\pi _i.`$ There is another way to describe highest weights.

Suppose that a sequence of integers or half-integers $`\lambda =\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{[n/2]}\}`$ satisfies the following conditions

* $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _{[n/2]}0`$, if $`n`$ is odd and $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}|\lambda _{n/2}|,`$ if $`n`$ is even.
* $`\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},[n/2],`$ are nonnegative integers, where $`\alpha _i=\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1},i=1,\mathrm{},[n/2]1`$ and $`\alpha _{[n/2]}=2\lambda _{[n/2]},`$ if $`n`$ is odd and $`\alpha _{n/2}=\lambda _{n/21}+\lambda _{n/2},`$ if $`n`$ is even.

Then any irreducible finite-dimensional $`so_n`$-module with highest weight $`\alpha `$ can be restored by a such sequence $`\lambda .`$

Let $`M`$ be an irreducible $`so_n`$-module. For $`n4,`$ set $`q(M)=r,`$ if its highest weight $`\alpha `$ satisfies the condition $`\alpha _r0,`$ but $`\alpha _r^{}=0,`$ for any $`r^{}>r.`$ For $`n=4,`$ set $`q(M)=1,`$ if $`so_4`$-module is isomorphic to $`M_{t,t},`$ for some nonnegative integer $`t`$ and $`q(M)=2,`$ if $`MM_{t,r},`$ for some $`tr.`$

Let $`\alpha `$ be a highest weight for $`so_n`$-module and $`n4.`$ Then $`q(\alpha )=1,`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ has the form $`k\pi _1`$ for some nonnegative integer $`k.`$

Any finite-dimensional irreducible $`sl_2`$-module is isomorphic to $`(l+1)`$-dimensional irreducible module $`M_l`$ with highest weight $`l.`$ Recall that any highest weight of $`sl_2`$ can be identified with a some nonnegative integer. As we mentioned above $`so_4sl_2sl_2.`$ Any irreducible $`so_4`$-module $`M`$ can be characterized by two nonnegative integers $`(t,r).`$ Namely, $`MM_{t,r}=M_tM_r,`$ where the action of $`a+b`$ on $`m+s,`$ where $`a`$ is an element of the first copy of $`sl_2`$ and $`b`$ is an element of the second copy of $`sl_2`$ and $`m^{}M_t,m^{\prime \prime }M_r,`$ is given by

$$(a+b)(m^{}m^{\prime \prime })=a(m^{})m^{\prime \prime }+m^{}b(m^{\prime \prime }).$$

Notice that in this realization to $`so_4`$-module $`M`$ with $`q(M)=1`$ corresponds the $`sl_2sl_2`$-module $`M_{t,t},`$ for $`t0,t𝐙.`$

In  is proved that $`V_n`$ is simple and any derivation of $`V_n`$ is interior. Therefore, $`^{n1}V_nIntV_n.`$ More detailed observation of his proof shows that takes place the following

###### Theorem 3.1.

For any $`n2,`$

$$DerV_nIntV_nso_{n+1}.$$

In particular,

$$L(V_2)V_2sl_2,$$

$$L(V_3)V_3V_3sl_2sl_2,$$

$$L(V_n)^{n1}V_nso_{n+1},n4.$$

In other words, take place the following isomorphisms of Lie algebras

$$V_2A_1,$$

$$L(V_3)A_1A_1,$$

$$L(V_n)B_{n/2},\text{ if }n4\text{ is even},$$

$$L(V_n)D_{(n+1)/2},\text{ if }n4\text{ is odd}.$$

###### Lemma 3.2.

The isomorphism of Lie algebras $`L(V_n)so_{n+1}`$ can be given by

$$e_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}e_{n+1}(1)^{i+j+n+1}e_{ij},i<j.$$

Proof. Easy calculations.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`M`$ be $`so_{n+1}`$-module. Define quadratic elements $`R_{ijsk}`$ of $`U(so_{n+1})`$ by

$$R_{ijsk}=e_{ij}e_{sk}+e_{is}e_{kj}+e_{ik}e_{js},1i,j,s,kn+1.$$

Then $`M`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie $`V_n`$-module, if and only if, $`R_{ijsk}m=0,`$ for any $`mM`$ and $`1in+1,1j<s<kn+1,i\{j,s,k\}.`$

Proof. Below we use the following notation. If $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$ are some vectors, then $`<a,b,c,\mathrm{}>`$ denotes their linear span and $`\{a,b,c,\mathrm{}\}`$ denotes the set of these elements (order of elements are not important) and by $`(a,b,c,\mathrm{})`$ we denote the vector with components $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$ (order of elements is important).

Notice that $`X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}`$ is skew-symmetric under arguments $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ and $`a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2}.`$ Therefore, $`X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}=0,`$ if dimension of the subspace $`<a_1,\mathrm{},a_n>`$ is less than $`n`$ or dimension of the subspace $`<a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2}>`$ is less than $`n2.`$

Suppose that $`dim<a_1,\mathrm{},a_n>=n.`$

Check that $`X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}=0,`$ if $`V_n<a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}>.`$ We can assume that $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}`$ are basic vectors. Suppose that $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}=\{e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}\}`$ for some $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}.`$ Since $`V_n`$ does not coincide with the subspace $`<a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}>`$ and therefore, its dimension is less than $`n+1,`$ we have $`\{a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2}\}=\{e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_j},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_s},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}\}`$ for some $`j,si,j<s.`$ Let for simplicity $`a_1=e_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1}=e_{i1},a_i=e_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n=e_{n+1}`$ and $`(a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2})=(e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_j},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_s},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}).`$

We have

$$\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\omega (e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},e_n)=(1)^ie_i.$$

Further

$$a_ra_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}=0,$$

if $`a_re_i,e_j,e_s.`$ Therefore,

$$(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_r}\mathrm{}a_n)(a_ra_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=0,$$

if $`a_re_i,e_j,e_s.`$

Let $`f:^{n1}V_nso_{n+1}`$ be the isomorphism of Lie algebras constructed in lemma 3.2. Prolong it to the isomorphism of universal enveloping algebras $`f:U(^{n1}V_n)U(so_{n+1}).`$

Thus,

$$f(\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)(a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}))=$$

$$f((1)^ie_ie_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_s}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})=$$

$$f(e_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_s}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})=$$

$$(1)^{j+s+n}e_{js}.$$

On the other hand

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{r+n}f(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_r}\mathrm{}a_n)f(a_ra_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=$$

$$(1)^{n+j1}f(e_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})f(e_je_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_s}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})$$

$$+(1)^{n+s1}f(e_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_s}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})f(e_se_1\mathrm{}\widehat{e_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_j}\mathrm{}\widehat{e_s}\mathrm{}e_{n+1})=$$

$$(1)^{j+s+n+1}e_{ij}e_{is}+(1)^{j+s+n}e_{is}e_{ij}=$$

$$(1)^{j+s+n}[e_{ij},e_{is}]=(1)^{j+s+n}e_{js}.$$

Therefore, $`f(X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}})=0,`$ and $`X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}}=0,`$ if the subspace generated by $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}`$ does not coincide with $`V_n.`$

Now suppose that $`V_n`$ is generated by elements $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}.`$ As above we can assume that these elements are basic elements and $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=(e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_i},\mathrm{},e_{n+1})`$ and $`(a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2})=(e_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{e_j},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{e_k},\mathrm{},e_{n+1})`$ for some $`1in+1,1j<s<kn+1,i\{j,s,k\}.`$ Then

$$\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2}=0,$$

since $`e_i\{a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n2}\}.`$ Calculations as above show that

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{r+n}f(a_1\mathrm{}\widehat{a_r}\mathrm{}a_n)f(a_ra_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{2n2})=$$

$$\pm R_{ijsk}.$$

So, $`f(X_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}})<R_{ijsk}:1in+1,1j,s,kn+1>.`$

Notice that $`R_{ijsk}`$ is skew-symmetric by arguments $`j,s,k.`$ Moreover,

$$R_{ijsk}=e_{ij}[e_{is},e_{ik}]e_{is}[e_{ik},e_{ij}]e_{ik}[e_{ij},e_{is}],$$

and,

$$R_{ijsk}=0,$$

if $`i\{j,s,k\}.`$

So, $`so_{n+1}`$-module $`M`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module, if and only if $`R_{ijsk}m=0,`$ for any $`mM,1in+1,1i<j<kn+1.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote by $`U_r(L)=<x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_r^{}:x_iL,r^{}r>`$ a subspace of $`U(L)`$ generated by products of $`r`$ elements. Let $`0U_1(L)=LU_2(L)\mathrm{}`$ be an increasing filtration of $`U(L)`$ and $`S(L)`$ be a symmetric algebra of $`L.`$ Endow $`U(L)`$ and $`S(L)grU(L)`$ by a structure of $`L`$-modules under adjoint action. Then $`S(L)=_{r0}S^r(L),`$ where $`S^r(L)U_r(L)/U_{r1}(L)`$ is a symmetric $`r`$-th power of adjoint representation. In particular, there is a natural imbedding $`Q_2(A)=Q(A)U_2(L(A))S^2(Ad).`$ One can establish the following isomorphisms of $`so_{n+1}`$-modules

$$Q_2(V_n)\{\begin{array}{cc}M(\pi _4),\hfill & \text{if }n10\hfill \\ M(\pi _4+\pi _5),\hfill & \text{if }n=9\hfill \\ M(2\pi _4),\hfill & \text{if }n=8\hfill \\ M(2\pi _4)+M(2\pi _3),\hfill & \text{if }n=7\hfill \\ M(2\pi _3),\hfill & \text{if }n=6\hfill \\ M(\pi _2+\pi _3),\hfill & \text{if }n=5\hfill \\ M(\pi _1),\hfill & \text{if }n=4\hfill \\ 𝐂,\hfill & \text{if }n=3\hfill \end{array}$$

Below we use branching rules for irreducible modules corresponding to the imbedding $`so_{n1}so_n`$ given in .

The proof of theorem 1.1 is based on the following

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`k>1.`$

i) Let $`M=M(\alpha )`$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible $`so_{2k+1}`$-module with highest weight $`\alpha =_{i=1}^k\alpha _i\pi _i.`$ Then $`M`$ as a module over Lie subalgebra $`so_{2k}`$ has a submodule, isomorphic to $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }=_{i=1}^k\overline{\alpha }_i\pi _i`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1,`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_k=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k.`$

ii) Let $`M=M(\alpha )`$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible $`so_{2k}`$-module with highest weight $`\alpha =_{i=1}^k\alpha _i\pi _i.`$ Then $`M`$ as a module over Lie subalgebra $`so_{2k1}`$ has a submodule, isomorphic to $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }=_{i=1}^{k1}\overline{\alpha }_i\pi _i`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},k2,`$ $`\overline{\alpha }_{k1}=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k.`$

Proof.

i) Take

$$\lambda _k=\alpha _k/2,\lambda _i=\underset{j=i}{\overset{k1}{}}\alpha _j+\alpha _k/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}ik.$$

According branching theorem 12.1b  any $`so_{2k}`$-submodule of $`M(\alpha )`$ has weight of the form $`\overline{\alpha },`$ such that corresponding $`\overline{\lambda }`$ satisfies the following inequality

$$\lambda _1|\overline{\lambda }_1|\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _{k1}|\overline{\lambda }_{k1}|\lambda _k|\overline{\lambda }_k|.$$

The $`\overline{\lambda }_j`$ are integral or half-integral according to what the $`\lambda _j`$ are. If we take $`\overline{\lambda }_i:=\lambda _i,`$ then such $`\overline{\lambda }`$ satisfies these conditions. Therefore, $`M(\alpha )`$ has $`so_{2k}`$-submodule isomorphic to $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }=_{i=1}^k\overline{\alpha }_i\pi _i,`$ $`\overline{\alpha }_i=\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_{i+1}=\alpha _i,`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1,`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_k=\overline{\lambda }_{k1}+\overline{\lambda }_k=\lambda _{k1}+\lambda _k=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k.`$ So, the $`so_{2k+1}`$-module $`M(\alpha )`$ as $`so_{2k}`$-module has a submodule isomorphic to $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }=_{i=1}^{k1}\alpha _i\pi _i+(\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k)\pi _k.`$

ii) We have

$$\alpha _i=\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1},1ik1,\alpha _k=\lambda _{k1}+\lambda _k.$$

By branching theorem 12.1a  any $`so_{2k1}`$-submodule of $`M(\alpha )`$ is isomorphic to $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ such that corresponding $`\overline{\lambda }`$ satisfies the following inequality

$$\lambda _1|\overline{\lambda }_1|\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _{k1}|\overline{\lambda }_{k1}||\lambda _k|.$$

The $`\overline{\lambda }_j`$ are integral or half-integral according to what the $`\lambda _j`$ are. Notice that a sequence $`\overline{\lambda }`$ constructed by the following way satisfies these conditions

$$\overline{\lambda }_i=\lambda _i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}in1.$$

So, $`so_{2k}`$-module $`M(\alpha )`$ as $`so_{2k1}`$-module has submodule $`M(\overline{\alpha }),`$ where

$$\overline{\alpha }_i=\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_{i+1}=\alpha _i,1ik2,$$

$$\overline{\alpha }_{k1}=2\overline{\lambda }_{k1}=2\lambda _{k1}=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k.$$

###### Corollary 3.5.

Let $`n>4`$ and $`M`$ be irreducible $`so_n`$-module such that $`q(M)>1.`$ Then $`M`$ as a module over subalgebra $`so_{n1}so_n`$ has a submodule isomorphic to $`\overline{M},`$ such that $`q(\overline{M})>1.`$

Proof. It is easy to see that for irreducible module $`M`$ with highest weight $`\alpha ,`$ the condition $`q(M)>1,`$ is equivalent to the condition $`_{i>1}\alpha _i>0.`$

Let $`\overline{\alpha }`$ be highest weight of $`so_{n1},`$ defined by $`\overline{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},k1,`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_k=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k,`$ if $`n=2k+1,`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},k2,`$ $`\overline{\alpha }_{k1}=\alpha _{k1}+\alpha _k,`$ if $`n=2k.`$

Notice that

$$\underset{i>1}{}\overline{\alpha }_i=\underset{i>1}{}\alpha _i+2\alpha _{k1}\underset{i>1}{}\alpha _i,$$

if $`n=2k+1,k>1`$ and

$$\underset{i>1}{}\overline{\alpha }_i=\underset{i>1}{}\alpha _i,$$

if $`n=2k,k>2.`$

By theorem 3.4 $`so_n`$-module $`M=M(\alpha )`$ as $`so_{n1}`$-module has a submodule isomorphic to $`\overline{M}=M(\overline{\alpha }).`$ If $`q(M)>1,`$ then $`q(\overline{M})>1.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that $`gl_n`$ can be realized as a Lie algebra of derivations of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ of the form $`_{i,j=1}^n\lambda _{ij}x_i_j,`$ $`\lambda _{ij}K.`$ Its subalgebra $`so_n`$ is generated by elements $`e_{ij}=x_i_jx_j_i.`$ The set $`\{e_{ij}:1i<jn\}`$ consists of basis of $`so_n.`$ The multiplication on $`so_n`$ can be given by

$$[e_{ij},e_{sk}]=0,\text{ if }|\{i,j,s,k\}|=4,$$

$$[e_{ij},e_{is}]=e_{js},[e_{ij},e_{js}]=e_{is},[e_{is},e_{js}]=e_{ij}.$$

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`M=M_{t,r}`$ be an irreducible $`so_4`$-module. Then $`M`$ can be prolonged to $`3`$-module over $`3`$-Lie vector products algebra $`V_3,`$ if and only if $`t=r.`$

Proof. The algebra $`so_4`$ has the basis $`\{e_{ij}:1i<j4\}.`$ Take here another basis $`\{f_i:1i6\},`$ by

$$f_1=(e_{12}+e_{34})/2,f_2=(e_{13}e_{24})/2,f_3=(e_{14}+e_{23})/2,$$

$$f_4=(e_{12}+e_{34})/2,f_5=(e_{13}+e_{24})/2,f_6=(e_{14}+e_{23})/2.$$

Then

$$[f_1,f_2]=f_3,[f_1,f_3]=f_2,[f_2,f_3]=f_1,$$

$$[f_4,f_5]=f_6,[f_5,f_6]=f_4,[f_6,f_4]=f_5,$$

$$[f_i,f_j]=,i=1,2,3,j=4,5,6.$$

We see that

$$e_{12}=f_1f_4,e_{13}=f_2+f_5,e_{14}=f_3f_6,$$

$$e_{23}=f_3+f_6,e_{24}=f_2+f_5,e_{34}=f_1+f_4,$$

and

$$R_{1234}=e_{12}e_{34}e_{13}e_{24}+e_{14}e_{23}=$$

$$f_1^2f_4^2+f_2^2f_5^2+f_3^2f_6^2=$$

$$C_1C_2,$$

where

$$C_1=f_1^2+f_2^2+f_3^2,C_2=f_4^2+f_5^2+f_6^2,$$

are Casimir elements of subalgebras $`<f_1,f_2,f_3>sl_2`$ and $`<f_4,f_5,f_6>sl_2.`$ Well known that any irreducible finite-dimensional $`sl_2`$-module is uniquely defined by eigenvalue of the Casimir operator on this module. Therefore, $`M_{t,r}`$ is $`3`$-Lie module, if and only if $`t=r.`$

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`n>3.`$ Any irreducible $`so_{n+1}`$-module $`M(t\pi _1)`$ can be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module of $`V_n.`$ Let $`M`$ be an irreducible $`so_{n+1}`$-module with $`q(M)>1.`$ Then $`M`$ can not be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module over $`n`$-Lie algebra $`V_n.`$

Proof. Let $`n>3.`$ Let us consider realization of $`M(t\pi _1)`$ as a space of homogeneous polynomials $`_{1i_1\mathrm{}i_tn+1}\lambda _{i_1\mathrm{}i_t}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_t}.`$

By lemma 3.3 we need to check that

$$R_{ijsk}u=0,\text{ for }u=x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_t},$$

for any $`\{i,j,s,k\}`$, such that $`1in+1,`$ $`1jskn+1,`$ $`i\{j,s,k\}`$ and $`1i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_tn+1.`$

Let $`I=\{i,j,s,k\}.`$ Present $`u`$ in the form $`vw,`$ where $`v=_{lI\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_t\}}x_l`$ and $`w=_{l\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_t\}I}x_l.`$ Notice that

$$R_{ijsk}(vw)=R_{ijsk}(v)w.$$

Therefore it is enough to check that $`R_{ijsk}(v)=0,`$ for elements $`vM(t\pi _1)`$ of the form

$$v=x_ix_jx_sx_k,1in+1,1j<s<kn+1,i\{j,s,k\},$$

$$v=x_jx_sx_k,1jskn+1,$$

$$v=x_ix_sx_k,1in+1,1skn+1,$$

$$v=x_jx_k,1jkn+1,$$

$$v=x_ix_k,1in+1,1kn+1,$$

$$v=x_k,1kn+1,$$

$$v=x_i,1in+1.$$

Let $`ij,s,k.`$ Then

$$R_{ijsk}(x_ix_jx_sx_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_ix_jx_s^2x_ix_jx_k^2)+e_{is}(x_ix_sx_k^2x_ix_j^2x_s)+e_{ik}(x_ix_j^2x_kx_ix_s^2x_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_ix_j)x_s^2e_{ij}(x_ix_j)x_k^2+e_{is}(x_ix_s)x_k^2e_{is}(x_ix_s)x_j^2+e_{ik}(x_ix_k)x_j^2e_{ik}(x_ix_k)x_s^2=$$

$$(x_i^2x_j^2)x_s^2(x_i^2x_j^2)x_k^2+(x_i^2x_s^2)x_k^2(x_i^2x_s^2)x_j^2+(x_i^2x_k^2)x_j^2(x_i^2x_k^2)x_s^2=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_jx_sx_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_jx_s^2x_jx_k^2)+e_{is}(x_sx_k^2x_j^2x_s)+e_{ik}(x_j^2x_kx_s^2x_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_j)x_s^2e_{ij}(x_j)x_k^2+e_{is}(x_s)x_k^2e_{is}(x_s)x_j^2+e_{ik}(x_k)x_j^2e_{ik}(x_k)x_s^2=$$

$$x_ix_s^2x_ix_k^2+x_ix_k^2x_ix_j^2+x_ix_j^2x_ix_s^2=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_ix_sx_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_ix_s^2x_ix_k^2)+e_{is}(x_ix_jx_s)+e_{ik}(x_ix_jx_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_i)x_s^2e_{ij}(x_i)x_k^2e_{is}(x_ix_s)x_j+e_{ik}(x_ix_k)x_j=$$

$$x_jx_s^2+x_jx_k^2x_i^2x_j+x_s^2x_j+x_i^2x_jx_k^2x_j=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_sx_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_s^2x_k^2)+e_{is}(x_jx_s)+e_{ik}(x_jx_k)=x_j^2+x_j^2=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_ix_k)=$$

$$e_{ij}(x_ix_s)+e_{is}(x_ix_j)=x_jx_s+x_sx_j=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_k)=e_{ij}(x_s)+e_{is}(x_j)=0,$$

$$R_{ijsk}(x_i)=0.$$

So, we have checked that $`Q(V_n)M(t\pi _1)=0,`$ if $`n>3.`$

Suppose now that $`q(M)>1.`$ We need to prove that $`R_{ijsk}m0,`$ for some $`1in+1,1j<s<kn+1`$ and $`mM.`$

Let us use induction on $`n3.`$ If $`n=3,`$ then by lemma 3.6 any irreducible $`so_{n+1}`$-module $`M`$ with $`q(M)>1`$ can not be prolonged to $`n`$-Lie module. Suppose that the statement is true for $`n13.`$ If $`q(M)>1`$ for $`so_{n+1}`$-module $`M,`$ then by corollary 3.5 there exists its $`so_n`$-submodule $`\overline{M},`$ such that $`q(\overline{M})>1.`$ Then by inductive suggestion there exists some $`R_{ijsk}Q(V_{n1})U(so_n)`$ and $`m\overline{M},`$ such that $`R_{ijsk}m0.`$ Since $`m\overline{M}M`$ and $`R_{ijsk}U(so_n)U(so_{n+1}),`$ this means that $`R_{ijsk}m0`$ as elements of $`M.`$ So, we have proved that our statement for $`n.`$

Proof of theorem 1.1.

i) By theorem 3.1 Lie algebra $`^{n1}V_nso_{n+1}`$ is semi-simple. Therefore, by Weyl theorem and proposition 2.2, any any finite-dimensional $`n`$-Lie representation of $`V_n`$ is completely reducible.

ii) and iii) For $`n=2`$ our statements are evident. Let $`n>2.`$ By lemma 3.7 and lemma 3.6 $`M(t\pi _1),n>3,`$ or $`M_{t,t},n=3,`$ is $`V_n`$-module for any nonnegative integer $`t`$ and any module with $`q(M)>1`$ can not be $`n`$-Lie module.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to INTAS foundation for support.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic bound-state calculations in Light Front Dynamics

## 1 Introduction

There are several ways of calculating the bound states of a system in the context of quantum field theory. We have chosen to calculate the bound states in a quantum field theoretical approach in Light Front Dynamics (LFD), since LFD is very well suited for this problem (see e.g. , ).

Our goal is to move towards QCD, but before treating a realistic system we have done calculations in the scalar case. In the case that a massless particle is exchanged ($`\mu =0`$) we treat the Wick-Cutkosky model. An extended version of this model is used in the case that a particle with mass ($`\mu 0`$) is exchanged. Work on this subject has already been done by others; e.g. .

After setting up the equation and explaining which method we use to solve it (section 2), we will present some results in section 3. At the end we will give a short conclusion and outlook.

## 2 Setting up the problem and solving it

The physical system we have looked at consists of two scalar particles of equal mass $`m`$ exchanging another scalar particle. This particle can either have a mass equal to zero ($`\mu =0`$) or it can have a mass $`\mu `$ unequal to zero. The Lagrangian for this system is given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2g\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^2,`$
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant.

Taking along only two and three particle states, we can derive the bound-state equation from this lagrangian. It is given by:

$`[M^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{x(1x)}}]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{},x)=`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}dx^{}K(\stackrel{}{p}_{},x;\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{},x^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{},x^{})}.`$
Here $`M`$ is the total mass of the system and $`K(\stackrel{}{p}_{},x;\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{},x^{})`$ is the kernel of the equation. There are several possible expressions for the kernel, depending on what approximation we make. Here we have been working in the ladder approximation. In first order we have two time ordered diagrams (Fig. 1).

Each of these diagrams corresponds to an energy denominator which is present in the kernel of the bound-state equation (Eq. (2)). The total kernel contains, besides the energy denominators, a phase-space factor and a theta function, which determines in which time-ordering we are working.

For the total kernel we can write:

$`K(\stackrel{}{p}_{},x;`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{},x^{})=`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }(x,x^{})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x^{}x)}{2(x^{}x)D_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x^{}x)}{2(xx^{})D_b}}\right).`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,x^{})`$ is representing the phase-space factor, which is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,x^{})=\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})},`$ (4)
and $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ are the energy denominators corresponding to left or right graph in Fig. 1. The expressions for these energy denominators are:

$`D_a`$ $`=`$ $`M^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{1x^{}}}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{})^2+\mu ^2}{x^{}x}},`$
$`D_b`$ $`=`$ $`M^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{x^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{1x}}`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})^2+\mu ^2}{xx^{}}}.`$
The bound-state equation has been solved by making an expansion into basis functions, symmetrizing it and then using Gaussian integration to solve it. The wave functions depend on both $`x`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ and we have used two different functions to expand in. For the $`x`$ part of the wave function we have used cubic spline functions and for the $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ part we have used a basis which was first introduced by Olsson  and Weniger . We have tested the latter basis in instant form  and we have seen that it works well.

## 3 Results

Using the method described in the previous section, we are able to calculate the spectra and wave functions in case of massless exchange as well as in the case of massive exchange. Here we have to remark that we did not take into account any higher order terms in the Hamiltonian or self energy diagrams.

First of all we have looked at how many functions we need to take along to reach a reasonable convergence. A reasonable number of spline functions to take into account in the calculations is 10. Although 8 spline functions is a bit on the low side, it already gives good results as well. For the Olsson Weniger functions we need to take 3 functions to reach a good convergence. Taking less functions already gives a good convergence in the lower states, but not in the higher excited states. Note that increasing the number of Olsson Weniger functions in the expansion causes a large increase in computer time. Due to this we have chosen to use 8 spline functions and 3 Olsson Weniger functions in the expansion to obtain the results presented here.

In the case of massless exchange ($`\mu =0.0`$) we have calculated the masses given in the second column of table 1. In the third column of this table the masses of the bound states are given in the case of massive exchange ($`\mu =0.15`$). In both cases we have used a mass $`m=1.0`$ for the particles and a coupling constant of $`g=17.36`$.

We have also calculated the wave functions corresponding to the masses given in table 1. For the massless case the wave functions corresponding to the first three states are given in Fig. 2, 3 and 4.

The wave function corresponding to the ground state in the case of massive exchange ($`\mu =0.15`$) is given in Fig. 5. Looking at these figures one should notice that the wave functions are not drawn in the ordinary way. This is due to the fact that the wave function depends on $`x`$ (the fraction of the $`p^+`$-momentum) and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}`$, instead of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ as is usually the case.

## 4 Conclusions and outlook

The bound-state equation in the scalar case is solved by making an expansion into basis functions. The basis we have used is well suited for this problem and we expect it to work in more realistic cases as well. With this method we can calculate the ground state as well as excited states in both cases, massless and massive exchange.

The plans for the future are to move towards a more realistic system, i.e. to include spin. And also to included higher order terms in the Hamiltonian and see whether these terms give a large contribution.


text:
# Microscopic three-body force for asymmetric nuclear matter

## Abstract

Brueckner calculations including a microscopic three-body force have been extended to isospin asymmetric nuclear matter. The effects of the three-body force on the equation of state and on the single-particle properties of nuclear matter are discussed with a view to possible applications in nuclear physics and astrophysics. It is shown that, even in the presence of the three-body force, the empirical parabolic law of the energy per nucleon vs isospin asymmetry $`\beta =(NZ)/A`$ is fulfilled in the whole asymmetry range $`0\beta 1`$ up to high densities. The three-body force provides a strong enhancement of symmetry energy increasing with the density in good agreement with relativistic approaches. The Lane’s assumption that proton and neutron mean fields linearly vary vs the isospin parameter is violated at high density in the presence of the three-body force. Instead the momentum dependence of the mean fields is rather insensitive to three body force which brings about a linear isospin deviation of the neutron and proton effective masses. The isospin effects on multifragmentation events and collective flows in heavy-ion collisions are briefly discussed along with the conditions for direct URCA processes to occur in the neutron-star cooling.

PACS numbers: 25.70-z, 13.75.Cs, 21.65.+f, 24.10.Cn

Keywords: three body force, asymmetric nuclear matter, isospin

1 e-mail: lombardo@lns.infn.it

1. Introduction

The equation of state (EOS) of neutron-rich matter is a source of important theoretical predictions on the properties of neutron stars, heavy-ion collisions (HIC) and nuclei at the neutron drip line . The interest has been mainly focussed on the properties of the symmetry energy, including its dependence upon the baryonic density. Studies of neutron-star cooling , spin-polarized states , collective flows and isospin distillation in HIC  have stressed that those phenomena are very sensitive to the values of the symmetry energy in the respective density domains. The EOS of isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter has been recently studied in the framework of the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) theory . The convergence of the BBG hole-line expansion has been assessed in recent times with high accuracy , even if the the saturation properties of nuclear matter are not reproduced. It is commonly recognized that the missing saturation is due to the model of nucleons as structureless particles interacting via a bare two-body force (2BF) and one has to introduce three-body forces (3BF). The first microscopic model of 3BF was the Fujita-Miyazawa model  where the isobar $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ is excited in a pion exchange interaction between two nucleons. The model was later extended to the $`N(1440)`$ Roper resonance . It has been also recognized that the main relativistic effect introduced by Dirac-Brueckner approach is the excitation of the negative energy states of the Fermi sea which can be described in terms of a 3TB  as well.

The above mentioned 3BF components have a strong saturating effect as already shown by a Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) calculation with the Paris potential as 2BF . This 3BF has been re-adopted in Ref.  in combination with the Argonne $`V_{18}`$  as two-body component. In Ref.  it was discussed the EOS of pure neutron matter and a preliminary prediction fos given for the symmetry energy based on the shift between the energy of pure neutron matter and symmetric nuclear matter. But one may argue that 3BF could modify the $`\beta ^2`$ law fulfilled by the binding energy of asymmetric nuclear matter specially at high density and higher order terms in the $`\beta `$ expansion could significantly limit the role played by the symmetry energy in describing the isospin effects. All that required to to extend the calculation of the EOS to the full range $`0<\beta <1`$ in a baryonic density range high enough. In this paper we present the results of such a calculation. After describing the model of TBF (Sec. 2) we will focus on the 3BF effects on binding energy, symmetry energy and single-particle properties of asymmetric nuclear matter (Sec. 3). Then a few direct applications in the neutron star cooling and in the isospin properties of HIC will be shortly discussed along with a comparison with other approaches (Sec. 4).

2. Isospin dependent 3BF

The microscopic 3BF adopted in the present calculation is based on the meson-exchange current approach.It is described in full detail in Ref. . The new meson parameters calculated to meet the self-consistent requirement with the adopted $`AV_{18}`$ 2BF are reported in Ref. .

It has been shown  that the main contributions to 3BF rise from the two-meson exchange part of the NN interaction medium modified by the intermediate virtual excitation of nucleon resonances (isobar $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ and Roper $`N(1440)`$) (Fig. 1a) and from the two-meson exchange part with nucleon-antinucleon virtual excitation (Fig. 1d). This latter contains the relativistic effects associated to the dressed spinors of the Dirac-Brueckner approach . The terms associated to the non-linear $`\pi `$-nucleon coupling required by the chiral symmetry  play a minor role specially above the saturation density, where heavy mesons ($`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$) are dominating over the $`2\pi `$-3BF (Fig. 1b, diagrams without heavy mesons). The contribution due to meson-meson coupling (Fig. 1c) is also negligible  and was not considered in the present calculation. In the context of non relativistic approaches phenomenological 3BF have also been introduced in the calculations of nuclear matter. They are modelled on the saturation properties of nuclear matter and/or binding energies of light nuclei. A good agreement between microscopic and phenomenological 3BF is found only when this latter is treated within the Brueckner approach .

The general Brueckner formalism for asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM) with 2BF’s is described in Ref. . The rigorous procedure to include 3BF would require to solve the Bethe-Faddeev equation with a 3BF much the same as already done to calculate the three-body clusters in the BBG hole-line expansion . But at this moment this appears a formidable task and we are content to follow a simplified procedure based on converting the 3BF into an effective two-body force via a suitable integration over the third-nucleon degrees of freedom. The integral is weighted over the correlation function of the third nucleon with the two others . The effective 2BF for asymmetric nuclear matter is defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}<\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|V_3^{\tau _1\tau _2}|\stackrel{}{r}_1^{}\stackrel{}{r}_2^{}>\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\underset{\tau _3}{}\underset{\sigma _3}{}\underset{n}{}d\stackrel{}{r}_3d\stackrel{}{r}_3^{}\varphi _n^{}(\tau _3\stackrel{}{r}_3^{})(1\eta _{\tau _1,\tau _3}(r_{13}^{}))(1\eta _{\tau _2,\tau _3}(r_{23}^{}))\hfill \\ & \times \hfill & W_3(\stackrel{}{r}_1^{}\stackrel{}{r}_2^{}\stackrel{}{r}_3^{}|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2\stackrel{}{r}_3)\varphi _n(\tau _3r_3)(1\eta _{\tau _1,\tau _3}(r_{13}))(1\eta _{\tau _2,\tau _3}(r_{23}))\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The function $`\eta _{\tau _1\tau _2}(r)`$ is the average over spin and momenta in the Fermi sea of the defect function, of which only the most important partial wave components have been included, i.e. the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ partial waves.

The transformation of the 3BF to an effective 2BF entails a selfconsistent coupling between 3BF and Brueckner procedure of solving the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone equations. One first calculates the correlation function with only the 2BF and then builds up the effective 3BF which in turn is added to the 2BF, and again calculates the correlation function and so on up to the convergence is reached. As previously mentioned the bare 2BF adopted in the calculations was the charge dependent $`AV_{18}`$. The partial wave expansion of full interaction has been truncated at $`l_{max}=6`$.

3. Numerical results

The EOS of ANM has been calculated spanning the whole asymmetry range with a step-size $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =.2`$ and a density domain up to 0.45fm-3. The case of symmetric nuclear matter ($`\beta =0`$) is discussed in Ref.  (the saturation properties are reported in Table 1). The results for ANM are displayed in Fig. 2 for both cases with (left panel) and without (right panel) the 3BF. In the figure energy shift for asymmetric-to-symmetric nuclear matter is reported versus $`\beta ^2`$. The individual runs (symbols in the Figure) are depicted along with their linear fits (solid lines) performed with only the first three values of asymmetry parameter $`\beta `$. From the comparison between the two sets of calculations one may notice that, despite its strongly density dependent repulsive effect, the 3BF does not violate the $`\beta ^2`$ law fulfilled already with only 2BF. The rather good agreement between the symbols and the corresponding lines (maximum deviation is $`6\%`$ ) indicates the high quality of the $`\beta ^2`$ law up to the largest densities. This is a quite astonishing result because the 3BF introduces a strong density and isospin dependence, making the nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction quite different from the pure 2BF. On the other hand, it is a quite desirable result indeed for two reasons. First, this (in agreement with previous studies using alone charge-independent 2BF) provides a strong support to the applications based on the EOS of $`AMN`$ extracted from the empirical $`\beta ^2`$–law. Second, it imposes also strict theoretical constrains on the phenomenological nuclear forces when extended to $`AMN`$. We have in mind the Skyrme forces which have been fit around the saturation point of symmetric nuclear matter and include an effective density-dependent term to simulate the effects of 3BF.

In Table 1 the saturation properties of ANM are shown with and without 3BF. One may just notice that the compression modulus results smaller with 3BF despite the strong enhancement of the curvature of the EOS. This is due to the fact that it is also proportional to the square of the saturation density, which turns out to be very much reduced.

The symmetry energy is defined as

$$E_{sym}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{^2B(\rho ,\beta )}{\beta ^2}\right]_{\beta =0}.$$
(2)
Due to the simple $`\beta ^2`$-law the symmetry energy can be equivalently calculated as the difference between the energy per nucleon of pure neutron matter and symmetric nuclear matter, i.e.,

$$E_{sym}(\rho )=E_A(\rho ,1)E_A(\rho ,0).$$
(3)
Fig. 3 shows the effect of the 3BF on the symmetry energy in the density domain considered in this study. At the saturation density the two values do not significantly differ: 30.71 MeV (3BF included) and 29.28 MeV (no 3BF). Both are in good agreement with the empirical value $`30.\pm 4`$ MeV extracted from the nuclear mass table . Above $`\rho _0`$ the 3BF gives a strong enhancement of symmetry energy since it is strongly repulsive at high density. Both curves, with and without the 3BF, have been parametrized by simple power laws as follows,

* BHF with pure $`AV_{18}`$ 2BF

$$E_{sym}=30.7u^{0.58}$$
(4)
* BHF using $`AV_{18}`$ plus the 3BF

$$\begin{array}{cccc}E_{sym}\hfill & =\hfill & 30.71u^{0.6}\hfill & u1\hfill \\ & =\hfill & 30.71+18.42(u1)+9(u1)^2\hfill & u>1\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)

where $`u=\rho /\rho _0`$, and $`\rho _0=0.17`$fm-3 the empirical saturation density. The above simple relations, plotted in Fig. 3 (right panel), may be useful in HIC simulations.

In Fig. 3 (left panel) $`E_{sym}`$ vs density is compared with other approaches. Despite the overall agreement with the predictions of both relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory  and Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach (DBHF) , the density dependence is found to be rather different. Both RMF and DBHF theories predict an almost linear variation of $`E_{sym}`$ vs. density. Instead, the present BHF calculation with the 3BF gives a slower varying $`E_{sym}`$ vs. $`\rho `$ at relatively low densities, say from $`\rho 0.03`$fm-3 to $`\rho 0.25`$fm-3. Such a slow variation vs. density is also found in a density region up to $`\rho 0.2`$fm-3 in Ref.  from the three-loop approximation of chiral perturbation theory. In this density region, the shape of $`E_{sym}`$ plays an important role as to the study of the isospin effects in HIC at intermediate energy as discussed later. On the contrary, in the relatively high density domain, i.e., $`\rho 0.3`$fm-3, the present calculation predicts a steeper density dependence of $`E_{sym}`$ than DBHF and RMF.

Due to the isospin effect the proton and neutron single-particle potentials are different. As discussed in Ref.  where only the charge-independent $`AV_{14}`$ 2BF was used, the attractive $`T=0`$ $`SD`$ channel contribution in the two-body NN interaction mainly drives the isospin dependence of the proton and neutron mean fields. As a result, the proton mean field becomes more attractive while the neutron one more repulsive as increasing asymmetry. In the BHF approximation both mean fields vary linearly with the asymmetry parameter $`\beta `$, which is in keeping with the $`\beta ^2`$ dependence of the energy per particle. A potential linearly dependent on $`\beta `$ was introduced phenomenologically long ago  and is referred to as Lane potential. Due to the importance of the single-particle properties such as mean field and effective mass in HIC physics , it is of some interest to explore the effect of the 3BF on such quantities. The proton and neutron mean fields are shown as a function of momentum $`k`$ at different asymmetries $`\beta =0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8`$ in Fig. 4 for the saturation density $`\rho =0.17`$fm-3 and in Fig. 5 for high density $`\rho =0.34`$fm-3. In both figures the left panels display the results using $`AV_{18}`$ plus the 3BF and the right panels those using pure $`AV_{18}`$. As expected, the 3BF adds a repulsive contribution to both proton and neutron mean fields at all asymmetries. At relatively low density (Fig. 4), the proton mean field with 3BF becomes more attractive, which is in agreement with the 2BF prediction. However the validity of the linear Lane assumption is broken by 3BF as more clearly seen in the left panel of Fig. 6, where the isospin variation of the proton and neutron mean fields are plotted at momentum $`k=0`$. At relatively high density (Figs. 5 and 6), the 3BF force effect becomes much more pronounced and in fact it brings a strong deviation from the linear Lane assumption. The neutron mean field rises up more rapidly as compared to the results with pure $`AV_{18}`$. The same happens to the proton potential which at a certain asymmetry becomes even more repulsive. . This remarkable result can be explained by the competition between the isospin dependence of the 3BF and the contribution from the attractive $`T=0`$ $`SD`$ channel. As increasing isospin asymmetry the 3BF repulsion starts to compete with the $`T=0`$ $`SD`$ channel 2BF attraction, and becomes the dominant one at density high enough.

The effective mass, which is related to the non-locality (momentum dependence) of the neutron and proton mean fields, is defined as

$$\frac{m_\tau ^{}(k)}{m}=\frac{k}{m}\left(\frac{dE^\tau (k)}{dk}\right)^1.$$
(6)
The momentum dependence of $`m^{}`$ is featured by a wide bump inside the Fermi sphere due to the high probability amplitude for particle-hole excitations near the Fermi surface. The isospin dependence of the proton and neutron effective masses at their respective Fermi momentum $`k_F^p`$ and $`k_F^n`$ are given in the right panel of Fig. (6). The 3BF does not affect the linear scissor-shaped behavior observed in the previous calculations using a pure 2BF . One should notice that the isospin effect on neutron and proton effective masses in the Brueckner approach goes the other way around than in the RMF approach . This discrepancy is to be understood taking also into account the different definitions of effective mass in the two approaches.

4. Summary and discussion

In the present work the microscopic 3BF based on meson-exchange current approach has been extended and applied to isospin ANM in the framework of the Brueckner theory. The 3BF effects on the isospin dependence of both the nuclear EOS and single-particle properties have been investigated.

The results confirm the validity of the $`\beta ^2`$ law for the energy per nucleon in the entire range of isospin asymmetry and up to high density in spite of the strong isospin and density dependence of the 3BF. As a consequence the isospin effects in ANM are just driven by the symmetry energy as in the case with only the 2BF. The vanishing of higher powers in the $`\beta ^2`$ expansion also supports the simple recipe often adopted to extract the symmetry energy from the two limiting cases of symmetric nuclear matter and pure neutron matter . It also constraints theoretically the phenomenological interactions, such as the Skyrme forces which take into account the effect of 3BF by a density dependent term.

As expected, the 3BF improves the saturation properties of symmetric nuclear matter by shifting the equilibrium density close to the empirical value. At relatively low density, the 3BF effect on the nuclear symmetry energy is quite small. On the contrary, at high density, it brings a strong enhancement and consequently the symmetry energy rises with density more steeply than the corresponding 2BF prediction. The non linear increase of symmetry energy at high density has also been observed in a recent relativistic Hartree-Fock calculation  as the ‘Fock’ exchange effect of the non linear scalar self-interactions. But in the same Ref. , it is also shown that at sub-nuclear densities, the Fock contribution could result in a softening of the symmetry potential term.

The density dependence of the symmetry energy has been parametrized for the sake of application in HIC with very neutron-rich ions. It has been shown already that isospin fractionation  in multifragmentation events is very sensitive to the density dependence of $`E_{sym}`$ in the low density region. In particular, in Ref.  is shown that using an isospin stiff nuclear EOS with symmetry energy curvature equal to -69 MeV (very close to the present value of -66 MeV) leads to a remarkable value for the liquid-to-gas isospin asymmetry ratio which is consistent with the experimental prediction . An isospin scaling has been proposed in multifragmentation events of HIC, which turns out to be also very sensitive to the density dependence of $`E_{sym}`$. Using the expanding evaporating source model and adopting for $`E_{sym}`$ the simple parametrization $`C(\rho /\rho _0)^\gamma `$ the fragment data can be fairly well reproduced by taking $`\gamma =0.6`$  , which coincides with the fit of our microscopic value (cfr. Eq. (5)).

The preequilibrium particle emission  and collective flows  can instead probe the symmetry energy in the range of high density, say up to two times the saturation density, but only with an isospin stiff EOS which is in agreement with our prediction.

In the high density range the symmetry energy is also relevant to the study of the neutron-star properties such as the cooling mechanism. In fact, a steep increase of $`E_{sym}`$ with density favours the direct URCA processes . In Fig. 7 the proton fraction is reported for $`\beta `$-equilibrium nuclear matter in different approximations. The threshold of direct URCA processes is only crossed by the results with 3BF at a reasonable value of the neutron-star density.

As to the single-particle properties, the effect of the 3BF is to add an extra repulsion to both proton and neutron mean fields so that the linear Lane assumption breaks down slightly around the saturation density but quite strongly at high density. However, the scissor-shaped behavior of the proton and neutron effective masses vs. $`\beta `$ remains unchanged being the momentum dependence of the mean fields rather insensitive to 3BF. In a calculation not reported here it was found that the 3BF affects only slightly the rearrangement contribution to the nuclear mean field and can not improve the fulfillment of Hughenoltz-Van Hove theorem (see Ref. ). This requires to go beyond BHF approximation in the expansion of mass operator that is a work still in progress.

Acknowledgments:

One of us (W. Z.) would like to thank INFN-LNS and the Physics Department of the Catania University (Italy) for their hospitality during the preparation of the present work.

This work has been supported in part by the Chinese Academy of Science, within the one Hundred Person Project, the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China under No. G2000077400.

Tab. 1 - Equilibrium density of asymmetric nuclear matter, incompressibility and energy per nucleon at equilibrium density corresponding to four different values of asymmetry $`\beta `$.

|  | $`AV_{18}+3BF`$ | | | $`AV_{18}`$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\beta `$ | $`\rho _{eq}`$ | $`K(\rho _{eq})`$ | $`E_A(\rho _{eq})`$ | $`\rho _{eq}`$ | $`K(\rho _{eq})`$ | $`E_A(\rho _{eq})`$ |
| 0.0 | 0.198 | 207.84 | $`15.05`$ | 0.265 | 232.35 | $`18.25`$ |
| 0.2 | 0.193 | 195.34 | $`13.82`$ | 0.259 | 228.54 | $`16.74`$ |
| 0.4 | 0.165 | 142.33 | $`9.93`$ | 0.226 | 177.49 | $`12.38`$ |
| 0.6 | 0.120 | 85.28 | $`4.44`$ | 0.172 | 96.1 | $`5.89`$ |


text:
# References

The experimental data suggest at least two new high scales in particle physics. On one hand, the interpretation of the solar  and atmospheric  neutrino anomalies in terms of oscillations  require (mass$`)^2`$ differences which can be accounted for in the framework of the see-saw mechanism with very heavy right-handed neutrinos. Their Majorana masses settle a high scale, $`M_R`$, to be associated with the violation of the lepton numbers. On the other hand, the extrapolation of the three running gauge couplings of the Standard Model, suggest that they converge towards a common value at a very high scale, $`M_U`$, giving evidence for a grand-unifying symmetry. The extraction of $`M_R`$ from the neutrino data suffers from uncertainties , while $`M_U`$ depends on the physical states that are assumed at intermediate energies to improve the three-to-one convergence of the gauge couplings. Still, they should not differ by more than a few orders of magnitude, not so much as compared to the huge hierarchy between these scales and the electroweak symmetry breaking scale. It is tempting to associate these two scales to the spontaneous breaking of some very high energy gauge symmetries.

Despite the relative vicinity of the two scales, there is no compelling reason to embed the gauge symmetries of $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$into a larger one. In particular, this is not necessary to explain the gauge coupling unification in a string theoretical framework. Nevertheless, grand-unification symmetries are a very attractive hypothesis (as far as one has control of the proton lifetime) with predictive power. The natural GUT symmetry encompassing both the Standard Model gauge group $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ and a gauged $`BL`$ symmetry is $`SO(10)`$ . It goes without saying, this is not the only motivation for a $`SO(10)`$ GUT, and many other aspects are to be found in the huge literature on this subject .

The study of the spontaneous breaking of the non-supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ models with the present values of the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$, shows that the $`(BL)`$ symmetry has to be broken at an intermediate scale around $`10^{10}10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$  to allow for the $`SO(10)`$ unification. The consistency of this relatively low value with neutrino mass patterns has also been discussed in this context .

In this paper we present a reappraisal of these matters in the framework of supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ GUT’s. We point out that with the same set of fields that can produce the breaking of $`SO(10)`$ into $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$, there are other vacua with intermediate gauge symmetries, e.g., the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$. When the $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ vacuum approaches the $`SU(5)`$ one it has an approximate Georgi-Glashow symmetry, but if they get too close, the physical $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ vacuum would be tunneled into the $`SU(5)`$ one. Instead, there are other possible intermediate symmetries, e.g., flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$, which can only be approximated by tuning the parameters in the superpotential, so that they are not expected to be well realized. An approximate $`SU(5)`$ symmetry would correspond to the breaking of $`(BL)`$ above the gauge coupling unification scale, an approximate flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ symmetry to the opposite situation. In either cases, a big difference in these scales would conflict with the seesaw interpretation of the neutrino oscillation data. Hence a control of either the tunneling or the tuning is needed. Fortunately, the gauge coupling unification points in the direction of a moderate difference in these scales, as the neutrino oscillations seem to do as well.

It is well known that coupling unification is – almost – realized by the minimal supersymetrization of the Standard Model degrees of freedom around $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, consistently with a $`SU(5)`$ unification. Therefore, any intermediate symmetry between $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ and $`SO(10)`$ should approximately preserve the SUSY $`SU(5)`$ prediction for the gauge couplings. Actually, an accurate evaluation of the gauge coupling running at two-loops displays a strong model dependence on the supersymmetric particle thresholds. For instance, a recent analysis  shows that in the MSSM with universal gaugino and scalar masses at the TeV scale, the exact two-loop coupling unification would occur for $`\mu 10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$, where $`\mu `$ is the usual MSSM higgsino mass parameter. For lower values, $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})`$ comes out slightly higher than the experimental data. The first point we would like to make here is the possibility to improve the prediction of $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})`$ if one assumes that $`SO(10)`$ is broken into the “flipped” $`SU(5)U(1)`$ symmetry which is then broken at a slightly smaller scale 111The flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ gauge symmetry has other well-known appealing aspects , including an elegant mechanism to obtain the doublet-triplet splitting..

Although the present precision on $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})`$ requires a two-loop calculation, a one-loop study is sufficient for the qualitative argument presented here. Let us first define the standard combinations of $`b`$ parameters that control the approach to coupling unification, namely, the running of $`\alpha /\alpha _s`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, respectively: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb=b_33b_2/85b_1/8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_wb=b_2b_1`$. In the Standard Model, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb/\mathrm{\Delta }_wb=1.15`$, so that, for non-supersymmetric grandunification, one needs new physics at intermediate scales with a larger value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb/\mathrm{\Delta }_wb.`$ With the addition of the supersymmetric partners within the MSSM, this ratio increases to $`1.34`$. If the supersymmetry threshold is below 1 TeV, the two-loop prediction for $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})`$ turns out to be just a bit above the experimental value. Hence, one can improve the gauge coupling unification by adding new degrees of freedom at a scale just below $`M_U`$, with a relatively low value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb/\mathrm{\Delta }_wb`$.

The flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ model has $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb/\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}b=5/8`$, as $`b_3=b_2=b_5`$. Therefore, with the symmetry breaking pattern given by $`SO(10)`$ $``$ flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ at the scale $`M_U`$, and then flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ $``$ $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$, at the scale $`M_R`$, one can tune $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})`$ toward its experimental value. The ratio $`r=M_R/M_U`$ depends on the effective supersymmetry threshold $`T_{SUSY}`$, that incorporates the various supersymmetric particle masses. Roughly speaking one is correcting the supersymmetry threshold dependence with the approximate flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ threshold effects and $`r`$ cannot be very small.

This symmetry breaking scheme can be implemented by introducing fields in either a 45 or a 210 representation, for the first breaking at $`M_U`$, and fields in either a 16 $``$16\* $``$54, or a 126 $``$126\*  $``$54 representation, for the second one, at $`rM_U`$. However, the 126 $``$126\*, which would yield a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)=2`$ breaking, cannot be added, since it would give $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb<0`$. It remains the only possibility of a 16 $``$16\* breaking with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)=1`$. With $`r<1`$ this is the only simple pattern that can improve the gauge coupling unification with a reasonable sparticle spectrum and that would correspond to a breaking of $`(BL)`$ slightly below the gauge coupling unification scale. In particular, the option of left-right symmetric sub-groups of $`SO(10)`$ would lead to gauge coupling unification only if the sparticle masses would be above $`10^4`$GeV, a situation requiring fine-tuning of the MSSM parameters to yield the electroweak symmetry breaking scale.

With these motivations for our study of the supersymmetric spontaneous breaking of $`SO(10)`$ into $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ with $`SU(5)`$ or flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ intermediate symmetries, let us first stress some general properties of the gauge symmetry breaking in supersymetric theories. The minimum conditions:

$`W_i(z^0)={\displaystyle \frac{W(z)}{z^i}}(z^0)=0,`$ (1)
where $`W(z)`$ is the superpotential and the $`z^i`$’s stand for the components of the complex scalar fields, are non-trivial only for the components $`W_i(z^0)`$ along the directions invariant under the little group $`H_{z^0}`$ of $`z^0`$. This follows from the invariance of $`W(z)`$ under $`H_{z^0}.`$ The gradient directions along all $`H_{z^0}`$ singlet fields must be considered. Therefore, the number $`n`$ of non-trivial equations is equal to the number of $`H_{z^0}`$ singlets in the representation of the chiral multiplets. Generically, the solutions of the resulting system of $`n`$ equations and $`n`$ variables are linear combinations of all the singlet fields, in proportions fixed by the parameters in the superpotential. (We concentrate here on gauge symmetries, but this remark applies to the – complexified of the – global symmetries of the superpotential as well.)

If the initial gauge group is $`G_U`$ and $`H_{z^0}`$ is $`G_0`$ ( we shall consider later on the case where they are $`SO(10)`$ and $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$, respectively) we may look for solutions with symmetry $`G_I`$, with $`G_0G_IG_U,`$ if there are $`p<n`$ $`G_I`$ singlets among the fields, since in this case the number of non-trivial equations also reduces to $`p.`$ We may also look for solutions whose exact symmetry is $`G_0`$ which possess an approximate symmetry $`G_I`$ because the predominant vev’s are the $`G_I`$ singlets. When these solutions approach the corresponding one with exact $`G_I`$ symmetry, a tunneling between the two vacua may become possible. Instead, a vacuum with an approximate symmetry $`G_I`$ has not necessarily a counterpart with exact symmetry $`G_I`$.

Let us illustrate these situations in a model with $`G_U=`$$`SO(10)`$ and $`G_0=`$$`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ , with the Higgs chiral multiplets in a 16 $``$16\* $``$45 $``$54 representation of $`SO(10)`$ , corresponding to the spinors $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi },`$ the antisymmetric matrix $`A`$ and the symmetric matrix $`S,`$ respectively. Their $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ singlets are the following five directions:

a) $`\psi _1`$ 16 and $`\overline{\psi _1}`$ 16\*, with little group $`SU(5)`$, which by definition is the Georgi-Glashow one,

b) $`A_1`$ and $`A_{24}`$ in the 45 transforming as a singlet and a 24 under this $`SU(5)`$, respectively,

c) $`S_0`$ 54 , with Pati-Salam little group $`SO(6)SO(4)=SU(4)SU(2)SU(2).`$

The 45 components $`A_1`$ and $`A_{24}`$ can be rearranged into a singlet and a 24 component with respect to the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ as follows:

$`A_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}A_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6}}{5}}A_{24}`$ (2)
$`A_{24}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6}}{5}}A_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}A_{24}`$
As a linear combination of $`A_1`$ and $`A_{24},`$ $`A_1^{}`$ belongs to the same critical orbit as $`A_1`$, i.e., they are related by a $`SO(10)`$ rotation which does not leave $`\psi _1`$ invariant.

The most general superpotential with quadratic and cubic invariants has the form:

$`W=m\overline{\psi }\psi +M\text{tr}A^2+\mu \text{tr}S^2+h\overline{\psi }A\psi +\lambda \text{tr}A^2S+\kappa \text{tr}S^3`$ (3)
In Table 1 only the contributions of the $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ invariant fields to these invariants are written.

The non-trivial equations obtained from the conditions (1) for the superpotential (3) are in correspondance with the five singlets, $`\psi _1,\overline{\psi _1},A_1,A_{24},`$ and $`S_0`$. The vanishing of the $`D`$terms requires $`|\psi _1|=|\overline{\psi _1}|,`$ and since $`W`$ is symmetric under $`\psi _1\overline{\psi _1},`$ the number of relevant equations and singlets is reduced to four. According to the previous general discussion, one finds the following solutions:

* a generic vacuum with $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ symmetry and components along the five directions in proportions that are fixed by the couplings in $`W`$;
* a $`SU(5)`$ symmetric vacuum with vanishing components along $`A_{24}`$ and $`S_0`$ – there are two non trivial equations for the components $`|\psi _1|=|\overline{\psi _1}|`$ and $`A_1;`$
* a $`U(3)SO(4)`$ solution with $`\psi _1=\overline{\psi _1}=0,`$ $`A_1/A_{24}=\sqrt{2/3},`$ as $`S_0`$ is invariant under $`SO(6)SO(4)U(3)SO(4)`$ (two non-trivial equations);
* a $`SO(6)U(2)`$ solution with $`\psi _1=\overline{\psi _1}=0,`$ $`A_1/A_{24}=\sqrt{3/2},`$ as $`S_0`$ is invariant under $`SO(6)SO(4)SO(6)U(2)`$ (two non-trivial equations).

Even if our choice of chiral multiplets is motivated by the physical requirement of the breaking of $`SO(10)`$ into $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$, there are also extrema of $`W`$ where the residual invariance does not contain $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$: e.g., a $`SO(7)`$ invariance that corresponds to the little group of a critical orbit of 16 $``$16\* and is associated to the 45 and the 54 along their critical orbits with a $`SO(8)SO(2)`$ symmetry.

In the cases (ii)–(iv), there is at most one singlet of the residual symmetry in each $`SO(10)`$ irreducible representation which correspond to a critical orbit. The total number of singlets and equations is reduced to two as a result of the increased symmetry.

An approximate intermediate symmetry $`G_I=`$ flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ can be obtained by deforming the vacuum by a fine-tuning on the superpotential couplings, $`(\sqrt{15}\kappa M+2\lambda \mu )0,`$ so that $`A_{24}2\sqrt{6}A_1,`$ which gives the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ singlet in the 45 . The parameters in $`W`$ are chosen such that $`A_{24}^{}`$ takes the largest vev, yielding an intermediate flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ symmetry. The usual Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$ is defined by the $`\psi _1`$ vev which breaks $`(BL).`$ The exact symmetry, once all vev’s are taken into account, is $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$.

The implementation of an intermediate flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ symmetry requires, besides the obvious hierarchy in the parameters to define an intermediate scale, a tuning of the couplings in the model. This approximate symmetry solution does not have an exact symmetry solution counterpart, because in the $`S_00,\overline{\psi _1}\psi _10`$ limit even the 45 component vanishes: This is related to the absence of a cubic invariant for $`A.`$

Instead, the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$ supersymmetric vacuum is generically present, without any tuning of the parameters. If one introduces some hierarchy in the couplings in $`W`$, namely $`M\mu `$ and $`h\lambda ,`$ another vacuum possesses an approximate $`SU(5)`$ symmetry as $`A_1>S_0>A_{24}.`$ There could be some tunneling between these two vacua when they get close. We may conclude that the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ is a less natural intermediate symmetry unless the required fine tuning is provided by some mechanism, e.g., the existence of a fixed point.

Although the 45 has a flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant solution (in the same orbit as the Georgi-Glashow solution), there is no solution with that symmetry since the only non trivial invariants with $`A`$ in $`W`$ are linear in $`\psi _1`$ and $`\overline{\psi _1}`$ or $`S`$ which have no flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant direction. Indeed the direction of $`A`$ in the $`(A_1,A_{24})`$ space is settled by a compromise between the alignment to $`\psi _1`$ and $`\overline{\psi _1}`$ to give the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$ and the alignment to $`S_0`$ along either the $`U(3)SO(4)`$ or the $`SO(6)U(2)`$ directions. Therefore, only a particular tuning brings the 45 along the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ direction. The inclusion of higher degree polynomial invariants does not prevents the need for a tuning in the parameters of the superpotential, which gets more involved. However, the presence of a quartic non trivial invariant, $`\text{tr}A^4,`$ allows for a solution with exact flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$. Nevertheless, for $`|\psi _1|=|\overline{\psi _1}|0,`$ the 45 chooses the $`SU(5)`$invariant direction, $`A_1.`$

The physical interest of an approximate flipped symmetry seems a motivation to include chiral multiplets transforming in the 210 (namely, an antisymetric tensor of $`\text{rank}=4`$), $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ since a cubic $`SO(10)`$invariant $`\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ exists which does not vanish along the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant direction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ There are three $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ invariant directions in the 210, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{24}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{75},`$ transforming as a singlet, a 24 and a 75 under $`SU(5)`$, respectively.

The following linear combinations:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{75}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{24}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{24}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\sqrt{5}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{75}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{75}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\sqrt{5}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{75}`$ (4)
transform as 1, 24, 75 under flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$, respectively.

Let us first concentrate on the 16 $``$16\* $``$210 chiral multiplets and the generic superpotential

$`\stackrel{~}{W}=m\overline{\psi }\psi +\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+g\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\psi +\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ (5)
In Table 1, the cubic invariants are explicitly written in terms of only the $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ invariant components of the various $`SO(10)`$ multiplets discussed here, and the corresponding expresions in terms of the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ relevant directions are displayed in brackets for the first two invariants and are given by the same expressions with $`A,\mathrm{\Phi }A^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ for the others. The fact that the invariants containing $`\psi _1`$ and $`\overline{\psi _1}`$ couple only to $`A_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1,`$ but to all $`A^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ components disfavours the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant solution $`A_1^{}`$ as we now turn to discuss.

The presence in Eq.(5) of both the quadratic and cubic invariants for the 210 representation implies the existence of a vacuum such that $`\psi =\overline{\psi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ belongs to any critical orbit ( excepting those like the one with $`SO(6)SO(4)`$ symmetry for which the cubic invariant vanishes ) including the one that contains both the $`SU(5)`$ x U(1) and the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ symmetric vacua. However, for $`|\psi _1|=|\overline{\psi _1}|0,`$ the 210 $`SU(5)`$$`U(1)`$ invariant vev aligns with the $`SU(5)`$ invariance of the $`\psi _1.`$ Including a 54 chiral multiplet, the vanishing of the gradient of $`W`$ along $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{75}`$ still implies $`g\psi _1\overline{\psi _1}=0.`$ Indeed, we cannot put $`g=0`$ because this coupling is the only one that links the 210 and the 16 $``$16\* directions.

Finally, with a 16 $``$16\* $``$45 $``$210 chiral multiplet, if $`\psi _1\overline{\psi _1}0`$ both the 45 and the 210 must align to the $`SU(5)`$ invariant direction. To enforce the 45 or 210 vev to be along the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant direction one needs one (two, resp.) tuning conditions to reduce the number of independent equations.

The necessity of tuning conditions to get supersymmetric vacua symmetric under $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ with a dominant vev along the flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ invariant direction of an irreducible representation is related to the presence of other singlets of $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ in the same representation. This gives rise to more minimum equations than variables.This problem does not arise for the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$ since there are no other $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ singlets in the 16 (or in the 126) representation. This is not a reason not to consider supersymmetric SO(10) models with intermediate flipped symmetry, as far as the necessary tuning of parameters can be justified.

More in general, one can easily build supersymmetric patterns of symmetry breaking to $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ with particular intermediate symmetries, when the vev possessing that invariance belongs to a representation without other $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ singlets. Otherwise, in the most favourable case, a tuning condition is required.

Finally, we have not considered the 126 $``$126\* representation since it gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sb<0`$ in the intermediate flipped $`SU(5)U(1)`$ regime, opposite to what is needed to reach $`SO(10)`$ unification. The 16 $``$16\* vev which gives the scale $`M_R`$, has $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)=1`$ so that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`M_N,`$ must be proportional to $`M_R^2.`$ If appropriate dimension 5 operators could be generated when the fields with masses $`O(M_U)`$ are integrated out, then one would expect $`M_NO(M_R^2/M_U)=O(r^2)\times M_U.`$ However, at least in the minimal scheme discussed here, when one adds to the $`SO(10)`$ breaking set of fields the three generations of matter fields in three 16’s, these dimension 5 operators are not yielded. Indeed, the 45 or 210 that couple to the 16 $``$16\* cannot be coupled to the matter 16’s without spoiling the $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ invariant solution. This is naturally enforced by requiring the R-parity symmetry which is anyway needed at the MSSM scale. This forbids contributions $`O(M_R^2/M_U)`$ at the tree-level. Supersymmetry non-renormalization theorems forbid quantum-loop diagrams to generate them à la Witten  up to corrections proportional to supersymmetry breaking soft masses and the R-parity symmetry prevents any mixing through wave-function renormalization.

We are assuming that the cut-off scale of the $`SO(10)`$ theory is $`M_{\text{Planck}},`$ and $`M_N`$ must originate from non-renormalizable $`SO(10)`$ invariant operators, hence $`M_NO(M_R^2/M_{\text{Planck}})=O(r^2)10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$. This is consistent with the seesaw mechanism if the heavier neutrino masses are $`𝒪(\sqrt{m_{\text{atm}}^2}`$. Interestingly enough, this scale is quite close to the one obtained in (non-supersymmetric) $`SO(10)`$ with intermediate Pati-Salam symmetry , even if the scale of $`(BL)`$ breaking are very different. This difference might be relevant for baryogenesis through leptogenesis. Instead, with intermediate $`SU(5)`$ such that $`M_R`$ is above the unification scale, the right-handed neutrinos are expected to be heavier, especially with a 126 $``$126\* breaking of $`(BL)`$. In supersymmetric theories these different patterns for right-handed neutrino masses give rise to different predictions for charged lepton flavour violating decays.

In contrast with the relatively minimal field content and the use of low dimension couplings adopted here, many papers have suggested to achieve the symmetry breaking by selecting only a few suitable couplings  through ad hoc discrete symmetries. The absence of couplings that are gauge invariant in the superpotential usually leads to new solutions and even flat directions  that should be carefully examined (just as the use of R-parity constraints brings about the colour breaking vacua in the supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model).