format: text

text:
# Exceptional Lie Superalgebras, Invariant Morphisms, and a Second-Gauged Standard Model

## 1 Introduction

The list of vectorial Lie algebras (i.e. algebras of polynomial vector fields) was conjectured by Lie and proven by Cartan . The analogous problem in the super case was raised by Kac  and completed in ; see also . The list consists of ten infinite series and five exceptions. In the present paper, I consider the three exceptional algebras $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, where the numbers indicate the super-dimensions of the spaces on which the algebras are realized. Kac and collaborators denote these algebras $`E(5|10)`$, $`E(3|6)`$ and $`E(3|8)`$. I use the names designed by Shchepochkina, who first found these algebras, albeit implicitly and in inconsistently regraded form ($`𝔳𝔩𝔢(4|3)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(4|5)`$) . Kac  and Cheng and Kac  gave the descriptions as abstract Lie superalgebras (i.e. generators and brackets were written down), and the realizations as concrete subalgebras of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ ($`n|m=5|10`$, $`3|6`$ and $`3|8`$) preserving certain equations first appeared in .

Every vectorial algebra $`𝔤`$ admits a grading of depth $`d`$ and height $`h`$:

$$𝔤=𝔤_d+\mathrm{}+𝔤_1+𝔤_0+𝔤_1+\mathrm{}+𝔤_h.$$

In particular, any finite-dimensional Lie superalgebra with finite-dimensional representations is a vectorial algebra of depth and height $`0`$, because every such algebra may be embedded into $`gl(n|m)`$, which admits the realization $`x^\mu _\nu `$. It has recently been observed  that all simple Lie algebras have a regrading of depth and height $`1`$ (“conformal realization”), except for $`E_8`$, $`F_4`$ and $`G_2`$, which instead have a regrading of depth and height $`2`$ (“quasiconformal realization”). In fact, every simple finite-dimensional Lie superalgebra have regradings of depth and height at most $`2`$. Infinite-dimensional vectorial algebras have infinite height and finite depth. Apart from an inconsistent regrading of $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is the unique simple Lie superalgebra of maximal depth $`3`$ . The grading is said to be consistent if the odd subspaces are purely fermionic and the even subspaces purely bosonic. It is known that the only consistently graded simple algebras are the contact algebras $`𝔨(1|m)`$ (a.k.a. the centerless $`N=m`$ superconformal algebra), the three exceptions considered in the present paper, and a fourth exception $`𝔨𝔞𝔰(1|6)`$ .

The algebras under consideration here can be described as Cartan prolongs. This means that one fixes a realization of the finite-dimensional algebra $`𝔤_0`$ and the nilpotent algebra $`𝔤_{}=𝔤_d+\mathrm{}+𝔤_1`$ (which is also a $`𝔤_0`$ module) as vector fields acting on $`^{n|m}`$, and define $`𝔤_k`$ recursively for positive $`k`$ as the maximal subspace of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ satisfying $`[𝔤_k,𝔤_1]𝔤_{k1}`$. The prolong is denoted by $`𝔤=(𝔤_d,\mathrm{},𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}(𝔤_{},𝔤_0)_{}`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)=((\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏},2),(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐},1),sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{},\hfill \\ 𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)=((\mathrm{𝟓},2),(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{},1),sl(5))_{},\hfill \\ 𝔪𝔟(3|8)=((\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},3),(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏},2),(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐},1),sl(3)sl(2)gl(1))_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`𝐧`$ denotes the $`n`$-dimensional representation of $`sl(n)`$, $`𝐧^{}`$ its dual, and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}=\mathrm{𝟓}^{}\mathrm{𝟓}^{}`$ is the ten-dimensional $`sl(5)`$ module. The spaces $`𝔤_k`$ are described as $`𝔤_0`$ modules.

The explicit description of the algebras as subalgebras of vector fields is based on the following two observations:

1. Vector fields which preserve some structure, be it a differential form, a fixed vector field, or equations involving forms or vector fields (Pfaff equations), automatically generate a closed subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$.
2. The prolong $`𝔤=(𝔤_{},𝔤_0)_{}`$ is completely determined by $`𝔤_{}`$ and $`𝔤_0`$.

The idea in  was then to redefine the Cartan prolong in the following geometrical way:

1. Find a realization of $`𝔤_{}`$ and $`𝔤_0`$ in $`n|m`$-dimensional space.
2. Find the maximal set of structures preserved by this realization.
3. Define $`𝔤`$ as the full subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ preserving those structures.

Since the prolong $`𝔤`$ is completely determined by $`𝔤_0𝔤_{}`$, it is not surprising that there is a 1-1 correspondence between irreducible $`𝔤_0`$ and $`𝔤`$ modules. This correspondence can be described as follows. Given a $`𝔤_0`$ module $`V`$, one can construct the corresponding tensor module $`T(V)`$, which is equivalent to (more precisely: contragredient to) the induced module $`U(𝔤)_{U(𝔤_0)}V`$. If $`T(V)`$ is irreducible, which is often the case, we are done. Otherwise, a morphism $`:T(V)T(V^{})`$ exists, and the module $`\mathrm{ker}`$ may be irreducible; if not, more morphisms must be found. Since cohomology is almost always absent, we may rewrite $`\mathrm{ker}=\text{im }^{}`$, where $`^{}:T(V^{\prime \prime })T(V)`$ is another morphism.

A well-known example is $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)=(𝐧,gl(n))_{}`$. Its tensor modules are tensor densities, which are irreducible except for totally anti-symmetric tensor fields of condegree zero, i.e. differential forms. In this case one morphism, the exterior derivative $`d`$, exists. The space $`\mathrm{ker}d`$ consists of closed forms and $`\text{im }d`$ of exact forms; for polynomials there is no difference due to Poincaré’s lemma. With this geometrical picture in mind, I refer to reducible tensor modules as form modules, and their irreducible quotients as closed form modules.

The contragredient problem of finding singular vectors in induced modules was considered by Kac and Rudakov for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ , and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ and $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ . In their notation, induced, degenerate and irreducible degenerate modules are equivalent to tensor, form and closed form modules, respectively. The same problem was also considered by Grozman, Leites and Shchepochkina , but unfortunately I have not yet understood their paper.

In the present paper I address the same problem from the more geometrical viewpoint of tensor modules. For $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ I find the same results as Kac and Rudakov (up to contragredience), but my result for $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ differs significantly from theirs. I claim that the morphisms in their C sector are not invariant, and also that there are two families of invariant operators apart from their A and B sectors. I also describe an additional morphism for all algebras: the integral, which even is $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ invariant. However, the integral is not local when $`n1`$, i.e. it is not a differential operator.

In fact, I only partially prove my results; all first-order operators ($`_1`$) are shown to be $`𝔤`$ invariant, but the higher-order operators are only shown to be $`𝔤_0`$ invariant. The latter is very easy to prove in tensor formalism, because it only amounts to matching upper and lower indices. To see how this comes about, it is instructive to consider the simpler case $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$. Let $`x=(x^i)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ denote the coordinates in $`^n`$, let $`_i=/x^i`$ be the corresponding derivative, and let $`X=X^i(x)_i`$ be a vector field. In particular, $`𝔤_0=gl(n)`$ is generated by vector fields of the form $`x^i_j`$. The differential $`\alpha ^i=dx^i`$, its dual $`\overline{\alpha }_j`$, and the volume form $`v=dx^1dx^2\mathrm{}dx^n`$ transform as

$`_X\alpha ^i=_jX^i\alpha ^j,_X\overline{\alpha }_j=_jX^i\overline{\alpha }_i,_Xv=_iX^iv.`$ (1.1)
We now introduce two gradings: the weight $`z`$ and the degree $`\mathrm{deg}`$, defined as in the following table:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& x^i& _i& \alpha ^i& \overline{\alpha }_j& v\\ & & & & & \\ z\hfill & 0& 0& 1& 1& n\\ \mathrm{deg}\hfill & 1& 1& 1& 1& n\end{array}$$

We observe that the exterior derivative $`d=\alpha ^i_i`$ is the unique $`𝔤_0`$-invariant differential operator of degree zero which can be constructed using the differential $`\alpha ^i`$ and the derivatives of degree $`1`$. This is important, because it turns out that all $`𝔤`$-invariant morphisms have degree zero, at least for the algebras under consideration in this paper. Thus, we can very easily write down all candidate morphisms, and then check $`𝔤`$ invariance by hand.

The exterior derivative defines a morphism

$`d:`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p\mathrm{\Omega }^{p+1}`$
$`\omega _{i_1..i_p}(x)\alpha ^{i_1}..\alpha ^{i_p}_j\omega _{i_1..i_p}(x)\alpha ^{i_1}..\alpha ^{i_p}\alpha ^j.`$
It is straightforward to prove that $`d`$ commutes with $`_X`$, i.e. $`_Xd\omega =d(_X\omega )`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^p`$. $`d`$ also acts on the space of dual forms or polyvector fields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. The invariant pairing between $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^p`$ and $`\upsilon \mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is given by integration: $`(\upsilon ,\omega )=\upsilon \omega =^nx\omega _{i_1..i_p}(x)\upsilon ^{i_1..i_p}(x)`$. In this case we can identify $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{np}`$ by $`\upsilon ^{i_1..i_p}(x)=ϵ^{i_1..i_pj_1..j_{np}}\omega _{j_1..j_{np}}(x)`$, but such an identification is impossible in the presence of odd coordinates . The action of the exterior derivative becomes

$`d:`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{p1}`$
$`\upsilon ^{i_1..i_p}(x)v\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}..\overline{\alpha }_{i_p}_j\upsilon ^{i_1..i_{p1}j}(x)v\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}..\overline{\alpha }_{i_{p1}}`$
Finally, the integral defines an invariant morphism $`:\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$. We can thus summarize the situation as a differential complex:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle }}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^0\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^n.& & & & & \end{array}$$

In Sections 2–4 the analogous results for the exceptional superalgebras are presented. Let $`w_1^{}`$ and $`w_d^{}`$ be the weights of the $`𝔤_0`$ modules $`𝔤_1`$ and $`𝔤_d`$, respectively. It turns out that reducible tensor modules are built from tensor products of differentials

$`\gamma ^aw_1^{}`$ $`\alpha ^iw_d`$
$`\overline{\gamma }_aw_1`$ $`\overline{\alpha }_iw_d^{},`$
where $`d`$ is the depth. However, dual weights ($`w_1`$ and $`w_1^{}`$, $`w_d`$ and $`w_d^{}`$) must not appear in the same form111This is in disagreement with Kac’ and Rudakov’s result , whose C sector involves dual weights.. In addition, there is a scalar form $`v`$, analogous to the volume form in the $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$ case. The weight can immediately be read off: $`w_k`$ carries weight $`k`$, $`w_k^{}`$ carries weight $`k`$, and by abuse of notation we denote the weight of the scalar $`v`$ by $`v`$, too. There are thus four sectors of candidate form modules:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ \text{Sector}& & 𝔤_0\text{ weight}& & z& & \text{Basis}\\ & & & & & & \\ A& & mw_d+nw_1^{}+kv& & mdn+kv& & \alpha ^{i_1}..\alpha ^{i_m}\gamma ^{a_1}..\gamma ^{a_n}v^k\\ B& & mw_d+nw_1+kv& & md+n+kv& & \alpha ^{i_1}..\alpha ^{i_m}\overline{\gamma }_{a_1}..\overline{\gamma }_{a_n}v^k\\ C& & mw_d^{}+nw_1^{}+kv& & mdn+kv& & \overline{\alpha }_{i_1}..\overline{\alpha }_{i_m}\gamma ^{a_1}..\gamma ^{a_n}v^k\\ D& & mw_d^{}+nw_1+kv& & mdn+kv& & \overline{\alpha }_{i_1}..\overline{\alpha }_{i_m}\overline{\gamma }_{a_1}..\overline{\gamma }_{a_n}v^k.\end{array}$$

To establish that a candidate form module is indeed reducible, one must check explicitly that a morphism intertwining the $`𝔤`$ action exists. This typically only happens for a specific value of $`k`$, the power of the scalar form, and thus we obtain a two-parameter family of form modules. When depth $`d=1`$, the situation degenerates because $`w_1`$ and $`w_d`$ are identical, and there is thus only two sectors. For $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$, the form modules $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$ correspond to the D sector and $`k=0`$, and the dual modules $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ are given by the A sector with $`k=1`$.

For $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, the degree zero subalgebra $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, i.e. the non-compact form of the symmetries of the standard model in particle physics. This suggests that these algebras may have important applications to physics 222 Note that the definition of $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ in  is flawed.. To my knowledge, this is the only place where the standard model algebra arises naturally and unambigously in a mathematically deep context. Note that $`𝔤_0`$ is not just any subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, but that there is a 1-1 correspondence between $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤_0`$ modules. Therefore, one may speculate that a $`𝔤`$ symmetry may be mistaken experimentally for a $`𝔤_0`$ symmetry.

With this motivation, in Section 5 I attempt to construct a gauge theory based on $`𝔤`$ rather than $`𝔤_0`$. Given the enormous experimental success of the standard model, any such theory must be very similar to it. The main difference is that the fermionic fields in an ordinary gauge theory are functions $`\psi (x)`$ depending on the spacetime coordinate $`x`$, whereas the $`𝔤`$-invariant theory involves fields $`\psi (x,y)`$ depending also on the coordinates $`y`$ of an internal $`3|6`$\- or $`3|8`$-dimensional supermanifold. The addition of this internal space will be called second gauging, for the following reason. Start with a rigid symmetry $`𝔤_0`$. The usual (first) gauging replaces $`𝔤_0`$ with the algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤_0)`$ of maps from $`N`$-dimensional spacetime to $`𝔤_0`$. This makes the symmetry local in spacetime, but it is still rigid in internal space. To make the symmetry local in internal space as well, we replace $`𝔤_0`$ with a prolong $`𝔤=(𝔤_{},𝔤_0)_{}`$. This second gauging is of course highly non-unique, since the prolong depends on the nilpotent algebra $`𝔤_{}`$ in addition to $`𝔤_0`$. However, if we further require that $`𝔤`$ be simple, there are only two possibilities for $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$: $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$.

The fermions $`\psi (x,y)`$, valued in $`𝔤_0`$ modules, are simply the tensor fields of $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$. However, it does not make much sense to pass from $`𝔤_0`$ to $`𝔤`$ if we were only to consider tensor fields, since all information about these is already encoded in $`𝔤_0`$. Therefore, we assume that a $`𝔤`$-invariant morphism $``$ exists, i.e. we identify (at least some of) the fermionic fields with the closed form modules constructed in Sections 2 and 3. However, the naïve identification of closed form modules with quarks and leptons does not quite work out neither for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ nor for $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$. It is unclear to me how the quantum numbers of the fundamental fermions should be related to the closed forms, if it is at all possible. Nevertheless, some experimental predictions are generic: absense of extra gauge bosons beyond the twelve already present in the standard model, and particle/anti-particle asymmetry (CP violation). Despite being based on superalgebras, second-gauged theories are presumably not plagued with supersymmetric partners.

Throughout this paper tensor calculus notation is used. $`A^i`$ denotes a contravariant vector and $`B_j`$ a covariant vector. Repeated indices, one up and one down, are implicitly summed over (Einstein convention). Derivatives are denoted by various types of d’s ($`d`$, $``$ and $`ð`$). $`ϵ^{ab}`$, $`ϵ^{ijk}`$ and $`ϵ^{ijklm}`$ denote the totally anti-symmetric constant symbols in $`^2`$, $`^3`$ and $`^5`$. When dealing with the non-positive subalgebra $`𝔤_0𝔤_{}`$, all parities are known and it is convenient to explicitly distinguish between anti-symmetric (straight) and symmetric (curly) brackets: $`[A,B]=[B,A]`$ and $`\{A,B\}=\{B,A\}`$. For general vector fields $`X=X^i(x)_i`$ (always assumed to be homogeneous in parity), the (straight) brackets are graded in the usual way: $`[X,Y]=()^{XY}[Y,X]`$, where the symbol $`()^X`$ is $`+1`$ on bosonic components and $`1`$ on fermionic ones. The sign convention is that $`X`$ acts as

$`_X_j`$ $`=`$ $`()^{jX}_jX^i_i,`$
$`_Xdx^i`$ $`=`$ $`()^{(X+i+j)j}_jX^idx^j.`$
There are some special relations valid in two dimensions only, which are needed in Sections 2 and 3:

$`\varphi ^a=ϵ^{ab}\varphi _b,\varphi _a=ϵ_{ab}\varphi ^b,`$ (1.5)
$`ϵ^{ab}ϵ_{bc}=\delta _c^a,ϵ^{ab}ϵ_{cb}=\delta _c^a,`$ (1.6)
$`\varphi ^a\psi _a=\varphi _a\psi ^a,`$ (1.7)
$`ϵ^{ab}\varphi ^c+ϵ^{bc}\varphi ^a+ϵ^{ca}\varphi ^b=0,`$ (1.8)
$`\varphi ^a\psi ^b\varphi ^b\psi ^a=ϵ^{ab}\varphi ^c\psi _c.`$ (1.9)
Here $`ϵ^{ab}`$ is the totally skew constant tensor in two dimensions and $`ϵ_{ab}`$ its inverse; $`ϵ^{12}=ϵ_{21}=+1`$ and $`ϵ^{21}=ϵ_{12}=1`$. We use these constants to raise and lower $`sl(2)`$ indices.

## 2 $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$

Consider $`^{3|6}`$ with basis spanned by three even coordinates $`u^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ and six odd coordinates $`\theta _{ia}`$. Let $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _{ia}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}u^i=2`$. The graded Heisenberg algebra has the non-zero relations

$`[_j,u^i]=\delta _j^i,\{d^{ia},\theta _{jb}\}=\delta _j^i\delta _b^a,`$ (2.10)
where $`_i=/u^i`$ and $`d^{ia}=/\theta _{ia}`$. Consider the vector fields333In  these vector fields were denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{ia}`$, whereas the untilded notation was reserved for the generators of $`𝔤_{}`$. Since the latter is of no particular interest in the present paper, the tildes on the former are dropped to avoid unnecessarily cumbersome notation.

$`E_i=_i,D^{ia}=d^{ia}+ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a_k,`$ (2.11)
which generate the nilpotent algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}_{}`$:

$`\{D^{ia},D^{jb}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{ab}E_k,`$
$`[D^{ia},E_j]`$ $`=`$ $`[E_i,E_j]=0.`$
Any vector field in $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|6)`$ has the form

$`X=Q^i_i+P_{ia}d^{ia}=\stackrel{~}{Q}^i_i+P_{ia}D^{ia},`$ (2.13)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}^i`$ $`=`$ $`Q^i()^Xϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^aP_{ka}.`$ (2.14)
$`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ is the subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|6)`$ which preserves the dual Pfaff equation $`D^{ia}=0`$, i.e. $`X𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ iff

$`[X,D^{ia}]=()^XD^{ia}P_{jb}D^{jb}.`$ (2.15)
This leads to the condition

$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j=2()^Xϵ^{ijk}P_k^a.`$ (2.16)
In particular, we have the symmetry relations

$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j=D^{ja}\stackrel{~}{Q}^i.`$ (2.17)
Alternatively, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ preserves the form

$`\alpha ^i=du^iϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^ad\theta _{ka}`$ (2.18)
up to a factor, i.e.

$`_X\alpha ^i=_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j.`$ (2.19)
Explicitly,

$`X=V_f=f^i_i\frac{1}{4}()^fϵ_{ijk}D_a^if^jD^{ka},`$ (2.20)
where $`f=f^i(\theta ,u)_i`$ is a vector field acting on $`^{3|6}`$ and $`D^{ia}f^j=D^{ja}f^i`$.

The $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ tensor modules are labelled by the $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ weights $`(p,q;r;z)`$, $`p,q,r`$, $`z`$, where $`p\pi _1+q\pi _2`$ is an $`sl(3)`$ weight, $`r`$ is an $`sl(2)`$ weight and $`z`$ is a $`gl(1)`$ weight (the eigenvalue of the grading operator). A typical element in the tensor module $`T(p,q;r;z)`$ has the form $`f(\theta ,u)\varphi _{j_1..j_q}^{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}`$, where $`f(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function and $`\varphi _{j_1..j_q}^{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}`$ is totally symmetric in $`i_1..i_p`$, $`j_1..j_q`$ and $`a_1..a_r`$. From (2.15) and (2.19) we see that among tensor modules, the differentials $`\alpha ^iT(1,0;0;2)`$ and $`\gamma ^{ia}T(1,0;1;1)`$ transform particularly simply:

$`_X\alpha ^i=_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j,_X\gamma ^{ia}=()^XD^{ia}P_{jb}\gamma ^{jb}.`$ (2.21)
Dual differentials $`\overline{\alpha }_iT(0,1;0;2)`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}T(0,1;1;1)`$ transform as

$`_X\overline{\alpha }_i=_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^j\overline{\alpha }_j,_X\overline{\gamma }_{ia}=()^XD^{jb}P_{ia}\overline{\gamma }_{jb}.`$ (2.22)
If we assume that $`\alpha ^i`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}`$ are fermions, we can construct a density form $`v=\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3=\overline{\gamma }_{11}\overline{\gamma }_{12}\overline{\gamma }_{21}\overline{\gamma }_{22}\overline{\gamma }_{31}\overline{\gamma }_{32}`$; $`vT(0,0;0;6)`$ and its dual $`\overline{v}T(0,0;0;6)`$ transform as

$`_Xv`$ $`=`$ $`_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^iv=()^XD^{ia}P_{ia}v,`$
$`_X\overline{v}`$ $`=`$ $`_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\overline{v}=()^XD^{ia}P_{ia}\overline{v}.`$
The weight $`z`$ and the degree $`\mathrm{deg}`$ are defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& \theta _{ia}& u^i& d^{ia}& _i& \alpha ^i& \overline{\alpha }_i& \gamma ^{ia}& \overline{\gamma }_{ia}& v& \overline{v}\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ z\hfill & 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 2& 1& 1& 6& 6\\ \mathrm{deg}\hfill & 1& 2& 1& 2& 2& 2& 1& 1& 6& 6\end{array}$$

According to the principles set out in the introduction, candidate $`𝔤`$-invariant morphisms are differential operators which only involve the fermionic derivative $`D^{ia}`$, have degree zero, and are invariant under $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$. The complete list of such morphisms is given by444 Kac and Rudakov  find two different morphisms $`_4^{}`$ and $`_4^{\prime \prime }`$, but they seem to be identical, although they of course act on different spaces.

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}D^{ia},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ab}\overline{\alpha }_i\overline{\alpha }_jvD^{ia}D^{jb},`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\overline{\gamma }_{la}\overline{\gamma }_{mb}\overline{\gamma }_{nc}\alpha ^l\alpha ^m\alpha ^n\overline{v}D^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc},`$
$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{cd}\overline{\gamma }_{la}\overline{\gamma }_{mb}\alpha ^mD^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld},`$
$`_6`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ_{be}ϵ_{cf}\overline{\gamma }_{pa}\overline{\gamma }_{qd}\alpha ^p\alpha ^qD^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld}D^{me}D^{nf},`$
$`_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ_{ad}ϵ_{be}ϵ_{cf}vD^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld}D^{me}D^{nf}`$
It is straightforward to check that any other candidate morphism is either identically zero or the composite of two morphisms from the list (LABEL:vlemorph). The weights of the candidate morphisms can immediately be read off; it is also indicated in the subscript.

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}& _1& _2& _3& _4& _6& _\theta \\ & & & & & & \\ z& 1& 2& 3& 4& 6& 6\end{array}`$ (2.27)
Form modules can be constructed from the differentials (2.21), (2.22) and (LABEL:vlev). The action of the morphisms on the differentials and their duals is given by

$`\alpha ^i\overline{\alpha }_j=\overline{\alpha }_j\alpha ^i=\delta _j^i,\gamma ^{ia}\overline{\gamma }_{jb}=\overline{\gamma }_{jb}\gamma ^{ia}=\delta _j^i\delta _b^a,v\overline{v}=\overline{v}v=1,`$ (2.28)
i.e. $`\overline{\alpha }_i=/\alpha ^i`$, $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}=/\gamma ^{ia}`$, $`\overline{v}=/v`$, etc. Therefore, a form may not contain differentials and dual differentials of the same type. The basic form is

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{i_1..i_q|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\overline{\alpha }_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_q}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r},`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{i_1..i_q|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\alpha ^{i_{q+1}}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_r}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r},`$
where $`\omega ^{i_1..i_q|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function, completely symmetric in $`i_1..i_q`$ and $`a_1..a_r`$, and the two expressions hold when $`qr`$ and $`qr`$, respectively. Clearly, $`\omega T(0,q;r;2q+3r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)`$. For generic $`q,r`$, we assume that the morphism is first order in the fermionic derivative $`D^{ia}`$. Inspection of the list (LABEL:vlemorph) shows that it must be of the form $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q+1,r+1)`$. Explicitly,

$`_1\omega =𝐒(D^{jb}\omega ^{i_1..i_q|a_1\mathrm{}a_r})\overline{\alpha }_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_q}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r}\overline{\gamma }_{jb},`$ (2.30)
if $`qr`$, and a similar expression when $`qr`$. $`𝐒()`$ indicates that all indices inside the parentheses are symmetrized, e.g.

$`𝐒(D^{jb}\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`D^{jb}\omega ,`$
$`𝐒(D^{jb}\omega ^{i|})`$ $`=`$ $`(D^{jb}\omega ^{i|}+D^{ib}\omega ^{j|}),`$
$`𝐒(D^{jb}\omega ^{|a})`$ $`=`$ $`(D^{jb}\omega ^{|a}+D^{ja}\omega ^{|b}),`$
$`𝐒(D^{jb}\omega ^{i|a})`$ $`=`$ $`(D^{jb}\omega ^{i|a}+D^{ib}\omega ^{j|a}+D^{ja}\omega ^{i|b}+D^{ia}\omega ^{j|b}).`$
Let us prove that this formula defines a morphism in the case $`q=r=0`$. Then $`\omega =\omega (\theta ,u)`$ is an ordinary function (so $`z=0`$), and $`_1\omega =D^{jb}\omega \overline{\gamma }_{jb}`$. Now,

$`_X_1\omega =()^XD^{jb}P_{ia}\overline{\gamma }_{jb}D^{ia}\omega +\overline{\gamma }_{ia}X(D^{ia}\omega ),`$ (2.32)
and

$`()^X_1(_X\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`()^X\overline{\gamma }_{jb}D^{jb}(X\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`()^X\overline{\gamma }_{jb}\left(()^XXD^{jb}\omega +(D^{jb}X)\omega \right).`$
It is straightforward to see that these expressions are equal, using the definition (2.15) of $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ vector fields in the form $`(D^{jb}X)=D^{jb}P_{ia}D^{ia}`$. Hence $`_X_1=()^X_1_X`$, i.e. $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,1)`$ is an $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$-invariant morphism. The proof that (2.30) is invariant is similar for non-zero $`q`$ and $`r`$. When $`qr`$ one must use (2.15) and

$`D^{ia}E_k\stackrel{~}{Q}^j+D^{ja}E_k\stackrel{~}{Q}^i=E_k(D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j+D^{ja}\stackrel{~}{Q}^i)=0,`$ (2.34)
in view of (2.17) and $`[D^{ia},E_k]=0`$.

Similarly, consider forms of the type

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\alpha ^{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_p}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_ra_r},`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\overline{\alpha }_{i_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_r}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_ra_r},`$
where $`\omega _{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function and the two expressions hold when $`pr`$ and $`pr`$, respectively. Clearly, $`\omega T(p,0;r;2p3r)\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)`$. There is a morphism $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p1,r1)`$, defined by

$`_1\omega =D^{jb}\omega _{i_1..i_{p1}j|a_1\mathrm{}a_{r1}b}(\theta ,u)\alpha ^{i_r}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_{p1}}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_{r1}a_{r1}}`$ (2.36)
when $`pr`$, and a similar expression when $`pr`$. It is straightforward to prove $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ invariance directly as in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ case, but it is easier to note that if $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)`$ and $`\upsilon \mathrm{\Omega }_D(p,r)`$, there is an invariant pairing

$`(\omega ,\upsilon )={\displaystyle d^3ud^6\theta \omega _{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\upsilon ^{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)}.`$ (2.37)
The pairing is invariant because the volume element has weight zero. The morphism (2.36) can now be defined in terms of (2.30) by $`(_1\omega ,\upsilon )=(\omega ,_1\upsilon )`$.

There are two more types of form modules. $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)T(p,0;r;2p+3r+6)`$ has the form

$`\omega =\omega _{i_1..i_p}^{a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u)\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_{p+r}}\overline{\gamma }_{i_{p+1}a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_{p+r}a_r}v`$ (2.38)
The morphism $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p1,r+1)`$ is given by

$`_1\omega =𝐒(D^{jb}\omega _{i_1..i_{p1}j}^{a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u))\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_{p+r}}\overline{\gamma }_{i_pa_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_{p+r1}a_r}\overline{\gamma }_{i_{p+r}b}v.`$ (2.39)
Note the presence of the scalar form $`v`$ which contributes $`+6`$ to $`z`$; it is needed to make the morphism invariant. Dually, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)T(0,q;r;2q3r6)`$ has the form

$`\omega =\omega _{a_1..a_r}^{i_1..i_q}(\theta ,u)\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_{q+r}}\gamma ^{i_{q+1}a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_{q+r}a_r}\overline{v}.`$ (2.40)
The morphism $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_C(q+1,r1)`$ is given by

$`_1\omega =𝐒(D^{jb}\omega _{a_1..a_{r1}b}^{i_1..i_q}(\theta ,u))\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_{q+r1}}\overline{\alpha }_j\gamma ^{i_{q+1}a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_{q+r1}a_{r1}}\overline{v}.`$ (2.41)
The form modules are summarized in the following table, where $`p,q,r0`$ and the weight $`z`$ is the eigenvalue of the grading operator.

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Form}& z& \text{Basis}& \text{Condition}\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)& 2p3r& \alpha ^{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_p}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_ra_r}& pr\\ & & \overline{\alpha }_{i_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_r}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_ra_r}& pr\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)& 2p+3r+6& \alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_{p+r}}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r}v& \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)& 2q3r6& \overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_{q+r}}\gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_ra_r}\overline{v}& \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)& 2q+3r& \overline{\alpha }_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_q}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r}& qr\\ & & \alpha ^{i_{q+1}}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_r}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_ra_r}& qr\end{array}`$ (2.49)
The morphisms $`_1`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)`$ are only defined provided that $`p0`$ and $`r0`$ in the target module (this condition is automatically satisfied for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)`$). Since all morphisms must be connected into infinite complexes (remember that the irreducible quotients can be written as $`\mathrm{ker}=\text{im }^{}`$), there must be some other morphisms acting on the remaining modules. By $`𝔤_0`$ invariance, these morphisms must be taken from the candidate list (LABEL:vlemorph). All we have to do now is to fill the missing morphisms from the candidate list, making sure to match all weights, including the $`gl(1)`$ weight $`z`$ given in (2.27). In particular, the factors of $`v`$ and $`\overline{v}`$ must match. We find the following morphisms:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _1:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p1,r1),\hfill & p0,r0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p1,r+1),\hfill & p0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_C(q+1,r1),\hfill & r0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q+1,r+1),\hfill & \\ \hfill _2:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p2,0),\hfill & p0,1\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q+2,0),\hfill & \\ \hfill _3:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_C(0,r3),\hfill & r0,1,2\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_B(0,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,r+3),\hfill & \\ \hfill _4:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,2)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,0),\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,2),\hfill & \\ \hfill _6:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1),\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2.61)
In addition, the integral defines a morphism

$`{\displaystyle d^3ud^6\theta }:`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,0),`$
$`\omega (\theta ,u){\displaystyle d^3ud^6\theta \omega (\theta ,u)}.`$
The integral is invariant under all of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|6)`$ and thus in particular under $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$. However, integration over bosonic coordinates is not a differential operator, which is why it was not seen by Kac and Rudakov . Otherwise, my result is in perfect agreement with theirs. The situation is summarized in Figure 1.

## 3 $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$

Consider $`^{3|8}`$ with basis spanned by three even coordinates $`u^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, six odd coordinates $`\theta _{ia}`$, and two more odd coordinates $`\vartheta ^a`$. Let $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _{ia}=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}u^i=2`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\vartheta ^a=3`$. The graded Heisenberg algebra has the non-zero relations

$`\{ð_b,\vartheta ^a\}=\delta _b^a,[_j,u^i]=\delta _j^i,\{d^{ia},\theta _{jb}\}=\delta _j^i\delta _b^a,`$ (3.63)
where $`_i=/u^i`$, $`d^{ia}=/\theta _{ia}`$, and $`ð_a=/\vartheta _a`$. The vector fields

$`D^{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`d^{ia}3ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a_k+ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^a\theta _k^bð_bu^ið^a,`$
$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`_i\theta _i^að_a,`$ (3.64)
$`F^a`$ $`=`$ $`ð_a,`$
satisfy the nilpotent Lie superalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}_{}`$:

$`\{D^{ia},D^{jb}\}`$ $`=`$ $`6ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{ab}E_k,`$
$`[D^{ia},E_j]`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _j^iF^a,`$
and all other brackets vanish. Any vector field in $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|8)`$ has the form

$`X=R^að_a+Q^i_i+P_{ia}d^{ia}=\stackrel{~}{R}^að_a+\stackrel{~}{Q}^iE_i+P_{ia}D^{ia},`$ (3.66)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}^i`$ $`=`$ $`Q^i+3()^Xϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^aP_{ka},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}^a`$ $`=`$ $`R^a+()^X\theta _i^aQ^i+2ϵ^{ijk}\theta _i^a\theta _j^bP_{kb}u^iP_i^a.`$
$`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is the subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|8)`$ which preserves the dual Pfaff equation $`D^{ia}=0`$, where $`D^{ia}`$ was defined in (3.64). In other words, $`X𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ iff

$`[X,D^{ia}]=()^XD^{ia}P_{jb}D^{jb},`$ (3.68)
which leads to the conditions

$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j`$ $`=`$ $`6()^Xϵ^{ijk}P_k^a,`$
$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{R}^b`$ $`=`$ $`2()^Xϵ^{ab}\stackrel{~}{Q}^i.`$
In particular, we have the symmetry relations

$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j`$ $`=`$ $`D^{ja}\stackrel{~}{Q}^i,`$ (3.70)
$`D^{ia}\stackrel{~}{R}^b`$ $`=`$ $`D^{ib}\stackrel{~}{R}^a.`$
Alternatively, $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ may be defined as the subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(3|8)`$ under which the forms

$`\alpha ^i`$ $`=`$ $`du^i+3ϵ^{ijk}\theta _j^ad\theta _{ka},`$
$`\beta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`d\vartheta ^au^id\theta _i^a+\theta _i^adu^i+2ϵ^{ijk}\theta _i^a\theta _j^bd\theta _{kb}.`$
transform as

$`_X\alpha ^i`$ $`=`$ $`E_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j()^Xð_a\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\beta ^a,`$
$`_X\beta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`()^Xð_b\stackrel{~}{R}^a\beta ^b.`$
Explicitly,

$`X`$ $``$ $`M_f=f^að_a+\frac{1}{4}()^fD^{ia}f_aE_i+\frac{1}{48}ϵ_{ijk}D_a^iD^{jb}f_bD^{ka},`$ (3.73)
where $`f=f^a(\theta ,u,\vartheta )ð_a`$ is a vector field acting on $`^{3|8}`$, $`D^{ia}f^b=D^{ib}f^a`$ and $`D^{ia}D^{jb}f_b=D^{ja}D^{ib}f_b`$. Note that $`()^f=+1`$ if $`f`$ is an even vector field, i.e. $`f^a`$ is an odd function.

The $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ tensor modules are labelled by the $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ weights $`(p,q;r;z)`$, $`p,q,r`$, $`z`$, where $`p\pi _1+q\pi _2`$ is an $`sl(3)`$ weight, $`r`$ is an $`sl(2)`$ weight and $`z`$ is a $`gl(1)`$ weight (the eigenvalue of the grading operator). A typical element in the tensor module $`T(p,q;r;z)`$ has the form $`f(\theta ,u)\varphi _{j_1..j_q}^{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}`$, where $`f(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function and $`\varphi _{j_1..j_q}^{i_1..i_p|a_1..a_r}`$ is totally symmetric in $`i_1..i_p`$, $`j_1..j_q`$ and $`a_1..a_r`$. From (3.68) and (LABEL:mbXab) we see that among tensor modules, the differentials $`\alpha ^iT(1,0;0;2)`$, $`\beta ^aT(0,0;1;3)`$ and $`\gamma ^{ia}T(1,0;1;1)`$ transform particularly simply:

$`_X\alpha ^i=E_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j,`$
$`_X\beta ^a=()^Xð_b\stackrel{~}{R}^a\beta ^b,`$ (3.74)
$`_X\gamma ^{ia}=()^XD^{ia}P_{jb}\gamma ^{jb}.`$
The transformation law for $`\alpha ^i`$ has been modified compared to (LABEL:mbXab); this is permissible because $`\beta ^a`$ transforms irreducibly by itself.

Dual differentials $`\overline{\alpha }_iT(0,1;0;2)`$, $`\overline{\beta }_aT(0,0;1;3)`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}T(0,1;1;1)`$ transform as

$`_X\overline{\alpha }_i=E_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^j\overline{\alpha }_j,`$
$`_X\overline{\beta }_a=()^Xð_a\stackrel{~}{R}^b\overline{\beta }_b,`$ (3.75)
$`_X\overline{\gamma }_{ia}=()^XD^{jb}P_{ia}\overline{\gamma }_{jb}.`$
If we assume that $`\alpha ^i`$, $`\beta ^a`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}`$ are fermions, we can construct a scalar density $`v=\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3=\beta ^1\beta ^2=\overline{\gamma }_{11}\overline{\gamma }_{12}\overline{\gamma }_{21}\overline{\gamma }_{22}\overline{\gamma }_{31}\overline{\gamma }_{32}`$; $`vT(0,0;0;6)`$ and its dual $`\overline{v}T(0,0;0;6)`$ transform as

$`_Xv`$ $`=`$ $`E_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^iv=()^Xð_a\stackrel{~}{R}^av=()^XD^{ia}P_{ia}v,`$
$`_X\overline{v}`$ $`=`$ $`E_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\overline{v}=()^Xð_a\stackrel{~}{R}^a\overline{v}=()^XD^{ia}P_{ia}\overline{v}.`$
Define the weight $`z`$ and the degree $`\mathrm{deg}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}& \theta _{ia}& u^i& \vartheta ^a& d^{ia}& _i& ð_a& \alpha ^i& \overline{\alpha }_j& \beta ^a& \overline{\beta }_a& \gamma ^{ia}& \overline{\gamma }_{ia}& v& \overline{v}\\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ z\hfill & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 2& 3& 3& 1& 1& 6& 6\\ \mathrm{deg}\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 1& 2& 3& 2& 2& 3& 3& 1& 1& 6& 6\end{array}$$

As for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$, we build form modules using the elementary differentials (3.74). The action of the morphisms on the differentials and their duals is given by

$`\alpha ^i\overline{\alpha }_j=\overline{\alpha }_j\alpha ^i=\delta _j^i,`$ $`\beta ^a\overline{\beta }_b=\overline{\beta }_b\beta ^a=\delta _b^a,`$
$`\gamma ^{ia}\overline{\gamma }_{jb}=\overline{\gamma }_{jb}\gamma ^{ia}=\delta _j^i\delta _b^a,`$ $`v\overline{v}=\overline{v}v=1.`$
A form may not contain differentials and dual differentials of the same type. Since there are three types of differentials, apart from the scalar density $`v`$, one might try to write down form depending on four parameters, e.g.

$`\omega =\omega ^{i_1..i_q|a_1..a_r}(\theta ,u,\vartheta )\overline{\alpha }_{i_{s+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_q}\overline{\beta }_{a_{s+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_r}\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_sa_s}v^k.`$ (3.78)
However, when one demands $`𝔤`$ invariance it turns out that $`\alpha ^i`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_j`$ can not be used. Eq. (2.34) is replaced by

$`D^{ia}E_k\stackrel{~}{Q}^j+D^{ja}E_k\stackrel{~}{Q}^i=2(\delta _k^iF^a\stackrel{~}{Q}^j+\delta _k^jF^a\stackrel{~}{Q}^i)0,`$ (3.79)
because $`[D^{ia},E_j]=2\delta _j^iF^a`$ from (LABEL:mb-). Hence the candidate form modules are built only from differentials $`\beta ^a`$, $`\gamma ^{ia}`$, $`v`$, and their duals.

After tedious calculations, completely analogous to the $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ case, we find the following form modules:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Form}& z& \text{Basis}& \text{Condition}\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)& 4p+3r6& \gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_pa_p}\beta ^{a_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\beta ^{a_r}\overline{v}& rp\\ & & \gamma ^{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_pa_p}\overline{\beta }_{a_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_p}\overline{v}& rp\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)& 4p3r12& \gamma ^{i_1a_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_pa_{r+p}}\overline{\beta }_{a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_{p+r}}\overline{v}^2& \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)& 4q+3r+6& \overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_qa_{r+q}}\beta ^{a_1}\mathrm{}\beta ^{a_{q+r}}v& \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)& 4q3r& \overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_qa_q}\overline{\beta }_{a_{q+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_r}& rq\\ & & \overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_qa_q}\beta ^{a_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\beta ^{a_q}& rq\end{array}`$ (3.87)
where $`p,q,r0`$ and $`z`$ is the eigenvalue of the grading operator.

According to the principles set out in the introduction, candidate $`𝔤`$-invariant morphisms are differential operators which only involve the fermionic derivative $`D^{ia}`$, have degree zero, and are invariant under $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$. The complete list of such morphisms is obtained from (LABEL:vlemorph) by the substitutions

$`\alpha ^i=\gamma ^{ia}\overline{\beta }_av,\overline{\alpha }_i=\overline{\gamma }_{ia}\beta ^a\overline{v}.`$ (3.88)
Thus,

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}D^{ia},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ab}\overline{\gamma }_{ic}\overline{\gamma }_{jd}\beta ^c\beta ^d\overline{v}D^{ia}D^{jb},`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\overline{\beta }_a\overline{\beta }_b\overline{\beta }_cv^2D^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc},`$
$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{cd}\overline{\gamma }_{la}\overline{\beta }_bvD^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld},`$
$`_6`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ_{be}ϵ_{cf}\overline{\beta }_a\overline{\beta }_dv^2D^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld}D^{me}D^{nf},`$
$`_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ_{ad}ϵ_{be}ϵ_{cf}vD^{ia}D^{jb}D^{kc}D^{ld}D^{me}D^{nf}.`$
To fill in the missing morphisms, we again choose from the candidate list above, and make sure to match powers of $`v`$. This works out in the same way as for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$, except for the $`_6`$ arrow. The relevant weights are

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& _6& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)\\ & & & \\ z(𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6))& 6& 3& 3\\ z(𝔪𝔟(3|8))& 6& 3& 3\end{array}$$

Thus

$$_6:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)$$

is a well-defined $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ morphism, because $`z(_6)+z_A(0,1)=z_D(0,1)`$, but it is not an $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ morphism. However, since $`z_A(0,1)=z_D(0,1)`$ in $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, the $`_6`$ arrow can be replaced by the identity map.

To summarize:

###### Theorem 3.1

The degenerate $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ tensor modules are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,r)=T(p,0;r;4p+3r6)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)=T(p,0;r;4p3r12)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C(q,r)=T(0,q;r;4q+3r+6)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)=T(0,q;r;4q3r)`$, ($`p,q,r0`$). The morphisms are the same as in (2.61), except that the $`_6`$ arrow is replaced by the identity map (since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)=T(0,0;1;3)`$). The integral morphism reads

$`{\displaystyle d^3ud^6\theta d^2\vartheta }:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,0),`$
$`\omega (\theta ,u,\vartheta )\overline{v}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3ud^6\theta d^2\vartheta \omega (\theta ,u,\vartheta )}.`$
The morphisms can be illustrated by the Figure 1, which is the same as for $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$. This result is superficially different from what Kac and Rudakov find , because they work in a contragredient formalism. Agreement is found if we redefine $`(p,q)(q,p)`$, $`zz`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$555It is not clear to me why their arrows are not reversed.. Again, they do not consider the non-local integral, which explains the hole in the middle of their Figure 1.

## 4 $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$

Consider $`^{5|10}`$ with basis spanned by five even coordinates $`u^i`$, $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$ and ten odd coordinates $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _{ji}`$. Let $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _{ij}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}u^i=2`$. The graded Heisenberg algebra has the non-zero relations

$`[_j,u^i]=\delta _j^i,\{d^{ij},\theta _{kl}\}=\delta _k^i\delta _l^j\delta _k^j\delta _l^i,`$ (4.90)
where $`_i=/u^i`$ and $`d^{ij}=d^{ji}=/\theta _{ij}`$. Consider the vector fields

$`D^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`d^{ij}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijklm}\theta _{kl}_m,`$
$`E_k`$ $`=`$ $`_k,`$
which generate the superalgebra

$`\{D^{ij},D^{kl}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ^{ijklm}E_m,`$
$`[D^{ij},E_k]`$ $`=`$ $`[E_k,E_l]=0.`$
Any vector field in $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(5|10)`$ has the form

$`X=Q^i_i+\frac{1}{2}P_{ij}d^{ij}=\stackrel{~}{Q}^i_i+\frac{1}{2}P_{ij}D^{ij},`$ (4.93)
where the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is necessary to avoid double counting and

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}^i`$ $`=`$ $`Q^i+\frac{1}{4}()^Xϵ^{ijklm}\theta _{jk}P_{lm}.`$ (4.94)
$`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ is the subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(5|10)`$ (divergence-free vector fields) which preserve the dual Pfaff equation $`D^{ij}=0`$. For convenience, we will adjoin the grading operator $`Z=2u^i_i+\frac{1}{2}\theta _{ij}d^{ij}`$ to $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$, and thus consider the non-simple algebra $`\overline{𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)}=(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{},gl(5))_{}`$. Hence $`X\overline{𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)}`$ iff

$`[X,D^{ij}]=\frac{1}{2}()^XD^{ij}P_{kl}D^{kl}`$ (4.95)
which leads to the condition

$`D^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}^k=()^Xϵ^{ijklm}P_{lm}.`$ (4.96)
In particular, we have the symmetry relations

$`D^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}^k=D^{jk}\stackrel{~}{Q}^i=D^{ik}\stackrel{~}{Q}^j.`$ (4.97)
Alternatively, $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ can be defined as the vector fields which preserve the form

$`\alpha ^i=du^i+\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{ijklm}\theta _{jk}d\theta _{lm}`$ (4.98)
up to a factor:

$`_X\alpha ^i=_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j.`$ (4.99)
Explicitly,

$`XU_f=f^i_i+\frac{1}{24}()^fϵ_{ijklm}D^{ij}f^kD^{lm},`$ (4.100)
where $`f=f^i(\theta ,u)_i`$ is a vector field acting on $`^{5|10}`$, $`D^{ij}f^k=D^{jk}f^i=D^{ik}f^j`$, and $`_if^i=0`$.

The $`\overline{𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)}`$ tensor modules are labelled by the $`sl(5)`$ weights $`(p,q,r,s)=p\pi _1+q\pi _2+r\pi _3+s\pi _4`$, $`p,q,r,s`$, and a $`gl(1)`$ weight $`z`$ (the eigenvalue of the grading operator). A typical element in the tensor module $`T(p,q,r,s;z)`$ has the form $`f(\theta ,u)\varphi _{j_1..j_s|m_1n_1..m_rn_r}^{i_1..i_p|k_1l_1..k_ql_q}`$, where $`f(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function and $`\varphi _{j_1..j_s|m_1n_1..m_rn_r}^{i_1..i_p|k_1l_1..k_ql_q}`$ is totally symmetric in $`i_1..i_p`$, $`k_1l_1..k_ql_q`$, $`m_1n_1..m_rn_r`$, and $`j_1..j_s`$, and anti-symmetric under $`k_1l_1l_1k_1`$ and $`m_1n_1n_1m_1`$, etc. From (4.95) and (4.99) we see that among tensor modules, the differentials $`\alpha ^iT(1,0,0,0;2)`$ and $`\gamma ^{ij}T(0,1,0,0;1)`$ transform particularly simply:

$`_X\alpha ^i=_j\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\alpha ^j,_X\gamma ^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}()^XD^{ij}P_{kl}\gamma ^{kl}.`$ (4.101)
Dual differentials $`\overline{\alpha }_iT(0,0,0,1;2)`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ij}T(0,0,1,0;1)`$ transform as

$`_X\overline{\alpha }_i=_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^j\overline{\alpha }_j,_X\overline{\gamma }_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}()^XD^{kl}P_{ij}\overline{\gamma }_{kl}.`$ (4.102)
If we assume that $`\alpha ^i`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_{ia}`$ are fermions, we can construct a density form $`v=\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3\alpha ^4\alpha ^5=\overline{\gamma }_{12}\overline{\gamma }_{13}\overline{\gamma }_{14}\overline{\gamma }_{15}\overline{\gamma }_{23}\overline{\gamma }_{24}\overline{\gamma }_{25}\overline{\gamma }_{34}\overline{\gamma }_{35}\overline{\gamma }_{45}`$; $`vT(0,0,0,0;10)`$ and its dual $`\overline{v}T(0,0,0,0;10)`$ transform as

$`_Xv`$ $`=`$ $`_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^iv=\frac{1}{2}()^XD^{ij}P_{ij}v,`$
$`_X\overline{v}`$ $`=`$ $`_i\stackrel{~}{Q}^i\overline{v}=\frac{1}{2}()^XD^{ij}P_{ij}\overline{v}.`$
Forms can be constructed from the differentials (4.101), with the following action on the differentials and their duals:

$`\alpha ^i\overline{\alpha }_j=\overline{\alpha }_j\alpha ^i=\delta _j^i,\gamma ^{ij}\overline{\gamma }_{kl}=\overline{\gamma }_{kl}\gamma ^{ij}=\delta _k^i\delta _l^j\delta _l^i\delta _k^j,v\overline{v}=\overline{v}v=1.`$ (4.104)
Therefore, a form may not contain differentials and dual differentials of the same type. The basic form is

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1..j_rk_r}(\theta ,u)\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_s}\overline{\gamma }_{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_rk_r},`$
where $`\omega _{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1..j_rk_r}(\theta ,u)`$ is a polynomial function, totally symmetric in $`i_1..i_s`$, anti-symmetric under $`j_mk_mk_mj_m`$, and symmetric under $`j_mk_mj_nk_nj_nk_nj_mk_m`$. Clearly, $`\omega T(0,0,r,s;r2s)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r)`$. There is a morphism $`_1:\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r+1)`$, defined by

$`_1\omega =𝐒(D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1..j_rk_r}(\theta ,u))\overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_s}\overline{\gamma }_{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_rk_r}\overline{\gamma }_{lm},`$ (4.105)
where the indices $`lm`$ are symmetrized with $`j_1k_1..j_rk_r`$, e.g.

$`𝐒(D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|})`$ $`=`$ $`D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|},`$
$`𝐒(D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1})`$ $`=`$ $`D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1}+D^{j_1k_1}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|lm},`$
$`𝐒(D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1j_2k_2})`$ $`=`$ $`D^{lm}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|j_1k_1j_2k_2}+`$
$`+D^{j_1k_1}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|lmj_2k_2}+D^{j_2k_2}\omega ^{i_1..i_s|lmj_1k_1}.`$
The verification that (4.105) indeed defines a morphism involves (4.95) in the form

$`(D^{ij}X)=\frac{1}{2}D^{ij}P_{kl}D^{kl},`$ (4.107)
(4.97) and $`[D^{ij},E_k]=0`$.

Using similar calculations one proves that there are four sectors of form modules, as summarized in the following table. Here $`p,q,r,s0`$ and the weight $`z`$ is the eigenvalue of the grading operator.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Form}& sl(5)\text{ weight}& z& \text{Basis}\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,q)& (p,q,0,0)& 2pq& \alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_p}\gamma ^{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{j_qk_q}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)& (p,0,r,0)& 2p+r& \alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_p}\overline{\gamma }_{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_rk_r}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_C(s,q)& (0,q,0,s)& 2sq& \overline{\alpha }_{i_s}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_s}\gamma ^{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{j_qk_q}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r)& (0,0,r,s)& 2s+r& \overline{\alpha }_{i_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{i_s}\overline{\gamma }_{j_1k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_rk_r}\end{array}$$

The first-order morphisms which have been constructed are of the form

$`\begin{array}{ccc}_1:\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,q)\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,q1),\hfill & q0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,r+1),\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_C(s,q)\mathrm{\Omega }_C(s,q1),\hfill & q0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,r+1),\hfill & \end{array}`$ (4.112)
Note that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p,0),`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,q)=\mathrm{\Omega }_C(0,q),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s,0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_C(s,0),`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,r)=\mathrm{\Omega }_B(0,r),`$
because no explicit factors of the scalar differential $`v`$ appear. Therefore, all morphisms are already connected into infinite complexes. Nevertheless, there are more morphisms. First of all, the integral is $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(5|10)`$ invariant, so there is a map

$`{\displaystyle d^5ud^{10}\theta }:\mathrm{\Omega }_X(0,0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X(0,0),`$
$`\omega (\theta ,u)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^5ud^{10}\theta \omega (\theta ,u)}`$
(the module at the origin is the same for all four sectors). Moreover, there exist further differential operators that only involve the fermionic derivative $`D^{ij}`$, have degree zero, and are invariant under $`𝔤_0=sl(5)gl(1)`$. The complete list of such morphisms is given by

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_{ij}D^{ij},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijklm}ϵ_{npqrs}\alpha ^i\alpha ^nD^{jp}D^{kq}D^{lr}D^{ms},`$ (4.115)
$`_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`vD^{12}D^{13}D^{14}D^{15}D^{23}D^{24}D^{25}D^{34}D^{35}D^{45}.`$
It is natural to conjecture that $`_2`$ acts on the modules with $`q=0`$ and $`r=0`$, which thus have two ingoing and two outgoing morphisms:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _2:& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(p,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_B(p+2,0),\hfill \\ \hfill _2:& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(s,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(s2,0),\hfill \end{array}$$

The situation (conjectured for $`_2`$ but proven for $`_1`$) is summarized in Figure 2.

This result disagrees with what Kac and Rudakov find in . They find three sectors, with $`sl(5)`$ weights

$`A=(p,q,0,0),B=(0,0,r,s),C=(p,0,0,s).`$ (4.116)
The first two sectors are the same as my $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ forms, and the omission of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C`$ is not a problem, since they only conjecture completeness of their list. However, I am not able to verify that the tensor modules of type $`(p,0,0,s)`$ are reducible. The alleged morphism is, in the notation of the present paper,

$`_C=(\overline{\alpha }_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^j}}\overline{\alpha }_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha ^i}})D^{ij},`$ (4.117)
when acting on tensor fields of the form

$`\omega _{i_1..i_p}^{j_1..j_s}\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha ^{i_p}\overline{\alpha }_{j_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{j_s}.`$ (4.118)
When acting on pure powers, i.e. modules which involve either $`\alpha ^i`$ or $`\overline{\alpha }_j`$ but not both, we have identified $`\alpha ^i=/\overline{\alpha }_j`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_j=/\alpha ^i`$. This identification is not possible here, because it would make $`_C0`$. Moreover, I have verified that the simplest case,

$`_C:(1,0,0,0)`$ $``$ $`(0,0,0,1),`$
$`\omega _i\alpha ^i`$ $``$ $`D^{ij}\omega _i\overline{\alpha }_j`$
is in fact not $`𝔨𝔰𝔩𝔢(5|10)`$ invariant. Hence I conclude that tensor modules of type C are not form modules.

## 5  A second-gauged standard model

The potential interest of the exceptional superalgebras is based on the following two observations:

1. The grade zero subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, i.e. the non-compact form of the symmetries of the standard model in particle physics.
2. $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ is the unique superalgebra of maximal depth $`3`$ in its consistent gradation.

Even if depth in the technical sense does not necessarily mean profound, the technical and informal usages of the word are related; maximal depth essentially means that the algebra has the most intricate and beautiful structure possible. The richest conceivable local symmetry is hence intimately related to the symmetries of the standard model; there is a 1-1 correspondence between irreducible modules. It is therefore very tempting to construct a gauge theory with a local $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ symmetry, and in this section a first step in this direction is taken. We do not limit ourselves to the exceptional superalgebras, but consider the general case of replacing a finite-dimensional symmetry $`𝔤_0`$ by a quite general class of infinite-dimensional symmetries $`𝔤`$. Due to the shortage of letters, indices in this section are not related to indices with identical names in previous sections. Moreover, we ignore all superalgebra sign factors and pretend that we are dealing with ordinary Lie algebras. This is of course not correct, but keeping track of signs will only complicate matters and obscure the main points.

Let $`J^a`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},dim𝔤_0`$ be the generators of the finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤_0gl(n|m)`$ with structure constants $`f^{ab}_c`$:

$`[J^a,J^b]=f^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}J_{}^{c}.`$ (5.120)
Let $`y^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,n+1,\mathrm{}n+m`$ be the coordinates of $`^{n|m}`$, and let $`_i=/y^i`$ be the corresponding derivatives. Then $`𝔤_0`$ can be realized as vector fields of the form $`J^a=\varrho _i^{ja}y^i_j`$. Let $`D_i=/y^i+\mathrm{}`$ be $`n+m`$ first order derivatives, which generate a closed nilpotent algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}_{}`$ which is also a $`𝔤_0`$ module:

$`[D_i,D_j]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}D_{k}^{}`$
$`[J^a,D_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\varrho _j^{ia}D_i.`$
The structure constants $`g_{ij}^k`$ and $`\varrho _j^{ia}`$ are assumed to respect the grading, i.e. $`g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}=0`$ unless $`\mathrm{deg}y^i+\mathrm{deg}y^j=\mathrm{deg}y^k`$ and $`\varrho _j^{ia}=0`$ unless $`\mathrm{deg}y^i=\mathrm{deg}y^j`$.

Any vector field $`X𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ can be expanded in the $`D_i`$ basis: $`X=X^i(y)D_i`$. Clearly,

$`[X,Y]=X^iD_iY^jD_jY^jD_jX^iD_i+g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}X_{}^{i}Y^jD_k.`$ (5.122)
Now consider the vector fields $`X`$ whose bracket with $`D_i`$ is of the form

$`[D_i,X]D_iX^kD_k+g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}X_{}^{j}D_k=\overline{h}_{ik}^{jl}D_jX^kD_l`$ (5.123)
for some structure constants $`\overline{h}_{ik}^{jl}`$ which also preserve the grading: $`\overline{h}_{ik}^{jl}=0`$ unless $`\mathrm{deg}y^j+\mathrm{deg}y^l=\mathrm{deg}y^i+\mathrm{deg}y^k`$. Setting $`\overline{h}_{ik}^{jl}=\delta _i^j\delta _k^l+h_{ik}^{jl}`$, (5.123) can be rewritten as

$`g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{l}X_{}^{j}=h_{ik}^{jl}D_jX^k.`$ (5.124)
This equation defines the subalgebra $`𝔤𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$.

Define $`\sigma _{ja}^i`$ to be the inverse of the projection $`\varrho _j^{ia}`$:

$`\varrho _j^{ia}\sigma _{ib}^j=\delta _b^a,\varrho _j^{ia}\sigma _{la}^k\delta _l^i\delta _j^k.`$ (5.125)
The notation $``$ is defined to mean equality when contracted with $`D_jX^i`$. Thus, the second relation above should be interpreted to mean $`D_jX^i=\varrho _j^{ia}\sigma _{la}^kD_kX^l`$ for every $`X𝔤`$. Note that this relation can not hold for arbitrary vector fields, but only for vector fields in $`𝔤`$. It is now straightforward to prove that

$`_X=X+D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^aX+D_jX^iT_i^j`$ (5.126)
satisfies $`[_X,_Y]=_{[X,Y]}`$, with $`[X,Y]`$ as in (5.122), provided that

$`\sigma _{ia}^k\sigma _{jb}^lf^{ab}_c`$ $``$ $`\delta _i^l\sigma _{jc}^k\delta _j^k\sigma _{ic}^l`$
$`+h_{mi}^{kl}\sigma _{jc}^mh_{mj}^{lk}\sigma _{ic}^m+h_{ij}^{lm}\sigma _{mc}^kh_{ji}^{km}\sigma _{mc}^l`$
($``$ indicates that the relation holds when contracted with $`D_kX^iD_lY^j`$, for all $`X,Y𝔤`$.) There are cases were relations of this type exist; the exceptional Lie superalgebras provide examples, which follows from the explicit descriptions of their tensor modules. The generators $`T_j^i`$ satisfy $`gl(n|m)`$ weakly:

$`[T_j^i,T_l^k]\delta _j^kT_l^i\delta _l^iT_j^k.`$ (5.128)
We thus have the projection $`𝔤gl(n|m):T^a=\varrho _j^{ia}T_i^j`$ and the injection $`𝔤gl(n|m):T_j^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^a`$. The transformation laws can be read off from (5.126); e.g., a vector and a covector transform as

$`_X\gamma ^i`$ $`=`$ $`X\gamma ^i+D_jX^i\gamma ^j,`$
$`_X\psi _j`$ $`=`$ $`X\psi _jD_jX^i\psi _i.`$
The symmetry of the gauge theory is not $`𝔤`$ itself, but rather the associated current algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$; it does not matter if $`𝔤=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$, or $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ here. We must hence develop the representation theory of the algebra of maps from $`N`$-dimensional spacetime to an infinite-dimensional vectorial algebra $`𝔤`$. There is one important complication compared to the situation when $`𝔤`$ is finite-dimensional.

Actually, we consider the larger algebra $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ obtained by adding spacetime diffeomorphisms $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$. This algebra is clearly a subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m))𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N+n|m)`$, the algebra of diffeomorphisms in $`N+n|m`$-dimensional space which preserve the splitting into an $`N`$-dimensional base space and an $`n|m`$-dimensional fiber. Any such vector field can be decomposed into horizonal and vertical parts: $`(\xi ,X)=(\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu ,X^i(x,y)D_i)`$, where $`x=x^\mu `$, $`\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, is the spacetime coordinate and $`_\mu =/x^\mu `$ the corresponding derivative. The bracket in $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ takes the form

$`[\xi ,\eta ]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu _\mu \eta ^\nu _\nu \eta ^\nu _\nu \xi ^\mu _\mu ,`$
$`[\xi ,X]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu _\mu X^iD_i,`$ (5.130)
$`[X,Y]`$ $`=`$ $`X^iD_iY^jD_jY^jD_jX^iD_i+g_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}X_{}^{i}Y^jD_k.`$
The corresponding Lie derivatives are

$`_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\xi +_\nu \xi ^\mu T_\mu ^\nu ,`$
$`_X`$ $`=`$ $`X+D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^a+ϵ_\nu X^iT_i^\nu ,`$
where

$`[T_\nu ^\mu ,T_\sigma ^\rho ]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\rho T_\sigma ^\mu \delta _\sigma ^\mu T_\nu ^\rho ,`$
$`[T_\nu ^\mu ,T_j^\rho ]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\rho T_j^\mu ,`$
$`[T^a,T_j^\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`\varrho _j^{ia}T_i^\mu ,`$
$`[T_i^\mu ,T_j^\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`[T_\nu ^\mu ,T^a]=0.`$
Note the appearence of the last term in the expression for $`_X`$. The constant $`ϵ`$ can take on any value without violating the representation condition. The point is that if we set $`ϵ0`$, vectors in internal space acquire spacetime components as well. In particular, (LABEL:gp1) is replaced by

$`_X\gamma ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`X\gamma ^\mu ,`$
$`_X\gamma ^i`$ $`=`$ $`X\gamma ^i+D_jX^i\gamma ^j+ϵ_\nu X^i\gamma ^\nu ,`$
$`_X\psi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`X\psi _\nu ϵ_\nu X^i\psi _i,`$
$`_X\psi _j`$ $`=`$ $`X\psi _jD_jX^i\psi _i.`$
Thus $`(\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^i)`$ and $`(\psi _\nu ,\psi _j)`$ carry reducible but indecomposable representations of $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$, with $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\psi _j`$ being the irreducible submodules. If we set $`ϵ=0`$, assume that $`X`$ is of the form $`X=X_a(x)\varrho _i^{ja}y^i_j`$, and consider the action on $`y`$-independent functions only, the expression for $`_X`$ becomes $`_X=X_a(x)T^a`$, which is recognized as the natural realization of the current algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤_0)`$. However, when we consider the full algebra $`𝔤`$ the restriction to $`y`$-independent functions is not meaningful.

The standard model enjoys extreme experimental success, so any attempt to modify it must in some sense stay very close to it. A natural strategy is to start from the standard model action and make the minimal modifications necessary to elevate the $`𝔤_0`$ symmetry to a $`𝔤`$ symmetry. Focus on the Yang-Mills-Dirac part:

$`S_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Nx\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu \psi (x)},`$
$`𝒟_\mu `$ $``$ $`_\mu +A_{a\mu }(x)T^a,`$
which leads to the massless Dirac equation $`\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu \psi (x)=0`$. It is now tempting to simply replace the spacetime fields with functions of both $`x`$ and $`y`$: $`\psi (x,y)`$, $`\overline{\psi }(x,y)`$ and $`A_{a\mu }(x,y)`$. However, this does not work. One readily verifies that

$`_X_\nu \psi `$ $`=`$ $`X_\nu \psi D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^a_\nu \psi `$
$`_\nu X^iD_i\psi _\nu D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^a\psi .`$
The last term can be compensated by demanding that the connection $`A_{a\mu }`$ transforms as

$`_XA_{a\mu }=XA_{a\mu }f^{bc}{}_{a}{}^{}X_{b}^{}A_{c\mu }_\mu X^iA_{ai}+\sigma _{ia}^j_\mu D_jX^i,`$ (5.136)
but the third term forces us to introduce components $`D_j\psi `$ in the internal directions as well. In other words, $`(_\nu \psi ,D_j\psi )`$ transforms as the vector $`(\psi _\nu ,\psi _j)`$ in (LABEL:gp2) with $`ϵ=1`$. There is no way that we can choose $`ϵ=0`$ to make the vector’s spacetime components decouple from its internal components.

It is now easy to see that the simplest $`𝔤`$-invariant generalization of (LABEL:S\_D) is

$`S_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Nxd^{n|m}y\overline{\psi }(x,y)(\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu +\gamma ^i(x,y)𝒟_i)\psi (x,y)},`$
$`𝒟_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu +A_{a\mu }(x,y)T^a,`$ (5.137)
$`𝒟_i`$ $`=`$ $`D_i+A_{ai}(x,y)T^a,`$
where $`_X`$ acts on $`\gamma ^\mu `$ as (LABEL:gp2) with $`ϵ=1`$ and on $`A_{a\mu }`$ as (5.136), and $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ transform contragrediently:

$`_X\psi `$ $`=`$ $`X\psi D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^jT^a\psi ,`$
$`_X\overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`X\overline{\psi }+D_jX^i\sigma _{ia}^j\overline{\psi }T^a.`$
Clearly, all formulas simplify if we combine spacetime and internal components into a single $`(N+n|m)`$-dimensional vector. Let capital letters from the middle of the alphabeth denote combined indices, e.g. $`I=(\mu ,i)=1,\mathrm{},N+n+m`$. The Dirac action (5.137) becomes

$`S_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Nxd^{n|m}y\overline{\psi }(x,y)𝒟/\psi (x,y)},`$ (5.139)
where

$`𝒟/\gamma ^I(x,y)𝒟_I,𝒟_I=(_\mu ,D_i)+A_{aI}(x,y)T^a.`$ (5.140)
Given this covariant derivative we can construct the Yang-Mills field strength $`F_{aIJ}T^a=[𝒟_I,𝒟_J]`$ and the Yang-Mills action

$`S_{YM}={\displaystyle d^Nxd^{n|m}y\sqrt{g}g^{IK}g^{JL}F_{aIJ}F_{KL}^a}.`$ (5.141)
Explicit factors of the metric $`g^{IK}`$ and the density $`\sqrt{g}`$ have been introduced. The metric is defined in terms of the gamma matrices $`\gamma ^I(x,y)=(\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^i(x,y))`$ as usual: $`\{\gamma ^I(x,y),\gamma ^J(x,y)\}=2g^{IJ}(x,y)`$. Note that even if we may consider the spacetime components $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ to be constants (as long as we restrict spacetime diffeomorphisms $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ to its Poincaré subalgebra), the internal components $`\gamma ^i(x,y)`$ can not be constants because of (LABEL:gp2). We are therefore forced to consider a curved metric in internal space, even though spacetime curvature is zero. This issue will not be pursued further here.

A generic conclusion is that we can not consider spacetime to be entirely separated from the internal space; a non-zero value of the parameter $`ϵ`$ in (LABEL:gp2) forces us to combine spacetime and internal indices into a single entity. However, unlike the situation in presently popular theories, spacetime and internal directions are intrinsically different from the outset.

The action $`S=S_D+S_{YM}`$ (and perhaps more terms as well) is a $`𝔤`$-invariant generalization of the $`𝔤_0`$-invariant standard model action. However, if this would be the final goal, passage from $`𝔤_0`$ to the prolong $`𝔤=(𝔤_{},𝔤_0)_{}`$ would hardly be very interesting, because all information about $`𝔤`$ tensor modules is already encoded in $`𝔤_0`$. The genuinely new information in $`𝔤`$ is about form modules, i.e. tensor modules which are reducible even though the corresponding $`𝔤_0`$ module is irreducible. So we demand that the fermions satisfy not only the massless Dirac equation

$`𝒟/\psi (x,y)=0,`$ (5.142)
but also the closedness condition

$`\psi (x,y)=0,`$ (5.143)
where $``$ is a $`𝔤`$-invariant morphism of the type constructed in previous sections. It follows from $`(\text{LABEL:gp2})`$ that every such $``$, which only involves the internal derivative $`D_i`$, can be trivially extended to a $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$-invariant morphism. It is clear that (5.143) is compatible with (5.142) and that non-zero solutions exist. Namely, a sufficient condition for (5.143) to hold is $`D_i\psi (x,y)=0`$, which makes $`\psi (x,y)`$ independent of the internal coordinate $`y`$. The Dirac equation then reduces to

$`\gamma ^I(x,y)𝒟_I\psi (x,y)=\gamma ^\mu 𝒟_\mu \psi (x)=0,`$ (5.144)
which is the usual Dirac equation in flat spacetime. Since any solution to (5.144) solves (5.142) and (5.143), we conclude that non-trivial solutions exist.

However, I have failed to construct an action which produces both (5.142) and (5.143). The closest approximation is obtained by introducing two Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda `$ and $`\chi `$ and their conjugates $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$. Assume that there are morphisms $``$ and $`^{}`$:

$`\mathrm{}\chi \stackrel{^{}}{}\psi \stackrel{}{}\lambda +\mathrm{},`$ (5.145)
and duals morphisms, denoted by the same letters:

$`\mathrm{}\overline{\chi }\stackrel{^{}}{}\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{}\overline{\lambda }+\mathrm{}.`$ (5.146)
These diagrams indicate how the objects transform; e.g., $`\lambda `$ transforms as $`\psi `$, etc. From (5.143) it follows that $`\overline{\psi }`$ is also a closed form, i.e.

$`^{}\overline{\psi }=0.`$ (5.147)
The two closedness conditions can now be enforced by the following Lagrange multiplier action:

$`S_{Lag}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Nxd^{n|m}y(\overline{\lambda }\psi +^{}\overline{\psi }\chi )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Nxd^{n|m}y(\overline{\lambda }\psi +\overline{\psi }^{}\chi )}.`$
The Euler-Lagrange equations for the fermions become

$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒟/\psi ^{}\chi =0,\hfill & & \psi =0,\hfill \\ 𝒟_I\overline{\psi }\gamma ^I+\overline{\lambda }=0,\hfill & & ^{}\overline{\psi }=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.151)
Since $`\psi `$ and $`^{}\chi `$ transform in the same way, it is tempting to assume that they are proportional. If $`m`$ is the proportionality constant, the equation for $`\psi `$ becomes $`𝒟/\psi m\psi =0`$. Hence the closedness condition (5.143) effectively gives rise to a mass-like term.

It is known that left- and right-handed spinors transform differently under internal transformations, so the term (LABEL:SLag) is in fact not invariant. To remedy this, we need to split both $`\psi `$ and the multipliers into left- and right-handed parts, and assume that these belong to different form modules. Moreover, we need spacetime scalars to translate between the two complexes. These scalars are reminiscent of Higgs fields, which is natural because they arise for the same reason: terms like $`\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_R\psi _L`$ are not invariant.

It is now time to specialize to $`𝔤_0=sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ and $`𝔤=𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ or $`𝔤=𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$. We first note that the bosons are gauge bosons, i.e. they are modelled by connections. The $`𝔤`$ connection $`A_{aI}(x,y)T^a`$ depends on the internal directions and it has more components than the $`𝔤_0`$ connection $`A_{a\mu }(x)T^a`$ has, but it is still a $`𝔤_0`$-valued function with a twisted module action; we still have $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},dim𝔤_0`$. Thus, the gauge bosons are 1-1 with the generators of $`𝔤_0`$. A gauge theory based on $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ or $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ predicts precisely the 12 gauge bosons of the standard model, no more and no less:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ 𝔤_0\text{ weight}& \text{Charges}& & \\ & & & \\ (1,1;0;0)& 0& \text{Gluons}& sl(3)\text{ gauge bosons}\\ (00;2;0)& 1,0,1& W^+,W^{},Z& sl(2)\text{ gauge bosons}\\ (00;0;0)& 0& \text{Photon}& gl(1)\text{ gauge boson}\end{array}$$

We next turn to the assignment of the fundamental fermions, i.e. quarks and leptons, which we want identify with closed form modules. The assignment of $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ weights to fermions is standard and can be found e.g. in , and the corresponding form modules are simply read off from (2.49) and (3.87). The electric charge is computed by means of the Gell-Mann-Nishijima formula: $`Q=I_3+Y/2`$, where $`I_3`$ is the $`su(2)`$ highest weight and weak hypercharge $`Y=Z/3`$ is identified with the grading operator up to a factor $`1/3`$.666My normalization of the $`gl(1)`$ eigenvalue differs from Kac and Rudakov  by this factor $`1/3`$. They want their normalization to agree with weak hypercharge in physics, whereas I prefer to use integers throughout.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ 𝔤_0\text{ weight}& \text{Charges}& & & \\ & & & & \\ (0,1;1;1)& \frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}& \left(\begin{array}{c}u_L\\ d_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}c_L\\ s_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\\ b_L\end{array}\right)\\ (0,1;0;4)& \frac{2}{3}& u_R& c_R& t_R\\ (0,1;0;2)& \frac{1}{3}& d_R& s_R& b_R\\ & & & & \\ (0,0;1;3)& 0,1& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ e_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \mu _L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\tau L}\\ \tau _L\end{array}\right)\\ (0,0;0;6)& 1& e_R& \mu _R& \tau _R\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ (1,0;1;1)& \frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{u}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{d}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{s}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{b}_R\end{array}\right)\\ (1,0;0;4)& \frac{2}{3}& \stackrel{~}{u}_L& \stackrel{~}{c}_L& \stackrel{~}{t}_L\\ (1,0;0;2)& \frac{1}{3}& \stackrel{~}{d}_L& \stackrel{~}{s}_L& \stackrel{~}{b}_L\\ & & & & \\ (0,0;1;3)& 0,1& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{eR}\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mu R}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\tau R}\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }_R\end{array}\right)\\ (0,0;0;6)& 1& \stackrel{~}{e}_L& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_L& \stackrel{~}{\tau }_L\end{array}$$

The best assignment possible is described by the following table:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ 𝔤_0\text{ weight}& & z& 𝔳𝔩𝔢\text{ form}& z(𝔳𝔩𝔢)& 𝔪𝔟\text{ form}& z(𝔪𝔟)\\ & & & & & & \\ (0,1;1;1)& \left(\begin{array}{c}u_L\\ d_L\end{array}\right)& 1& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,1)& 1& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,1)& 1\\ (0,1;0;4)& u_R& 4& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(1,0)& 8& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,0)& 4\\ (0,1;0;2)& d_R& 2& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(1,0)& 2& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(1,0)& 10\\ & & & & & & \\ (0,0;1;3)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ e_L\end{array}\right)& 3& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)& 3& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)& 3\\ (0,0;0;6)& e_R& 6& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(0,0)& 6& \mathrm{\Omega }_C(0,0)& 6\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ (1,0;1;1)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{u}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{d}_R\end{array}\right)& 1& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,1)& 1& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,1)& 7\\ (1,0;0;4)& \stackrel{~}{u}_L& 4& \mathrm{\Omega }_B(1,0)& 8& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,0)& 10\\ (1,0;0;2)& \stackrel{~}{d}_L& 2& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(1,0)& 2& \mathrm{\Omega }_B(1,0)& 16\\ & & & & & & \\ (0,0;1;3)& \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{eR}\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_R\end{array}\right)& 3& \mathrm{\Omega }_D(0,1)& 3& \mathrm{\Omega }_A(0,1)& 3\\ (0,0;0;6)& \stackrel{~}{e}_L& 6& \mathrm{\Omega }_B(0,0)& 6& \mathrm{\Omega }_B(0,0)& 12\end{array}$$

The assignment of fermions is illustrated in Figure 3.

It is quite remarkable that it is possible to fit the $`sl(3)sl(2)`$ weights of all fundamental fermions so snugly in the list of form modules. It is e.g. not at all possible to identify the $`sl(3)`$ gauge bosons with forms, due to the $`(1,1)`$ $`sl(3)`$ weight. On other hand, we know that the gauge bosons must be connections, so identifying them with form modules is out of the question anyway. However, not all $`gl(1)`$ weights come out correctly. $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ predicts that the right-handed u quark $`u_R`$ should have $`z=8`$, which disagrees with the correct value $`z=4`$ $`(Y=4/3)`$ by two units of hypercharge. Similarly, the left-handed u anti-quark $`\stackrel{~}{u}_L`$ has $`z=8`$ versus the correct $`z=4`$. For $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ the discrepancy is even bigger, but here the error in $`z`$ is constant in each of the four sectors:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& A& B& C& D\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }z& 6& 18& +12& 0\end{array}$$

Upon second quantization, the $`𝔤_0`$-invariant fermions in the standard model become field operators which satisfy the Clifford algebra

$`\{\overline{\psi }(x),\psi (x^{})\}=\delta ^N(xx^{}).`$ (5.152)
Similarly, we assume that the $`𝔤`$-invariant fermions satisfy the Clifford algebra

$`\{\overline{\psi }(x,y),\psi (x^{},y^{})\}=\delta ^N(xx^{})\delta ^{n|m}(yy^{}).`$ (5.153)
Elimination of the second delta function requires precisely one integration over internal space. The simplest way to relate (5.152) and (5.153) is to put

$`\psi (x)=\psi (x,y_0),\overline{\psi }(x)={\displaystyle d^{n|m}y\overline{\psi }(x,y)},`$ (5.154)
where $`y_0`$ is a constant, because $`d^{n|m}y\delta ^{n|m}(yy_0)=1`$. For $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, this integral adds $`+6`$ to the weight for the anti-fermions, which leaves us with the following errors:

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}& A& B& C& D\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }z& 0& 12& +12& 0\end{array}`$ (5.157)
For $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ the volume form has weight zero ($`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ vector fields are divergence free), so integration does not change hypercharge.

It is more difficult to reconcile the values of $`z`$ in sector C, but this problem could be related to the “wedge product”, i.e. the mapping of a pair of form modules into a new one. In the D sector, we can define a map in the natural way:

$`:`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q,r)\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q^{},r^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_D(q+q^{},r+r^{})`$
$`f(y)\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_qa_q}\overline{\beta }_{a_{q+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_r}g(y)\overline{\gamma }_{j_1b_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_q^{}b_q^{}}\overline{\beta }_{b_{q^{}+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{b_r^{}}`$
$`f(y)g(y)\overline{\gamma }_{i_1a_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{i_qa_q}\overline{\gamma }_{j_1b_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\gamma }_{j_q^{}b_q^{}}\overline{\beta }_{a_{q+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{a_r}\overline{\beta }_{b_{q^{}+1}}\mathrm{}\overline{\beta }_{b_r^{}}.`$
In terms of $`𝔤_0`$ weights,

$`:`$ $`(0,q;r;4q3r)(0,q^{};r^{};4q^{}3r^{})`$
$`(0,q+q^{};r+r^{};4(q+q^{})3(r^{}+r^{})).`$
However, the wedge product in the C sector must be defined by

$`:`$ $`(0,q;r;4q+3r+6)(0,q^{};r^{};4q^{}+3r^{}+6)`$
$`(0,q+q^{};r+r^{};4(q+q^{})+3(r^{}+r^{})+6).`$
The total value of $`z`$ is $`(4q+3r+6)+(4q^{}+3r^{}+6)`$ to the left but only $`4(q+q^{})+3(r^{}+r^{})+6`$ to the right; six units of $`z`$ (i.e. two units of hypercharge) have been “eaten” by the wedge product. A reasonable conclusion is that the interpretation of the value of $`z`$ in the C sector is unclear. It might be possible to add an overall multiple of $`6`$, but this multiple should be the same for all modules in the sector. After addition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=12`$ to the C sector (and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=+12`$ to the B sector), the hypercharge assignments agree with the standard model.

Suitable wedge products can be defined in other sectors similarly; the wedge product between forms from different sectors involves contraction of dual indices. The wedge product appears in Figure 1 simply as vector addition; associativity and graded commutativity follows immediately because vector addition has these properties. There is some ambiguity when the results ends on some of the coordinate axes, since then there are two different form modules with different value of $`z`$. It is remarkable that the fundamental fermions in the first generation are exactly right to make it possible to build all form modules from wedge products. It might appear from Figure 3 that there are too many fermions, but we must keep in mind that the fermions are spinors as well, so there is an extra quantum number due to spin.

A $`𝔤_0`$ gauge theory is symmetric under interchange of particles and anti-particles, but not the $`𝔤`$ theory. In Figure 3, CP amounts to a reflection in the origin, but the direction of the morphisms (indicated by the diagonal arrow) is unchanged. To obtain complete reflection, we must also reverse the direction of all morphisms, which can be interpreted as time reversal T. Thus CPT is conserved, at least in this figure777Kac and Rudakov  claim that CPT is violated for $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, but the relevance to the present model is unclear to me. Of course, $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ are treated completely differently in (5.154), but this equation is not intrinsic; its purpose is to establish a link to the usual standard model., but CP and T are manifestly broken. Note the difference to the standard model, where breaking of CP is dynamical but not manifest. The inequivalence of dual modules is completely analogous to the difference between contravariant and covariant tensors: conventional in $`gl(N)`$, but substantial in $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$. Only covariant skew tensor fields admit a morphism, the exterior derivative.

Despite the fact that $`𝔳𝔩𝔢(3|6)`$ and $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ are superalgebras, it seems that no supersymmetric partners arise in the second-gauged theories. The multiplets have both bosonic and fermionic components, but the weights are the same as for $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$ and only the lowest-weight states are identified with particles. However, this point requires further study.

We have identified fermions in the first generation with form modules. What about the second and third generations? Since later generations have the same quantum numbers as the first, the natural thing is to combine several generations, i.e. $`𝔤_0`$ modules, into a single $`𝔤`$ module. However, the decomposition of the $`𝔤`$ form modules into irreducible $`𝔤_0`$ modules has not yet been studied.

All considerations in this paper are classical. Quantization of a second-gauged theory will presumably encounter problems similar to those in quantum gravity. On the mathematical side, the construction of Fock modules with the normal ordering prescription gives rise to a higher-dimensional generalization of the Virasoro algebra; such modules were first constructed for $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ by Rao and Moody  and in the super case by myself . It is clear that every vectorial Lie superalgebra $`𝔤𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n|m)`$ have similar Fock representations; the geometrical construction in  goes through also for superalgebras. However, ordinary quantization methods only work when the symmetry algebras have no or possibly central extensions, and the Virasoro-like cocycle is non-central except for algebras of linear growth.

We conclude with a summary of the main features and predictions of the second-gauged standard model based on $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$:

1. All fermions in the first generation can be identified with closed form modules, but the assignment of hypercharge is unclear, maybe wrong.
2. All closed form modules can be built by taking suitably defined wedge products of the fundamental fermions.
3. The gauge bosons acquire more components, but there are still only $`dim𝔤_0=12`$ different types.
4. There are presumably no supersymmetric partners, since irreducible $`𝔤`$ modules, and hence fundamental particles, are labelled by $`𝔤_0`$ weights.
5. The symmetry between particles and anti-particles is manifestly broken.
6. Several generations might arise by decomposing $`𝔤`$ irreps into $`𝔤_0`$ irreps.
7. The internal space must be combined with spacetime, but internal directions are nevertheless fundamentally different from the spacetime directions.

Although there are shortcomings, in particular concerning the unclear assignment of hypercharge, I believe that this list is sufficiently close to experimental data to merit further study of the second-gauged standard model.