text:
# Fusion categories of rank 2

## 1. Introduction

Let $`k`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. A fusion category $`𝒞`$ over $`k`$ is a $`k`$linear semisimple rigid monoidal category with finitely many simple objects and finite dimensional spaces of morphisms, such that the endomorphism algebra of the neutral object is $`k`$, see .

The problem of classification of all fusion categories seems to be very difficult. A basic invariant of a fusion category $`𝒞`$ is its Grothendieck ring $`K(𝒞)`$ (physically, fusion rules algebra or fusion ring) which is a unital based ring in the sense of . It is known that for a given based ring $`K`$ there are only finitely many fusion categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K`$ (this statement is known as “Ocneanu rigidity”, see  and ). There is a natural problem for a given “interesting” based ring $`K`$ to find all fusion categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K`$ (such categories are called “categorifications” of $`K`$). This problem was considered first probably by G. Moore and N. Seiberg in , they considered the case when all objects of $`𝒞`$ are invertible and the case of Yang-Lee fusion rules (see below). In his thesis T. Kerler completely classified fusion categories with fusion rings isomorphic to the fusion ring of the category of integrable $`\widehat{sl}_2`$modules at a positive integer level, see , and later D. Kazhdan and H. Wenzl generalized this to the case of $`\widehat{sl}_n`$, see . In  D. Tambara and S. Yamagami considered another big class of examples, the so-called fusion rules of self-duality for finite abelian groups.

The rank of $`K(𝒞)`$ over $``$ or equivalently the number of isomorphism classes of simple objects in $`𝒞`$ is called the rank of the category $`𝒞`$. There is only one fusion category of rank 1 — the category of vector spaces over $`k`$. In this note we will study all fusion categories of rank 2. Let $`\mathrm{𝟏},X`$ be the simple objects of such category $`𝒞`$ (here $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit object). It is clear that possible fusion rules for $`𝒞`$ are completely determined by the number $`n_0`$ from the equation $`XX=\mathrm{𝟏}nX`$. Let $`K_n`$ denote the fusion ring corresponding to the number $`n`$. The fusion ring $`K_1`$ is called the Yang-Lee fusion rules and is well known in the conformal field theory.

Main Theorem. There are just 4 fusion categories of rank 2. For two of them $`K(𝒞)=K_0`$ and for other two of them $`K(𝒞)=K_1`$.

The classification of fusion categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K_0`$ or $`K(𝒞)=K_1`$ is due to Moore and Seiberg . The only new part of this Theorem is the fact that the fusion rings $`K_n,n2`$ admit no categorification.

Our result suggests that the answer to the following question is of interest:

Question. Is it true that there are only finitely many fusion categories of a given finite rank?

As a supporting evidence for positive answer to this question recall that the number of finite groups with a given number of irreducible representations is finite, see . Moreover, P. Etingof proved that the number of finite dimensional semisimple Hopf algebras with a given number of irreducible representations is finite, see Appendix to this note.

Remark. Our Main Theorem is not true without rigidity assumption on the category $`𝒞`$. See  for an example of a semisimple bialgebra with two representations and fusion rules $`XX=2X`$.

I am much obliged to Tania Chmutova, Pavel Etingof and Dmitri Nikshych for useful discussions; many thanks are due to Pavel Etingof for writing the Appendix to this note. I am grateful to Richard Stanley for providing reference .

## 2. Proof of the Main Theorem

It appears that direct methods developed in  are very difficult to apply in a case when some fusion coefficients are greater than 1. In particular I could not study even the case of the fusion ring $`K_2`$ using these methods. So we are using another approach. Here is an outline of our proof. Let $`𝒞`$ be a fusion category with $`K(𝒞)=K_n`$. First we study the Drinfeld double of $`𝒞`$ and show that $`𝒞`$ is braided. Then we show that the category $`𝒞`$ is automatically ribbon. It is easy to see then that the category $`𝒞`$ is modular (unless $`n=0`$). Now the standard identities from the theory of modular categories give us a contradiction.

### 2.1. The category $`𝒞`$ is braided

Let $`Z(𝒞)`$ be the Drinfeld center of the category $`𝒞`$, see e.g. . It is known that the category $`Z(𝒞)`$ is semisimple, see . Let $`𝒞^{op}`$ denotes the opposite category to $`𝒞`$ and let $`𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ be the external product of the categories $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒞^{op}`$, see e.g. .

Lemma 2.1. The category $`Z(𝒞)`$ has 4 simple objects $`\mathrm{𝟏},X_1,X_2,Y`$. Under the forgetful functor $`F:Z(𝒞)𝒞`$ one has $`F(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏},F(X_1)=F(X_2)=X,F(Y)=XX`$.

Proof. Following  one can describe the category $`Z(𝒞)`$ in the following way: the object $`A=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}XX`$ of the category $`𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ has a natural structure of Frobenius algebra and the category $`Z(𝒞)`$ is equivalent to the category of $`A`$bimodules. Note that any (say left) $`A`$module is free, that is of the form $`AM`$ where $`M`$ is some object of $`𝒞\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (and $`A`$module structure is the obvious one); this is a consequence of the general fact that the category of $`A`$modules considered as the module category over $`𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ is module equivalent to the category $`𝒞`$ with $`XY𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ acting via the functor $`X\mathrm{?}Y`$, see . So there are just two simple $`A`$modules — $`A`$ itself and $`A(X\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}X+X\mathrm{𝟏}+nXX`$.

We will denote by $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?})`$ the Hom-spaces in the category $`𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ and by $`\text{Hom}_{AA}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?})`$ the Hom-spaces in the category of $`A`$bimodules. For any simple object $`M𝒞𝒞^{op}`$ one considers the “free” bimodule $`AMA`$. Note that for any $`A`$bimodule $`B`$ one has $`\text{Hom}_{AA}(AMA,B)=\text{Hom}(M,B)`$. In particular any $`A`$bimodule is a direct summand of some free bimodule. Now taking $`M=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ we get that $`\text{Hom}_{AA}(AA,AA)=\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏},AA)`$ is two dimensional, so $`AA`$ is a direct sum of two nonisomorphic bimodules. One of them is $`A`$ itself, so $`AA=AY`$ where simple bimodule $`Y`$ as an object of $`𝒞`$ has the following decomposition $`Y=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}n\mathrm{𝟏}XnX\mathrm{𝟏}(n^2+1)XX`$. This implies that for $`M=\mathrm{𝟏}X`$ or $`X\mathrm{𝟏}`$ one has $`\text{Hom}_{AA}(AMA,Y)`$ is $`n`$dimensional and the calculation similar to the one above shows that $`AMA=nYX_1X_2`$ where $`X_1,X_2`$ are simple nonisomorphic bimodules and $`X_1X_2=2\mathrm{𝟏}X2X\mathrm{𝟏}2nXX`$. Since $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are in particular $`A`$modules one gets from the description of $`A`$modules above that $`X_1=X_2=\mathrm{𝟏}XX\mathrm{𝟏}XX`$ as objects of $`𝒞𝒞^{op}`$. Finally one calculates easily that for $`M=XX`$ one has $`AMA=AnX_1nX_2(n^2+1)Y`$ and so all $`A`$bimodules are classified.

The forgetful functor $`F`$ has the following description on the objects of the category of $`A`$bimodules: any $`A`$bimodule $`B`$ is in particular left $`A`$module, so is of the form $`A(M\mathrm{𝟏})`$ where $`M𝒞`$; then $`F(B)=M`$. This finishes the proof of the Lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following Lemma calculates the fusion rules of $`Z(𝒞)`$ and shows that the based ring $`K(Z(𝒞))=K_nK_n`$.

Lemma 2.2. We have

$$X_1X_1=\mathrm{𝟏}nX_1;X_2X_2=\mathrm{𝟏}nX_2;X_1X_2=X_2X_1=Y.$$

Proof. It is known that the category $`Z(𝒞)`$ is rigid, see . It is clear that $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`Y^{}=Y`$. We claim that $`X_1^{}=X_1`$ and $`X_2^{}=X_2`$. Indeed otherwise $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},X_1X_1)=0`$ and hence $`X_1X_1=Y`$ (since $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},F(X_1X_1))0`$. Similarly $`X_2X_2=Y`$. We have also that $`X_1X_2`$ is a direct sum of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`n`$ summands each of which is isomorphic either to $`X_1`$ or to $`X_2`$. We can assume that $`\text{Hom}(X_1X_2,X_1)0`$ (otherwise take $`X_1`$ instead of $`X_2`$). But in this case we have a contradiction:

$$0=\text{Hom}(X_1,Y)=\text{Hom}(X_1,X_1X_1)=$$

$$=\text{Hom}(X_1X_1^{},X_1)=\text{Hom}(X_1X_2,X_1)0.$$

Thus $`X_1^{}=X_1`$, $`X_2^{}=X_2`$ and hence $`X_1X_2=X_2X_1=Y`$. Note that

$$\text{Hom}(X_1X_1,X_2)=\text{Hom}(X_1,X_1^{}X_2)=\text{Hom}(X_1,Y)=0$$

so $`X_1X_1=\mathrm{𝟏}nX_1`$. Similarly $`X_2X_2=\mathrm{𝟏}nX_2`$. The Lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus the subcategory $`\mathrm{𝟏},X_1`$ of $`Z(𝒞)`$ consisting of direct sums of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`X_1`$ is a monoidal subcategory. The forgetful functor $`F`$ restricted to this subcategory is an equivalence of categories and thus we proved

Corollary 2.1. The category $`𝒞`$ admits a structure of braided category. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2. The category $`𝒞`$ is modular

Let us fix a structure of a braided category on $`𝒞`$. For $`M,N𝒞`$ let $`\beta _{M,N}:MNNM`$ denote the braiding morphism. The morphisms $`\beta _{M,N}`$ are completely determined by 4 morphisms $`\beta _{M,N}`$ where $`M`$ and $`N`$ are simple objects of $`𝒞`$ (since the braiding is functorial). It follows from the axioms that $`\beta _{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}}=\text{Id}`$, $`\beta _{\mathrm{𝟏},X}=\text{Id}`$, $`\beta _{X,\mathrm{𝟏}}=\text{Id}`$ so the only nontrivial morphism is $`\beta _{X,X}`$. The morphism $`\beta _{X,X}`$ induces a linear automorphisms of the one dimensional space $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)`$ and of $`n`$dimensional space $`\text{Hom}(X,XX)`$; so the first is just some number $`\mu k^{}`$ and the second is some linear operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Lemma 2.3. One has $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mu \text{Id}`$.

Proof. The vector space $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XXX)`$ carries the action of two linear operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:=\beta _{X,X}\text{Id}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2:=\text{Id}\beta _{X,X}`$ and it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2=\mu \text{Id}`$. Note that by the hexagon axiom $`(\text{Id}\beta _{X,X})(\beta _{X,X}\text{Id})=\beta _{X,XX}`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mu \text{Id}`$. On the other hand the braid relation (= Yang-Baxter relation) says $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ whence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ and the Lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.2. The category $`𝒞`$ admits a structure of ribbon (= pivotal and braided) category.

Proof. It is enough to define the twists by $`\theta _\mathrm{𝟏}=1`$ and $`\theta _X=\mu ^1`$ (see  for notations). $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.3. Assume that $`n0`$. Then the category $`𝒞`$ is modular.

Proof. It is easy to see that if $`𝒞`$ is not modular then $`\mu =1`$ and $`𝒞`$ is symmetric. But in a symmetric fusion category the dimensions of all objects are integers, see  Theorem 7.2. The Lemma is proved since the quadratic equation $`x^2=1+nx`$ has an integer root only for $`n=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.3. The category $`𝒞`$ does not exist

The main result of this note is the following

Theorem 2.1. Assume that $`n2`$. There is no fusion category $`𝒞`$ such that $`K(𝒞)=K_n`$.

Proof. We already proved that category $`𝒞`$ is modular if it exists. Let $`d`$ be a dimension of $`X`$ and let $`\theta =\theta _X`$. Thus $`d`$ is a root of equation $`d^2=1+nd`$ and $`\theta `$ is a root of unity by Vafa’s Theorem, see  Theorem 3.1.19. Consider the Gaussian sums $`p_+=1+\theta d^2`$ and $`p_{}=1+\theta ^1d^2`$. Since $`𝒞`$ is a modular category one has $`p_+p_{}=1+d^2`$ (see  3.1.15, 3.1.22) or, equivalently, $`\theta +\theta ^1=nd`$. We can assume that $`d>n`$ (applying otherwise the Galois automorphism to the equation). Then $`|nd|>n^2`$ and $`|\theta +\theta ^1|2`$ and we have a contradiction for $`n2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.4. Categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K_0`$

Let $`G`$ be a finite group and let $`K(G)`$ be the based ring with basis $`X_g,gG`$ and fusion rules $`X_gX_h=X_{gh}`$. It is shown in  Appendix E that the monoidal categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K(G)`$ are classified by $`H^3(G,k^{})`$. Any category of this kind is automatically rigid. In particular $`K_0=K(/2)`$ and categorifications of $`K_0`$ are classified by $`H^3(/2,k^{})=/2`$. So there are two such categories. First one is the category of representations of $`/2`$ and second differs from the first one by the sign of associativity morphism $`(XX)XX(XX)`$. This second category can be explicitly realized as the fusion category of integrable representations of $`\widehat{sl}_2`$ at level 1.

### 2.5. Categories $`𝒞`$ with $`K(𝒞)=K_1`$

Let $`𝒞`$ be a monoidal category with $`K(𝒞)=K_1`$. Choose basis vectors in one dimensional vector spaces $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)`$ and $`\text{Hom}(X,XX)`$. The only nontrivial associativity morphism is $`(XX)XX(XX)`$, this is equivalent to giving isomorphisms of vector spaces $`\text{Hom}(X,XX)\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)\text{Hom}(X,XX)\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)`$ (so this is just a number $`\lambda k^{}`$) and $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)\text{Hom}(X,X\mathrm{𝟏})\text{Hom}(X,XX)\text{Hom}(X,XX)\text{Hom}(\mathrm{𝟏},XX)\text{Hom}(X,\mathrm{𝟏}X)\text{Hom}(X,XX)\text{Hom}(X,XX)`$ (so this can be represented by invertible $`2\times 2`$ matrix). After relatively easy calculation (along the lines of ) one finds that $`\lambda =1`$ and the second isomorphism can be represented by the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 1\\ a& a\end{array}\right)`$ where $`a`$ is a root of equation $`a^2+a=1`$. So we have two solutions; both categories are rigid; they differ by the action of Galois group. In one of these categories $`dim(X)=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$ and in the second $`dim(X)=\frac{1\sqrt{5}}{2}`$. The first category can be explicitly realized as a subcategory of “integer spin” representations of the fusion category of integrable $`\widehat{sl}_2`$modules at level 3 and the second category is the minimal model $`(2,5)`$ for the Virasoro algebra (with central charge $`c=\frac{22}{5}`$). Both categories can be also realized using the quantum group $`U_q(sl_2)`$ for $`q=\sqrt[10]{1}`$ (there are 4 primitive tenth roots of 1, but $`q`$ and $`q^1`$ give rise to the same category), see .

## 3. Appendix

Pavel Etingof

In this appendix we give an upper bound for the dimension of a semisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$ with $`n`$ irreducible representations. For group algebras, this estimate was obtained 100 years ago by E. Landau, . (We are grateful to R.Stanley for giving us this reference).

For a positive integer $`n`$, let $`P(n)`$ be the set of positive integer solutions of the equation $`\frac{1}{x_1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{x_n}=1`$, and let $`d(n)=\mathrm{max}_{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)P(n)}\mathrm{max}_ix_i`$.

Theorem 3.1. Let $`H`$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$, which has $`n`$ irreducible representations. Then $`\mathrm{dim}Hd(n)`$.

Remark 1. The set $`P(n)`$ is finite, since for any positive rational number $`r`$ the number of positive integer solutions of the equation $`\frac{1}{x_1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{x_n}=r`$ is finite (). Indeed, if $`x_1`$ is the smallest coordinate, then $`x_1n/r`$, so there are finitely many possibilities for $`x_1`$, and if $`x_1`$ is fixed then $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ vary over the set of positive integer solutions of the equation $`\frac{1}{x_2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{x_n}=r\frac{1}{x_1}`$, so the statement follows by induction. (In fact, this inductive procedure allows one to obtain an explicit estimate for $`d(n)`$, see ).

Remark 2. One has $`d(n+1)2d(n)`$ since if $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{x_i}=1`$ then $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{2x_i}+\frac{1}{2}=1`$.

###### Proof.

Our proof is a generalization of the classical proof of Landau in the group case, which employs the fact that for a group with $`n`$ irreducible representations, one has $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{|C_i|}=1`$, where $`C_i`$ are centralizers of conjugacy classes (the class equation). Namely, we use the Hopf algebraic class equation, due to G.Kac  and Y.Zhu .

Let $`C(H)H^{}`$ be the character ring of $`H`$ (it is spanned by characters of irreducible representation). This is a semisimple algebra of dimension $`n`$, so $`C(H)`$ can be identified with $`\mathrm{Mat}_{r_i}`$, where $`r_i^2=n`$. Let us choose such an identification, and let $`E_{jj}^{(i)}C(H)`$ be the corresponding matrix units.

Theorem (Kac-Zhu),  The ratio $`m_i=\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{H})/\mathrm{Tr}|_H^{}(E_{jj}^{(i)})`$ (where for $`aH^{}`$ $`a`$ denotes the operator of multiplication by $`a`$) is a positive integer.

Now observe that $`_i_{j=1}^{r_i}E_{jj}^i=1`$, so $`_i_{j=1}^{r_i}\frac{r_i}{m_i}=1`$. Writing $`r_i/m_i`$ as a sum of $`r_i`$ copies of $`1/m_i`$, we get a solution of the equation $`_{j=1}^r\frac{1}{x_i}=1`$, where $`r=_ir_in`$. Thus, $`m_id(r)d(n)`$. On the other hand, consider the 1-dimensional matrix block of $`C(H)`$ spanned by the integral of $`H^{}`$ (i.e. by the character of the regular representation of $`H`$). For this block the number $`m_i`$ is obviously equal to $`\mathrm{dim}(H)`$, since the integral is a projector to a 1-dimensional subspace. So $`\mathrm{dim}Hd(n)`$, as desired. ∎


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We shall call generalized space-time supersymmetries the ones which go beyond the standard HŁS scheme . In four dimensions using the framework of local field theory and the arguments from S-matrix theory it was shown  that the bosonic sector $`B`$ of Poincaré or conformal superalgebra has the following tensor product structure111Such a definition can be used also for standard super-de Sitter algebras (for both signs of the radii).:

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`B_{geom}B_{int},`$ (1)
where $`B_{geom}`$ describes space-time Poincaré or conformal algebras and the remaining generators spanning $`B_{int}`$ are Lorentz scalars. It is easy to show that one can introduce the standard Poincaré superalgebra, satisfying the relation (1), in any dimension (see e.g. ), but one arrives at a difficulty in trying to impose in any dimension standard conformal superalgebras. It appears  that one can introduce only at $`D=3,4`$ and $`6`$ an infinite series of standard conformal superalgebras, which can be denoted in a unified way as $`U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐅)`$222$`U_\alpha (n|𝐅)`$ describes the antiunitary $`𝐅`$-valued matrix group of transformations preserving the $`𝐅`$-valued antiHermitian bilinear form $`q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}A_{ij}q_j=inv`$ ($`A_{ij}=A_{ji}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$) where $`q_i𝐅`$ and $`q_iq_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is the main conjugation in $`𝐅`$. For quaternions ($`𝐅=𝐇`$) one can show that $`U_\alpha (n|𝐇)=O(2n;𝐂)U(n,n)=O^{}(2n)`$. The supergroup $`U_\alpha U(n;m|𝐅)`$ describes the $`𝐅`$-valued matrix supergroup of graded transformations preserving the $`𝐅`$-valued bilinear form $`q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}A_{ij}q_j+\theta _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\theta _k=inv`$, where $`\theta _k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$) are $`𝐅`$-valued Grassmann variables. For $`𝐅=𝐇`$ one gets $`U_\alpha U(n;m|𝐇)=SU(n,n;m)OSp(2m,2n|𝐂)`$, which is usually denoted as $`OSp^{}(2n;2m)`$.  ($`𝐅=𝐑`$ for $`D=3`$, $`𝐅=𝐂`$ for $`D=4`$ and $`𝐅=𝐇`$ for $`D=6`$). More explicitly333We add here for completeness that for $`D=5`$ there is a unique “exotic” standard conformal superalgebra $`F_4`$, with bosonic sector $`\overline{O(5,2)}\times SU(2)`$ (see e.g. ).

$`D=3:U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐑)`$ $``$ $`OSp(n;4|𝐑),`$
$`D=4:U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐂)`$ $``$ $`SU(2,2;n),`$ (2)
$`D=6:U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐇)`$ $``$ $`O^{}Sp(8;2n).`$
It appears that if we wish to use the notion of conformal superalgebra in any dimension we should extend the standard Poincaré superalgebra (see e.g. ). The best known case is in $`D=11`$, where the generalized Poincaré superalgebra going beyond the HŁS axioms is called the M-algebra and looks as follows ($`r,s=1,2,\mathrm{},32`$; $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},10`$):

$`\{Q_r,Q_s\}=Z_{rs}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{rs}P^\mu +(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]})_{rs}Z^{[\mu \nu ]}+(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]})_{rs}Z^{[\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _5]},`$ (3)
where $`C=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the $`D=11`$ real Majorana charge conjugation matrix. The generalized $`D=11`$ conformal superalgebra is obtained by adding a second copy of the superalgebra (3), with the extension of the conformal accelerations sector to the $`32\times 32`$ symmetric matrices $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs}`$:

$`\{S_r,S_s\}=\stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{rs}K^\mu +(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]})_{rs}\stackrel{~}{Z}^{[\mu \nu ]}+(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{[\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _5]}.`$ (4)
Both sets of generators $`Z_{rs}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs}`$ are Abelian, i.e.

$`[Z_{rs},Z_{tk}]=[\stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs},\stackrel{~}{Z}_{tk}]=0.`$ (5)
It appears that if we introduce the crossed anticommutator, completing the superalgebra relations

$`\{Q_r,S_s\}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{rs},`$ (6)
we get from the Jacobi identity that the $`1024`$ generators $`L_{rs}`$ form the $`GL(32;𝐑)`$ algebra . Summarizing, the resulting superalgebra admits the following five-grading

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}I_2& I_1& I_0& I_1& I_2\\ \stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs}& S_r& L_{rs}& Q_r& Z_{rs}.\end{array}`$ (9)
The set of generators $`Z_{rs}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{rs}`$, $`L_{rs}`$ describe the generalized $`D=11`$ conformal algebra $`Sp(64)`$ (conformal M-algebra) and all the generators from (9) form the superalgebra $`OSp(1|64)`$ , known as generalized $`D=11`$ superconformal algebra (conformal M-superalgebra).

The aim of this paper is to propose an analogous construction for the sequence of $`𝐅`$-valued ($`𝐅`$=$`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐇`$, $`𝐎`$) generalized superalgebras, with the real superalgebras describing generalized supersymmetries in $`D=4`$. We shall describe these superalgebras in some detail in Sect. 2 for $`D=4`$ (F$`=`$R), $`5`$ (F$`=`$C) and $`7`$ (F$`=`$H). We obtain the generalized Poincaré superalgebras with $`10`$ real bosonic generators for $`D=4`$, $`16`$ real bosonic generators for $`D=5`$ and $`28`$ real bosonic generators for $`D=7`$ and the corresponding $`D=4,`$ $`5`$ and $`7`$ generalized conformal superalgebras $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐅)`$.

In Sect. 3 we shall consider the relation of our proposal to other ways of introducing generalized supersymmetries, in particular based on Lorentz spin and conformal spin algebras . It appears that our scheme for $`D=7`$ can be identified with the one following from the minimal conformal spin algebra, but this is not the case for $`D=4,5`$. On the other hand our generalized superalgebras can be called minimal in another sense since the symmetrized product of supercharges (i.e. the anticommutators) is spanned by the fundamental representation of the respective Clifford algebras ($`𝐑^4\times 𝐑^4`$ for $`D=4`$, $`𝐂^4\times 𝐂^4`$ for $`D=5`$, $`𝐇^4\times 𝐇^4`$ for $`D=7`$)444The fundamental representation of the Clifford algebra is its faithful representation with minimal dimension .. The proposal is linked with the generalized conformal and superconformal algebra description in terms of $`𝐅`$-valued Jordan (super)algebras .

In Sect. 4 we shall conjecture that one can use the proposed superalgebras with the division algebra F given by the octonionic algebra $`𝐎`$555For the extension of $`U_\alpha U(n;m|𝐅)`$ algebra to octonions see also .. In particular we obtain in place of the “standard” M-algebra (3) an algebra which we call the octonionic M-algebra with $`52`$ real bosonic generators described by a $`4\times 4`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix. We provide two alternative descriptions of the octonionic M-algebra: the first one linear and bilinear in the octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices and the second with their five-linear products only. We shall also introduce an octonionic conformal M-superalgebra with $`232`$ real bosonic generators.

In Sect. 5 we present the final remarks. In particular we list some aspects of our framework which are postponed to further consideration.

## 2 The generalized $`D=4,5`$ and $`7`$ supersymmetries described by F-valued superalgebras (F $`=`$ R, C, H)

i) Generalized Poincaré superalgebras.

The standard $`N=1`$ $`D=4`$ Poincaré superalgebra has the following complex Hermitian form ($`A,B=1,2`$):

$`\{Q_A,\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma _\mu )_{A\dot{B}}P^\mu ,`$
$`\{Q_A,Q_B\}=0`$ $`\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=0,`$ (10)
where $`\sigma _\mu =(\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\sigma _i)`$ describes the linear basis of Hermitian $`2\times 2`$ matrices and $`Q_AQ_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\overline{Q}^{\dot{A}}`$ is the complex Hermitian conjugation. One can however also introduce complex holomorphic $`D=4`$ algebra as follows

$`\{Q_A,\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\{Q_A,Q_B\}=Z_{AB},`$ $`\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}},\overline{Q}_{\dot{B}}\}=\overline{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}.`$ (11)
Such types of superalgebras are the standard ones in the description of $`D=4`$ Euclidean supersymmetry (see e.g. ). If we introduce the antisymmetric real two-tensor field

$`Z_{[\mu \nu ]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(\sigma _{[\mu \nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}Z_{AB}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{[\mu \nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}\overline{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}),`$ (12)
one can incorporate both Abelian charges $`P^\mu `$, $`Z^{[\mu \nu ]}`$ in the Majorana form of $`D=4`$ superPoincaré algebra ($`a,b=1,\mathrm{},4`$, $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$)

$`\{Q_a,Q_b\}=X_{ab}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(4)}{}_{\mu }{}^{})_{ab}P^\mu +(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(4)}{}_{[\mu \nu ]}{}^{})_{ab}Z^{[\mu \nu ]}.`$ (13)
We see that replacing in $`D=4`$ the complex-Hermitian structure by a real one we find a place for six new Abelian tensorial charges. Such superalgebra was recently considered  as the $`D=4`$ counterpart of the M-algebra (3) and describes the supersymmetric theories with domain walls and four-dimensional supermembranes. One can state that the physical background for the extension (13) of the standard Poincaré superalgebra (10) is now established. It is the starting point of our construction. In order to describe the $`D=5`$ and $`D=7`$ extended Poincaré superalgebras we generalize (13) to the F-valued666$`𝐅=𝐂`$ and $`𝐇`$; see however Sect. 4 where we consider $`𝐅=𝐎`$. We add that an abstract algebra $`\{A,B\}=C`$ of matrices having entries ($`a_{ij}`$, $`b_{ij}`$, $`c_{ij}`$ respectively) valued in a division algebra $`𝐅`$ (i.e. $`a_{ij}=_\alpha a_{ij}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\tau _\alpha `$, with $`\tau _0`$ the identity, and similarly for $`B`$, $`C`$), implies the following relations on the real components $`c_{ik}^{}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}=_{j,\alpha ,\beta }\{a_{ij}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{},b_{jk}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}\}C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, where $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ are the structure constants of $`𝐅`$. Hermitian superalgebras

$`\{Q_a,Q_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}\}=Z_{ab},`$ $`Z_{ab}=Z_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (14)
$`\{Q_a,Q_b\}=0,`$
where $``$ denotes the principal conjugation in the F-algebra, namely

$`𝐂:`$ $`\begin{array}{cc}Q_a=Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+iQ_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\hfill & Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}iQ_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\hfill \\ Z_{ab}=X_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+iY_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\hfill & Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=X_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}iY_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
$`𝐇:`$ $`\begin{array}{cc}Q_a=Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+e_rQ_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)},\hfill & Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}e_rQ_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)},\hfill \\ Z_{ab}=X_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+e_rY_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)},\hfill & Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=X_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}e_rY_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
In order to write the superalgebra (14) in a Dirac matrices basis we shall at first introduce $`2\times 2`$ complex Dirac matrices for the $`O(3)SU(2)`$ algebra (i.e. the three Pauli matrices $`\sigma _r`$, $`r=1,2,3`$) and $`2\times 2`$ quaternionic matrices for the $`O(5)SU(2;𝐇)`$ algebra

$`O(5):`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_r=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e_r\\ e_r& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }_5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (26)
where $`e_r`$ are the three quaternionic units. Then we shall consider $`O(4,1)`$ and $`O(6,1)`$ as $`D=3`$ and respectively $`D=5`$ Euclidean conformal algebras and follow the rules (see e.g. ) in order to introduce Dirac’s $`\gamma `$ matrices for $`O(p+1,q+1)`$ by doubling the dimension of the $`O(p,q)`$ representations. We obtain

i1) $`D=5`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _r\\ \sigma _r& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (33)
One can describe the complex Hermitian $`4\times 4`$ matrices as linear combination of $`16`$ Hermitian-symmetric matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}C^{(5)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}C^{(5)}`$ and $`iC^{(5)}`$. One sets

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}=Z_{ab}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}C^{(5)})_{ab}P^\mu +(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}C^{(5)})_{ab}Z^{[\mu \nu ]}+iC_{}^{(5)}{}_{ab}{}^{}Z,`$ (34)
where $`C^{(5)}`$ is the $`O(4,1)`$ complex charge conjugation matrix satisfying the relations

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{}C^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{(5)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)},`$
$`C_{}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{(5)}.`$ (35)
In the representation with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ ($`a=1,2,3,4`$) (see e.g. (33)) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{}`$, we should put $`C^{(5)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(5)}`$. The maximal covariance algebra of the supercharges is given by the group $`GL(4,𝐂)`$, however distinguished role is played by its subgroup $`U_\alpha (4;𝐂)=U(2,2)`$, because sixteen generators $`Z_{ab}`$ from (34) belong to the adjoint representation of $`U(2,2)`$.

i2) $`D=7`$.

The Hermitian quaternionic representation of the $`O(6,1)`$ Clifford algebra can be obtained from (33) as follows ($`p=1,\mathrm{},5`$, $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},6`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_p\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_p& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (42)
The $`O(6,1)`$ quaternionic charge conjugation matrix $`C^{(7)}`$ satisfies relations analogous to (35) with quaternionic-Hermitian conjugation. In the representation with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ ($`k=1,2,3,4,5,6`$) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (see e.g. (42)) we obtain again $`C^{(7)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}`$.

If we consider the symmetry properties of the products $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k]}`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},7`$) under quaternionic conjugation we obtain that (14) for $`𝐅=𝐇`$ can be decomposed as follows ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},6`$):

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}=Z_{ab}=(C^{(7)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)})_{ab}P^\mu +(C^{(7)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)})_{ab}Z^{[\mu \nu ]}.`$ (43)
The most general covariance group of quaternionic Poincaré algebra (43) is $`GL(4,𝐇)`$, and its distinguished subgroup is $`U_\alpha (4,𝐇)SO^{}(8)SO(6,2)`$. The $`28`$ bosonic real generators spanning $`Z_{ab}`$ in (43) are described by the adjoint representation of $`U_\alpha (4,𝐇)`$.

ii) Generalized conformal superalgebras.

Following the procedure of obtaining $`OSp(1;64)`$ from the M-algebra (3) one can add a second copy of the $`𝐅`$-valued superalgebra (14)

$`\{S_a,S_b\}=\stackrel{~}{Z}_{ab}`$ (44)
and impose the Jacobi identities which imply that the mixed anticommutator $`\{Q_a,S_b\}=L_{ab}`$ describes the $`GL(4|𝐅)`$ Lie algebra generators. One obtains the following five-fold graded structure

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}I_2& I_1& I_0& I_1& I_2\\ \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ab}& S_a& L_{ab}& Q_a& Z_{ab}.\end{array}`$ (47)
If $`𝐅=𝐑`$ the set of generators (47) describe the $`D=4`$ generalized conformal superalgebra $`OSp(1|8)`$ with its bosonic sector describing the $`D=4`$ generalized conformal algebra.

The construction for $`D=5`$ and $`D=7`$ corresponds respectively to $`𝐅=𝐂`$ and $`𝐅=𝐇`$.

ii1) $`D=5`$

In such a case the generalized conformal superalgebra is complex. The complex generators $`Z_{ab}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{ab}`$ in (47) describe complex Hermitian algebras (see (34)), and $`L_{ab}`$ span the $`GL(4|𝐂)`$ algebra. It can be checked that the complex bosonic algebra with three-grading

$`\begin{array}{ccc}I_2& I_0& I_2\\ \stackrel{~}{X}_{ab}& L_{ab}& X_{ab}.\end{array}`$ (50)
describes the $`U_\alpha (8,𝐂)=U(4,4)`$ algebra which is our $`D=5`$ generalized conformal algebra. The five-grading (47) provides $`SU(4,4;1)`$ as $`D=5`$ generalized conformal superalgebra.

ii2) D=7

This case corresponds to inserting in (47) into the sectors $`I_2`$ and $`I_2`$ two copies of the $`D=7`$ Poincaré superalgebra given by (43). The sector $`I_0`$ is then described by $`GL(4;𝐇)SU^{}(8)`$ algebra, and the quaternionic three-graded algebra (50) provides $`U_\alpha (8|𝐇)O^{}(16)`$ as the $`D=7`$ generalized conformal algebra. The supersymmetric extension can be obtained by imposing the five-grading (47) and it leads to the $`D=7`$ generalized conformal superalgebra $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐇)`$.

Summarizing we see that the $`D=4`$, $`D=5`$ and $`D=7`$ generalized conformal algebras and generalized conformal superalgebras are given respectively by $`U_\alpha (8|𝐅)`$ and $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐅)`$. We obtain the following numbers of additional (in comparison with $`O(D,2)`$) bosonic generators, which are present in generalized conformal algebras and conformal superalgebras:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{U_\alpha (8;𝐅)}{O(D,2)}\hfill & \frac{U_\alpha (8;𝐅)\times U(1;𝐅)}{O(D,2)}\\ & & \\ D=4(𝐅=𝐑)\hfill & 21(10)\hfill & 21\\ & & \\ D=5(𝐅=𝐂)\hfill & 42(16)\hfill & 43\\ & & \\ D=7(𝐅=𝐇)\hfill & 84(28)\hfill & 87\end{array}`$ (55)
where in brackets we provided the number of bosonic generators which appear if we pass from the standard to the generalized Poincaré superalgebra. These generators can also be treated as introducing an extended $`D`$-dimensional space-time (see e.g. ) with additional tensorial coordinates besides the Minkowski space-time variables. We obtain

(60)
The field realizations on space-time with additional coordinates can be related with the representations of infinite-dimensional spin algebras with infinite spin or helicity spectra .

## 3 Relations with spinor algebras, representations of Clifford algebras and Jordan algebras

The existence of standard conformal supersymmetries at $`D=3,4`$ and $`6`$ described by the set of superalgebras $`U_\alpha U(4;n,𝐅)`$ follows from the property that the spinorial coverings of the conformal algebra $`O(D,2)`$ are described for $`D=3,4,6`$ by $`U_\alpha (4|𝐅)`$, i.e.

$`Spin(3,2)=\overline{O(3,2)}=Sp(4;𝐑),`$
$`Spin(4,2)=\overline{O(4,2)}=\overline{SU(2,2)},`$
$`Spin(6,2)=\overline{O(6,2)}=U_\alpha (4|𝐇)=O^{}(8,𝐂).`$ (61)
For $`D=5`$ and $`D>6`$ the spinorial covering of $`\overline{O(D,2)}`$ is not described by a classical Lie group.

Recently the notion of spin algebra has been introduced  in any dimension generalizing the notion of standard spin covering (61). Let us firstly introduce for the orthogonal group $`O(n,m)`$ its fundamental spinorial representation described by an $`N`$-dimensional vector space $`𝐅_{(n,m)}`$ with the choice of $`𝐅`$ ($`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$ or $`𝐇`$) depending on the pair of numbers $`(n,m)`$777The fundamental spinor representation is determined by the minimal faithful Clifford algebra representation of $`O(n,m)`$ with generators $`I_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ]`$.. The spin group $`Spin(n,m)`$ is the $`𝐅`$-valued $`N\times N`$ matrix Lie group of endomorphisms of $`𝐅_{(n,m)}`$ which contains the spinorial covering of $`\overline{O(n,m)}`$888In  $`Spin(n,m)`$ are real algebras; we assume that $`Spin(n,m)`$ are $`𝐅_{(n,m)}`$-valued matrices. Both descriptions are equivalent.

$`\overline{O(n,m)}Spin(n,m),D=n+m.`$ (62)
In particular one can distinguish the minimal spin group $`Spin_{min}(n,m)`$, with minimal number of real generators. In the standard case $`D=3,4`$ or $`6`$ we have $`Spin_{min}(D,2)=\overline{O(D,2)}`$, but for $`D=5`$ and $`D7`$ we obtain that $`dimSpin_{min}(D,2)>dimO(D,2)=\frac{1}{2}(D+1)(D+2)`$. If we supersymmetrize the $`Spin_{min}(D,2)`$ algebra we obtain the minimal conformal spin superalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{Spin}_{min}(D,2)`$. In $`D=3,4`$ and $`6`$ one gets $`\stackrel{~}{Spin}_{min}(D,2)=U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐇)`$.

i) $`D=5`$.

It can be shown that for $`D=5`$ the fundamental conformal spinors $`𝐅_{(4,1)}𝐇^4`$ and (see )

$`Spin_{min}(5,2)=U_\alpha (4,𝐇)O^{}(8)O(6,2),`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{~}{Spin}_{min}(5,2)=U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐇).`$ (64)
The formula (63) describes the $`D=6`$ conformal algebra and the relation (64) assigns as minimal $`D=5`$ spin superalgebra the standard $`D=6`$ conformal superalgebra (see (2)) with bosonic sector $`O(6,2)\times O(3)`$. In order to interpret $`U_\alpha (4)`$ as $`D=5`$ conformal spin algebra with $`D=5`$ tensor structure we should perform the dimensional reduction $`D=6D=5`$. The seven generators spanning the coset $`\frac{O(6,2)}{O(5,2)}`$ are described by $`O(5,2)`$ seven-vector, and after dimensional reduction they will form an $`O(4,1)`$ five-vector and two $`D=5`$ scalars. These seven generators will extend the $`D=5`$ conformal algebra $`O(5,2)`$. In the supersymmetric case $`U_\alpha U(4;n|𝐇)`$ is used as $`D=5`$ conformal spin superalgebra and will contain, besides the seven generators from $`\frac{O(6,2)}{O(5,2)}`$, also three scalar $`O(3)`$ generators ($`U(1|𝐇)SU(2)O(3)`$) describing the internal symmetry sector999This internal sector is usually referred to as describing $`R`$-symmetries..

From the considerations in Sect. 2 follows that our $`D=5`$ generalized conformal algebra $`SU(4,4)U_\alpha (4;𝐇)`$. Subsequently, for our $`D=5`$ generalized conformal superalgebra we obtain

$`SU(4,4;2)`$ $``$ $`U_\alpha U(4;1|𝐇),`$ (65)
but $`U_\alpha U(4;1|𝐇)`$ is not contained in $`SU(4,4;1)`$ in analogy with the relations between $`D=4`$ standard and generalized conformal superalgebras , where $`OSp(8;2)SU(2,2;1)`$, but one cannot embed $`SU(2,2;1)`$ into $`OSp(8;1)`$.

It is easy to see that $`SU(4,4)`$ in comparison with minimal $`D=5`$ conformal spin algebra $`SU(4,4)U_\alpha (4;𝐇)`$ contains more additional bosonic generators. In fact the principle of constructing our generalized supersymmetries in $`D=4`$ and $`D=5`$ are analogous. In $`D=4`$ we relaxed the restrictions on superalgebra by replacing the complex structure by a real one, and in $`D=5`$ the quaternionic structure is replaced by the complex one.

ii) $`D=7`$.

In $`D=7`$ the situation is different. The fundamental $`D=7`$ conformal spinors are given by $`𝐇^8`$ and our generalized conformal superalgebra $`U_\alpha U(8;1,𝐇)`$ is identical with the minimal conformal spin superalgebra

$`Spin_{min}(7,2)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐇)`$ (66)
with bosonic sector containing 123 bosonic generators (36 $`O(7,2)`$ generators $`+`$ 84 additional tensorial generators $`+`$ 3 generators describing $`U(1|𝐇)=SU(2)`$ R-symmetry).

In order to compare the minimal conformal fundamental spin algebras  with our generalized conformal algebras let us write for $`D=4,5`$ and $`7`$ the fundamental Lorentz spin representations and minimal Clifford algebra modules permitting to represent faithfully $`O(D1,1)`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& min.spinF_{(D1,1)}\hfill & min.Cliffordmod.C_{(D1,1)}\hfill \\ & & \\ D=4\hfill & 𝐂^2\hfill & 𝐑^4\hfill \\ & & \\ D=5\hfill & 𝐇^2\hfill & 𝐂^4\hfill \\ & & \\ D=7\hfill & 𝐇^4\hfill & 𝐇^4\hfill \end{array}`$ (71)
We see that our generalized Poincaré supercharges $`Q_a`$ are described by minimal Clifford algebra modules $`C_{(D1,1)}`$. We also see from (71) why there is a difference between the conformal spin superalgebra approach with supercharges described by $`F_{(D1,1)}`$ and our proposal for $`D=4`$ and $`D=5`$.

We would like to mention here that the sequence of superalgebras (12) as well as the corresponding conformal algebras (23) and conformal superalgebras (22) can be put in the framework of Jordanian algebras and Jordanian superalgebras . Our goal here was to assign concrete generalized supersymmetries to the particular $`𝐅`$-valued chains of superalgebras. It should be added, that in the framework of Jordanian (super)algebras one can also include $`3\times 3`$ octonionic-Hermitian algebra of matrices $`J_3(𝐎)`$, but the extesion of the generators $`Z_{ab}`$ to octonionic-valued $`4\times 4`$ Hermitian matrices with 52 real generators is not included into Jordan superalgebras sequence. Such a superalgebra, with 32 real supercharges due to the imposed octonionic-Hermitian structure will be called octonionic $`M`$-algebra. In the next section we shall discuss our octonionic-valued superalgebras.

## 4 Octonionic M-superalgebras and Octonionic M-theory

One of the features of the proposed sequence of generalized supersymmetries is the possibility of extending the $`𝐅`$-valued superalgebra structures to octonions. Octonions are described by eight real numbers ($`k=1,\mathrm{},7`$)

$`X𝐎:`$ $`X=X_0+X_kt_k,`$ (72)
where the seven octonionic units $`t_k`$ satisfy the nonassociative algebra

$`t_kt_l`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{kl}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}t_m.`$ (73)
The octonions are endowed with the principal involution $`\overline{t}_k=t_k`$, and unit octonions describe the unit sphere $`S^7`$ through $`X\overline{X}=1`$101010One can also say that $`S^7`$ describes the octonionic extension $`U(1|𝐎)`$ of $`U(1)`$; $`S^7`$ is however not a Lie group, but rather the so-called soft Lie group ..

i) The octonionic Poincaré M-superalgebra (octonionic M-algebra).

From extending (14) to octonions 6 it follows that in $`D=11`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},4`$)

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}=Z_{ab},`$
$`\{Q_a,Q_b\}=\{Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{},Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}=0,`$ (74)
where

$`Q_a`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}t_k,`$
$`Z_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}t_k`$ (75)
and $`Z_{ab}=Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=`$ implies that $`Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=Z_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$, $`Z_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}=Z_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}`$, i.e. the algebra (74) is described by $`52`$ bosonic generators. Following (26) one can introduce the octonionic $`2\times 2`$ gamma matrices ($`k=1,\mathrm{},7`$) realizing the $`(9,0)`$ signature111111Equivalently, to construct $`D=11`$ octonionic gamma matrices we could start from the octonionic realization of Clifford algebra with $`(1,8)`$ signature. It is worth mentioning that octonionic realizations of Clifford algebras only exist in specific signatures, such as $`(0,7)`$, $`(9,0)`$, $`(1,8)`$, $`(10,1)`$, $`(2,9)`$ etc. They are related to the nonassociative realizations of $`D=1`$ $`N`$-extended supersymmetries (see ), which are beyond the classification of the representations of associative $`D=1`$ $`N`$-extended supersymmetries , based on the Clifford algebras over $`𝐑`$, $`𝐂`$ and $`𝐇`$.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& t_k\\ t_k& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }_8=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }_9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (82)
and further the following $`4\times 4`$ $`D=11`$ octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ matrices ($`R=1,\mathrm{},9`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_R\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_R& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (89)
with the $`D=11`$ matrix $`C^{(11)}`$ given again by the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}`$ and satisfying relations analogous to (35) with octonionic principal conjugation. Taking into consideration that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}`$ for $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},10`$ are octonionic-Hermitian and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}`$ is antihermitian, one can write (74) as follows

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(C^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)})_{ab}P^\mu +(C^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)})_{ab}Z^{\mu \nu }.`$ (90)
From the multiplication table of the octonions follows that ($`k,l=1,\mathrm{},7`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[k}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l]}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}=f_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}.`$ (91)
We see that out of the $`21`$ bilinear products of the first seven matrices (89) only $`7`$ are independent and they correspond to the generators of $`\frac{O(7)}{G_2}`$. The remaining $`4\times 4`$ octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices in the antisymmetric products $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{(11)}`$ are linearly independent, i.e. we get $`5514=41`$ generators describing the coset $`\frac{O(10,1)}{G_2}`$, which plays also the role of octonionic $`D=11`$ Lorentz algebra. It is easy to see that the maximal number of real generators on the r.h.s. of (74) is $`52=11+41`$, i.e. the relation (90) indeed saturates the octonionic-valued anticommutator $`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ ($`a,b=1,2,3,4`$).

It should also be stressed that in the definition of $`n>2`$ antisymmetric products of the octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices (89) one should provide the order of multiplication, because the Dirac algebra with the basis (89) is non-associative. To be explicit, the antisymmetrized product of $`n`$ octonionic matrices $`A_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) is given by

$`[A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_n]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{perm.}{}}(1)^{ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}}(A_{i_1}A_{i_2}\mathrm{}A_{i_n}),`$ (92)
where $`(A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_n)`$ denotes the symmetric product

$`(A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_n)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(.((A_1A_2)A_3\mathrm{})A_n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_1(A_2(\mathrm{}A_n)).).`$ (93)
In such a case one can show that the three-fold product of octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`C[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_k]`$ provides $`75`$ antihermitian matrices, describing together with $`C`$ an arbitrary $`4\times 4`$ octonionic antihermitian matrix. The definition (92), applied to the five-fold products of octonionic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices provides their octonionic hermiticity. Further, by explicit calculation one can show that there are $`52`$ independent real tensorial charges describing the five-tensor sector of the octonionic M-algebra, i.e. they span arbitrary $`4\times 4`$ octonionic-hermitian matrices. We thus see that equivalently one can write the octonionic M-algebra (90) as follows

$`\{Q_a,Q_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ac}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _5}]_{cb}Z^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5},`$ (94)
where out of the $`462`$ real antisymmetric $`5`$-tensorial charges of the standard M-algebra only $`52`$ are linearly independent, due to the relation

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}]`$ $`=`$ $`A_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu +A_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}^{}{}_{}{}^{[\nu _1\nu _2]}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\nu _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu _2]},`$ (95)
with constant $`c`$-number coefficients $`A_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$, $`A_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}^{}{}_{}{}^{[\nu _1\nu _2]}`$ 121212The relation (91) is a particular case of the formula (95)..

The relation (95) implies that in $`D=11`$ octonionic M-algebra there is an equivalence of the octonionic five-superbrane and the octonionic two-superbrane (supermembrane) sectors. We would like to stress again that131313We note that in order to express the octonionic structure as constraints on the $`528`$ real Abelian tensorial charges describing the generalized supersymmetry of standard M-theory we use the definition of octonionic-valued anticommutator from footnote $`6`$.

a) The octonionic supermembrane is characterized by constrained number of two-tensorial charges - from $`55`$ to $`41`$. The remaining $`14`$ generators of $`G_2`$ describe inner automorphisms of the algebra (32) of octonionic units.

b) If we keep the $`11`$ degrees of freedom corresponding to the momentum sector, the five-superbrane is also characterized by $`41`$ independent degrees of freedom i.e. $`462`$ degrees of freedom of standard five-tensor charges in $`M`$-theory are restricted very much indeed. It is interesting to find a geometric interpretation of such a huge reduction of degrees of freedom.

c) The $`D=11`$ Lorentz covariance algebra is described also by $`41`$ generators of $`\frac{O(10,1)}{G_2}`$.

d) The anti-de-Sitter extension of octonionic $`M`$-algebra is described by the octonionic extension of superalgebra $`OSp(1;4)`$, which we denote by $`U_\alpha U(4;1|𝐎)`$ (see also ). The octonionic $`M`$-algebra is a contraction of $`U_\alpha U(4;1|𝐎)`$, when the anti-de-Sitter radius $`R\mathrm{}`$.

It should be pointed out that the octonionic M-algebra (74), whose superalgebraic structure for real generators we computed with the prescription in footnote $`6`$, is a Lie superalgebra.

ii) The octonionic conformal M-algebra.

Let us recall that in the cases $`𝐅=𝐑,𝐂`$ and $`𝐇`$ the $`𝐅`$-valued supercharges $`Q_a`$ as well as the set of bosonic charges $`Z_{ab}`$ were carrying the representation of the superalgebra $`U_\alpha (4;𝐅)`$, describing respectively $`D=4`$, $`D=5`$ and $`D=7`$ standard anti-de-Sitter algebras. If we introduce the algebra $`U_\alpha (4;𝐎)`$, by means of $`4\times 4`$ octonionic-valued matrices $`K_{ab}`$, satisfying the relation

$$K^\mathrm{\#}A=AK$$
(96)
where $`A=A^T`$ (or in general $`A^\mathrm{\#}=A`$) describes the antisymmetric (or in general case octonionic-antiHermitian) metric, we obtain the $`D=11`$ de-Sitter-like octonionic algebra introduced in .

The octonionic conformal M-algebra $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ which we propose as defined by extending to octonions the scheme described in (50) is graded as follows:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}I_2& I_0& I_2\\ \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ab}& L_{ab}gl(4|𝐎)& Z_{ab}\end{array}`$ (99)
It contains $`232`$ real generators and we conjecture it has the following properties:

a) We postulate that using the generators of $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ one can obtain the realization of $`\frac{O(11,2)}{G_2}`$, replacing standard $`D=11`$ conformal algebra.

b) The $`128`$ real generators of $`Gl(4|𝐎)`$ describe the $`4\times 4`$ octonionic matrix in the place of the general real $`Gl(32|𝐑)`$ covariance group of standard M-theory with $`1024`$ real generators.

iii) The octonionic conformal $`M`$-superalgebra.

The superextension of $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐅)`$ to $`𝐅=𝐎`$ describes the octonionic conformal M-super-algebra, with bosonic sector described by $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)\times U(1|𝐎)`$ (232+7=239 real generators), where the internal sector $`U(1|𝐎)S^7`$ describes a parallelizable manifold which only can be described by an extension of the notion of standard Lie algebra - the so called soft Lie algebras . Some indications suggest that the structure of the octonionic supergroups $`U_\alpha U(4;1|𝐎)`$ and $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐎)`$ in the real basis is that of a (graded) Malcev (super)algebra . We leave this investigation for future work.

## 5 Concluding remarks

Our proposal is the extension of Kugo and Townsend  relation between division algebras and standard sequence $`D=3,4,6,10`$ of supersymmetries within the HŁS scheme to the case of generalized supersymmetries in the dimensions $`4,5,7`$ and $`11`$ . The idea that $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski space-time should be extended by additional dimensions, describing tensorial central charges coordinates, has been proposed already some time ago (see e.g. ). Our framework provides a concrete way of extending standard space-time framework to dimensions $`5`$ and $`7`$ and ultimately to $`D=11`$.

In this paper we did not develop various aspects of the proposed scheme. Let us only present a list of them, as problems for possible further considerations.

i) One can ask if the choice of our sequence and its space-time supersymmetry interpretation is unique. Indeed, because $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐂)SU(4,4;1)`$ include $`D=6`$ conformal symmetries $`O(6,2)`$, one could also assign our sequences of superalgebras to $`D=4,6`$ and $`7`$. The argument for using the sequence $`D=4,5,7`$ comes from the link with minimal Clifford algebra realizations (see (33)). The other choice of division superalgebra sequence can be obtained if we replace the quaternionic structure of $`D=6`$ Poincaré superalgebra by the real one141414In our case it is replaced by the complex one.. In such a case one obtains the sequence $`U_\alpha U(16;1|𝐅)`$ as describing generalized conformal superalgebras in $`D=6`$ ($`OSp(1;16|𝐑)`$), $`D=7`$ ($`SU(8,8:1)`$) and $`D=9`$ ($`U_\alpha U(16;1|𝐇)`$).

ii) For simplicity we do not consider here more explicitly the extended generalized symmetries, but such a generalization is obvious. In particular the extended generalized conformal supersymmetry with $`N`$ copies of of $`𝐅`$-valued supercharges $`Q_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$, $`S_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$ is given by the superalgebra $`U_\alpha U(8;N|𝐅)`$, with the internal sector (R–symmetries) $`U(𝐅)`$ ($`O(N)`$ for $`𝐅=𝐑`$, $`U(N)`$ for $`𝐅=𝐂`$ and $`U(N;𝐇)USp(2N)`$ for $`𝐅=𝐇`$).

iii) Our considerations are on purely algebraic level. One should also consider the representation theory of the generalized (super)symmetry algebras, e.g. express the generators in terms of oscillators151515In this respect see especially ). and consider the complete set of Casimir’s.

iv) We did not mention here generalized de-Sitter supersymmetries and mentioned only for $`𝐅=𝐎`$ anti-de-Sitter symmetries and supersymmetries. The generalized anti-de-Sitter superalgebras in dimension $`D`$ should be identified with the generalized conformal superalgebras in dimension $`D1`$, i.e. our set of superalgebras $`U_\alpha U(8;1|𝐅)`$ describes the generalized anti-de-Sitter algebras in $`D=5,6,8`$ and possibly $`D=12`$ (the last case for $`𝐅=𝐎`$). The discussion of generalized $`D`$-dimensional de-Sitter superalgebras, equivalent to generalized Lorentz superalgebras in dimension $`D+1`$ is similar in principle, however with differences in technical details (see also ).

v) We did not discuss here an important issue of supersymmetric dynamics, covariant under generalized Poincaré and conformal supersymmetries. We would like only to mention that the preliminary results in such a direction has been already presented  for massless $`D`$0-superbranes (supersymmetric particles) mainly in $`D=4`$ with $`OSp(1;8)`$ as generalized conformal algebra.
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dmitri Sorokin for valuable comments. One of the authors (J.L.) would like to thank José Helayel-Neto for his hospitality at CBPF in Rio de Janeiro, where the main part of this paper was prepared. F.T. is grateful for the hospitality at the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the University of Wrocław, where this work has been completed.


text:
# Exponential Basis in Two-Sided Variational Estimates of Energy for Three-Body Systems

## 1 Introduction

Among existing methods of calculation of non-relativistic bounded systems the variational method seems to be the most universal one as it is applied equally well for the solution of atomic and nuclear problems. It is essential that the variational method allows to find not only the upper ($`E_U`$) but also the lower ($`E_L`$) estimates of the energy. As to potentiality of the method, there are many examples of highly accurate calculations of three- and more-particle systems -. For instance in the three-body Coulomb problem the precision is amounted up to a score of decimal places. Of course in real physical systems the relativistic and other effects lead to corrections in the energy already in 5–7-th decimal place and therefore, in practical use a variational procedure which ensures a reasonable accuracy with least computational efforts may be acceptable.

Historically the first variational expansion in a three-particle problem was suggested by Hylleraas in perimetrical coordinates in the form of exponent function multiplied by a polynomial with integer nonnegative powers. Later negative and fractional powers were added , , besides Frankowski and Pekeris  introduced logarithmic terms. In the next this basis is referred as ’polynomial’ one.

Another possibility is to use a purely exponential basis. It ensures a good flexibility of the variational expansion due to the presence of many scale nonlinear parameters. Whereas the Hylleraas basis is practically oriented on solution of uni-center Coulomb problems the exponential basis is good for systems with any masses of particles and types of their interaction . Besides, the calculations with exponential basis are more simple and uniform whereas for polynomial basis they became more and more complicated as number of terms increases, especially if the logarithmic terms are included.

Instead of exponents another non-polynomial functions, gaussians, can be used. They are not less than exponents fitted for the systems with any masses of particles, moreover they are applicable to systems with arbitrary number of particles. For this basis all the formulas needed for calculation of both the upper and lower bounds are given in paper , and different 3-, 4-, and 5-particle systems were calculated there. For the upper bound a generalization is given in article  for arbitrary orbital moments. Nevertheless, our analysis have shown that at least for three-body variational calculations with not very high number of parameters the precision for gaussian basis is lower than for exponential one.

Our principal goal was not the striving for improvement of existing super-high precision calculations but the analysis of efficiency of exponential and partly gaussian trial functions for evaluation of the upper and lower variational bounds. For this purpose the Coulomb and nuclear systems of particles with different masses and types of interaction are considered and the results of calculations are compared with those published in literature.

To facilitate such a comparison we will characterize the accuracy of calculations of $`E_U`$ and $`E_L`$ by the values:

$$\delta _U=\mathrm{lg}\left(\frac{E_0E_U}{E_0}\right),\delta _L=\mathrm{lg}\left(\frac{E_LE_0}{E_0}\right),$$
(1)
which determine the number of correct decimal places of $`E_U`$ and $`E_L`$ respectively, $`E_0`$ being the exact value of the energy.

The universality of exponential basis in respect to masses of particles allows us to analyze the problem of stability of different Coulomb three-particle systems.

## 2 Method of calculation

In three-particle problem it is convenient to use interparticle distances as coordinates together with the Euler angles describing the orientation of the triangle formed by the particles. In the case of central interaction the wave function of the ground state (and exited state with zero orbital momentum) depends only on interparticle distances, therefore the function can be written as:

$$a=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _p^aR_p\right),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _p^a`$ are the nonlinear variational parameters specifying the scale of the basis function $`a`$, $`R_i`$ is the distance between particles $`j`$ and $`k`$ where $`\{i,j,k\}`$ is the triplet $`\{1,2,3\}`$ or its cyclic permutation. In the case of gaussian basis $`R_p`$ in (2) is replaced by $`R_p^2`$.

It is convenient to use the notations:

$$t_p\mathrm{cos}\beta _p,T_pat_pb,G_paR_p^1b,Nab,$$

where $`\beta _p`$ is the angle at $`p`$-th particle in the triangle. Then simple calculations result in the following formula for matrix element of operator of kinetic energy, $`T`$, between states $`a`$ and $`b`$:

$$aTb=\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}s_p^aG_p\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}d_p^aT_pu^aN,$$

where

$$s_i^a=\alpha _i^a(\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{m_i}),u^a=\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}s_p^a\alpha _p^a,d_i^a=\frac{\alpha _1^a\alpha _2^a\alpha _3^a}{\alpha _i^am_i},$$

$`m_i`$ being the mass of $`i`$-th particle and $`1/M1/m_1+1/m_2+1/m_3`$.

A calculation of matrix elements for the potential energy reduces to calculation of the integrals similar to those for kinetic energy. In particular, for the Coulomb interaction $`V_p=1/R_p`$:

$$aV_pb=G_p.$$

A calculation of lower variational estimate requires additional evaluations of matrix elements for operators $`T^2,V^2`$ and $`VT`$. For this purpose it is convenient to introduce additional notations:

$$J_{pq}aR_p^1R_q^1b,W_{pq}at_pR_q^1b,Q_{pq}at_pt_qb.$$

Then, the matrix elements of operators $`T^2`$ and $`V_pT+TV_p`$ are written as:

$`aT^2b`$ $`=`$ $`u^au^bN{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(s_p^au^b+s_p^bu^a)G_p+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(d_p^au^b+d_p^bu^a)T_p`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(s_q^ad_p^b+s_q^bd_p^a)W_{pq}+{\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}s_p^as_q^bJ_{pq}+{\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}d_p^ad_q^bQ_{pq}.`$
$`aV_pT+TV_pb`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(s_q^a+s_q^b)aV_p/R_qb{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(d_q^a+d_q^b)aV_pt_qb`$
$``$ $`(u^a+u^b)aV_pb.`$
In the particular case of Coulomb potential:

$$aV_p/R_qb=J_{pq},aV_pt_qb=W_{qp}.$$

The calculation of the matrix elements of $`V^2`$ is similar to calculation of $`aVb`$. In particular, for the Coulomb interaction a simple formula takes place:

$$aV_pV_qb=J_{pq}.$$

The trial function is written as a superposition of basis functions (2):

$$\psi =\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_aa,$$
(3)
where $`C_a`$ are linear parameters.

Evidently, the difficulties arise mostly at optimization of the non-linear parameters. The possibilities of the deterministic procedures are soon exhausted as the number of terms in expansion (3) increases. Therefore, a specially designed procedure of global stochastic searching was used. Briefly it is the following: at each Monte-Carlo probe a random point is chosen in $`3N`$-dimensional space of non-linear parameters according to previously accepted distribution function. Then the coordinatewise optimization is carried on, at first the stochastic one and then the deterministic one. At this stage the best points are selected for subsequent detailed optimization. Mentioned above distribution function is found by a procedure similar to that described in .

## 3 Efficiency of calculations for various systems

To understand better what are the possibilities of exponential basis and described above optimization procedure in calculations of systems with different masses of particles and interactions a number of Coulomb and nuclear systems were considered. Among them: He atom, hydrogen ion H-, positronium ion Ps- (e$`{}_{}{}^{+}e_{}^{}e^{}`$), meso-systems $`\alpha \mu ^{}e^{}`$, $`p\mu ^+e^{}`$, $`pp\mu ^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^+e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$, two-center Coulomb systems $`ppe^{}`$, $`dde^{}`$, $`tte^{}`$, as well as nuclei 3H and $`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H.

The composition of the majority of considered Coulomb systems with the particles of unit charge can be presented as $`X^\pm Y^{}Y^{}`$, the identical particles being denoted as $`Y`$. The binding energies decrease together with the values of masses but the accuracy of calculation depends only on the ratio of masses. For these systems the upper and lower bounds were calculated with $`N=30`$ in expansion (3), corresponding values $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$ were plotted in Fig. 1 as the functions of mass ratio, $`\xi _{YX}=m_Y/m_X`$. In calculations of the lower bound the non-linear parameters were accepted to be equal to these found for the upper bound.

As expected, the increase of ratio $`\xi _{YX}`$ leads to the decrease of values $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$ due to arising difficulties in description of motion of heavy particles. Nevertheless even at the approach to the two-center limit ($`\xi _{YX}1`$) the accuracy of calculations remains still satisfactory. For comparison, in Fig.1 the results of most detailed calculations with polynomial basis  are presented too. It is seen that the accuracy of calculations with polynomial basis  becomes bad for $`\xi _{YX}>0.1`$ in spite of large values of $`N`$. This comparison shows that the exponential basis is applicable for a wider range of values of $`\xi _{YX}`$ than the polynomial basis.

Note that in the case of Gaussian basis $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$ decrease even more slowly than for exponential basis (see Fig.1) though the latter provides generally higher precision.

The exponential basis can be used as well in the case of nuclear systems, even inconvenient for calculation (weakly bounded systems, short-range attractive potentials with strong repulsion at small distances between particles, that can be identical or not identical). As a particularly ’inconvenient’ system hypertritium, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$H (consisting of $`np\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), was chosen. For comparison a more ’convenient’ three-nucleon system, 3H, was considered. In these calculations two types of model nuclear $`NN`$-potentials were used, (i) purely attractive potential $`NN1`$ and (ii) attractive potential with a soft core $`NN2`$:

$$V_{NN}(r)=V_r(R_r/R)\mathrm{exp}(R/R_r)V_a(R_a/R)\mathrm{exp}(R/R_a)$$
(4)
and attractive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-potential:

$$V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}(r)=V_a\mathrm{exp}(R/R_a),$$
(5)
the parameters $`V_{a,r}`$ and $`R_{a,r}`$ are given in Appendix B.

The convergence of the upper and lower estimates for exponential basis is illustrated in Table 1 and in Fig. 2 for various Coulomb and nuclear systems. As seen from Fig. 2 the dependence of $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$ on the $`\mathrm{lg}N`$ is close to the linear one. In accordance with Fig. 1 the accuracy decreases as the system approaches to the adiabatic limit, and in parallel the convergence of variational estimates deteriorates (it is characterized by the slope of curves in Fig. 2). Note that the precision of calculations for considered nuclear systems is generally similar or even better than for Coulomb systems.

Besides, in Fig. 2 some results of calculations with the Gaussian basis are shown (dotted lines). It is seen that the convergence of the upper and lower bound is similar to that for exponential basis whereas the accuracy is significantly lower.

## 4 Comparison of results for different bases

Comparison of efficiency of different variational expansions is convenient to carry out on standard systems calculated by many authors. Such systems are He and H- considered in -,,-. In Fig. 3 the values of $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$, are plotted for these papers where the most detailed calculations of atom He were carried out, the results of our calculations are presented there too. Similarly, in Fig. 4 $`\delta _U`$ and $`\delta _L`$ are presented for hydrogen ion H-.

It is necessary to emphasize that both cases are examples of one-center systems. Therefore, this is a reason to expect that the expansions especially designed for one-center problems will gain the advantage. This is generally confirmed by our analysis. Up to present the most accurate many-parameters calculations of He were carried out using polynomial or polynomial-logarithmic bases. As it is seen from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 the convergence of the variational expansions for these bases is generally better than for exponential or gaussian bases.

On the other hand, up to $`\delta _U12`$ the use of exponential basis is justified as it assures the same precision at lower number of terms (see Fig.3 and 4). Note that the over-high precision in non-relativistic calculations without taking into account relativistic and other corrections (that appears far before $`\delta 12`$) have no physical meaning, though they are interesting from computational point of view.

As to the lower bound calculations they are rare in literature and we estimate the number of $`N`$ up to which the calculations of $`E_L`$ with exponential basis are justified (in the same sense as for $`E_U`$) as $`100200`$.

Another limiting case is the adiabatic one (i.e. a two-center system with two heavy particles). In this case the use of polynomial basis leads to unsatisfactory results, and the exponential basis is evidently preferable (see Fig. 1). Moreover, the use of complex scale parameters in exponential basis increases significantly the accuracy of calculations . The most accurate calculations of two-center systems were carried out in the framework of the Born-Oppenheimer approach  or its modifications , . In particular, in paper  the energy of the system $`H_2^+`$ ($`ppe^{}`$) was calculated with precision $`\delta 12`$ but this is only some better than that of the calculation of  with exponential functions (note by the way that the number of basis terms in  was less than in ).

A more effective modification of exponential basis in two-center calculations is:

$$|a=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _1^aR_1\alpha _2^aR_2\alpha _3^aR_3\beta ^aR_3^2),$$
(6)
where $`R_3`$ is a distance between the heavy particles. Note that the dependence of this function on $`R_3`$ can be presented as $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta ^a(R_3R_3^a)^2)`$, where $`R_3^a`$ is the new variational parameter connected with $`\alpha _3^a`$. Note that basis (6) is, in a certain sense, a particular case of ’carcass’ functions (constructed on the base of gaussians in paper ), whose use together with gaussians might be useful in nuclear physics for calculation with potentials changing the sign.

For functions (6) all the integrals needed for calculations of the upper variational bound are expressed in the closed form in terms of conventional functions. For instance, the basic integral can be calculated as:

$$G^{000}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{x_3R_3\beta R_3^2}𝑑R_3\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{x_2R_2}𝑑R_2\underset{R_2R_3}{\overset{R_2+R_3}{}}e^{x_1R_1}𝑑R_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}\frac{F\left(\frac{x_1+x_3}{2\sqrt{\beta }}\right)F\left(\frac{x_2+x_3}{2\sqrt{\beta }}\right)}{x_1^2x_2^2},$$
(7)
where $`F(z)e^{z^2}_z^{\mathrm{}}e^{t^2}𝑑t`$.

The calculations of the ground state of the system $`ppe^{}`$ with this modified basis lead to significantly better results than with purely exponential or gaussian bases. In particular, in our calculations it has been shown that even a single function (6) provides a better precision than 50 exponents or gaussians. Moreover, the basis (6) is more flexible than the exponential basis with complex parameters used in . For instance, the result of calculations with $`N=20`$ for $`ppe^{}`$ turns out to be better than that of paper  with 200 complex exponents (1400 variational parameters) and better than calculations with 300 functions for systems $`\mu ^+\mu ^+e^{}`$, $`dde^{}`$ and $`tte^{}`$.

In addition to the preceding discussion of two limiting cases (one- and two-center problem) it is necessary to indicate that there exists a large region of values of $`\xi _{YX}`$ between $`10^2`$ and $`10^2`$ where the exponential basis is beyond compare. Note that this is the region where the great part of known three-particle Coulomb systems is located. Thus, apart from gaussians, the exponential basis seems to be the most universal one in comparison with other approaches, applicable equally well to Coulomb and nuclear three-particle systems.

## 5 Stability of Coulomb Systems

All considered above Coulomb systems except two ($`\alpha e^{}e^{}`$ and $`\alpha \mu ^{}e^{}`$) had summary charge $`\pm 1`$ and consisted of three single-charged particles from which two are identical. All systems of such type are stable in respect to separation of one of the particles. However this is not the case for other type of three particle Coulomb systems. For analysis of stability of Coulomb systems and for calculation of their energy it is natural to use the variational procedure with exponential basis as it is most universal in respect to masses of particles (see also ).

In general case the structure of a Coulomb system of three single-charged particles with total charge $`\pm 1`$ may be presented in the form $`X^\pm Y^{}Z^{}`$ where $`m_Ym_Z`$. The stability of the system depends on two ratios of masses, $`\xi _{YX}=m_Y/m_X`$ and $`\xi _{ZX}=m_Z/m_X`$. A boundary delimiting the regions of stable and unstable systems is determined from the condition of coincidence of the energy of the three-particle system with that of the two-particle system $`X^\pm Z^{}`$. The corresponding equation determining the interdependence between $`\xi _{YX}`$ and $`\xi _{ZX}`$ can be written as:

$$f(\xi _{YX},\xi _{ZX})\frac{E(X^\pm Y^{}Z^{})}{E(X^\pm Z^{})}1=0$$
(8)
The solution of this equation is presented in Fig. 5 by the curve A. It is seen that not only systems with two identical particles are stable but also two-center systems (two heavy particles with identical charges plus light particle with opposite charge). In contrast, a system containing two heavy particles of opposite charges are unstable. An exception can occur if all three particles have nearly equal masses. This takes place for instance for exotic systems $`p^+p^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ ($`\xi _{YX}=1`$, $`\xi _{ZX}=1.2749`$), $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\pi ^\pm `$ ($`\xi _{YZ}=1`$, $`\xi _{ZX}=1.3213`$) and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\mu ^\pm `$ ($`\xi _{YX}=0.7568`$, $`\xi _{ZX}=1`$) for which $`f=0.008745`$, 0.006069 and 0.002354, respectively. Of course, a three-particle system which is stable with respect to emission of one of the constituent particles can be unstable in the excited state. This problem was considered in  for symmetric ($`XYY`$) systems with $`m_Y/m_X1`$.

For the case of systems of the type $`X^{+m}Y^{+m}Z^m`$ containing multiple-charged particles the situation is quit similar to the case of single-charged particles considered above. Among three-body systems containing single and double charged particles the systems of the type $`X^{++}Y^{}Z^+`$ and $`X^{++}Y^{}Z^{++}`$ are unstable at any ratio of their masses, whereas the systems $`X^{++}Y^{}Z^{}`$ are always stable. As to the systems of the type $`X^{++}Y^{}Z^+`$ they can be stable only for restricted values of ratios of their masses. The corresponding boundary is shown in the same Fig. 5, curve B.

## Appendix A Standard integrals

A calculation of matrix elements of the Hamiltonian and its square reduces to the evaluation of the following integrals:

$$I^{klm}(x_1,x_2,x_3)8\pi ^2\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_1^k𝑑R_1\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_2^l𝑑R_2\underset{R_1R_2}{\overset{R_1+R_2}{}}R_3^m𝑑R_3\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}x_pR_p\right).$$
(9)
The integrals $`I^{klm}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ with non-negative indexes are the uniform polynomials of the $`(k+l+m+3)`$-th degree with respect to the variables $`A_i1/(x_1+x_2+x_3x_i)`$.

To calculate the upper variational estimate the following integrals are necessary:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill I^{000}& =& A_1A_2A_3;\hfill \\ \hfill N& =& 2I^{000}\left((A_1+A_2)(A_2+A_3)(A_3+A_1)A_1A_2A_3\right);\hfill \\ \hfill G_1& =& I^{000}(A_1A_2+A_2A_3+A_3A_1+2A_1^2);\hfill \\ \hfill T_1& =& I^{111}4I^{000}A_2A_3(A_2+A_3).\hfill \end{array}$$

(Here and further an unimportant numerical factor $`16\pi ^2`$ is dropped.)

For presentation of the integrals (9) with negative indexes it is convenient to use the following notations:

$$\begin{array}{c}B_1(x_2x_3)^1,B_2(x_3x_1)^1,B_3(x_1x_2)^1;\\ S_{C1}^{[n]}=B_1^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{A_2}{A_3}B_1^{n1}A_3\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n1}B_1A_3^{n1};\\ S_{E1}^{[n]}=B_1^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{A_2}{A_3}B_1^{n1}A_2+\mathrm{}+\frac{(1)^{n1}}{n1}B_1A_2^{n1};\\ S_1^{[n]}=S_{C1}^{[n]}+S_{E1}^{[n]};\\ N_1^{[n]}=\frac{1}{n}\left(A_3^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{A_1}{A_2}+A_2^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{A_1}{A_3}S_{C3}^{[n]}+(1)^{n1}S_{E2}^{[n]}\right).\end{array}$$

To calculate the lower variational estimate the following integrals are necessary:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}J_{12}=J_{21}& =& I^{000}(A_1+A_2);\hfill \\ J_{11}& =& A_1^3S_1^{[1]}A_1S_1^{[3]}+I^{000}\left(A_1/2+(A_1+A_2+A_3)/2\right);\hfill \\ & & \\ W_{12}& =& I^{000}A_1(A_3+2A_2)+2A_2^3S_2^{[2]}2A_2^2S_2^{[3]};\hfill \\ W_{21}& =& I^{000}A_2(A_3+2A_1)2A_1^3S_1^{[2]}2A_1^2S_1^{[3]};\hfill \\ W_{11}& =& G_12I^{000}A_2A_3;\hfill \\ & & \\ Q_{12}=Q_{21}& =& N4I^{000}A_3(A_1^2+A_2^2)8A_k^3S_3^{[3]};\hfill \\ Q_{11}& =& 3A_2\left(2S_{E2}^{[1]}A_2^4+3S_{E2}^{[2]}A_2^33S_{E2}^{[4]}A_2+2S_{E2}^{[5]}\right)+\hfill \\ & +& 3A_3\left(2S_{C3}^{[1]}A_3^43S_{C3}^{[2]}A_3^3+3S_{C3}^{[4]}A_3+2S_{C3}^{[5]}\right)+\hfill \\ & +& (2T_1N)+I^{511}/4;\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill I^{511}& =& 60\{x_1^1[N_1^{[5]}A_2A_3(A_2^3/4+A_2^2A_3/6+A_2A_3^2/6+A_3^3/4)]+\hfill \\ & +& x_1^2\left[N_1^{[4]}A_2A_3\left(A_2^2/3+A_2A_3/4+A_3^2/3\right)\right]+\hfill \\ & +& x_1^3\left[N_1^{[3]}A_2A_3\left(A_2/2+A_3/2\right)\right]+x_1^4\left[N_1^{[2]}A_2A_3\right]+x_1^5N_1^{[1]}+\hfill \\ & +& x_1^6[\mathrm{Li}_2(1\frac{A_2}{A_1})+\mathrm{Li}_2(1\frac{A_3}{A_1})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{A_2}{A_3}+\frac{\pi ^2}{6}]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The expression for $`I^{511}`$ contains the di-logarithmic function $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z)_0^zt^1\mathrm{ln}(1t)𝑑t`$. If $`u=x_1/x_2`$ and $`v=x_1/x_3`$ are simultaneously small one can use for it the expansion:

$$I^{511}=x_2^6\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u^nP_{n+5}(w)\frac{(n+5)!}{n!(n+6)}+x_3^6\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v^nP_{n+5}(w^1)\frac{(n+5)!}{n!(n+6)}$$

$$P_q(\alpha )=P_{q2}(\alpha )\frac{(\alpha )^q}{q},q=2,3,\mathrm{},P_0=\mathrm{ln}(1+\alpha ),P_1=1,w=\frac{v}{u}.$$

These formulas are used if $`\mathrm{max}(u,v)<0.3`$.

## Appendix B Model Nuclear potentials

Parameters of used nuclear model potentials (4) and (5) are given in Table 4.

In calculations of hypertritium $`NN`$-potentials $`NN`$-1 and $`NN`$-2 were used. The radial parameter of purely attractive potential $`NN`$-1 was chosen corresponding to one-pion exchange whereas for $`NN`$-2 potential the values of $`R_r`$ and $`R_a`$ were adopted from paper . The depth parameters for potentials $`NN`$-1 and $`NN`$-2 were matched to correct deuteron energy, additional experimental data in fitting of parameters for $`NN`$-2 potential were deuteron radius and phases of S-wave triplet $`np`$-scattering up to energy 300 MeV. In calculations of tritium 3H the potential $`NN`$-3 was used with the same radial parameter as for potential $`NN`$-1, whereas depth parameters was chosen to describe the correct tritium binding energy in calculations with $`N=100`$ in expansion (3).

The radius of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$-potential was adopted from paper  while the depth parameter provided the correct hypertritium binding energy (BΛ = 0.13 MeV) in calculations with $`N=100`$.