format: text

text:
# Branching rules for modular fundamental representations of symplectic groups

## 1. Introduction

The article is devoted to finding branching rules for the fundamental representations of the sympplectic groups in positive characteristic. The classical branching rules are concerned with the restrictions of representations of the classical algebraic and symmetric groups in characteristic 0 to naturally embedded subgroups of smaller ranks. For a group of rank $`n`$ and its fixed irreducible representation $`\phi `$ they yield the composition factors of the restriction of $`\phi `$ to a naturally embedded subgroup of rank $`n1`$ and hence to similar subgroups of smaller ranks, at least algorithmically. These rules provide a basis for induction on rank and have found numerous applications. In positive characteristic one cannot expect to obtain complete branching rules in an explicit form in a near future since this problem is closely connected with that of finding the dimensions of arbitrary irreducible representations and the composition factors of the Weyl modules. So it is worth to investigate important particular cases where such rules can be found and to seek for asymptotic analogs of these rules. The notion of an inductive system of representations (see the definition below) introduced by Zalesskii in  yields an asymptotic version of the branching rules. It proved to be useful for the study of ideals in group algebras of locally finite groups as well, see, for instance, Zalesskii’s survey . We classify the inductive systems of the fundamental representations for the infinite-dimensional symplectic group $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$. This class of representations yields an example of representations of a simple form for which the branching rules in positive characteristic differ from the characteristic 0 case.

Let $`KF`$ be fields of characteristic $`p>0`$, $`\overline{F}`$ be the algebraic closure of $`F`$, and $`^+`$ be the set of nonnegative integers. Let $`G_n=Sp_{2n}(K)`$. Denote by $`\omega _i^n`$, $`0in`$, the $`i`$th fundamental module and representation of $`G_n`$ over $`F`$ where $`\omega _0^n`$ is the trivial one. Let $`W_0^n=\omega _0^n,W_1^n,\mathrm{},W_n^n`$ be the corresponding Weyl modules. Set $`W_i^n=\omega _i^n=0`$ for $`i<0`$ and for $`i>n`$. The labeling of the fundamental modules is standard, the fundamental and the Weyl modules for $`G_n`$ are the $`F`$-modules affording the restrictions to $`G_n`$ of the relevant representations of the group $`Sp_{2n}(\overline{F})`$ (it is well known that these restrictions can be realized over $`F`$). For an integer $`z>0`$ we denote by $`lp(z)`$ the maximal $`i`$ such that $`p^iz`$. We have $`lp(z)=0`$ if $`pz`$. Let $`M`$ be a $`G_n`$-module. The restriction of $`M`$ to $`G_{n1}`$ is denoted by $`MG_{n1}`$. We shall write

$$MN_1+\mathrm{}+N_q$$

if there is a series $`0=M_0M_1\mathrm{}M_q=M`$ of submodules of $`M`$ and a permutation $`\sigma `$ such that $`N_{\sigma (i)}M_i/M_{i1}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},q`$. Moreover, if in addition $`M_i/M_{i1}`$ coincides with the socle of $`M/M_{i1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},q`$, then the sequence

$$N_{\sigma (1)}_sN_{\sigma (2)}_s\mathrm{}_sN_{\sigma (q)}$$

is called the socle series of $`M`$.

Theorem 1.1 below describes the branching rules for the fundamental $`G_n`$-modules and the submodule structure of the restrictions of these modules to $`G_{n1}`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`n2`$ and $`0in`$. Set $`d=lp(ni+1)`$; $`\epsilon =0`$ if $`ni+1p^d(modp^{d+1})`$ and $`\epsilon =1`$ otherwise. Then

(i) $`\omega _i^nG_{n1}\omega _i^{n1}+2\omega _{i1}^{n1}+\left(_{t=0}^{d1}2\omega _{i2p^t}^{n1}\right)+\epsilon \omega _{i2p^d}^{n1}`$ (the sum in the brackets is zero whenever $`d=0`$);

(ii) $`\omega _i^nG_{n1}=\omega _{i1}^{n1}\omega _{i1}^{n1}D`$ and the series

$$\omega _{i2}^{n1}_s\omega _{i2p}^{n1}_s\mathrm{}_s\omega _{i2p^{d1}}^{n1}_s\omega _s\omega _{i2p^{d1}}^{n1}_s\mathrm{}_s\omega _{i2p}^{n1}_s\omega _{i2}^{n1}$$

with $`\omega =\omega _i^{n1}\epsilon \omega _{i2p^d}^{n1}`$ and $`\omega _j^{n1}`$ omitted for $`j<0`$ is the socle series of $`D`$. In particular, $`D=\omega `$ if $`i=0,1`$ or $`pn+1i`$.

###### Corollary 1.2.

For $`n2`$ the restriction $`\omega _i^nG_{n1}`$ is completely reducible if and only if $`i=0,1`$ or $`pn+1i`$.

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the description of the composition factors of the fundamental Weyl modules (Premet and Suprunenko \[6, Theorem 2\] for $`p>2`$ and independently Adamovich \[1, Theorem 2 and its Corollary 1\] for arbitrary $`p`$) and Adamovich’s results  on the submodule structure of these Weyl modules. In Section 2 these results are refined (Theorem 2.13). In particular, a new irreducibility criterion for the fundamental Weyl modules is obtained (Corollary 2.14) and it is proved that their socles are always simple (Corollary 2.15).

For $`np+2in`$ Gow  has given an explicit construction of the modules $`\omega _i^n`$ and has described the submodule structure of the restrictions $`\omega _i^nG_1\times G_{n1}`$ (the natural embedding) (\[5, Theorem 2.2\]). This implies our Theorem 1.1 for these modules. In  a certain explicitly determined operator $`\delta `$ on the exterior algebra $`V`$ of the natural $`G_n`$-module $`V`$ is considered and it is proved that for $`np+2in`$ the module $`\omega _i^n`$ can be realized as the quotient $`\mathrm{ker}\delta ^iV/\delta ^{p1}(^{i+2p2}V)`$ (\[5, Corollary 2.4\]). This nice construction gives a realization for an important class of modules without complicated representation-theoretic machinery. However, it cannot be extended to other fundamental modules since according to \[5, Theorem 4.2\], the quotient above is zero for $`i<np+2`$.

In  Sheth has found the branching rules for modular representations of symmetric groups corresponding to two part partitions. The composition factors occurring in the relevant restrictions are similar to those of the module $`D`$ in Theorem 1.1(ii). We conjecture that the submodule structure of these restrictions is also similar to that of $`D`$. The authors plan to consider this question as well as the similar one for representations of special linear groups with highest weights $`\omega _i+\omega _j`$ in a subsequent paper.

In Section 4 Theorem 1.1 is applied to classify the inductive systems of fundamental $`F`$-representations for $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$. Let

$$H_1H_2\mathrm{}H_n\mathrm{}$$
(1)
be a sequence of groups, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, be a nonempty finite set of (inequivalent) irreducible representations of $`H_n`$ over a fixed field. The system $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\mathrm{\Psi }_nn=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ is called an inductive system (of representations) for the group $`H=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}H_n`$ if each $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ coincides with the union of the sets of composition factors (up to equivalence) of the restrictions $`\pi H_n`$ where $`\pi `$ runs over $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$. In this article (1) is the sequence of the naturally embedded groups $`G_n=Sp_{2n}(K)`$, so $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}G_n=Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$. Set

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill _n& =& \{\omega _i^n0in\},\hfill & \hfill & =& \{_nn=1,2,\mathrm{}\};\hfill \\ \hfill _n^s& =& \{\omega _i^n0is\},\hfill & \hfill ^s& =& \{_n^sn=1,2,\mathrm{}\};\hfill \\ \hfill _n^u& =& \{\omega _i^nn+1uin\},\hfill & \hfill ^u& =& \{_n^un=1,2,\mathrm{}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 1.3.

The inductive systems of fundamental representations over $`F`$ for $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ are exhausted by the systems $``$, $`^s`$, $`^{p^t1}`$, and $`^s^{p^t1}`$ ($`s0`$, $`t1`$).

It is clear that $`^0`$ (which consists of the trivial representations) and $`^{p1}`$ are minimal inductive systems. However, the question on the minimal inductive systems for $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ is far from solution. For $`p>2`$ Zalesskii and Suprunenko  have described the inductive system $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_nn=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ where for each $`n`$ the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ consists of two irreducible representations with highest weights $`\omega _{n1}+\frac{1}{2}(p3)\omega _n`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(p1)\omega _n`$. The system $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coincides with $`^2`$ for $`p=3`$ and yields another example of a minimal inductive system for $`p>3`$.

For other classical groups the questions investigated in this paper present no problems since the situation is the same as in characteristic 0.

The authors  have found the minimal and the minimal nontrivial inductive systems for the group $`SL_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{K})`$. For this group the system consisting of the trivial representation is the only minimal inductive system, and the minimal nontrivial ones are exhausted by the systems $`𝐋^j=\{L_n^jn=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`𝐑^j=\{R_n^jn=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ where $`L_n^j`$ consists of two irreducible representations of $`SL_{n+1}(\overline{K})`$ with highest weights $`0`$ and $`p^j\omega _1`$ and $`R_n^j`$ of those with highest weights $`0`$ and $`p^j\omega _n`$. The picture is similar for the groups $`SL_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`SU_{\mathrm{}}`$ over locally finite fields.

Until Proposition 4.2 we assume that $`K=F=\overline{F}`$. At the end Proposition 4.2 transfers the results to arbitrary fields.

## 2. The structure of the fundamental Weyl modules

In this section we refine the results of , , and  on the structure of the fundamental Weyl modules for $`G_n`$.

Throughout the paper we set $`\pi _i^n=\omega _{n+1i}^n`$ and $`V_i^n=W_{n+1i}^n`$. We denote by $`[a,b]`$ the set of all $`j^+`$ with $`ajb`$. For an integer $`k^+`$ write its $`p`$-adic expansion $`k=k_0+k_1p+\mathrm{}+k_sp^s`$ with $`0k_i<p`$ and set $`k_i=0`$ for all such $`i^+`$ that $`p^i>k`$. We shall write $`k=(k_0,k_1,\mathrm{},k_s)`$. We say that an integer $`m`$ contains $`k`$ to base $`p`$ and write $`k_pm`$ if and only if for each $`i`$ either $`k_i=0`$, or $`k_i=m_i`$. Set $`d_k^m=1`$ if $`k_pm`$, and $`d_k^m=0`$ otherwise.

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[6, Theorem 2\] Let $`p>2`$. Then $`W_i^n_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}d_k^{n+1i+2k}\omega _{i2k}^n`$.

We need some more notation to state Adamovich’s results. For $`\lambda ^+`$ define maps $`s_\lambda ^{}:^+^+`$ and $`s_\lambda :^+^+`$ setting

$`s_\lambda ^{}(l)=l+2k^{}`$ where $`l+1=a^{}p^\lambda k^{}`$, $`a^{}^+`$, $`0k^{}<p^\lambda `$;

$`s_\lambda (l)=l+2k`$ where $`l=ap^\lambda k`$, $`a^+`$, $`0k<p^\lambda `$.

We say that the reflection $`s_\lambda ^{}`$ or $`s_\lambda `$ is $`l`$-admissible if $`k^{}0`$ and $`pa^{}`$ or $`k0`$ and $`pa`$, respectively. We denote by $`S(l)`$ the set of all $`m>l`$ that can be written in the form $`m=s_{\lambda _u}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)`$ where $`\lambda _u<\mathrm{}<\lambda _1`$ and for each $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},u1`$ the reflection $`s_{\lambda _{i+1}}`$ is $`s_{\lambda _i}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)`$-admissible. Similarly we define $`S^{}(l)`$ (writing $`s_{\lambda _i}^{}`$ instead of $`s_{\lambda _i}`$).

###### Theorem 2.2.

 Let $`0ln`$. Then $`V_{l+1}^n\pi _{l+1}^n+_{mS^{}(l)}\pi _{m+1}^n`$.

As $`s_\lambda ^{}(x1)=s_\lambda (x)1`$, the following theorem yields an equivalent statement.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`1ln+1`$. Then $`V_l^n\pi _l^n+_{mS(l)}\pi _m^n`$.

Let us rewrite Theorem 2.1 in terms of $`\pi _m^n`$ and $`V_l^n`$ (without restrictions on $`p`$).

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`1ln+1`$. Then $`V_l^n_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}d_k^{l+2k}\pi _{l+2k}^n`$.

Now our goal is to show that Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 are equivalent, so Theorem 2.4 (and 2.1) holds for $`p=2`$. For this purpose we prove some technical facts on the triples $`k,l,m`$ with $`k_pm=l+2k`$ and admissible reflections.

Until the end of the section $`l1`$. For each $`mS(l)`$ the tuple $`(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _u)`$ is uniquely determined (see the comments before the Theorem in ). If $`u`$ is odd for some $`m`$, set $`\lambda _{u+1}=lp(m)`$. Then $`s_{\lambda _{u+1}}(m)=m`$ and $`\lambda _{u+1}<\lambda _u`$. Now for every $`mS(l)`$ we have a uniquely determined sequence of reflections $`s_{\lambda _1},\mathrm{},s_{\lambda _{2t}}`$. Such sequences will be called $`l`$-admissible. For an integer $`0ap1`$ set $`\overline{a}=p1a`$. The following lemma is straightforward.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Set $`q=lp(l)`$. The reflection $`s_\lambda `$ is $`l`$-admissible if and only if $`\lambda >q`$ and $`l_\lambda p1`$. In that case $`s_\lambda (l)=p^q(\overline{l}_q+1,\overline{l}_{q+1},\mathrm{}\overline{l}_{\lambda 1},l_\lambda +1,l_{\lambda +1},\mathrm{}).`$

Two consequent applications of Lemma 2.5 yield

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`lp(l)\mu <\lambda `$, $`m=s_\mu s_\lambda (l)`$, and $`k=(ml)/2`$. The pair $`s_\lambda ,s_\mu `$ is $`l`$-admissible if and only if $`l_\lambda p1`$ and $`l_\mu 0`$. In that case

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}\hfill m& =& (l_0,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{},& \hfill l_{\mu 1},& \hfill \overline{l}_\mu +1,& \overline{l}_{\mu +1},\hfill & \mathrm{},\hfill & \overline{l}_{\lambda 1},\hfill & l_\lambda +1,\hfill & l_{\lambda +1},\hfill & \mathrm{}),\hfill \\ \hfill k& =& (0,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{},& \hfill 0,& \hfill \overline{l}_\mu +1,& \overline{l}_{\mu +1},\hfill & \mathrm{},\hfill & \overline{l}_{\lambda 1}).\hfill & & & \end{array}$$

In particular, $`k_pm=l+2k`$.

We call a tuple $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ $`l`$-admissible if $`\lambda _i^+`$, $`\lambda _1>\mathrm{}>\lambda _{2t}`$, $`l_{\lambda _{2j1}}p1`$ and $`l_{\lambda _{2j}}0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},t`$. For an $`l`$-admissible $`\sigma `$ set

$$𝔔_l(\sigma )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}[\lambda _{2j},\lambda _{2j1}1],$$

$`\delta _{i\sigma }=1`$ if $`i=\lambda _j`$ for some $`j`$ and $`\delta _{i\sigma }=0`$ otherwise. Define $`l^\sigma ^+`$ putting

$$l_i^\sigma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{l}_i+\delta _{i\sigma },\hfill & i𝔔_l(\sigma )\hfill \\ l_i+\delta _{i\sigma },\hfill & i𝔔_l(\sigma ).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proposition 2.6 yields the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.7.

A sequence $`s_{\lambda _1},\mathrm{},s_{\lambda _{2t}}`$ is $`l`$-admissible if and only if the tuple $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ is $`l`$-admissible. In that case $`s_{\lambda _{2t}}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)=l^\sigma `$.

###### Proposition 2.8.

An integer $`mS(l)`$ if and only if $`ml=2k>0`$ and $`k_pm`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ be an $`l`$-admissible tuple and $`m=s_{\lambda _{2t}}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)`$. Set $`m^0=l`$, $`m^j=s_{\lambda _{2j}}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)`$, and $`k^j=(m^jm^{j1})/2`$, $`1jt`$. Using Proposition 2.6, one deduces that $`k^j_pm^j`$; $`m^j=l^{\sigma ^j}`$ with $`\sigma ^j=(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2j})`$; $`k_i^j=0`$ and $`m_i^j=m_i^{j1}`$ for $`i[\lambda _{2j},\lambda _{2j1}]`$. Therefore $`k=k^1+\mathrm{}+k^t_pm`$.

Assume now that $`ml=2k>0`$ and $`k_pm`$. Choose integers $`\tau _1,\tau _2,\mathrm{},\tau _{2t}`$ as follows. Set $`\tau _0=1`$. Assume that $`\tau _{2j}`$ is chosen. If there is no $`i>\tau _{2j}`$ such that $`k_i=m_i0`$, we set $`t=j`$ and stop the process. Otherwise we choose for $`\tau _{2j+1}`$ minimal $`i>\tau _{2j}`$ with $`k_i=m_i0`$. As $`m>2k`$, there exists $`f>\tau _{2j+1}`$ with $`k_fm_f`$ (observe that in this case $`k_f=0`$). We choose minimal such $`f`$ for $`\tau _{2j+2}`$. Set $`\lambda _q=\tau _{2t+1q}`$. Since $`k_pm`$, using Corollary 2.7 and analyzing the $`p`$-adic expansions of $`k`$ and $`m`$, one can conclude that the tuple $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ is $`l`$-admissible and $`m=l^\sigma `$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.9.

Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 are equivalent, so Theorems 2.1 and 2.4 are valid in characteristic 2 as well.

Now we rewrite Adamovich’s results  on the submodule structure of the Weyl modules in our terms. We fix $`n`$ and write $`V_l`$ and $`\pi _m`$ instead of $`V_l^n`$ and $`\pi _m^n`$. For $`mS(l)`$ or $`m=l`$ we denote by $`P_l(m)`$ the smallest submodule of $`V_l`$ that has a composition factor $`\pi _m`$. Since $`V_l`$ is multiplicity-free, $`P_l(m)`$ is correctly defined and each submodule of $`V_l`$ is a sum of $`P_l(m)`$ for some $`m`$. Hence the submodule structure of $`V_l`$ is determined by the inclusion relations between the submodules $`P_l(m)`$ (see also comments at the beginning of ). We shall write $`\pi _m\pi _q`$ if $`P_l(m)P_l(q)`$. Let $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ be an $`l`$-admissible tuple. For $`m=l^\sigma `$ set

$$𝔔_l(m)=𝔔_l(\sigma )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}[\lambda _{2j},\lambda _{2j1}1].$$

Note that $`𝔔_l(m)=_{j=1}^t[\tau _{2j1},\tau _{2j}1]`$ where $`\tau _i`$ are as in the proof of Proposition 2.8. For instance, for $`p=3`$,

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,\underset{¯}{2,2,0},1,0,\underset{¯}{2,1,0,0},2,1),`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,\underset{¯}{2,2,0},0,0,\underset{¯}{2,1,0,0},0,0),`$
we have $`𝔔_{m2k}(m)=[2,4][7,10]`$. Put also $`𝔔_l(l)=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 2.10.

 For $`1m,qn+1`$ and $`m,qS(l)\{l\}`$ the module $`\pi _m\pi _q`$ (as composition factors of $`V_l`$) if and only if $`𝔔_l(q)𝔔_l(m)`$.

###### Remark 2.11.

Actually the sets $`𝔓_l(m)`$ which are considered in  differ slightly from $`𝔔_l(m)`$. For $`mS(l)`$ one has $`𝔓_l(m)=_{j=1}^t[\mu _{2j}+1,\mu _{2j1}]`$ where $`\mu _s=\lambda _s`$ for $`s<2t`$, $`\mu _{2t}=\lambda _{2t}`$ if $`ms_{\lambda _{2t1}}\mathrm{}s_{\lambda _1}(l)`$, and $`\mu _{2t}=0`$ otherwise. However, Lemma 2.5 enables one to deduce that $`𝔓_l(m)𝔓_l(q)`$ if and only if $`𝔔_l(m)𝔔_l(q)`$. The crucial point is that $`lp(l)=lp(m)`$ for $`mS(l)`$.

For $`l`$-admissible tuples $`\sigma =(\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _{2t})`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=(\lambda _1^{};\mathrm{};\lambda _{2s}^{})`$ we say that $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ if there exists $`f2t,2s`$ such that $`\lambda _i=\lambda _i^{}`$ for $`1if`$ and either $`f=2t`$, or $`f<2t,2s`$ and $`\lambda _{f+1}<\lambda _{f+1}^{}`$. It is convenient to assume that the empty tuple $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`l`$-admissible, $`\mathrm{}\sigma `$ for all $`\sigma `$, $`l^{\mathrm{}}=l`$, and $`𝔔_l(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$. The following is obvious.

###### Lemma 2.12.

Let $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ be $`l`$-admissible tuples. Then $`l^\sigma l^\sigma ^{}`$ if and only if $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$.

Set $`n^{}=n+1`$. Construct an $`l`$-admissible tuple $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}=(\mu _1;\mathrm{};\mu _{2t})`$ as follows. Put $`\mu _0=+\mathrm{}`$. Assume that $`\mu _{2j}`$ is chosen. Set $`\mu =\mu _{2j}1`$. If there is no $`l`$-admissible tuple $`(\alpha ;\beta )`$ such that $`\mu \alpha >\beta `$ and

$$(l_0,\mathrm{},l_\mu )^{(\alpha ;\beta )}=(l_0,\mathrm{},\overline{l}_\beta +1,\overline{l}_{\beta +1},\mathrm{},\overline{l}_{\alpha 1},l_\alpha +1,\mathrm{},l_\mu )(n_0^{},\mathrm{},n_\mu ^{}),$$

we stop the process and set $`t=j`$ ($`\sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$ if $`t=0`$). Otherwise we choose maximal such pair $`(\alpha ;\beta )`$ (with respect to $``$); set $`\mu _{2j+1}=\alpha `$ and $`\mu _{2j+2}=\beta `$; and if

$$(\overline{l}_\beta +1,\overline{l}_{\beta +1},\mathrm{},\overline{l}_{\alpha 1},l_\alpha +1)<(n_\beta ^{},\mathrm{},n_\alpha ^{}),$$

we stop the process and determine $`(\mu _{2j+3};\mathrm{};\mu _{2t})`$ as the maximal $`l`$-admissible tuple with $`\mu _{2j+3}<\beta `$. Obviously, $`l^{\sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}}`$ is the maximal integer $`m`$ such that $`\pi _m^n`$ is a composition factor of $`V_l^n`$.

For $`l`$-admissible tuples $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ we write $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ if and only if $`𝔔_l(\sigma )𝔔_l(\sigma ^{})`$. Using Corollary 2.7, Theorem 2.10, and Lemma 2.12, we get our main result on the structure of fundamental Weyl modules.

###### Theorem 2.13.

The map $`\sigma \pi _{l^\sigma }^n`$ is a poset isomorphism between the $`l`$-admissible tuples $`\sigma \sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the composition factors of $`V_l^n`$ with the partial orders $``$.

If $`l<n^{}`$, we denote by $`v`$ the maximal integer such that $`l_vn_v^{}`$. If $`l_v+1=n_v^{}`$, we denote by $`u`$ the maximal integer $`<v`$ such that $`\overline{l}_un_u^{}`$ setting $`u=1`$ if $`\overline{l}_i=n_i^{}`$ for all $`i<v`$. Put $`s=lp(l)`$.

###### Corollary 2.14.

Let $`n^{}=n+1`$ and $`1ln^{}`$. Then $`V_l^n`$ is irreducible (i.e. $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$) if and only if one of the following holds.

(1) $`l=n^{}`$;

(2) $`l<n^{}`$ and $`sv`$;

(3) $`l<n^{}`$, $`s<v`$, $`l_v+1=n_v^{}`$, $`\overline{l}_sn_s^{}`$; $`l_i=p1`$ and $`n_i^{}=0`$ for $`s<i<v`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Proposition 2.6 and Corollary 2.7. ∎

###### Corollary 2.15.

Let $`n^{}=n+1`$ and $`1ln^{}`$. The socle of $`V_l^n`$ is always simple. For reducible $`V_l^n`$ it has the form $`\pi _{l^\gamma }`$ with $`\gamma =(t;s)`$ and $`t`$ as follows.

(1) $`t=v`$ if $`s<v`$ and either $`l_v+1<n_v^{}`$, or $`\overline{l}_u<n_u^{}`$;

(2) $`t=w`$ if $`l_v+1=n_v^{}`$; $`u=1`$ or $`\overline{l}_u>n_u^{}`$; $`s<w<v`$; $`l_wp1`$; and $`l_j=p1`$ for $`w<j<v`$.

###### Proof.

Applying Results 2.6, 2.7, and 2.13, we conclude that $`\pi _{l^\gamma }`$ is a composition factor of $`V_l^n`$ and for each $`l`$-admissible tuple $`\tau \sigma ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ the set $`𝔔_l(\tau )[s,t1]`$, so $`\pi _{l^\gamma }\pi _{l^\tau }`$. ∎

## 3. Branching rules and the submodule structure of the restrictions

In this section the main results of the article are proved. We shall need the following simple lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Assume that $`d_k^{l+2k}=1`$ (i.e. $`k_pl+2k`$).

(i) If $`p^sl+2k`$, then $`p^sk`$ and $`p^sl`$.

(ii) If $`p^sl`$, then $`p^sk`$ and $`p^sl+2k`$.

###### Proof.

One can assume that $`s1`$.

$`(i)`$ Let $`p^sl+2k`$. Since $`k_pl+2k`$, we have $`p^sk`$. This implies that $`p^sl`$.

$`(ii)`$ Let $`p^sl`$. Then $`l_0=\mathrm{}=l_{s1}=0`$. Let $`r=lp(k)`$. Assume that $`r<s`$. Since $`k_pl+2k`$, we have $`k_r=(2k)_r0`$, which is impossible. Therefore $`rs`$, so $`p^sk`$ and $`p^sl+2k`$. ∎

As in Section 2 , we shall omit the superscript $`n`$ in our notation for modules when it is known which group is considered. Replacing $`\omega _i`$ by $`\pi _{n+1i}`$ and $`W_i`$ by $`V_{n+1i}`$, one immediately concludes that Theorem 1.1(i) is equivalent to the following

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`1in+1`$ and $`d=lp(i)`$. Then

$$\pi _i^nG_{n1}\pi _{i1}+2\pi _i+\left(\underset{t=0}{\overset{d1}{}}2\pi _{i1+2p^t}\right)+\epsilon \pi _{i1+2p^d}$$

where $`\epsilon =0`$ if $`ip^d(modp^{d+1})`$ and $`\epsilon =1`$ otherwise.

###### Proof.

One can rewrite the formula in Theorem 3.2 as follows.

$$\pi _i^nG_{n1}\pi _{i1}+2\pi _i+\underset{t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_t^i\pi _{i1+2p^t}$$
(2)
where

$$b_t^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2,& i0(modp^{t+1}),\hfill \\ \hfill 1,& iap^t(modp^{t+1})\text{ and }a0,1(modp),\hfill \\ \hfill 0,& i0(modp^t)\text{ or }ip^t(modp^{t+1}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Recall that by convention $`\pi _i^n=0`$ for all $`i>n+1`$, and $`\pi _{n+1}^n`$ is the trivial one-dimensional $`G_n`$-module. So (2) holds for $`in+1`$. Assume now that $`1l<n+1`$ and (2) is valid for all $`i>l`$. We shall prove it for $`i=l`$. Then the theorem will follow by induction.

It follows from \[4, Proposition 3.3.2 and Theorem 4.3.1\] that $`V_lG_{n1}`$ has a filtration by Weyl modules for $`G_{n1}`$. Then the classical branching rules for characteristic 0  and Theorem 2.4 imply

$$V_l^nG_{n1}V_{l1}+2V_l+V_{l+1}2𝒱+\underset{t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_t^{l+2t1}\pi _{l+2t1}$$
(4)
where $`𝒱=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}d_k^{l+2k}\pi _{l+2k}`$, $`f_0^{l1}=d_0^{l1}`$, and

$$f_t^{l+2t1}=d_t^{l+2t1}+d_{t1}^{l+2t1}\text{for }t1.$$

On the other hand, by Theorem 2.4, $`V_lG_{n1}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}d_k^{l+2k}(\pi _{l+2k}G_{n1}).`$ Since $`d_0^l=1`$ and the branching rules for $`\pi _i`$ with $`i>l`$ are assumed to satisfy (2), one can determine the branching of $`\pi _l`$. Therefore it suffices to check that the right part of (4) is equal to $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}d_k^{l+2k}U_{l+2k}`$ where $`U_i`$ is the right part of (2). The latter sum can be rewritten as follows:

$$2𝒱+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_k^{l+2k}(\pi _{l+2k1}+\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_s^{l+2k}\pi _{l+2k+2p^s1})=2𝒱+\underset{t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_t^{l+2t1}\pi _{l+2t1}$$

where

$$e_t^{l+2t1}=d_t^{l+2t}+\underset{k,s0,k+p^s=t}{}d_k^{l+2k}b_s^{l+2k}.$$
(5)
We have to show that $`e_t^{l+2t1}=f_t^{l+2t1}`$ for all $`t0`$. Note that $`f_t^{l+2t1}2`$. We proceed by steps.

Step 1. At most one summand in (5) is nonzero. In particular, $`e_t^{l+2t1}2`$.

Assume that $`d_k^{l+2k}b_s^{l+2k}0`$ and $`d_k^{}^{l+2k^{}}b_s^{}^{l+2k^{}}0`$ with $`t=k+p^s=k^{}+p^s^{}`$ and $`s>s^{}`$. Since $`b_s^{l+2k}0`$, we have $`p^sl+2k`$. As $`d_k^{l+2k},d_k^{}^{l+2k^{}}0`$, by Lemma 3.1, $`p^s`$ divides $`k`$, $`l`$, and $`k^{}`$. Hence $`p^sk+p^sk^{}=p^s^{}`$, which yields a contradiction.

Now assume that $`d_t^{l+2t}0`$ and $`d_k^{l+2k}b_s^{l+2k}0`$ with $`k+p^s=t`$. As above, we get that $`p^s`$ divides $`k`$, $`l`$, and $`t`$. Let $`r=lp(l)`$. Then by Lemma 3.1 (ii), $`p^rk`$ and $`p^rt`$. Since $`k+p^s=t`$, we have $`r=s`$, so $`l_s0`$. Consider the following cases.

Case 1. $`k0`$ and $`t0(modp^{s+1})`$. Then $`l+2tt`$ and $`l+2kk(modp^{s+1})`$, so $`p^s=tk2(tk)(modp^{s+1})`$, which is impossible.

Case 2. $`k0(modp^{s+1})`$. Then $`t_s=1`$. Since $`l+2tt(modp^{s+1})`$, we have $`l_s=p1`$, so $`(l+2k)_s=p1`$. This implies that $`b_s^{l+2k}=0`$ and yields a contradiction.

Case 3. $`t0(modp^{s+1})`$. Then $`k_s=p1`$. Therefore $`(l+2k)_s=k_s=p1`$, so as above, $`b_s^{l+2k}=0`$.

Step 2. $`e_t^{l+2t1}=2`$ if and only if $`f_t^{l+2t1}=2`$ (equivalently, $`d_t^{l+2t1}=d_{t1}^{l+2t1}=1`$).

Assume that $`e_t^{l+2t1}=2`$. By Step 1, this is equivalent to the following: there exist $`k,s0`$ with $`k+p^s=t`$ such that $`b_s^{l+2k}=2`$ and $`d_k^{l+2k}=1`$. Hence $`p^{s+1}l+2k`$ and $`k_pl+2k`$. By Lemma 3.1 (i), $`p^{s+1}`$ divides $`l`$ and $`k`$. Note that $`l+2t1=l+2k+p^s+(p^s1)`$. Therefore $`t=k+p^s_pl+2t1`$ and $`t1=k+(p^s1)_pl+2t1`$, so $`d_t^{l+2t1}=d_{t1}^{l+2t1}=1`$, as required.

Assume now that $`d_t^{l+2t1}=d_{t1}^{l+2t1}=1`$. Let $`s=lp(t)`$. Then $`t_s0`$ and $`(t1)_s=t_s1`$. Since both $`t`$ and $`t1`$ are contained in $`l+2t1`$, we have $`t_s=1`$. Moreover, we have $`(l1)_0=\mathrm{}=(l1)_{s1}=(t1)_0=\mathrm{}=(t1)_{s1}=p1`$. Since $`(l+2t1)_s=t_s=1`$, we get $`(l1)_s=p1`$. Hence $`p^{s+1}l`$. Set $`k=tp^s`$. Then $`p^{s+1}k`$, so $`p^{s+1}l+2k`$ and $`b_s^{l+2k}=2`$. It remains to observe that $`k=tp^s_p(l+2t1)p^s(p^s1)`$, so $`d_k^{l+2k}=1`$ and $`e_t^{l+2t1}=d_k^{l+2k}b_s^{l+2k}=2`$.

Step 3. If $`e_t^{l+2t1}0`$, then $`f_t^{l+2t1}0`$, i.e. $`t_pl+2t1`$ or $`t1_pl+2t1`$.

Let $`r=lp(l)`$. First assume that $`d_t^{l+2t}=1`$ (see (5)), i.e. $`t_pl+2t`$. Then by Lemma 3.1 (ii), $`p^rt`$. One easily checks that if $`p^{r+1}t`$, then $`t1_pl+2t1`$, and if $`p^{r+1}t`$, then $`t_pl+2t1`$, as required.

Assume now that there exist $`k,s0`$ with $`k+p^s=t`$ such that $`d_k^{l+2k}=1`$ and $`b_s^{l+2k}0`$. By Lemma 3.1, $`p^rk`$ and $`lp(l+2k)=r`$. If $`b_s^{l+2k}=2`$, then by Step 2, $`f_t^{l+2t1}=20`$. Hence we can assume that $`b_s^{l+2k}=1`$. By (3), $`p^sl+2k`$ and $`(l+2k)_s0,p1`$, so $`r=s`$. Assume that $`k_s=0`$. Then $`(t1)_s=0`$ and $`t1=k+p^s1_pl+2k+p^s+(p^s1)=l+2t1`$. If $`k_s0`$, we have $`k_s=(l+2k)_sp1`$, so $`t=k+p^s_pl+2k+p^s+(p^s1)=l+2t1`$, as required.

Step 4. If $`f_t^{l+2t1}0`$, then $`e_t^{l+2t1}0`$.

If $`t=0`$, then $`e_0^{l1}=1`$, so assume that $`t1`$. We have either $`t_pl+2t1`$, or $`t1_pl+2t1`$. One needs to show that either $`t_pl+2t`$ (i.e. $`d_t^{l+2t}=1`$), or there exist $`k,s0`$ with $`k+p^s=t`$ such that $`k_pl+2k`$, $`p^sl+2k`$, and $`(l+2k)_sp1`$ (i.e. $`d_k^{l+2k}=1`$ and $`b_s^{l+2k}0`$). First assume that $`t_pl+2t1`$. Let $`s=lp(t)`$. We have $`(l+2t1)_s=t_s0`$. If $`p^sl+2t`$, then $`k=tp^s_pl+2t1p^s(p^s1)=l+2k`$, $`p^sl+2t2p^s=l+2k`$, and $`(l+2k)_s=(l+2t1)_s1p1`$, as required. If $`p^sl+2t`$, one gets $`t_p(l+2t1)+1=l+2t`$, as desired.

Assume now that $`t1_pl+2t1`$. Consider the following cases.

Case 1. $`(t1)_0=0`$. If $`(l+2t1)_0=0`$, then $`t_pl+2t`$. Assume that $`(l+2t1)_00`$. Set $`s=0`$, $`k=t1`$. Then $`k=t1_p(l+2t1)1=l+2k`$ and $`(l+2k)_0=(l+2t1)_01p1`$, as required.

Case 2. $`(t1)_00,p1`$. Then $`(l+2t1)_0=(t1)_0p1`$, so $`t_pl+2t`$.

Case 3. $`pt`$. Let $`s=lp(t)`$. Since $`t1_pl+2t1`$, we have $`p^sl+2t`$, so $`p^sl`$. As $`p^{s+1}t`$, the integer $`(t1)_sp1`$. If $`(t1)_s0`$, then $`(l+2t1)_s=(t1)_sp1`$, so $`t_pl+2t`$. Assume now that $`(t1)_s=0`$. This implies $`t_s=1`$. If $`(l+2t1)_s=0`$, then $`t_pl+2t`$. Therefore one can suppose that $`(l+2t1)_s1`$. Then $`k=tp^s_p(l+2t1)p^s(p^s1)=l+2k`$, $`p^sl+2t2p^s=l+2k`$, and $`(l+2k)_s=(l+2t1)_s1p1`$, as required. ∎

Now we investigate the submodule structure of the restriction $`\pi _i^nG_{n1}`$. Let $`n>1`$ and $`1in`$. As $`\pi _i^n`$ is the top composition factor of $`V_i^n`$, it follows from (4) that $`\pi _i^nG_{n1}`$ is a quotient of the $`G_{n1}`$-module $`V_i^nG_{n1}V_{i1}+2V_i+V_{i+1}`$. Applying Smith’s theorem  both to $`V_i`$ and $`\pi _i`$, we conclude that $`V_i^nG_{n1}=V_iV_iV`$ where $`VV_{i1}+V_{i+1}`$, and $`\pi _i^nG_{n1}=\pi _i\pi _iD`$ where $`D`$ is a quotient of $`V`$. Now Theorem 1.1(ii) and Corollary 1.2 follow immediately from

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`d=lpi`$. Set $`\epsilon =0`$ if $`ip^d(modp^{d+1})`$ and $`\epsilon =1`$ otherwise; $`j_q=i1+2p^q`$. Choose minimal $`t^+`$ such that $`j_t>n`$. Put $`d^{}=\mathrm{min}\{d,t\}`$. Then

$$\pi _{j_0}_s\pi _{j_1}_s\mathrm{}_s\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}_s\pi _{i1}\epsilon \pi _{j_d}_s\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}_s\mathrm{}_s\pi _{j_1}_s\pi _{j_0}$$

is the socle series of $`D`$. In particular, $`D=\pi _{i1}\epsilon \pi _{j_d}`$ if $`d^{}=0`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 3.2, $`D\pi _{i1}+2\pi _{j_0}+\mathrm{}+2\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}+\epsilon \pi _{j_d}.`$ It follows from Theorem 2.4 that the factors $`\pi _{i1},\pi _{j_0},\mathrm{},\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}`$ come from $`V_{i1}`$ and the factors $`\pi _{j_0},\mathrm{},\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}`$, and $`\epsilon \pi _{j_d}`$ if nonzero come from $`V_{i+1}`$. Note that

$$j_k=i1+2p^k=i+p^k+(p^k1)=i+(\underset{k}{\underset{}{p1,\mathrm{},p1}},1),$$

so $`𝔔^{i1}(j_k)=[k,d1]`$ for all $`0kd1`$. Therefore by Theorem 2.10,

$$\pi _{j_0}\pi _{j_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}\pi _{i1}\text{in }V_{i1}.$$
(6)
Similarly, we get $`𝔔^{i+1}(j_k)=[0,k1]`$ for $`1k<d`$ (and for $`k=d`$ if $`\epsilon 0`$ and $`d>0`$). Hence

$$\epsilon \pi _{j_d}\pi _{j_{d^{}1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{j_1}\pi _{j_0}\text{in }V_{i+1}.$$
(7)
(Here the symbol $``$ is extended to the zero module in the natural way.) Since $`\pi _i^n`$ is selfdual, $`D`$ is selfdual also. Let $`D_1_s\mathrm{}_sD_m`$ be the socle series of $`D`$. Recall that $`D`$ has a filtration by quotients of $`V_{i1}`$ and $`V_{i+1}`$. As the factor $`\pi _{i1}`$ has multiplicity 1 and $`D`$ is selfdual, (6) implies that $`\pi _{i1}`$ is a factor of $`D_q`$ with $`d^{}+1qmd^{}`$, so $`m2d^{}+1`$. If $`\epsilon \pi _{j_d}=0`$, then $`m=2d^{}+1`$ is the composition length of $`D`$ and the theorem follows from (6) and (7). Assume that $`\epsilon \pi _{j_d}0`$. As above, by the selfduality of $`D`$ and (7), $`\pi _{j_d}`$ is a factor of $`D_q^{}`$ with $`d^{}+1q^{}md^{}`$. Assume that $`q^{}q`$. Then $`m=2d^{}+2`$, so $`D`$ is uniserial, which contradicts the selfduality of $`D`$. Hence $`q^{}=q`$ and the theorem follows from (6) and (7). ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

Obviously, if $`\epsilon \pi _{j_d}=0`$ (i.e. $`d^{}<d`$ or $`ip^d(modp^{d+1})`$), then the module $`D`$ is uniserial, so has exactly $`2d^{}+2`$ different submodules. Since $`D`$ is selfdual, one can easily observe that $`D`$ has exactly $`2d+4`$ different submodules in the case where $`\epsilon \pi _{j_d}0`$ (i.e. $`d=d^{}`$ and $`ip^d(modp^{d+1})`$).

## 4. Inductive systems and the transfer to an arbitrary field

In this section the inductive systems of fundamental representations for $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ are classified and the results of the paper are transferred to an arbitrary field.

###### Proposition 4.1.

(i) Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be an inductive system and $`^{p^{t1}}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then $`^{p^t1}\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

(ii) $`^k`$ is an inductive system if and only if $`k=p^t1`$, $`t1`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Assume that $`^{p^t1}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Choose maximal $`l`$ such that $`^l\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then $`p^{t1}l<p^t1`$. Take minimal $`s`$ such that $`l_sp1`$ and set $`i=p^s(l_s,l_{s+1},\mathrm{})`$. Then $`i>0`$ and $`^i\mathrm{\Psi }`$. One has $`lp(i)s`$. Moreover, if $`lp(i)=s`$, then $`ip^s(modp^{s+1})`$. Therefore Theorem 3.2 implies that $`\pi _{i1+2p^s}^{n1}`$ is a composition factor of $`\pi _i^nG_{n1}`$ for $`ni1+2p^s`$, and $`^{i1+2p^s}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. As $`i1+2p^s>l`$, we get a contradiction.

(ii) In view of (i), it suffices to verify that $`^{p^t1}`$ is an inductive system. By Theorem 3.2, we need only to check that if $`i<p^t1`$ and $`s=lp(i)`$, then $`i1+2p^sp^t1`$ if $`i_sp1`$, and $`i1+2p^{s1}p^t1`$ if $`i_s=p1`$ and $`s>0`$. But this is clear since $`i(p2)p^s+(p1)p^{s+1}+\mathrm{}+(p1)p^{t1}`$ in the first case and $`i(p1)p^s+(p1)p^{s+1}+\mathrm{}+(p1)p^{t1}`$ in the second one. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3..

Theorem 1.1(i) and Proposition 4.1 yield that $``$, $`^s`$, $`^{p^t1}`$, and $`^s^{p^t1}`$, $`s0`$, $`t1`$, are inductive systems for $`Sp_{\mathrm{}}(K)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\mathrm{\Psi }_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ be an inductive system of fundamental representations. It is clear that either for every $`s,u^+`$ there exist $`n`$ and $`l`$ such that $`\omega _l^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$, $`l>s`$, and $`n+1l>u`$, or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s^u`$ for some $`s`$ and $`u`$. In the first case we claim that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=`$. Indeed, fix $`m`$ and $`l`$, $`0lm`$. Then one can choose $`k`$ and $`n`$ such that $`\omega _k^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$, $`kl`$, and $`nkml`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an inductive system, Theorem 1.1(i) implies that $`\omega _l^{n+lk}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+lk}`$ and $`\omega _l^m\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }=`$.

Next, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s^u`$. Choose minimal $`s`$ and $`u`$ with this property assuming that $`s=1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Psi }^u`$ and $`u=0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s`$. (Observe that for all $`s`$ and $`u`$, $`(^s^u)_n=\mathrm{}`$ for $`n`$ large enough.) We shall prove that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=^s^u`$ and $`u=p^t1`$ with $`t^+`$ (in particular, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=^u`$ for $`s=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=^s`$ for $`u=0`$).

First let $`u>0`$. We claim that $`^u\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`u=p^t1`$. As $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`^s`$ are inductive systems, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n_n^u\mathrm{}`$ for infinitely many integers $`n`$. So there exists $`vu`$ such that $`\pi _v^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ for infinitely many $`n`$. Choose maximal such $`v`$. Theorem 3.2 yields that $`\pi _v^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ for all $`nv1`$ and $`^v\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Now Proposition 4.1 and the choice of $`v`$ imply that $`v=p^t1`$ and $`^v`$ is an inductive system. It remains to show that $`v=u`$. Suppose this is not the case. As $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s^v`$, there exist $`l`$ and $`t`$ such that $`v<lu`$, $`t>s+l1`$, and $`\pi _l^t\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`^s`$, and $`^v`$ are inductive systems, this implies that for every $`k>t`$ there exists $`\pi _{m_k}^k\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ with $`v<m_ku`$ which contradicts the choice of $`v`$. Hence $`v=u=p^t1`$ and $`^u\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Now we show that $`^s\mathrm{\Psi }`$ if $`s0`$. As $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{s1}^u`$, for some $`n>s+u1`$ we have $`\omega _s^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`^u`$, and $`^{s1}`$ for $`s1`$ are inductive systems, this forces $`\omega _s^n\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ for all $`ns`$. Now Theorem 1.1 yields that $`^s\mathrm{\Psi }`$, as desired. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

All theorems of the paper hold for arbitrary $`FK`$.

###### Proof.

Since the restrictions of the fundamental representations of a semisimple algebraic group over an algebraically closed field to relevant Chevalley groups over arbitrary subfields remain irreducible and can be realized over these subfields, only Theorems 1.1(ii) (or 3.3), 2.10, and 2.13 require some analysis. Let $`M`$ be the $`G_n`$-module $`\omega _i^{n+1}G_n`$ or $`W_i^n`$.

First assume that $`F=\overline{F}`$ is algebraically closed. Set $`H=Sp_{2n}(F)`$. Let $`L`$ be the Lie algebra of $`H`$. For a root $`\alpha `$ of $`H`$ and $`tF`$ denote by $`x_\alpha (t)H`$ and $`X_\alpha L`$ the root elements in $`H`$ and $`L`$ associated with $`\alpha `$. It is well known that $`x_\alpha (t)(m)=(1+tX_\alpha )m`$ for $`mM`$ and long $`\alpha `$ (see, for instance, \[6, Lemma 1\]). For $`gG_n`$ set $`x_\alpha ^g(t)=gx_\alpha (t)g^1`$ and $`X_\alpha ^g=gX_\alpha g^1`$. It is clear that $`X_\alpha ^gL`$. It suffices to show that each $`G_n`$-submodule $`NM`$ is an $`H`$-submodule. Obviously, $`x_\alpha ^g(t)N=N`$ and $`X_\alpha ^gNN`$ for all long roots $`\alpha `$, $`gG_n`$, and $`tK`$. But this forces $`x_\alpha ^g(t)N=N`$ for all $`tF`$. However, using the commutator relations for the Chevalley groups of type $`C`$ (see, for instance, \[9, Lemma 15\]), one can deduce that the subgroup generated by all $`x_\alpha ^g(t)`$ with $`gG_n`$, $`tF`$, and long $`\alpha `$ coincides with $`H`$. (Here, in fact, it suffices to make computations within subgroups of type $`C_2`$ and show that our subgroup contains all short root subgroups). Hence $`N`$ is an $`H`$-module, as desired.

Now let $`FK`$ be arbitrary. For a finite dimensional $`FG_n`$-module $`S`$ set $`\overline{S}=S_F\overline{F}`$ and denote the socle of $`S`$ by $`\mathrm{soc}(S)`$. Since $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_{FG_n}(E,S)=dim\mathrm{Hom}_{\overline{F}G_n}(\overline{E},\overline{S})`$ for any $`FG_n`$-module $`E`$, we have $`\mathrm{soc}(\overline{S})=\overline{\mathrm{soc}(S)}`$ if all composition factors of $`S`$ are absolutely irreducible. The same holds for other members of the socle series of $`S`$. If $`M=W_i^n`$, then $`M`$ and $`\overline{M}`$ are multiplicity-free and their submodules are completely determined by the sets of composition factors. Therefore the arguments on socles allow us to conclude that each submodule of $`\overline{M}`$ has the form $`\overline{S}`$ for some submodule $`SM`$.

Let $`M=\omega _i^{n+1}G_n`$ with $`i,n1`$. Then the socle of $`M`$ contains a submodule $`V\omega _{i1}^n\omega _{i1}^n`$. Since $`M`$ and $`V`$ are selfdual and $`M`$ has only two composition factors isomorphic to $`\omega _{i1}^n`$, there exists a submodule $`D`$ of $`M`$ such that $`M=VD`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ is the unique submodule in $`\overline{M}`$ with $`\overline{M}=\overline{V}\overline{D}`$. Now one can see that the socle series of $`D`$ is determined by that of $`\overline{D}`$ and is described by Theorem 1.1(ii). ∎


text:
# Magnetoresistance in ordered and disordered double perovskite oxide, Sr2FeMoO6

## I Introduction

Colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) is a property that is of great technological potential, since the large change in the resistance (R) with the application of a magnetic field can be used effectively for mass storage magnetic devices. However, the well-known CMR materials, Mn based oxides, have significant CMR effect only at low temperatures and, therefore, are not suitable for room temperature applications. In their recent work, Kobayashi et al.  have pointed out that the fully-ordered double perovskite Sr2FeMoO6 with alternating Fe3+ (3$`d^5`$, $`S=5/2`$) and Mo5+ (4$`d^1`$, $`S=1/2`$) ferrimagnetically coupled ions exhibit substantial CMR even at room temperature. It is suggested that the half-metallic ferromagnetic (HMFM) state below Tc is responsible for the magnetoresistance (MR) behavior via spin-dependent carrier scattering processes. While the spin-dependent scattering due to the intergrain tunneling effects enables one to construct manganite based devices , the intra-grain properties of the manganites are generally believed to be intimately connected with the intrinsic instability of Mn3+ 3$`d^4`$ states arising from strong electron-phonon interaction as well as double-exchange interaction . Mo5+ is also a Jahn-Teller ion with its 4$`d^1`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}D`$ degenerate ground state. Thus, a priori it is not possible to rule out any contribution to the magnetoresistance of Sr2FeMoO6 from effects other than intergrain spin-dependent carrier scatterings. Considering the complexity of the mechanism of magnetoresistance in the manganites, in which in addition to half-metallic ferromagnetism, various instabilities play important role, it is essential to address the factors responsible for the novel magnetoresistance properties of Sr2FeMoO6.

Central to the HMFM state in Sr2FeMoO6 as deduced by the band structure calculation  is the long-range ordering of FeO6 and MoO6 octahedra alternatingly along three cubic axes. Disorder is expected to be detrimental to the half-metallic nature, giving rise to finite up- and down-spin densities of states at the Fermi energy, destroying the HMFM state; preliminary super-cell band structure calculations in our group indeed suggest that HMFM state is easily destroyed by a positional disorder at the Fe/Mo sites, though an overall ferrimagnetic order persists in the system. Keeping this in mind we have prepared for the first time Sr2FeMoO6 by melt-quenching, where Fe and Mo sites are heavily disordered. A comparative study of disordered and ordered samples using x-ray diffraction, 57Fe Mössbauer and the magnetoresistive properties allows us to delineate the effects arising from long range crystallographic order and those from factors other than half-metallic ferromagnetism in controlling the MR properties.

## II Experimental

We prepared ordered Sr2FeMoO6 following ref. 1 by hydrogen reduction of a mixture of SrCO3, MoO3 and Fe2O3. The disordered sample was prepared by melt-quenching of a mixture of SrCO3, MoO3, Fe2O3 and Mo-metal in an argon atmosphere. Mössbauer study was carried out in transmission geometry using a 57Co/Rh matrix source. High resolution powder diffraction data were collected on a STOE STADI/P diffractometer. The resistivity measurements with and without an applied field were carried out using the standard four-probe dc measurements.

## III Results and discussion

We show the powder x-ray diffraction patterns of the two samples in Fig. 1; Fig. 1(a) shows the pattern of the sample prepared by the conventional solid state techniques , while Fig. 1(b) shows the same for the melt-quenched sample prepared by the arc melting. The main diffraction peaks are the same in both the panels of Fig. 1 and these are readily ascribed to the perovskite lattice. The only difference between the two diffraction patterns is in terms of the existence of two weak peaks, at 19.6 and 38 in Fig. 1(a), but absence in Fig. 1(b). We have expanded the vicinity of these two angles in order to illustrate this point clearly in the respective panels. The existence of these two peaks in Fig. 1(a) establishes the presence of the supercell arising from the ordering of Fe and Mo sites alternatingly, giving rise to the double perovskite structure. Total or near-absence of these two order-related peaks in Fig. 1(b) suggests that the melt-quenched sample obtained from the arc furnace gives rise to heavy disrodering between the Fe and the Mo sites The extent of ordering at the Fe/Mo sites is easily estimated from x-ray diffraction (XRD) of ordered (A) \[Fig. 1(a)\] and disordered (B) \[Fig. 1(b)\] samples of Sr2FeMoO6. Rietveld refinement for both converged to the same cell dimensions ($`a`$ = $`b`$ = 5.566 Å and $`c`$ = 7.858 Å) with R$`{}_{wp}{}^{}`$ 8.0%. The ordering at the Fe and Mo sites in sample A was found to be $``$ 91%, slightly larger than the previously reported  value of 87%. Near-absence of the long-range order-related peaks within the noise level of the data \[see insets I and II to Fig. 1(b)\] for sample B confirms the extensive disorder in this case. Rietveld analysis suggests approximately 31% ordering in this case.

The effect of disorder at the Fe-sites is also probed by 57Fe Mössbauer spectra of these two samples at 300 K and 4.2 K (Fig. 2); a comparison of the raw spectra for the two samples at these temperatures is sufficient to establish the relative degrees of disorder in site occupancies. The spectra for the sample B exhibits relatively larger line-widths in contrast to those of sample A, implying a larger disorder in sample B. All the spectra are magnetic hyperfine split, indicating magnetic ordering of the materials. The spectrum at 300 K for sample A favorably compares with that reported earlier . Our analysis of the data at 4.2 K for sample A yields a saturation hyperfine field of about 480 kOe, with a small distribution of about 10 kOe. This value is somewhat smaller than that known for Fe2O3. The hyperfine field for sample B has a much larger distribution (490 $`\pm `$ 60 kOe), quantitatively confirming a strong variation in the chemical environment for Fe from site to site. The chemical composition was however found to be identical between the two samples by energy dispersive x-ray analysis. Moreover, the grain size and morphology were also found to be similar between the two samples by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The above results establish that it is indeed possible to obtain highly ordered and extensively disordered samples with respect to Fe and Mo occupancies without otherwise disturbing the structural integrity of this double perovskite system.

We show the magnetoresistance, $`MR(H,T)=\{R(H,T)R(0,T)\}/R(0,T)`$, of ordered and disordered samples as a function of applied magnetic field, H, at 300 K and 4.2 K in Fig 3; in the same figure we reproduce the results from Kobayashi et al. . At both the temperatures, the ordered sample is characterised by a sharp magnetoresistive response in the low-field region, though the magnitude of the magnetoresistance is considerably larger at the lower temperature, in agreement with the published literature . The present ordered sample has a sharper low-field response and a larger magnitude, particularly at the low temperature compared to the previous result . This improved magnetoresistance response is possibly related to somewhat higher degree of ordering in the present sample. This improvement in the low magnetic field response suggests that a fully (100%) ordered sample is likely to be a very good candidate for real-life device applications. Beyond about 1 T, the magnetoresistance of the ordered sample exhibits a slower change at higher field strengths, without showing any signs of saturation upto the highest magnetic field probed in the present experiments. The MR changes significantly (by about 6.5% at 4.2 K and 3% at 300 K) in the larger field regime between 1 and 7 T.

In contrast, the MR of the disordered sample does not exhibit the low-field sharp magnetic response below 1 T. Since the two samples differ only in the extent of Fe/Mo ordering, the low-field rapid variation in MR of sample A evidently arises from the long-range order, leading to the half metallic ferromagnetic state of sample A and the consequent strong intergrain spin-dependent scattering. It is, however, intriguing to note that there is a substantial negative magnetoresistance in the disordered sample and the high field behaviors of the MR in the two samples are similar, the two curves being approximately parallel in the high-field region at both the temperatures shown in Fig. 3. This implies that there is a common intragrain origin of this high-field MR behavior in the disordered and the ordered samples.

We have carried out band structure calculations, simulating the disordered system within a supercell approach where the Fe and Mo atoms were allowed to occupy the other sites in contrast to the perfectly ordered system. Preliminary results from these calculations show that in the disordered state, both up- and down-spin states exist at the Fermi energy; this indicates that the half-metallic ferromagnetic ground state is not realised for any disordering of the Fe and the Mo sublattices, though the system remains to be a ferrimagnet. Thus, the high-field, intragrain contribution to the negative magnetoresistance is independent of the long range ordering of Fe and Mo atoms and the cosnequent existence of the HMFM state. Instead, it is to be associated with the usual negative magnetoresistance observed for ferromagnetic substances, arising from a suppression of the spin-fluctuations with the application of an external magnetic field.

In conclusion, we have prepared highly ordered and disordered samples of the perovskite oxide, Sr2FeMoO6. We characterised the extent of ordering by x-ray diffraction and Mössbauer studies of these samples. Rietveld analysis of the powder diffraction pattern shows that the extent of ordering in the Fe/Mo sites is about 91% for the ordered sample, while it is about 31% for the disordered sample. We point out that the disordered sample is not a half-metallic ferromagnet, though it is magnetic even at the room temperature. We showed that the magnetoresistance of the two samples are distinguished by the existence of the sharp changes in the magnetoresistance at low fields for the ordered sample. In the case of the disordered sample, there is no such sharp changes in the MR, though a negative MR is seen at all fields for the disordered sample also. The MR of the disordered sample is very similar to that of the ordered sample in the high-field regime, indicating a common origin. Thus, we conclude that the low-field magnetoresistance is dominated by the intergrain spin-dependent scattering of the highly spin polarized charge-carriers of the half-metallic ferromagnet, the high-field negative magnetoresistance behaviours in both the samples are intrinsic, intragrain property and arise from the suppression of spin-fluctuations under the application of a magnetic field on a magnetic system.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Prof. B. Sriram Shastry and Dr. Tanusri Saha Dasgupta for useful discussions.

## IV figure captions

Fig. 1. X-ray diffraction patterns of (a) ordered and (b) disordered Sr2FeMoO6. Order-related peaks, appear at 19.6 and 38, shown in the insets on an expanded scale.

Fig. 2. 57Fe Mössbauer spectra of the disordered and ordered Sr2FeMoO6 at 300 and 4.2 K.

Fig. 3. The comparisons of percentage magnetoresistance between the ordered and disordered samples as well as the result presented by Kobayashi et al.  at (a) 4.2 K and (b) 300 K.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

A new model of supersymmetry between bosons and fermions is proposed. Its representation space is spanned by states with $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry and real energies but the inter-related partner Hamiltonians themselves remain complex and non-Hermitian. The formalism admits vanishing Witten index.

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY, ) offers a chance of unification of bosons with fermions in various branches of physics . Mathematically, it mixes the commutators and anticommutators in a single (so called graded) Lie algebra. In its simplest form sl(1/1) this symmetry algebra is generated by two supercharges $`𝒬`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ and a Hermitian Hamiltonian $``$. These three generators are related by the anticommutation rules

$$\{𝒬,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=,\{𝒬,𝒬\}=\{\stackrel{~}{𝒬},\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=0$$
(1)
and commutativity

$$[,𝒬]=[,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}]=0.$$
(2)
SUSY finds an enormous appeal in particle physics and field theory . In this application, unfortunately, there exists the strong conflict between the theory and experiment. Due to the continuing absence of observation of any bosonic-fermionic degenerate multiplets, any form of SUSY must be badly broken as a consequence .

Attempts to resolve the latter physical problem encounter nontrivial mathematical difficulties . Possible mechanisms of SUSY breaking are currently being exposed to an intensive research . One of the most feasible ways of their analysis is offered by the representation of SUSY algebras in a zero-dimensional field theory, i.e., in quantum mechanics . We intend to contribute to this effort by weakening certain assumptions concerning, first of all, the hermiticity of $`H`$.

## 2 PT symmetric non-Hermitian models

Conventional supersymmetric quantum mechanics does not immediately admit complex potentials. Only recently, the first attempts in this direction have been made . A significant improvement of our understanding of the underlying complex dynamics has been offered by Bender and Boettcher . Within their so called $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics  they proposed a replacement of the usual hermiticity of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ by its mere commutativity with the product of the parity $`𝒫`$ and the time reversal $`𝒯`$,

$$H𝒫𝒯=𝒫𝒯H.$$

It has been shown by several methods that one may get real energy spectrum in many different systems of this type . Similar analytic assumptions made in connection with quantized systems is not so unusual in the mathematically oriented literature . Its appeal in physical applications is also undeniable and ranges from perturbative  and semiclassical methods and considerations  up to the practical computation of resonances . In such a setting, the construction of representations of SUSY algebras encounters several new challenges. Some of them will be addressed in what follows.

### 2.1 Facilitated normalization

For a concise exposition of some of the related open questions let us first recall a quartic partially solvable potential

$$V_1(r)=r^4+2ir$$

of ref. . Its one-dimensional Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\mathrm{\Psi }(r)+V_1(r)\mathrm{\Psi }_1(r)=E_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1(r),r(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})$$

possesses a formal solution at zero energy $`E_1=0`$. Forgetting, for the time being, that this solution is not normalizable in the usual sense,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(0)}(r)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ir^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})$$
(3)
we can construct its superpotential

$$W_1(r)=\left[\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(0)}(r)\right]/\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(0)}(r)=ir^2$$

and derive formally the supersymmetric partner potential

$$V_2(r)=W_1^2(r)+W_1^{}(r)=W_2^2(r)W_2^{}(r)=r^42ir,r(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})$$

as well as the parallel ground-state-like solution

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}(r)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ir^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$
(4)
Obviously, in such a model the formal SUSY transformation $`12`$ degenerates to the mere time reversal represented, for our present purposes, by the above-mentioned operator $`𝒯`$ which replaces $`i`$ by $`i`$ ,

$$𝒯\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}(r)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(0)}(r),𝒯V_2(r)𝒯=V_1(r).$$

Within the less naive framework of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics the latter example proves better understood. Firstly, in the light of the analyticity of our model we can restore the normalizability of its wave functions (3) and (4) by suitable deformations of the coordinate axis in complex plane . This can be achieved by the mere shifts

$$r=r_{1,2}(x)=x\pm i\epsilon ,\epsilon >0,x(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})$$

of the respective integration paths. This guarantees that the wave functions become asymptotically vanishing as required, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(0)}[r_j(\pm \mathrm{})]0`$. Unfortunately, we have to pay a high price. After one verifies that

$$V_2=W_2^2W_2^{}=x^4+4i\epsilon x^3+\mathrm{}W_1^2+W_1^{}=x^44i\epsilon x^3+\mathrm{},$$

we have to conclude that our two new, $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetrized interactions $`V_{1,2}`$ cease to be inter-related by a supersymmetry.

In what follows we intend to re-solve the puzzle. In essence, we shall generalize the original Witten’s quantum mechanical construction . Our attention will be paid to situations where the above-exemplified loss of a SUSY partnership could be re-established anew. In brief, we shall propose an entirely new representation of the supersymmetric algebra within the framework of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics.

### 2.2 A toy model without SUSY

We intend to introduce our proposal via a few explicit examples. Particular attention will be paid to the two manifestly $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric potentials

$$V^{()}(x)=4i(xi\epsilon )(xi\epsilon )^4,$$
(5)
$$V^{(+)}(x)=\frac{2}{(x+i\epsilon )^2}(x+i\epsilon )^4.$$
(6)
Their doublet resembles the previous pair by the similar choice of the respective domains $`r_{(\pm )}(x)=x\pm i\epsilon `$. Conveniently, both their shifts are equal and given by the same positive constant $`\epsilon >0`$. Our new examples (5) and (6) also exhibit the so called quasi-exact solvability revealed in refs.  and , respectively. Meaning just that a few exact bound states remain at our disposal in an elementary form , this property offers us the two exact zero-energy bound-state solutions

$$\psi ^{()}(x)=(xi\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{(xi\epsilon )^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),$$

$$\psi ^{(+)}(x)=\frac{1}{x+i\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}\left(+i\frac{(x+i\epsilon )^3}{3}\right)L_2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})$$

representing, presumably, ground states. Both these wave functions are bounded and normalizable if and only if their common real parameter $`\epsilon `$ is positive. This is similar to our previous illustration while, in contrast, the new superpotentials

$$W^{(\pm )}(x)=\left[\frac{d}{dx}\psi ^{(\pm )}(x)\right]/\psi ^{(\pm )}(x)=\pm \left[\frac{1}{x\pm i\epsilon }i(x\pm i\epsilon )^2\right].$$
(7)
differ more than just by an overall sign.

In the unphysical extreme of the vanishing parameter $`\epsilon 0`$ we would arrive at the standard SUSY connecting our two Hamiltonians $`H^{(\pm )}`$ but no serious progress seems to have been achieved. We again “stumble” over the normalizability of our wave functions which would be lost in the SUSY limit. Still, there is a difference. We are going to show below that our new doublet of models can be supersymmetrized after one modifies the usual recipe.

## 3 PT symmetric supersymmetry

A key observation of our present proposal is that many $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric systems are defined off the real axis. Boundary conditions $`lim_{|r|\mathrm{}}\psi (r)=0`$ are in general located within wedges bounded by Stokes’ lines . Locally, the paths of integration can be deformed whenever necessary. In contrast to our introductory examples $`V_{1,2}`$, the mere “time-reflection” conjugation $`𝒯`$ itself does not now map our new Hamiltonians $`H^{(\pm )}`$ upon each other. Still, an active use of $`𝒯`$ will be a key ingredient in our forthcoming construction.

### 3.1 Innovated factorization of Hamiltonians

With our functions (7) taken just as a particular illustration, let us now assume their arbitrary form and introduce the four related operators

$$A^{(\pm )}=\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(\pm )}(x),B^{(\pm )}=\frac{d}{dx}+W^{(\pm )}(x)$$

which induce the traditional Riccati-equation formulae

$$H^{(\pm )}=B^{(\pm )}A^{(\pm )}=_x^2+[W^{(\pm )}(x)]^2\left[W^{(\pm )}(x)\right]^{}.$$

We have to fit these two Hamiltonians into a generalized SUSY scheme of the type (1) + (2). In the first step, we explored reordered products. Returning to our explicit examples $`V^{(\pm )}`$ for inspiration, we did not succeed in the $`{}_{}{}^{(+)}`$superscripted case at all. Fortunately, in the second case we were able to verify by immediate insertions the strict validity of the only slightly nonstandard rule

$$H^{(+)}=𝒯A^{()}B^{()}𝒯.$$
(8)
This formula is, in a way, our central point. Indeed, once we arrange our doublet of Hamiltonians into the following two-dimensional array

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cc}H^{()}& 0\\ 0& H^{(+)}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}B^{()}A^{()}& 0\\ 0& 𝒯A^{()}B^{()}𝒯\end{array}\right]$$

we recover immediately all the necessary SUSY rules (1) and (2), provided only that we introduce the following modified representation of the supercharges,

$$𝒬=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 𝒯A^{()}& 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& B^{()}𝒯\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(9)
In contrast to the usual SUSY constructions our new supercharges are not correlated by any Hermitian conjugation anymore. This is our main methodological gain. A new hope is created that some “no-go” theorems of the traditional Hermitian theories could be overcome within our new SUSY framework.

A key technical difficulty with this hope lies in its dependence on the specific choice of our example. Fortunately, one can re-analyze our fundamental re-arrangement in the more general context where the explicit form

$$\left[W^{(+)}\right]^2\left[W^{(+)}\right]^{}=\left\{\left[W^{()}\right]^2+\left[W^{()}\right]^{}\right\}^{}$$

of eq. (8) may be called a ladder equation. It glues superpotentials in the language of the higher order SUSY . An explicit solution of the latter equation exists and can be expressed in the parametric form using an arbitrary complex function $`f(x)`$,

$$W^{(+)}=\frac{f^{}}{2f}f,W^{()}=\frac{f^{}}{2f^{}}f^{}$$
(10)
It is worth noticing that with the shape invariant $`f(x)=i\lambda \mathrm{sech}\mu x`$, one re-discovers the amazing though very special relationship between the non-Hermitian and Hermitian exactly solvable models of ref. . In the latter class of examples with the purely imaginary $`f(x)`$ our “new SUSY” coincides with the ordinary, “classical SUSY” since the lower Hamiltonian remains real, $`H^{(+)}=𝒯H^{(+)}𝒯`$. With arbitrary $`f(x)`$ equation (10) suggests that a certain modified Darboux transformation  is at work for $`H^{(+)}𝒯H^{(+)}𝒯`$. In this way, also another, “fully complex” illustration $`f(x)=i(x+i\epsilon )^2`$ returns us back to our “new-SUSY” example $`V^{(\pm )}`$ which manifestly breaks the standard SUSY at $`\epsilon >0`$.

### 3.2 Intertwining relations

Much in the same spirit as when one seeks possible interwinings of operators in the context of higher-order SUSY let us now return to their present realization, starting from the assumption of reality of the energies in the Schrödinger equation

$$H^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x)=B^{()}A^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x)=E_n^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x).$$

In the light of its possible re-factorization (8) let us now pre-multiply it by a suitable operator from the left,

$$[𝒯A^{()}][B^{()}𝒯][𝒯A^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x)]H^{(+)}\psi _m^{(+)}(x)=E_n^{()}[𝒯A^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x)].$$

This correspondence can be accompanied by the second Schrödinger equation

$$H^{(+)}\psi _m^{(+)}(x)=B^{(+)}A^{(+)}\psi _m^{(+)}(x)=E_m^{(+)}\psi _m^{(+)}(x).$$

A comparison results in the general relationship

$$\psi _m^{(+)}(x)=𝒯A^{()}\psi _n^{()}(x),E_m^{(+)}=E_n^{()}.$$

In parallel, we can also re-write $`H^{()}\psi _k^{()}(x)`$ in the re-factorized form

$$[B^{()}𝒯]𝒯A^{()}[B^{()}𝒯\psi _m^{(+)}(x)]=E_m^{(+)}[B^{()}𝒯\psi _m^{(+)}(x)]E_k^{()}\psi _k^{()}(x)$$

and deduce that

$$\psi _k^{()}(x)=B^{()}𝒯\psi _m^{(+)}(x),E_k^{()}=E_m^{(+)}.$$

One has to be careful with a quick assignment of the labels. In general, one cannot be sure about the ordering of the levels. In accord with several explicit examples  their various permutations could occur here in general. Fortunately, many rules concerning the ordering of levels in real potentials find their direct analogues in the complexified Sturm Liouville oscillation theorems . Moreover, their “almost standard” form applies in the case of the present “asympotically almost real” examples (5) and (6). For them it is possible to show that $`m=n=k`$. In such a case the current rules of reconstruction of the partner spectra (the variety of constructive examples of which can be found in refs. ) can be restored in their full strength.

## 4 Discussion

We have seen that a core of applicability of our new form of the SUSY transformation to a complex force lies in our understanding of the normalizability of the wave functions in the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric formalism. Still, even in this context many formal questions remain open. For example, due to a spontaneous breakdown of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry the energies can sometimes coalesce in the complex conjugated pairs . The rigorous foundations of the reality of the spectra must be always scrutinized anew.

Mathematically, a key feature of the present construction lies in a difference in the arguments $`x\pm i\epsilon =r_{(\pm )}(x)`$ of our model potentials, i.e., in the domains of definition of the Hamiltonians. This freedom admits a further generalization to all the integrations paths $`r_{(\pm )}(x)`$ which are coupled by the reflection with respect to the real axis or, in the present language, by the time reversal. In this sense the operator $`𝒯`$ plays a double role: To its original meaning of a reflection of the complex plane (for coordinates) one has to add its use in our innovated hypercharges and in the alternative factorization of $`H^{(+)}`$.

The relevance of the present proposal is enhanced by several unexpected observations. Firstly we notice that our supersymmetric mapping does not seem to require the current complementary comment about the missing partner of the zero energy bound state itself. This means that the Witten index  vanishes, $`n_Bn_F=0`$. Still, due to the broken hermiticity of our Hamiltonians, both zero-energy states remain normalizable so that the supersymmetry itself remains unbroken.

We may conclude that the present $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric formalism is quite different from its current Hermitian predecessors. It resembles the models with periodic potentials  and the higher order SUSY quantum mechanics in the irreducible case. Let us recall that in the latter context one also cannot express the intermediate Hamiltonian as a Hermitian operator .

Undoubtedly, the immediate relationship to the vanishing Witten index makes our construction very appealing. In a summary, we could now distinguish between the three different forms of SUSY. Firstly, one defines the standard one in a formalism using the real potentials and superpotentials . Secondly, a use of the complex superpotentials and charges which are not Hermitian conjugate of each other forms simply an opposite extreme . Thirdly, our present formalism stays somewhere in between. It constrains the latter unrestricted freedom by the fairly nontrivial $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry but, in contrast to the current Witten’s SUSY it is not restricted to non-negative Hamiltonian operators.

## Acknowledgements

M. Z. acknowledges the hospitality of INFN and the University of Bologna and also the grant Nr. A 1048004 of GA AS CR. B. B. thanks Prof. C. Quesne for several fruitful discussions.


text:
# Theory of doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reactions. II. Model-independent study of nuclear correlation effects

## 1 Introduction

The nucleon-nucleon interaction still remains one of the central problems of the nuclear structure theory. It seems natural to use the free-space forces, but the most of the nuclear structure theorists prefer the effective ones instead. The basic motivations are as follows.

(a) Historically the first one arose from the wide-spread belief in sixties that the free-space $`NN`$ potential has a hard repulsive core. Clearly such interaction does not apply directly because of the divergence of finite-order Feynman diagrams. The most popular way to overcome this difficulty is to calculate the Brueckner $`G`$-matrix and use it as the effective interaction in the Hartree-Fock problem. This is the Hartree–Fock–Brueckner approximation, see  and the references therein for details. But soon it became clear that the description of the two-nucleon system, i.e. the deuteron properties and the elastic $`NN`$ scattering phase shifts below the pion production threshold, does not require the hard repulsive core. As a result all the contemporary $`NN`$ potentials are of soft core character, and so the above difficulty does not really exist. In such conditions the calculation of the Brueckner $`G`$-matrix is not compulsory.

(b) The renormalization of the free-space interaction due to the medium polarization effects. But such effects are treated by conventional methods of quantum many-body theory, and therefore the above reason is not the argument for the effective forces.

(c) The medium QCD-renormalization due to the fact that the quark composition of the QCD vacuum is changed in nuclear medium thus leading to the changes of both the mesons and the meson–nucleon vertices . Such processes can hardly be described in all details since the exact theory does not yet exist for the nonperturbative region. Nevertheless, at least one exact statement can be done. The QCD-renormalized interaction is the functional of nuclear density possessing the following obvious property: it turns into the free-space one in the zero-density limit. For this reason it can be represented as the following functional expansion:

$`f_{QCDr}(𝐫_1𝐫_2\{\rho \})`$ $`=`$ $`f_2(|𝐫_1𝐫_2|)+{\displaystyle f_3(|𝐫_1𝐫_2|,|𝐫_1𝐫^{}|)\rho (r^{})d^3𝐫^{}}+`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle f_4(|𝐫_1𝐫_2|,|𝐫_1𝐫^{}|,|𝐫_1𝐫^{\prime \prime }|)\rho (r^{})\rho (r^{\prime \prime })d^3𝐫^{}d^3𝐫^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{}`$
In this way we conclude that the medium QCD-renormalization is equivalent to the existence of many-particle $`NN`$ forces in addition to the two-particle ones. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the physics of strong interaction is essentially nonlinear. But the nonlinearity automatically leads to many-particle forces.

The above reasons are grounds for our starting point: both the two-particle and many-particle $`NN`$ forces must be taken into account for the treatment of nuclear structure.

The three-particle $`NN`$ forces are indeed included for the calculations of few-nucleon systems . But the following questions arises: is this sufficient for complex nuclei ? This point as well as a number of those concerning the nuclear structure might be elucidated if the model-independent object would exist in nuclei.

Our approach is based on the fact that such objects do really exist. As discussed in our previous work  they are the doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reaction. We showed that

(i) at least the three-particle repulsion and the four-particle attraction must be taken into account in addition to the two-particle forces;

(ii) the nuclear relativity is really existing phenomenon rather than the hypothesis of J.D. Walecka ;

(iii) the dominant contribution to the isovector nuclear potential is provided by the many-particle forces;

(iv) the observed spectra of the doorway states can be used to specify the neutron density distributions in nuclei; such specified densities are indeed obtained for the closed-shell nuclei 40Ca, 90Zr and 208Pb.

In the present work our approach is applied to the ”empirical” studies of nuclear correlation effects owing to which the nuclear wave functions are different from the Slater determinants. Such effects are treated by a variety of approximate methods since the exact ones do not exist. For this reason it is very important to get a model-independent quantitative information about the above effects. The possibility provided by our approach is based on the fact that the single-particle states of nucleon in nuclear static field (which are just the doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reactions ) are correlation-free objects in contrast to the Landau–Migdal quasiparticles  (which include the correlations by definition) and single-particle states in nuclear Hartree–Fock calculations with effective forces (where the correlations are implicitly included in the phenomenological effective force parameters). So, calculating the correlation-free quantities and comparing them with the observed ones we get a quantitative measure of the correlation effects. In Sect.2 this procedure is applied to the nucleon density distributions whereas the problems concerning the nuclear binding energy are discussed in Sect.3.

## 2 Density distributions

The nucleon density distribution in the ground state of nucleus $`A`$ is (see  for the notations)

$`\rho (r)`$ $`=`$ $`A_0|\psi ^+(x)\psi (x)|A_0={\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}}A_0|\psi ^+(x)|(A1)_j(A1)_j|\psi (x)|A_0=`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^+(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)={\displaystyle _C}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi i}}G(x,x;\epsilon ).`$
The integration contour $`C`$ includes the real axis and the infinite radius semicircle in the upper part of the complex $`\epsilon `$ plane. As seen from Eq.(1) the density is expressed through the single-particle amplitudes of the $`(A1)`$ nuclear states. Expanding them over the complete set of the doorway states,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)=\underset{\lambda }{}C_j^{(\lambda )}\psi _\lambda (x)$$
(3)
and putting Eq.(3) into Eq.(2) we get

$$\rho (r)=\underset{\lambda }{}n_\lambda |\psi _\lambda (x)|^2+2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda \nu }{\nu >\lambda }}{}\rho _{\lambda \nu }\psi _\lambda ^+(x)\psi _\nu (x),$$
(4)
where

$$n_\lambda =\rho _{\lambda \lambda }=\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}|C_j^{(\lambda )}|^2=\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}s_j^{(\lambda )},\rho _{\lambda \nu }=\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}C_j^{(\lambda )^{}}C_j^{(\nu )}$$
(5)
(actually the coefficients $`C_j^{(\lambda )}`$ are real quantities if the parity violation due to weak interaction is disregarded). The diagonal elements $`\rho _{\lambda \lambda }=n_\lambda `$ are the doorway state occupation numbers. Indeed, the particle number is

$$N=\rho (r)d^3𝐫=\underset{\lambda }{}n_\lambda ,$$
(6)
since the nondiagonal elements do not contribute because of the orthogonality between $`\psi _\lambda `$ and $`\psi _\nu `$. The quantities $`n_\lambda `$ and $`\rho _{\lambda \nu }`$ obey the following limitations:

$$0<n_\lambda <1,|\rho _{\lambda \nu }|<\frac{1}{2}(n_\lambda +n_\nu ).$$
(7)
The first follows from the fact that the doorway states are distributed over the actual ones of both the $`(A1)`$ and $`(A+1)`$ nuclei, see Eq.(13c) in Ref., whereas the second is a consequence of the Cauchy–Bunjakowsky inequality.

The facts $`n_\lambda <1`$ and $`\rho _{\lambda \nu }0`$ reflect the Fermi surface smearing due to the correlation effects. The quantities $`n_\lambda `$ and $`\rho _{\lambda \nu }`$ carrying the quantitative information about these effects can be found ”empirically” by considering the relation (4) together with the limitations (7) as equations for $`n_\lambda `$ and $`\rho _{\lambda \nu }`$. The results will be published elsewhere.

As a result of the correlations a part of nucleons is out of the nuclear Fermi-surface. The number $`N_{out}`$ of such nucleons is calculated by comparing the observed density distribution with the correlation-free one

$$\rho _{cf}(r)=\underset{\lambda }{}\mathrm{\Theta }(\epsilon _F\epsilon _\lambda )|\psi _\lambda (x)|^2.$$
(8)
$`\epsilon _F`$ is the Fermi level energy. Such comparison is shown in Fig.1 for the proton density distribution in 40Ca. As seen from the figure the correlation-free density contains more nucleons in the inner region $`0<r<r_i`$ than the observed one, $`r_i`$ is the intersection point. The situation in the outer region $`r_i<r<\mathrm{}`$ is clearly opposite since both densities correspond to the same number of nucleons. The number of redistributed nucleons is

$$N_{out}=4\pi \underset{0}{\overset{r_i}{}}[\rho _{cf}(r)\rho (r)]r^2𝑑r=4\pi \underset{r_i}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\rho (r)\rho _{cf}(\rho )]r^2𝑑r.$$
(9)
$`r_i`$ is the intersection point: $`\rho _{cf}(r_i)=\rho (r_i)`$. This is just the $`N_{out}`$ because the only reason for the redistribution is the Fermi-surface smearing due to the correlations.

The $`N_{out}`$ numbers in doubly closed-shell nuclei are shown in Table 1. As seen from the table these nucleons are a rather appreciable part of the total mass number. To our knowledge this fact was first mentioned by Frankfurt and Strikman  on the basis of the analysis of high-momentum components (i.e. those with $`k>300`$MeV/c) of the nucleon momentum distributions in nuclei. According to their most recent results for these data  the $`A_{out}/A`$ ratio is $`(20\pm 3)\%`$ for heavy nuclei. This is in reasonable agreement with our results.

It is worth mentioning that our calculations do not tell anything about the nature of the underlying correlations whereas the high-momentum tales of the momentum distributions arise from the $`NN`$ interactions at short distances . Therefore the reasonable agreement between the two results gives rise to the conclusion that the main reason for the Fermi-surface smearing in doubly closed-shell nuclei is due to the short-range correlations.

## 3 Binding energy

We also can calculate the part of the nuclear binding energy which is caused by the motion of nucleons in nuclear static field. Such static energy partly includes the correlation effects since it is expressed through the observed nucleon density distributions. The comparison between the observed binding energy $`_b`$ and the static one $`_{st}`$ gives the measure of the proper correlation energy of nucleus.

To make this point clear let us derive the exact expression for the binding energy. Following the procedure of Ref. we get

$`_b={\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi i}}tr\widehat{k}_xG(x,x;\epsilon )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dxdx_1{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1}{(2\pi i)^2}}f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1|);\omega )K_2(x,x_1;x,x_1;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2}{(2\pi i)^3}f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|;\omega ,\omega _1)K_3(x,x_1,x_2;x,x_1,x_2;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dxdx_1dx_2dx_3{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2d\epsilon _3}{(2\pi i)^4}}f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|;\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`K_4(x,x_1,x_2,x_3;x,x_1,x_2,x_3;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3),`$ (10)
where $`K(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n;x_1^{}\mathrm{}x_n^{};\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n)`$ are the $`n`$-particle Green functions. We accounted for the three- and four-particle forces in addition to the two-particle ones as well as the possible dependence of the interactions on the appropriate energy transfers $`\omega _i`$. In these terms the single-particle Green function is

$`(\epsilon \widehat{k}_x)G(x,x^{};\epsilon )=\delta (xx^{})+{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon _1}{2\pi i}f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1|;\omega )K_2(x,x_1;x^{},x_1^{};\epsilon ,\epsilon _1)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\underset{c}{}f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|;\omega ,\omega _1)K_3(x,x_1,x_2;x^{},x_1,x_2;\epsilon ,\epsilon _2)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2dx_3{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2d\epsilon _3}{(2\pi i)^3}}f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|;\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`K_4(x,x_1,x_2,x_3;x^{},x_1,x_2,x_3;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3).`$ (11)
On the other hand the Dyson equation is

$$(\epsilon \widehat{k}_x)G(x,x^{};\epsilon )=\delta (xx^{})+𝑑x_1M(x,x_1;\epsilon )G(x_1,x^{};\epsilon ),$$
(12)
and therefore

$`{\displaystyle }M(x,x_1;\epsilon )G(x_1,x^{};\epsilon )dx_1={\displaystyle }dx_1{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon _1}{2\pi i}}f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1);\omega )K_2(x,x_1;x^{},x_1;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2}{(2\pi i)^2}f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|;\omega ,\omega _1)K_3(x,x_1,x_2;x^{},x_1,x_2;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2dx_3{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2d\epsilon _3}{(2\pi i)^3}}f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|;\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`K_4(x,x_1,x_2,x_3;x^{},x_1,x_2,x_3;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3).`$ (13)
As seen from Eqs. (10) and (13) the binding energy can be written as

$`_b={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi i}\left(tr\widehat{k}_x\delta (xx^{})+M(x,x^{};\epsilon )\right)G(x^{},x;\epsilon )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x_1\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1}{(2\pi i)^2}f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1|;\omega )K_2(x,x_1;x,x_1;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\underset{c}{}\frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2}{(2\pi i)^3}f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|;\omega ,\omega _1)K_3(x,x_1,x_2;x,x_1,x_2;\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dxdx_1dx_2dx_3{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon d\epsilon _1d\epsilon _2d\epsilon _3}{(2\pi i)^4}}f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|,\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`K_4(x,x_1,x_2,x_3;x,x_1,x_2,x_3;\epsilon ,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3).`$ (14)
Taking into account the spectral representation of $`G(x,x^{};\epsilon )`$, see Eq.(5) in Ref., and performing the integration over $`\epsilon `$ we get the following expression for the first term in the rhs:

$$_b^{(1)}=\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}𝑑x\mathrm{\Psi }_j^+(x)\left(\widehat{k}_x\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)+M(x,x^{};E_j)\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x^{})𝑑x^{}\right).$$
(15)
As follows from the Dyson equation (12) and the above spectral representation the amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)`$ obey the equation

$$\widehat{k}_x\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)+M(x,x^{};E_j)\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x^{})𝑑x^{}=E_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)$$
(16)
and therefore

$$_b^{(1)}=\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}E_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)|^2𝑑x=\underset{\lambda }{}\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}E_js_j^{(\lambda )}$$
(17)
(we accounted for the expansion (3)).

In general case the many-particle Green functions $`K_n(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n;x_1^{},\mathrm{}x_n^{};\epsilon _1,\mathrm{}\epsilon _n)`$ obey the infinite system of integro-differential equations the Eq.(11) being the first one. As mentioned above the exact methods of solution do not exist. It should be also mentioned that the approximate methods, see  and the references therein, are developed for the instantaneous two-particle forces only. For these reasons the exact calculation of nuclear binding energy is impossible at present. Therefore the calculation of the static energy is of importance.

Both the static nuclear field and the static energy are obtained from the above relations by putting

$$K_n(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n;x_1^{},\mathrm{}x_n^{};\epsilon _1,\mathrm{}\epsilon _n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}G(x_i,x_i^{};\epsilon _i),$$
(18)
i.e. neglecting the difference between the many-particle Green functions and the unsymmetrized products of the single-particle ones. This difference arises from both the antisymmetrization and the higher-order terms of the perturbation theory, i.e. just the effects leading to the proper correlation energy. Putting Eq.(18) into Eqs.(13) and (14) we get (all the energy transfers $`\omega _i`$ vanish in this case)

$`U_{st}(r)={\displaystyle f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1|)\rho (r_1)d^3𝐫_1}+{\displaystyle f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|)\rho (r_1)\rho (r_2)d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|)\rho (r_1)\rho (r_2)\rho (r_3)d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2d^3𝐫_3};`$
$`_{st}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_j^+(x)\left(\widehat{k}_x+U_{st}(r)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x)𝑑x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle f_2(|𝐫𝐫_1|)\rho (r)\rho (r_1)d^3𝐫d^3𝐫_1}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|)\rho (r)\rho (r_1)\rho (r_2)d^3𝐫d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2}`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle f_4(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|,|𝐫𝐫_3|)\rho (r)\rho (r_1)\rho (r_2)\rho (r_3)d^3𝐫d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2d^3𝐫_3}.`$
As follows from the relations (3) and (5) the first term of the rhs is

$$_{st}^{(1)}=\underset{\lambda }{}n_\lambda \epsilon _\lambda .$$
(21)
But as seen from Eq.(17) and the sum rule

$$\epsilon _\lambda =\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}E_js_j^{(\lambda )}+\underset{k}{\overset{(A+1)}{}}E_ks_k^{(\lambda )}$$
(22)
for the doorway state energies, see Eq.(14c) of Ref., the quantity $`_{st}^{(1)}`$ contains unphysical contributions from the energies of the $`(A+1)`$ nuclear states. To eliminate them let us divide $`_{st}^{(1)}`$ into the two parts

$$_{st}^{(1)}=_{st}^<+_{st}^>,_{st}^<=\underset{\lambda F}{}n_\lambda \epsilon _\lambda ,_{st}^>=\underset{\lambda >F}{}n_\lambda \epsilon _\lambda ,$$
(23)
including summations over the states with $`\epsilon _\lambda \epsilon _F`$ and $`\epsilon _\lambda >\epsilon _F`$ respectively. The doorway states entering $`_{st}^<`$ are mainly distributed over the states of the $`(A1)`$ nucleus the first term of Eq.(22) thus giving the dominant contribution to the $`\epsilon _\lambda `$ values in this case. The small unphysical contribution from the second term of (22) arises from the states of the $`(A+1)`$ nucleus with the same quantum numbers as those of the low-lying states of the $`(A1)`$ nucleus. Such states lie either in the continuum or near its border. Therefore the reasonable estimate for their energies is $`E_k0`$ the unphysical contribution thus being negligible for this case.

The situation is opposite for $`_{st}^>`$ because the doorway states with $`\epsilon _\lambda >\epsilon _F`$ are mainly distributed over the states of the $`(A+1)`$ nucleus, the dominant contribution to the $`\epsilon _\lambda `$ values thus being unphysical from the viewpoint of the binding energy. In such conditions it is reasonable to use a more appropriate relation for $`_{st}^>`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{st}^>=\underset{\lambda >F}{}\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}E_js_j^{(\lambda )}.$$
(24)
So the $`(A1)`$ nuclear states with the same quantum numbers as those of the low-lying states of the $`(A+1)`$ nucleus contribute in this case. There are no such states among the low-lying ones of the $`(A1)`$ nucleus, and therefore

$$E_j<E_F=_0(A)_g(A1),$$
(25)
see Ref. for the details. Nevertheless it is reasonable to use the estimate

$$E_j=E_F,$$
(26)
providing the least absolute value for the $`\stackrel{~}{}_{st}^>`$ quantity. In this way we get

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{st}^>=E_F\underset{\lambda >F}{}\underset{j}{\overset{(A1)}{}}s_j^{(\lambda )}=E_F\underset{\lambda >F}{}n_\lambda =E_F\stackrel{~}{N}_{out}.$$
(27)
Accounting for the fact that the many-particle forces are introduced as the contact ones in the model-independent approach of Ref., we finally get (see Ref. for the notations)

$`_{st}={\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{p}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda F}{}}n_\lambda \epsilon _\lambda +\stackrel{~}{N}_{out}E_F\right)_i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(S(r)\rho _s(r)+V_\omega (r)\rho (r)+S^{}(r)\rho _s^{}(r)+V_\rho (r)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}(r)+C(r)\rho _{ch}(r)\right)d^3𝐫}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_3\rho ^3(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a_4\rho ^4(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[a_3^{}\rho (r)+a_4^{}\rho ^2(r)](\rho ^{}(r))^2]d^3𝐫.`$ (28)
We used the following ansatz for the occupation numbers

$$n_\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{\epsilon _\lambda \mu }{\sqrt{(\epsilon _\lambda \mu )^2+C^2}}\right],\underset{\lambda }{}n_\lambda =N,\underset{\lambda >F}{}n_\lambda =\stackrel{~}{N}_{out},$$
(29)
putting $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{out}=N_{out}`$, see Sect.2. This is incorrect because the sum $`_{\lambda >F}n_\lambda `$ is different from $`N_{out}`$, Eq.(9). Indeed, both diagonal and nondiagonal elements of the density matrix, Eq.(4), contribute to the $`N_{out}`$ values. This shortcoming will be corrected in future by calculating the $`n_\lambda `$ and $`\rho _{\lambda \nu }`$ values, see the discussion in Sect.2 (of course, the ansatz (29) will become unnecessary).

The results of the calculations are shown in Table 2. As seen from the table the static energy is the sum of a number of contributions with different sign, the dominant ones greatly exceeding the total static energy as well as the observed binding one. This is the source of the ambiguities because all disregarded effects may be of importance in such a situation.

One of such effects is the finite range of the many-particle forces. The possible way of the estimation is illustrated for the three-particle forces. As seen from Eq.(10) the original contribution is

$`_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle f_3(|𝐫𝐫_1|,|𝐫𝐫_2|)\rho (r)\rho (r_1)\rho (r_2)d^3𝐫d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_2}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \rho (r)f_3(\xi ,\eta )\rho (|𝐫+𝝃|)\rho (|𝐫+𝜼|)d^3𝐫d^3𝝃d^3𝜼}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\rho (r)f_3(\xi ,\eta )[\rho (r)+𝝃\mathbf{}\rho (r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi _1\xi _k_i_k\rho (r)+\mathrm{}]\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\rho (r)+𝜼\mathbf{}\rho (r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _j\eta _{\mathrm{}}_j_{\mathrm{}}\rho (r)+\mathrm{}\right]d^3𝐫d^3𝝃d^3𝜼=`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \rho (r)f_3(\xi ,\eta )\left[\rho (r)+\frac{1}{6}\xi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (r)+\mathrm{}\right]\left[\rho (r)+\frac{1}{6}\eta ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (r)+\mathrm{}\right]d^3𝐫d^3𝝃d^3𝜼}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}a_3{\displaystyle \rho (r)[\rho (r)+r_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (r)+\mathrm{}]^2d^3𝐫}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}a_3{\displaystyle \rho ^3(r)d^3𝐫}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_3{\displaystyle \rho ^2(r)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (r)d^3𝐫},`$
where (see Eq.(37) of Ref.)

$$a_3=f_3(\xi ,\eta )d^3𝝃d^3𝜼,a_3r_0^2=\frac{1}{6}\xi ^2f_3(\xi ,\eta )d^3𝝃d^3𝜼=\frac{1}{6}\eta ^2f_3(\xi ,\eta )d^3𝝃d^3𝜼.$$
(31)
In this way we get

$`\delta _{r_0^2}_{st}=r_0^2{\displaystyle \left(\frac{2}{3}a_3\rho ^2(r)+\frac{3}{4}a_4\rho ^3(r)\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (r)d^3𝐫}=Dr_0^2`$
$`D={\displaystyle \left(\frac{4}{3}a_3\rho (r)+\frac{9}{4}a_4\rho ^2(r)\right)(\rho ^{}(r))^2d^3𝐫}.`$ (32)
The calculated $`D`$ values are shown in Table 3. The reasonable value of the range parameter is the $`\omega `$ meson Compton wavelength, i.e. a typical scale of the strong interaction. So $`r_0^2=m_\omega ^2=0.1`$fm2, the effect thus being negligibly small.

The second source of the possible ambiguity is seen from the results of Ref. for the contributions of two-particle, three-particle and four-particle forces to the nuclear static field which are shown in Table 4, see Eqs. (44) and (45) of Ref..

As follows from the table the convergence of this sequence is not seen. This observation suggests the possible existence of the contributions from higher many-particle forces, and therefore the whole sequence should be summed up. But this can be done only within some reasonable model for the many-particle forces including all higher-order ones as well as the finite range and the mechanism for the saturation of nuclear density. The corresponding investigation is in progress.