On ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.24921
• Title: On ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$
• Authors: Ivan Dimitrov, Khoa Nguyen (Queen's University)
• Classification: math.RT (Representation Theory)
• Publication Date: October 28, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24921

Abstract

This paper investigates two classes of ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules of total rank 2 over $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$: $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(2)$ (whose objects have rank 2 over ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$ but are not necessarily $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded) and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(1|1)$ (whose objects are supermodules with even and odd parts each isomorphic to ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$). For $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$, the authors provide a complete classification of objects in both categories; they prove that when $m,n\geq 2$, both categories are empty.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Research Problem

This paper studies the classification problem of ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$, with particular focus on the rank 2 case.

2. Problem Significance

• Importance of non-weight modules: ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules provide important examples of non-weight modules. Weight modules are classical objects in Lie algebra representation theory, but non-weight modules have more complex structures and broader applications.
• Specificity of superalgebras: Lie superalgebras, due to their $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded structure, are significant in both physics (particularly supersymmetry theory) and mathematics.
• Advancement of classification theory: Classification of low-rank ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules provides a foundation for understanding more complex representation structures.

3. Limitations of Existing Research

• Rank 1 case resolved: Cai and Zhao 1 proved that for basic Lie superalgebras (except $\mathfrak{osp}(1|2n)$), the category of rank 1 ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules is empty.
• Rank 2 case unknown: Complete classification for higher ranks, particularly rank 2, remains unestablished.
• Unified treatment of graded and non-graded: Previous research did not systematically distinguish between $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded and non-graded modules.

4. Research Motivation

Inspired by the Cai-Zhao work, the authors systematically investigate higher-rank ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules while considering both non-graded and $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded cases, aiming to establish a complete classification theory.

Core Contributions

1. Complete classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)$: Proves that $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)}(2)$ has exactly two isomorphism classes (Theorem 3.2), and establishes connections with string algebra modules.
2. Parametric classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$:
   • Provides complete classification of $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(2)$, where isomorphism classes are characterized by parameters $(a, S)$ with $a\in(\mathbb{C}^\times)^m$ and $S\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$ (Theorem 4.8).
   • Gives similar classifications for $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(1|1)$ and $\mathcal{M}^0_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(1|1)$ (Theorem 4.14, Proposition 4.15).
3. Emptiness theorem: Proves that when $m,n\geq 2$, both $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(2)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(1|1)$ are empty categories (Theorem 5.3).
4. Structural properties: Proves that all constructed modules are indecomposable and have infinite length (Propositions 3.3, 4.10).

Detailed Methodology

Task Definition

Category definitions:

• $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(k)$: Objects are $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$-modules $M$ such that $M$ is free of rank $k$ as a ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-module (not necessarily $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded).
• $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(k'|k'')$: Objects are $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$-modules $M=M_{\bar{0}}\oplus M_{\bar{1}}$ where $M_{\bar{0}}\cong {U}(\mathfrak{h})^{\oplus k'}$ and $M_{\bar{1}}\cong {U}(\mathfrak{h})^{\oplus k''}$.
• $\mathcal{M}^0_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(k'|k'')$: Same objects as $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(k'|k'')$, but morphisms are only even homomorphisms.

Key isomorphism: ${U}(\mathfrak{h})\cong \mathbb{C}[h_1,\ldots,h_m,h_{\bar{1}},\ldots,h_{\overline{n-1}}]$, so objects can be viewed as $\mathbb{C}[h]^{\oplus k}$.

Core Technical Framework

1. Matrix Representation Method

For $M\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(2)$, the module $M=\mathbb{C}[h]^{\oplus 2}$, and the action of generators is characterized by matrices: $E_{IJ} = [e_{IJ}\cdot e_1 \quad e_{IJ}\cdot e_2]\in\text{Mat}_2(\mathbb{C}[h])$

Key Proposition (4.1): For $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$, the action satisfies:

• $e_{ij}\cdot f(h) = E_{ij}(h)\sigma_i\sigma_j^{-1}(f(h))$
• $e_{i\bar{1}}\cdot f(h) = E_{i\bar{1}}(h)\sigma_i\Delta^{-1}(f(h))$
• $e_{\bar{1}i}\cdot f(h) = E_{\bar{1}i}(h)\sigma_i^{-1}\Delta(f(h))$

where $\sigma_i$ is an automorphism of $\mathbb{C}[h]$: $\sigma_i(h_\beta)=h_\beta-1$ (when $\beta=i$) or $h_\beta$ (when $\beta\neq i$).

2. Twisted Conjugacy Equivalence

Definition 4.3: Two sets of matrices $(E_{i\bar{1}}, E_{\bar{1}i})_{i\in\mathbf{m}}$ and $(E'_{i\bar{1}}, E'_{\bar{1}i})_{i\in\mathbf{m}}$ are called $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(2)$-conjugate if there exists $W(h)\in\text{GL}_2(\mathbb{C}[h])$ such that: $E'_{i\bar{1}} = W^{-1}(h)E_{i\bar{1}}\Delta_i^{-1}(W(h)), \quad E'_{\bar{1}i} = W^{-1}(h)E_{\bar{1}i}\Delta_i(W(h))$

This equivalence relation corresponds to module isomorphism.

3. Quadratic Equation Solving

Lemma 4.5 (Key technical lemma): Over a unique factorization domain $R$, the equation $P(h)\Delta^{-1}(P(h))=0$ has solutions of the form: $P(h) = \theta(h)\begin{bmatrix}\beta(h)\Delta(\alpha(h)) & -\alpha(h)\Delta(\alpha(h))\\ \beta(h)\Delta(\beta(h)) & -\alpha(h)\Delta(\beta(h))\end{bmatrix}$ where $\gcd(\alpha(h),\beta(h))=1$.

Proposition 4.6 (Core classification lemma): If $P(h), Q(h)\in\text{Mat}_2(R[h])$ satisfy: $P(h)\Delta^{-1}(P(h))=Q(h)\Delta(Q(h))=0, \quad P(h)\Delta^{-1}(Q(h))+Q(h)\Delta(P(h))=a I_2$ where $a$ is an irreducible element in $R$, then $(P(h), Q(h))$ is equivalent under twisted conjugacy to: $\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 & u(h)\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ v(h) & 0\end{bmatrix}\right)$ where $\Delta(u(h))v(h)=a$.

Classification Strategy

Case $\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)$

Using commutation relations $[x,y]=h$, $x^2=y^2=0$, the problem reduces to solving: $P^2=Q^2=0, \quad PQ+QP=h I_2$

Through Jordan normal form and conjugacy transformations, only two isomorphism classes exist: $M\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ h & 0\end{bmatrix}\right) \quad\text{and}\quad M\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 & h\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\right)$

Case $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$

Step 1: First handle $e_{m\bar{1}}$ and $e_{\bar{1}m}$, using Corollary 4.7 to determine standard form.

Step 2: For other $i\in\mathbf{m}\setminus\{m\}$, use commutation relations: $e_{i\bar{1}}e_{m\bar{1}}=-e_{m\bar{1}}e_{i\bar{1}}$ to derive that $E_{i\bar{1}}$ must have specific form (upper or lower triangular).

Step 3: From relation $e_{i\bar{1}}e_{\bar{1}i}+e_{\bar{1}i}e_{i\bar{1}}=h_i$, determine parameter constraints.

Step 4: Prove that each module is uniquely determined by parameters $(a_1,\ldots,a_m)\in(\mathbb{C}^\times)^m$ and subset $S\subseteq\mathbf{m}$.

Case $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ ($m,n\geq 2$)

Proof by contradiction: Assume $M\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(2)$ exists. By analyzing:

• Action matrices of $e_{mn̄}$ and $e_{n̄m}$ (similar to $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$ case)
• Relation $e_{im}=e_{i\bar{1}}e_{\bar{1}m}+e_{\bar{1}m}e_{i\bar{1}}=e_{in̄}e_{n̄m}+e_{n̄m}e_{in̄}$

This leads to contradiction: $\frac{\alpha_{i\bar{1}}}{\alpha_{m\bar{1}}}I_2 = \frac{\alpha_{in̄}}{\alpha_{mn̄}}I_2$ but explicit computation shows matrix diagonal entries are unequal.

Experimental Setup

Note: This is a pure mathematics theory paper with no numerical experiments or datasets. All results are rigorous mathematical proofs.

Theoretical Verification Methods

1. Constructive proof: Explicitly construct modules $M(a,S)$ and verify they satisfy defining relations.
2. Classification completeness: Prove completeness through exhaustive enumeration of all possible matrix forms.
3. Isomorphism criterion: Provide precise isomorphism discrimination criteria (Proposition 4.9).

Computational Verification

The authors use algebraic computation to verify:

• Matrix commutation relations
• Twisted conjugacy transformations
• Parameter constraints

Experimental Results

Main Theorems

Theorem 3.2 (Classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)$): $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)}(2)$ has exactly two isomorphism classes, which are non-isomorphic.

Theorem 4.8 (Classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$): Each $M\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(2)$ is isomorphic to some $M(a,S)$ where:

• $a=(a_1,\ldots,a_m)\in(\mathbb{C}^\times)^m$
• $S\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$
• Action matrices are: $E_{i\bar{1}}=\begin{bmatrix}0 & a_ih_i\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, E_{\bar{1}i}=\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ a_i^{-1} & 0\end{bmatrix} \quad(i\in S)$$E_{i\bar{1}}=\begin{bmatrix}0 & a_i\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, E_{\bar{1}i}=\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ a_i^{-1}h_i & 0\end{bmatrix} \quad(i\notin S)$

Proposition 4.9 (Isomorphism criterion): $M(a,S_1)\cong M(b,S_2) \Longleftrightarrow S_1=S_2 \text{ and } \exists\gamma\in\mathbb{C}^\times: a=\gamma b$

Theorem 5.3 (Emptiness theorem): When $m,n\geq 2$, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)}(2)=\emptyset$.

Structural Properties

Propositions 3.3, 4.10: All constructed modules are:

1. Indecomposable: Endomorphism rings are generated by specific polynomials.
2. Infinite length: There exists a strictly descending sequence of submodules $\cdots\subsetneq M_k\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq M_2\subsetneq M_1\subsetneq M_0=M(a,S)$

Connection with String Algebras

Lemma 3.4: There exist isomorphisms $M\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ h & 0\end{bmatrix}\right)\cong M_1, \quad M\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 & h\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0\\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\right)\cong M_2$ where $M_1, M_2$ are string modules of the string algebra $\mathbb{C}Q/\rho$ ($Q$ is the two-loop quiver, $\rho=\langle x^2, y^2\rangle$).

Related Work

Rank 1 ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules

1. Lie algebra case:
   • Nilsson 12,13: Classified rank 1 modules over $\mathfrak{sl}(n+1)$ and $\mathfrak{sp}(2n)$
   • Tan-Zhao 15: Classified rank 1 modules over Witt algebras $W_n^+$ and $W_n$
   • Martin-Prieto 11, Grantcharov-Nguyen 7: Constructed finite-rank families over $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ and $\mathfrak{sl}(n+1)$
2. Lie superalgebra case:
   • Cai-Zhao 1: Proved that for basic Lie superalgebras except $\mathfrak{osp}(1|2n)$, rank 1 category is empty
   • Subsequent work extended to super-Virasoro algebras 17, $N=2$ superconformal algebras 18,2, etc.

Positioning of this work

• First systematic study of rank 2 case: Previously only sporadic rank 2 module constructions existed
• Unified treatment of graded and non-graded: Clearly distinguishes differences between three categories
• Complete classification results: Provides parametric classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$ and negative results for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ ($m,n\geq 2$)

Technical connections

• Twisted conjugacy technique: Generalizes methods used by Nilsson in $\mathfrak{sl}(n+1)$
• UFD theory: Exploits UFD property of $\mathbb{C}[h]$ to solve matrix equations
• String algebra theory: Reveals deep connections between ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules and infinite-dimensional string algebra representations

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Complete classification: Provides complete classification of rank 2 ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$, characterized by continuous and discrete parameters.
2. Existence dichotomy: Proves that existence of rank 2 category for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ depends on $(m,n)$:
   • $(m,1)$: Non-empty with rich structure
   • $(m,n)$ ($m,n\geq 2$): Completely empty
3. Structural richness: All existing modules have infinite length and are indecomposable, demonstrating the complexity of non-weight modules.

Limitations

1. Limited to rank 2: Higher ranks ($k\geq 3$) are not addressed; classification difficulty may increase dramatically.
2. Specific superalgebras: Only $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ is studied; cases for other basic Lie superalgebras (such as $\mathfrak{osp}(m|2n)$, $D(2,1;\alpha)$, etc.) remain unknown.
3. Algorithmic complexity of isomorphism criterion: While theoretical criteria are provided, determining isomorphism for specific modules may require complex computation.
4. Physical applications not explored: As representation theory research, potential applications in physics (such as supersymmetry theory) are not discussed.

Future Directions

Research directions suggested by the paper:

1. Higher rank classification: Study structure of $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(k)$ ($k\geq 3$) and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)}(k'|k'')$.
2. Other Lie superalgebras: Extend methods to $\mathfrak{osp}(m|2n)$, $\mathfrak{q}(n)$, etc.
3. Representation theory applications: Study roles of these modules in Lie superalgebra cohomology, category $\mathcal{O}$, etc.
4. Infinite-rank generalization: Consider infinite-rank ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules.
5. Algorithm implementation: Develop computer algebra systems for isomorphism discrimination and module construction.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological innovation:
   • Systematic application of twisted conjugacy equivalence is a technical innovation
   • Reduction of matrix equation solving to factorization over UFD demonstrates clever algebraic technique
   • Lemmas 4.5 and Proposition 4.6 provide generalizable technical tools
2. Result completeness:
   • Provides complete and explicit classification for $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$ with clear parametrization
   • Emptiness theorem (Theorem 5.3) establishes clear boundaries, avoiding futile further exploration
   • Isomorphism criterion (Proposition 4.9) is precise and easy to verify
3. Theoretical depth:
   • Reveals connections between ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules and string algebra representations (Lemma 3.4)
   • Proves infinite length property of all modules, demonstrating essential complexity of non-weight modules
   • Systematic comparison of three categories ($\mathcal{M}(2)$, $\mathcal{M}(1|1)$, $\mathcal{M}^0(1|1)$) reveals role of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading
4. Writing clarity:
   • Well-organized structure, progressing from simple to complex ($\mathfrak{sl}(1|1)\to\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)\to\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$)
   • Adequate technical preparation; key tools like Lemma 4.5 clearly stated before use
   • Proofs are logically rigorous; computational details, though tedious, are verifiable

Weaknesses

1. Computational complexity:
   • Proofs involve extensive matrix calculations and polynomial operations; while correct, they lack geometric or categorical intuition
   • Proof of Theorem 5.3 proceeds by contradiction, not providing deep insight into why rank 2 category is empty for $m,n\geq 2$
2. Limited generalizability:
   • Methods are highly dependent on specific structure of $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$; extension to other Lie superalgebras may require substantial modification
   • Specificity of rank 2 (2×2 matrices are tractable) makes extension to higher ranks unclear
3. Insufficient application discussion:
   • Does not discuss roles of these modules in Lie superalgebra representation theory (as subquotients, extensions of other modules, etc.)
   • Connections to physics applications (supersymmetry, conformal field theory, etc.) are not mentioned
4. Missing computational tools:
   • No algorithms or computational examples provided to help readers verify isomorphism of specific modules
   • Characterization of concrete properties (submodule lattice, endomorphism algebra, etc.) for given parameters $(a,S)$ is insufficient

Impact

1. Contribution to field:
   • Foundational work: First systematic study of rank 2 ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules, providing framework for subsequent research
   • Methodological contribution: Twisted conjugacy and matrix equation solving techniques may apply to other problems
   • Boundary determination: Emptiness theorem clarifies research scope, preventing ineffective exploration
2. Practical value:
   • Theoretical tool: Classification results can be used to construct other representations of Lie superalgebras (induced modules, tensor products, etc.)
   • Source of counterexamples: Infinite-length indecomposable modules serve as test cases in representation theory
3. Reproducibility:
   • High: All proofs are constructive and can in principle be verified step-by-step
   • However, actual verification requires extensive symbolic computation; future work should provide computer code

Applicable Scenarios

1. Direct application:
   • Study module category structure of $\mathfrak{sl}(m|1)$
   • Construct non-weight module examples over Lie superalgebras
   • Study connections between string algebra and Lie superalgebra representations
2. Method borrowing:
   • Study ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over other Lie superalgebras (such as $\mathfrak{osp}$, $\mathfrak{q}(n)$)
   • Extend to Kac-Moody superalgebras or affine Lie superalgebras
   • Study other types of non-weight modules (Whittaker modules, Gelfand-Tsetlin modules, etc.)
3. Theoretical research:
   • Homological algebra of Lie superalgebras
   • Structure of super category $\mathcal{O}$
   • Representation theory of quantum groups (via degeneration correspondence)

Key References

1 Y. Cai, K. Zhao, Module structure on U(H) for basic Lie superalgebras, Toyama Math. J. 37 (2015), 55–72.

• Foundational work proving emptiness of rank 1 category

12 J. Nilsson, Simple sl(n+1)–module structures on U(h), J. Algebra 424 (2015), 294–329.

• First systematic study of ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules

3 W. Crawley-Boevey, Classification of modules for infinite-dimensional string algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370 (2018), 3289-3313

• String algebra representation theory, related to Lemma 3.4 of this paper

7 D. Grantcharov, K. Nguyen, Exponentiation and Fourier transform of tensor modules of sl(n+1), J. Pure Appl. Algebra 226 (2022).

• Constructs finite-rank ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free module families over $\mathfrak{sl}(n+1)$

Overall Assessment: This is a solid representation theory paper providing deep and complete classification of rank 2 ${U}(\mathfrak{h})$-free modules over $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$. Technically rigorous with clear results, it establishes foundations for further research in this area. While computations are tedious and lack geometric intuition, as foundational classification work, its value is undeniable. Subsequent research should focus on higher ranks and connections with other mathematical structures (category theory, geometric representation theory).