format: text

text:
# Type A 𝒩-fold Supersymmetry and Generalized Bender–Dunne Polynomials

## I Introduction

The concept of symmetry has played a central role in modern theoretical physics. A discovery of a new symmetry enlarges our ability and possibility to describe new phenomena both in the physical nature and in mathematical models. Conversely, it may be almost certain that there is an underlying symmetry if a system under consideration exhibits a significant property that is not shared in the generic cases. Actually, $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry was discovered from the observation of the disappearance of the leading divergence of the perturbation series for the specific energy levels of a quantum mechanical model at the particular values of a parameter involved in the model AKOSW2 . This symmetry is a generalization of the ordinary supersymmetry in one-dimensional quantum mechanics Witte1 ; Witte2  and is characterized by $`𝒩`$th order derivative supercharges. Similar generalizations were found and investigated in various different contexts AnIoSp1 ; AnIoCaDe1 ; AnIoNi1 ; AnIoNi2 ; BaSa1 ; Samso1 ; BaSa2 ; Samso2 ; Ferna1 ; Ortiz1 ; BaGaBhMi1 ; FeHu1 ; FeNeNi1 ; Plyus1 ; KlPl1 . A generalization to $`𝒩`$th order derivative supercharges for all $`𝒩`$ is, however, difficult and most of the investigations by the other authors were limited to the cases of the second-order generalization and to the cases constructed by the factorization method. Recently, we found another $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model ASTY  and further found general forms of an $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric family which we have called type A AST1 . On the other hand, several quasi-solvable models TuUs1 ; Ushve  were found to have $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry in Refs. KlPl2 ; KlPl3 ; DoDuTa1 ; DoDuTa2  in addition to those reported in Refs. AKOSW2 ; ASTY . Then, it was proved in generic way AST2  that $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry is essentially equivalent to quasi-solvability. Furthermore, it was also proved ANST1  that the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models are essentially equivalent to the quasi-solvable models constructed by $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ generators Turbi1 . Dynamical properties of the $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models were discussed in Ref. AST2  and investigated for a couple of models in Ref. ST1 . The nonperturbative analyses carried out in Ref. ST1  together with those in Ref. AKOSW2  revealed several significant properties that the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models share. Especially, we clarified the important role of the normalizability of the solvable sector, which is crucial for the dynamical $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry breaking but has rarely discussed by the other authors. Furthermore, it was argued that $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry is not only sufficient but may also be necessary for the existence of convergent perturbation series. Up to now, most of the quasi-solvable one-dimensional quantum mechanical systems belong to the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models. Several new findings have been reported in connection with them. One of the examples is the new orthogonal polynomials firstly found by Bender and Dunne BeDu1 . The idea was soon generalized to all the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-exactly solvable models KrUsWa1 ; FiLoRo1 . Furthermore, several realistic physical systems have been found, which can be reduced to one-dimensional quasi-solvable models KlPl3 ; SaGh1 ; Taut1 ; Taut2 ; Turbi3 ; Taut3 ; ViPi1 ; Taut4 ; HoKh1 ; ChHo1 ; ChHo2 .

In this article, we will report the general aspects of type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry, most of which remain unsolved yet. In Ref. ANST1 , it was discussed that, in view of the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ construction of type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry, the condition for type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry derived in Ref. AST1  provides only a sufficient but not necessary conditions. On the other hand, only one of the pair of the type A Hamiltonians was investigated in Ref. ANST1  and relations between the pair in view of the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ structure have not been known. In other words, the equivalence between the analytic construction in Ref. AST1  and the algebraic one in Ref. ANST1  has not been established. Another problem to be solved is the classification problem. In Ref. ANST2 , we attempted to classify the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models by considering the invariance under the linear transformations but found to be incomplete. Later we found that the complete classification of the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models was already achieved in Ref. LoKaOl3 ; LoKaOl4  by the consideration of more extensive $`GL(2,)`$ transformations. Therefore, we have recognized that the complete classification of the type A models should be done by investigating the invariance of both the Hamiltonians and $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge under the $`GL(2,)`$ transformations. Lastly, the structure of the anti-commutator of the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges, which we have called mother Hamiltonian, has not been investigated yet at all and thus we have not established the complete type A $`𝒩`$-fold superalgebra. We will give the complete answers to the above problems in this article.

The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we give a brief review on the definition and the general properties of $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry needed in this article. In Section III, we define type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry and give two different approaches, namely, analytic and algebraic approaches to construct the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models. The classification problem is discussed in Section IV. By considering the invariance property of both the Hamiltonians and $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge, we obtain the complete answer to the problem. In Section V, we investigate 2-fold supersymmetry with an emphasis on the uniqueness of supercharges and the polynomiality of the 2-fold superalgebras. A novel feature of weak quasi-solvability defined in Section II is discussed. In Section VI, we first show the polynomiality of the type A $`𝒩`$-fold superalgebras. Then, by a suitable generalization of the original idea of the Bender–Dunne polynomials to all the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models, we show that the anti-commutators of the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges are expressed as the critical polynomials of the generalized Bender–Dunne polynomials. We claim that both the normalizability of the solvable sector and the weak orthogonality of the polynomials do not play essential roles on the generalization. A novel interpretation of the critical polynomials is given in view of polynomial invariants. Interesting future problems are discussed in the final section. In Appendix A, we summarize the results of the invariant theory of polynomial systems needed in this article.

## II $`𝒩`$-fold Supersymmetry

### II.1 Definition

We start with defining $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry in one dimensional quantum mechanics. Let us introduce a bosonic coordinate $`q`$ and fermionic coordinates $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ satisfying,

$`\{\psi ,\psi \}=\{\psi ^{},\psi ^{}\}=0,\{\psi ,\psi ^{}\}=1.`$ (1)
Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$ is given by,

$`𝐇_𝒩=H_𝒩^{}\psi \psi ^{}+H_𝒩^+\psi ^{}\psi ,`$ (2)
where $`H_𝒩^\pm `$ are ordinary scalar Hamiltonians:

$`H_𝒩^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2+V_𝒩^\pm (q),`$ (3)
with $`p=id/dq`$. $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges $`Q_𝒩`$ and $`Q_𝒩^{}`$ are introduced by,

$`Q_𝒩=P_𝒩^{}\psi ,Q_𝒩^{}=P_𝒩\psi ^{},`$ (4)
where $`P_𝒩`$ is given by a polynomial of $`𝒩`$th degree in $`p`$:

$`P_𝒩=p^𝒩+w_{𝒩1}(q)p^{𝒩1}+\mathrm{}+w_1(q)p+w_0(q),`$ (5)
that is, $`P_𝒩`$ is an $`𝒩`$th-order linear differential operator. Then, the system (2) is defined to be $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric if the following algebra holds:

$$\{Q_𝒩,Q_𝒩\}=\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩^{}\}=0,$$
(6)
$$[Q_𝒩,𝐇_𝒩]=[Q_𝒩^{},𝐇_𝒩]=0.$$
(7)
The former relation is trivial due to Eq. (1) while the latter is equivalent to the following intertwining relations:

$`P_𝒩H_𝒩^{}H_𝒩^+P_𝒩=0,P_𝒩^{}H_𝒩^+H_𝒩^{}P_𝒩^{}=0.`$ (8)
Therefore, the relation (8) gives the condition for the system $`𝐇_𝒩`$ to be $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric. From the definition, it is evident that $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry reduces to the ordinary supersymmetry Witte1 ; Witte2  when $`𝒩=1`$.

### II.2 Quasi-solvability

The $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models defined above have several significant properties similar to those of the ordinary supersymmetric models AST2 . One of the most notable ones is quasi-solvability TuUs1 ; Ushve . A linear differential operator $`H`$ of a single variable $`q`$ is said to be quasi-solvable if it preserves a finite dimensional functional space $`𝒱_𝒩`$ whose basis admits an explicit analytic form:

$`H𝒱_𝒩`$ $`𝒱_𝒩,`$ $`dim𝒱_𝒩`$ $`=n(𝒩)<\mathrm{},`$ $`𝒱_𝒩`$ $`=\text{span}\{\varphi _1(q),\mathrm{},\varphi _{n(𝒩)}(q)\}.`$ (9)
An immediate consequence of the above definition of quasi-solvability is that, since we can calculate finite dimensional matrix elements $`𝐒_{k,l}`$ defined by,

$`H\varphi _k={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n(𝒩)}{}}}𝐒_{k,l}\varphi _l\left(k=1,\mathrm{},n(𝒩)\right),`$ (10)
we can diagonalize the operator $`H`$ and obtain the spectra of it in the space $`𝒱_𝒩`$, at least, algebraically. Furthermore, if the space $`𝒱_𝒩`$ is a subspace of a Hilbert space $`L^2(S)`$ ($`S`$) on which the operator $`H`$ is naturally defined, the solvable spectra and the corresponding vectors of $`𝒱_𝒩`$ give the exact eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`H`$, respectively. In this case, the operator $`H`$ is said to be quasi-exactly solvable. The role of the normalizability of the solvable sector is investigated in view of dynamical properties in Ref. AKOSW2 ; ST1 . To construct a quasi-solvable model, it is convenient to introduce an $`𝒩`$th-order linear differential operator $`P`$ and define the vector space $`𝒱_𝒩`$ as,

$`𝒱_𝒩=\mathrm{ker}P.`$ (11)
Now, it is easy to see that an operator $`H`$ is quasi-solvable with the solvable sector (11) if the following quasi-solvability condition holds AST1 :

$`PH𝒱_𝒩=0.`$ (12)
This formulation enables us to clarify the relation between quasi-solvability and $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry. Indeed, it can be easily shown that all the quasi-solvable models satisfying Eq. (12) are $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric if we set $`P_𝒩=P`$, $`H_𝒩^{}=H`$ and $`H_𝒩^+=H+iw_{𝒩1}^{}`$, where $`w_{𝒩1}`$ is defined in Eq. (5). The converse is also true. From the intertwining relations (8), we find that all the $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric systems are quasi-solvable: the quasi-solvability condition (12) holds for $`H=H_𝒩^{}(H_𝒩^+)`$ and $`P=P_𝒩(P_𝒩^{})`$, respectively. Therefore, if we define,

$`𝒱_𝒩^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{ker}P_𝒩=\text{span}\{\varphi _n^{}:n=1,\mathrm{},𝒩\},`$ (13a)
$`𝒱_𝒩^+`$ $`=\mathrm{ker}P_𝒩^{}=\text{span}\{\varphi _n^+:n=1,\mathrm{},𝒩\},`$ (13b)
we have $`H_𝒩^\pm 𝒱_𝒩^\pm 𝒱_𝒩^\pm `$ and the following Schrödinger equations on the subspaces $`𝒱_𝒩^\pm `$:

$`H_𝒩^\pm \varphi _k^\pm ={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}𝐒_{k,l}^\pm \varphi _l^\pm =E_k^\pm \varphi _k^\pm (k=1,\mathrm{},𝒩).`$ (14)
The spectra $`E^\pm `$ are determined from the characteristic equations for the matrices $`𝐒^\pm `$:

$`det𝐌_𝒩^\pm (E^\pm )=0,𝐌_𝒩^\pm (\lambda )=2(\lambda 𝐈𝐒^\pm ).`$ (15)
We should note that, for a given operator $`P`$, we cannot always obtain analytic solutions of Eq. (11). Therefore, quasi-solvability formulated from Eqs. (11) and (12) is less restrictive than the one defined by Eq. (9). In the situation where this difference is crucial, we may be better to call the less restrictive case weakly quasi-solvable. With this terminology, we say more correctly that $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry is equivalent to weak quasi-solvability. In Section V, we will discuss weak quasi-solvability again.

### II.3 Mother Hamiltonian

In the ordinary supersymmetry, the anti-commutator of the supercharges corresponds to the Hamiltonian. However, it is not the case in $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry. This is because $`\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩\}`$ is now a $`2𝒩`$th-order differential operator. The half of the anti-commutator is called mother Hamiltonian and is denoted by $`_𝒩`$:

$`_𝒩={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩\}.`$ (16)
An immediate consequence of the above definition is that the mother Hamiltonian always commutes with the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges, that is, it is $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric:

$`[Q_𝒩,_𝒩]=[Q_𝒩^{},_𝒩]=0.`$ (17)
Furthermore, if the original Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$ is $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric, the mother Hamiltonian also commutes with $`𝐇_𝒩`$ due to the relation (7):

$`[_𝒩,𝐇_𝒩]=0.`$ (18)
From the above relations, it is expected that the mother Hamiltonian $`_𝒩`$ has an intimate relation with the original Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$. Indeed, it was shown AST2  that, if the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges $`Q_𝒩`$ and $`Q_𝒩^{}`$ are uniquely determined and $`H_𝒩^{}H_𝒩^+`$, $`_𝒩`$ is expressed as the characteristic polynomial of $`𝒩`$-th degree for $`𝐒^\pm `$ appeared in Eq. (15) with the argument replaced by $`𝐇_𝒩`$:

$`_𝒩={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}det𝐌_𝒩^+(𝐇_𝒩)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}det𝐌_𝒩^{}(𝐇_𝒩).`$ (19)
## III Type A $`𝒩`$-fold Supersymmetric Models

In contrast to the ordinary supersymmetric quantum mechanics, the construction of an $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model is a non-trivial problem. In the case of ordinary supersymmetry, the mother Hamiltonian (16) defined by the anti-commutator of the supercharges is a desirable Schrödinger operator of the form (2) and thus can be identified as a supersymmetric Hamiltonian due to the relation (17). In the case of 2-fold supersymmetry, the condition (8) can be completely solved and thus the most general form of the 2-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonian and the 2-fold supercharge have been known AnIoCaDe1 ; AnIoNi1 ; AST2 . However, we can hardly solve the condition (8) for $`𝒩3`$ in general. Nevertheless, we have found a special case where the condition (8) can be solved for arbitrary $`𝒩`$. We have called this case type A AST1 . The type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge is defined as the following special form of $`𝒩`$th-order linear differential operator:

$`P_𝒩`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=(𝒩1)/2}{\overset{(𝒩1)/2}{}}}\left(piW(q)+ikE(q)\right)`$
$`=\left(piW(q)+i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}E(q)\right)\left(piW(q)+i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩3}{2}}E(q)\right)\times \mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}\times \left(piW(q)i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩3}{2}}E(q)\right)\left(piW(q)i{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}E(q)\right).`$ (20)
In the above definition, we note that $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ correspond to $`\stackrel{~}{E}(q)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}(q)`$, respectively, in the previous articles AST1 ; AST2 ; ANST1 ; ANST2 . We will use tildes for another particular purpose (see Eqs. (22) and below) and thus we do not follow the old notation anymore. A system (2) is said to be type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric if the condition (8) is fulfilled with this type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge. There are two ways to construct a type A model, namely, analytic and algebraic constructions. The former is to solve the intertwining relation (8) directly while the latter is to solve the quasi-solvability condition (12). In the following sections, we will first show the analytic construction and next the algebraic one.

### III.1 Analytic Construction

The condition for type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry was firstly investigated with the aid of induction in Ref. AST1 . Later, it was reexamined in the context of the algebraic construction ANST1 . Then, it has turned out that the set of the conditions derived in Ref. AST1  only gives a sufficient one. The origin of the defect was explained in Ref. ANST1 . In the following, we will give an improved direct proof of the necessary and sufficient condition for type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry.

The necessary and sufficient condition for the system (2) to be $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry with respect to the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge (20) is the following:

$$V_𝒩^\pm (q)=\frac{1}{2}W(q)^2+\frac{1}{2}v_𝒩^\pm (q),v_𝒩^\pm (q)=\frac{𝒩^21}{12}\left(E(q)^22E^{}(q)\right)\pm 𝒩W^{}(q)2R,$$
(21a)
$$\left(\frac{d}{dq}E(q)\right)\frac{d}{dq}\left(\frac{d}{dq}+E(q)\right)W(q)=0\text{for}𝒩2,$$
(21b)
$$\left(\frac{d}{dq}2E(q)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dq}E(q)\right)\frac{d}{dq}\left(\frac{d}{dq}+E(q)\right)E(q)=0\text{for}𝒩3,$$
(21c)
where $`R`$ is an arbitrary constant.

###### Proof.

The proposition will be proved by induction. At first, we make gauge transformations on $`P_𝒩`$ and $`H_𝒩^\pm `$ to facilitate the calculations, as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩=i^𝒩(G_𝒩U)P_𝒩(G_𝒩U)^1=\underset{k=0}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}(kE),$$
(22a)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^\pm =(G_𝒩U)H_𝒩^\pm (G_𝒩U)^1,$$
(22b)
where $`G_𝒩`$ and $`U`$ are defined by,

$`G_𝒩=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑qE(q)}\right),U=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑qW(q)}\right).`$ (23)
In the above and hereafter, we attach tildes to operators, vectors and vector spaces to indicate that they are quantities gauge-transformed with the gauge factor $`G_𝒩U`$. We set,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_𝒩=2(\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^+\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩).`$ (24)
We assume that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_𝒩=0`$ for a natural number $`𝒩`$ if the set of the conditions (21) holds for this $`𝒩`$. Then, we will prove that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}=0`$ if and only if the set of the conditions (21) holds for $`𝒩`$ replaced by $`𝒩+1`$. From the following relation:

$`2(G_{𝒩+1}U)H_𝒩^\pm (G_{𝒩+1}U)^1=2\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^\pm +E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒩1}{4}}E^2EW,`$ (25)
we obtain,

$`2\stackrel{~}{H}_{𝒩+1}^\pm `$ $`=(G_{𝒩+1}U)(2H_𝒩^\pm v_𝒩^\pm +v_{𝒩+1}^\pm )(G_{𝒩+1}U)^1`$
$`=2\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^\pm +E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒩1}{4}}E^2EWv_𝒩^\pm +v_{𝒩+1}^\pm `$
$`=2\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^\pm +E+u_{𝒩+1}^\pm u_𝒩^\pm ,`$ (26)
where $`u_𝒩^\pm `$ are defined by,

$`u_𝒩^\pm =v_𝒩^\pm +W^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒩1)^2}{4}}E^2(𝒩1)EW.`$ (27)
In the above, we note that $`v_𝒩^\pm `$ are given by Eq. (21a) from the inductive assumption while $`v_{𝒩+1}^\pm `$ are unknown functions to be determined. From Eq. (26), we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}\left(2\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}+E+u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}\right)\left(2\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^++E+u_{𝒩+1}^+u_𝒩^+\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}`$
$`=\left(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}u_{𝒩+1}^++u_𝒩^+\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}2[\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^+,𝒩E]\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}EE\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}+[\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1},u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}].`$ (28)
The last four terms in the r.h.s. of Eq. (28) are calculated as follows:

$`2[\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^+,𝒩E]`$ $`=\left((𝒩+1)E^{}2W^{}\right)(𝒩E)`$
$`\left(u_𝒩^++2𝒩WE𝒩E^2𝒩E^{}\right)^{},`$ (29a)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}E`$ $`=E\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+2}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{𝒩+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)E_{(1)}\stackrel{~}{P}_n,`$
$`=E\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+2}+(𝒩+1)E_{(1)}\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}n{\displaystyle \underset{k=n+1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)E_{(0,1)}\stackrel{~}{P}_n,`$ (29b)
$`E\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}`$ $`=E\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+2}+(𝒩+1)E^2\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1},`$ (29c)
$`[\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1},u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n+1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{})_{(0)}\stackrel{~}{P}_n,`$ (29d)
In the above and hereafter, we employ the following abbreviations:

$`f_{(k)}=(kE)f,f_{(k,\mathrm{})}=(kE)f_{(\mathrm{})}.`$ (30)
The following formula is useful for the calculations:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=n+l}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)f=f{\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{𝒩l}{}}}(kE)+{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=n}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n^{}+l+1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)f_{(l)}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}=n}{\overset{n^{}1}{}}}(k^{}E).`$ (31)
Substituting Eqs. (29) for Eq. (28), we have,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ $`=\left(2W^{}+u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}u_{𝒩+1}^++u_𝒩^+\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩+1}+\left(u_𝒩^++2𝒩WE𝒩E^2𝒩E^{}\right)^{}\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n+1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)\left[(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{})_{(0)}+nE_{(0,1)}\right]\stackrel{~}{P}_n.`$ (32)
From Eq. (32), we see that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ is at most ($`𝒩+1`$)th-order differential operator. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}=0`$ if and only if all the coefficients of $`^k`$ ($`k=0,1,\mathrm{},𝒩+1`$) vanish. Only the first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (32) contains the $`^{𝒩+1}`$ term. Therefore, one of the conditions for $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}=0`$ reads,

$`2W^{}+u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}u_{𝒩+1}^++u_𝒩^+=0.`$ (33)
Combining Eq. (33) with Eqs. (21a) and (27), we have,

$`v_{𝒩+1}^+v_{𝒩+1}^{}=2(𝒩+1)W^{}.`$ (34)
Applying the formula (31) and the condition (33) to Eq. (32), we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩(𝒩+1)}{2}}E_{(0,1)}+(𝒩+1)(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{})_{(0)}+\left(u_𝒩^++2𝒩WE𝒩E^2𝒩E^{}\right)^{}\right]\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=n}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n^{}+2}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)\left[(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{})_{(1,0)}+nE_{(1,0,1)}\right]\stackrel{~}{P}_n^{}.`$ (35)
Only the first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (35) contains the $`^𝒩`$ term. Therefore, we obtain another condition for $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}=0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩(𝒩+1)}{2}}E_{(0,1)}+(𝒩+1)(u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{})_{(0)}+\left(u_𝒩^++2𝒩WE𝒩E^2𝒩E^{}\right)^{}=0.`$ (36)
Combining the assumption (21a) with Eqs. (34) and (36), we finally have,

$`v_{𝒩+1}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{(𝒩+1)^21}{12}}\left(E^22E^{}\right)\pm (𝒩+1)W^{}+\text{const.}`$ (37)
The resulting $`v_{𝒩+1}^\pm `$ is nothing but the assumed form (21a) with $`𝒩`$ replaced by $`𝒩+1`$. Therefore, the first condition (21a) has been proved inductively. Under the above conditions satisfied, we have from Eqs. (27) and (37),

$`u_{𝒩+1}^{}u_𝒩^{}`$ $`=v_{𝒩+1}^{}v_𝒩^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒩1}{4}}E^2EW`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{3}}E_{(1)}W_{(1)}.`$ (38)
Substituting the above for Eq. (35), we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=n}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n^{}+2}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)\left[W_{(1,0,1)}{\displaystyle \frac{3n𝒩+1}{3}}E_{(1,0,1)}\right]\stackrel{~}{P}_n^{}.`$ (39)
The above expression for $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ is further arranged with the aid of the formula (31) as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=n}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}}\left(W_{(1,0,1)}{\displaystyle \frac{3n𝒩+1}{3}}E_{(1,0,1)}\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=n}{\overset{𝒩1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{\prime \prime }=n^{}}{\overset{𝒩2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=n^{\prime \prime }+3}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)\left(W_{(2,1,0,1)}{\displaystyle \frac{3n𝒩+1}{3}}E_{(2,1,0,1)}\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{n^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩(𝒩+1)}{2}}W_{(1,0,1)}\stackrel{~}{P}_{𝒩1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩2}{}}}(n+1)(n+2){\displaystyle \underset{k=n+3}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)\left(W_{(2,1,0,1)}{\displaystyle \frac{n𝒩+1}{3}}E_{(2,1,0,1)}\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_n.`$ (40)
When $`𝒩=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_2=W_{(1,0,1)}`$ and thus we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_2=0W_{(1,0,1)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}E\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}+E\right)W=0,`$ (41)
i.e., the condition (21b) in addition to Eq. (21a). When $`𝒩2`$, the condition (21b) has been already assumed and thus,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩2}{}}}(n+1)(n+2){\displaystyle \underset{k=n+3}{\overset{𝒩}{}}}(kE)E_{(2,1,0,1)}\stackrel{~}{P}_n.`$ (42)
When $`𝒩=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_3=E_{(2,1,0,1)}/3`$ and thus we obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_3=0E_{(2,1,0,1)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}2E\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}E\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}+E\right)E=0,`$ (43)
i.e., the condition (21c) in addition to Eqs. (21a) and (21b). When $`𝒩3`$, the condition (21c) has been already assumed too and thus,

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{𝒩+1}=0.`$ (44)
Therefore, no additional condition is required any more. ∎

From the set of the conditions (21), we find a procedure to construct a type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model as follows:

1. Find out a particular solution $`E(q)`$ of the nonlinear differential equation (21c).
2. Substitute the above $`E(q)`$ for the general solution of the linear differential equation (21b) given by,

$`W(q)`$ $`=C_1e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q\left(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}𝑑qe^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}\right)}`$
$`+C_2e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑qe^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}}+C_3e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑qE(q)}}(C_i=\text{arbitrary constants}),`$ (45)
to obtain $`W(q)`$.
3. Substitute the above $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ for Eq. (21a) to obtain the pair of potentials $`V_𝒩^\pm (q)`$.

### III.2 $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ Construction

As previously noted, $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry is essentially equivalent to quasi-solvability. Recently, some special quasi-solvable models which can be constructed from the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ generators Turbi1  were found to be type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric AKOSW2 ; ASTY ; AST1 ; KlPl2 ; KlPl3 ; DoDuTa1 ; DoDuTa2 . Then, it was shown in Ref. ANST1  that the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model is essentially equivalent to the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable model. In this section, we will review the equivalence and then clarify the relation between the pair of the Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^\pm `$ in the framework of the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models, which has not been discussed yet in the previous articles. Let us first construct $`H_𝒩^{}`$ so that it is quasi-solvable with respect to the type A operator (20). The quasi-solvability condition (12) in this case is,

$`P_𝒩H_𝒩^{}𝒱_𝒩^{}=0,`$ (46)
where $`𝒱_𝒩^{}`$ is given by Eq. (13a). On the gauge-transformed space, the condition (46) is equivalent to,

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_𝒩^{}=0,`$ (47)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ are given by Eqs. (22) and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_𝒩^{}`$ is defined by,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_𝒩^{}=\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩=\text{span}\{G_𝒩U\varphi :\varphi \mathrm{ker}P_𝒩\}.`$ (48)
Introducing a function $`h(q)`$ defined as a solution of the following differential equation:

$`h^{\prime \prime }(q)E(q)h^{}(q)=0,`$ (49)
we find that $`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$ is expressed in terms of $`h`$ as,

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩=\left(h^{}\right)^𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{dh^𝒩}}.`$ (50)
Thus, we easily have,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_𝒩^{}=\text{span}\{1,h(q),\mathrm{},h(q)^{𝒩1}\}.`$ (51)
From Eqs. (47) and (51), the quasi-solvability condition for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ reads,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{dh^𝒩}}\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}h^{k1}=0\text{for}k=1,\mathrm{},𝒩.`$ (52)
Any constant is a trivial solution of (52). For $`𝒩=1`$, any first-order differential operator of the following form,

$`f_1(h){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}},`$ (53)
is a solution, while for $`𝒩2`$ there are three independent first-order differential operators as solutions of (52):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}`$ $`=J^{},`$ $`h{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}`$ $`=J^0+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}},`$ $`h^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}(𝒩1)h`$ $`=J^+.`$ (54)
The $`J^{+,0,}`$ defined above satisfy the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ algebra:

$`[J^+,J^{}]=2J^0,[J^\pm ,J^0]=J^\pm .`$ (55)
In the same way, we find that for $`𝒩=1,2`$, any second-order differential operator of the following form,

$`f_2(h){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dh^2}},`$ (56)
is a solution, while for $`𝒩3`$ there are five independent second-order differential operators as solutions of (52):

$$\frac{d^2}{dh^2}=\left(J^{}\right)^2,h\frac{d^2}{dh^2}=J^0J^{}+\frac{𝒩1}{2}J^{},$$

$$h^2\frac{d^2}{dh^2}=\left(J^0\right)^2+(𝒩2)J^0+\frac{(𝒩1)(𝒩3)}{4},$$

$$h^3\frac{d^2}{dh^2}(𝒩1)(𝒩2)h=J^+J^0+\frac{3𝒩5}{2}J^+,$$

$$h^4\frac{d^2}{dh^2}2(𝒩2)h^3\frac{d}{dh}+(𝒩1)(𝒩2)h^2=\left(J^+\right)^2.$$

Therefore, the general solution of (52) for $`𝒩3`$ can be expressed as,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j=+,0,\\ ij\end{array}}{}}a_{ij}^{()}J^iJ^j+{\displaystyle \underset{i=+,0,}{}}b_i^{()}J^iC^{()},`$ (57)
where $`a_{ij}^{()}`$, $`b_i^{()}`$ and $`C^{()}`$ are constants. This gauged Hamiltonian is nothing but the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable model Turbi1 . We can set $`a_+^{()}=0`$ without any loss of generality due to the relation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J^+J^{}+J^{}J^+)(J^0)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(𝒩^21).`$ (58)
For convenience, we introduce new parameters as follows:

$$a_4=a_{++}^{()},a_3=a_{+0}^{()},a_2=a_{00}^{()},a_1=a_0^{()},a_0=a_{}^{()},$$
(59a)
$$b_2=b_+^{()}\frac{a_{+0}^{()}}{2},b_1=b_0^{()},b_0=b_{}^{()}\frac{a_0^{()}}{2}.$$
(59b)
Then, the gauged Hamiltonian (57) is expressed in terms of $`h`$ as,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ $`=P(h){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dh^2}}\left[Q(h){\displaystyle \frac{𝒩2}{2}}P^{}(h)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}`$
$`\left[R{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}Q^{}(h)+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒩1)(𝒩2)}{12}}P^{\prime \prime }(h)\right],`$ (60)
where $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$ are given by,

$`P(h)`$ $`=a_4h^4+a_3h^3+a_2h^2+a_1h+a_0,`$ (61)
$`Q(h)`$ $`=b_2h^2+b_1h+b_0,`$ (62)
while $`R=C^{()}+(𝒩^21)a_2/12`$ is a constant. If the Hamiltonian (60) is gauge-transformed back to the original Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^{}`$ with the gauge factor $`G_𝒩U`$, it is in general not of the canonical form of the Schrödinger operator like Eq. (3). We can find that the original Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^{}`$ becomes of the canonical form if and only if the following conditions hold:

$`P(h)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(h^{}(q)\right)^2,`$ (63a)
$`Q(h)`$ $`=W(q)h^{}(q).`$ (63b)
Under the above conditions satisfied, we have,

$`H_𝒩^{}=(G_𝒩U)^1\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}(G_𝒩U)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dq^2}}+V_𝒩^{}(q),`$ (64)
where the potential $`V_𝒩^{}`$ is given by,

$`V_𝒩^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12P}}\left[(𝒩^21)\left(PP^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(P^{})^2\right)+3𝒩(P^{}Q2PQ^{})3Q^2\right]R.`$ (65)
Substituting Eqs. (49) and (63) for Eq. (65), we can check that the above expression (65) for $`V_𝒩^{}`$ is identical with the one in Eq. (21a).

When $`𝒩=2`$, any second-order operator (56) can be added to the gauged Hamiltonian (57) and thus all the $`a_{ij}`$ in Eq. (57) can be arbitrary functions of $`h`$. As a consequence, $`P(h)`$ in Eq. (60) can be an arbitrary function of $`h`$.

When $`𝒩=1`$, any first-order operator (53) in addition to any second-order one (56) can be added to the gauged Hamiltonian (57) and thus all the $`b_i`$ in addition to all the $`a_{ij}`$ in Eq. (57) can be arbitrary functions of $`h`$. As a consequence, both $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$ in Eq. (60) can be arbitrary functions of $`h`$.

Combining the above considerations for $`𝒩=1,2`$ with the results (61) and (62) for $`𝒩3`$, we obtain the following conditions for $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{dh^3}}Q(h)`$ $`=0\text{for}𝒩2,`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^5}{dh^5}}P(h)`$ $`=0\text{for}𝒩3.`$ (67)
If we rewrite the above conditions in terms of $`q`$ with the aid of Eqs. (49) and (63), we find that the condition (66) is equivalent to Eq. (21b) while the condition (67) is equivalent to Eq. (21c). Therefore, the complete correspondence between type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models and the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models has been established except for the other Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^+`$, which will be discussed in the next.

The partner Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^+`$ should be constructed such that it is quasi-solvable with respect to $`P_𝒩^{}`$. It is easy to see that the operator $`P_𝒩^{}`$ can be converted into the form identical with $`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩`$ by a gauge transformation with another gauge factor $`G_𝒩U^1`$:

$`\overline{P}_𝒩^{}=i^𝒩\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)P_𝒩^{}\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)^1=\left(h^{}\right)^𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{dh^𝒩}}.`$ (68)
where $`h`$ is the same function of $`q`$ as defined previously by Eq. (49). In the above and hereafter, we attach bars to operators, vectors and vector spaces to indicate that they are quantities gauge-transformed with the gauge factor $`G_𝒩U^1`$. Therefore, the quasi-solvability condition for the gauged Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ is completely the same as that for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$, Eq. (52). This means that $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ is another quasi-solvable model constructed from the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ generators (54) and thus has the same form as Eqs. (57) and (60):

$`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j=+,0,\\ ij\end{array}}{}}a_{ij}^{(+)}J^iJ^j+{\displaystyle \underset{i=+,0,}{}}b_i^{(+)}J^iC^{(+)}`$ (69a)
$`=P^+(h){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dh^2}}\left[Q^+(h){\displaystyle \frac{𝒩2}{2}}P^+^{}(h)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}`$
$`\left[R^+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}Q^+^{}(h)+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒩1)(𝒩2)}{12}}P^{+^{\prime \prime }}(h)\right],`$ (69b)
where $`a_{ij}^{(+)}`$, $`b_i^{(+)}`$, $`C^{(+)}`$ and $`R^+`$ are constants, and $`P^+(h)`$ and $`Q^+(h)`$ is a polynomial of fourth- and second-degree, respectively. Up to now, there is no relation between $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ and $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$. If we demand that $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ be gauge-transformed, with the gauge factor $`G_𝒩U^1`$, back to an operator of the Schrödinger form, we have,

$`P^+(h)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(h^{}(q)\right)^2,Q^+(h)=W(q)h^{}(q).`$ (70)
Combining the above with Eq. (63), we yield the following relations:

$`P^+(h)=P(h),Q^+(h)=Q(h).`$ (71)
Then, the partner Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^+`$ becomes,

$`H_𝒩^+=\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)^1\overline{H}_𝒩^+\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dq^2}}+V_𝒩^+(q),`$ (72)
with,

$`V_𝒩^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12P}}\left[(𝒩^21)\left(PP^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(P^{})^2\right)3𝒩(P^{}Q2PQ^{})3Q^2\right]R^+.`$ (73)
To establish the relation between $`R`$ and $`R^+`$, we should recall the formula AST2 : $`H_𝒩^+H_𝒩^{}=iw_{𝒩1}^{}`$, where $`w_{𝒩1}`$ is defined in Eq. (5). For the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge (20), we have $`w_{𝒩1}=i𝒩W`$. From Eqs. (63b), (65) and (73) we finally obtain,

$`R^+=R.`$ (74)
We can easily see that the potential (73) with Eq. (74) is identical with $`V_𝒩^+`$ in Eq. (21a). Thus, the models constructed in this section are completely identical with the ones by the analytic construction in the preceding section.

Before closing the section, we will refer to an interesting relation between the algebraic Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ and $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$. From Eqs. (71) and (74), the relation between the parameters in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ and the ones in $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ reads,

$$a_{ij}^{(+)}=a_{ij}^{()}(i,j=+,0,),C^{(+)}=C^{()},$$
(75a)
$$b_+^{(+)}+b_+^{()}+a_{+0}^{()}=0,b_0^{(+)}+b_0^{()}=0,b_{}^{(+)}+b_{}^{()}+a_0^{()}=0.$$
(75b)
Substituting the above for Eq. (69a), we can rewrite $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ in terms of $`a_{ij}^{()}`$ and $`b_i^{()}`$:

$`\overline{H}_𝒩^+={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j=+,0,\\ ij\end{array}}{}}a_{ij}^{()}J^jJ^i{\displaystyle \underset{i=+,0,}{}}b_i^{()}J^iC^{()}.`$ (76)
Comparing this expression with Eq. (57), we see that $`\overline{H}_𝒩^+`$ is obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}`$ by interchanging the order of the quadratic terms and by interchanging the sign of the coefficients of the linear terms.

## IV Classification of Type A Models

It was shown that the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models can be classified using the shape invariance of the Hamiltonian under the action of $`GL(2,K)`$ ($`K=`$ or $``$) of linear fractional transformations LoKaOl3 ; LoKaOl4 . The equivalence established in the previous section ensures that the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonians can be fit into the same classification scheme. Then, a natural question arises whether the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges can be also classified in the same scheme or not. This question was left as an open problem in the previous paper ANST2  and will be completely answered in this section.

### IV.1 $`GL(2,K)`$ Shape Invariance

The linear fractional transformation of $`h`$ is introduced by,

$`h\widehat{h}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha h+\beta }{\gamma h+\delta }}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta K;\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha \delta \beta \gamma 0).`$ (77)
Then, it turns out that the gauged Hamiltonian (60) is shape invariant under the following transformation induced by Eq. (77):

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}(h)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{H}}{}_{𝒩}{}^{}(h)=(\gamma h+\delta )^{𝒩1}\stackrel{~}{H}_𝒩^{}(\widehat{h})(\gamma h+\delta )^{(𝒩1)},`$ (78)
where $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$ in Eq. (60) are transformed according to,

$`P(h)`$ $`\widehat{P}(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\gamma h+\delta )^4P(\widehat{h}),`$ (79a)
$`Q(h)`$ $`\widehat{Q}(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\gamma h+\delta )^2Q(\widehat{h}).`$ (79b)
### IV.2 Invariance of the Hamiltonian

In the next, we will examine the transformation of the original Hamiltonian $`H_𝒩^\pm `$. Since the function $`h(q)`$ is determined by Eq. (63a), we have,

$`|q|={\displaystyle \frac{dh}{\sqrt{2P(h)}}}|q|={\displaystyle \frac{dh}{\sqrt{2\widehat{P}(h)}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑h\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(\gamma h+\delta )^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2P(\widehat{h})}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{h}}{\sqrt{2P(\widehat{h})}}}.`$ (80)
Therefore, $`h(q)`$ before the transformation is identical with $`\widehat{h}(q)`$ as a function of $`q`$. In other words, the relation between $`h`$ before the transformation (denoted by $`h_{old}`$) and $`h`$ after the transformation (denoted by $`h_{new}`$) is, as a function of $`q`$, consistent with Eq. (77):

$`h_{old}(q)=\widehat{h}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha h_{new}(q)+\beta }{\gamma h_{new}(q)+\delta }}.`$ (81)
On the other hand, the potentials $`V_𝒩^\pm `$ can be rewritten as LoKaOl3 ,

$`V_𝒩^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24P}}\left[2(𝒩^21)H[P]3𝒩(P,Q)^{(1)}6Q^2\right]R,`$ (82)
where $`H[P]`$ is the Hessian of $`P`$ and $`(P,Q)^{(1)}`$ are the first transvectant of $`P`$ and $`Q`$, given by (see also Appendix A),

$`H(P)=PP^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(P^{}\right)^2,(P,Q)^{(1)}=2P^{}Q4PQ^{}.`$ (83)
All the objects $`O(h)`$ in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (82), namely, $`H[P]`$, $`(P,Q)^{(1)}`$, $`Q^2`$ and $`P`$ transform according to,

$`O(h_{old})\widehat{O}(h_{new})=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\gamma h_{new}+\delta )^4O(\widehat{h}),`$ (84)
that is, they belong to the multiplier representation $`\rho _{4,2}`$ of $`GL(2,K)`$ defined in Eq. (156). As a consequence, the functional form of $`V_𝒩^\pm `$ are preserved under the transformation:

$`V_𝒩^\pm (h_{old})\widehat{V}_𝒩^\pm (h_{new})=V_𝒩^\pm (\widehat{h}).`$ (85)
Finally, since the functional form of $`h_{old}(q)`$ and $`\widehat{h}(q)`$ is identical with each other, Eq. (81), the potential $`V_𝒩^\pm `$ is invariant as functions of $`q`$:

$`V_𝒩^\pm \left(h_{old}(q)\right)\widehat{V}_𝒩^\pm \left(h_{new}(q)\right)=V_𝒩^\pm \left(\widehat{h}(q)\right)=V_𝒩^\pm (h_{old}(q)).`$ (86)
Therefore, the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonians $`H_𝒩^\pm `$ are invariant under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation.

### IV.3 Invariance of the Supercharge

In the next, we will examine the transformation of the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge $`P_𝒩`$. The gauged $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge (50) is transformed according to,

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩=(h_{old}^{})^𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{dh_{old}^𝒩}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{P}}_𝒩=(\gamma h_{new}+\delta )^{𝒩1}(\widehat{h}^{})^𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{d\widehat{h}^𝒩}}(\gamma h_{new}+\delta )^{(𝒩1)}.`$ (87)
On the other hand, the gauge factors $`G_𝒩U^{\pm 1}`$ are transformed as,

$`G_𝒩U^{\pm 1}(h_{old})`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑q\left(\frac{𝒩1}{2}E\pm W\right)}\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑h_{old}\frac{(𝒩1)P^{}(h_{old})2Q(h_{old})}{4P(h_{old})}}\right]`$
$`\widehat{G_𝒩U^{\pm 1}}(h_{new})=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑h_{new}\frac{(𝒩1)\widehat{P}^{}(h_{new})2\widehat{Q}(h_{new})}{4\widehat{P}(h_{new})}}\right].`$ (88)
From Eqs. (77) and (79), the r.h.s. of Eq. (88) is calculated as,

$`\widehat{G_𝒩U^{\pm 1}}(h_{new})`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{h}\frac{(𝒩1)P^{}(\widehat{h})2Q(\widehat{h})}{4P(\widehat{h})}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑h_{new}\frac{(𝒩1)\gamma }{\gamma h_{new}+\delta }}\right]`$
$`=(\gamma h_{new}+\delta )^{𝒩1}G_𝒩U^{\pm 1}(\widehat{h}).`$ (89)
The $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge $`P_𝒩`$ is expressed as,

$`P_𝒩`$ $`=(i)^𝒩\left(G_𝒩U(h_{old})\right)^1\stackrel{~}{P}_𝒩\left(G_𝒩U(h_{old})\right)`$
$`=(ih_{old}^{})^𝒩\left(G_𝒩U(h_{old})\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{dh_{old}^𝒩}}\left(G_𝒩U(h_{old})\right).`$ (90)
Combining Eqs. (87)–(89), we obtain,

$`P_𝒩\widehat{P}_𝒩`$ $`=(i)^𝒩\left(\widehat{G_𝒩U}(h_{new})\right)^1\widehat{\stackrel{~}{P}}_𝒩\left(\widehat{G_𝒩U}(h_{new})\right)`$
$`=(i\widehat{h}^{})^𝒩\left(G_𝒩U(\widehat{h})\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{d^𝒩}{d\widehat{h}^𝒩}}\left(G_𝒩U(\widehat{h})\right).`$ (91)
Comparing Eq. (90) with (91), we see that $`\widehat{P}_𝒩`$ is obtained from $`P_𝒩`$ with $`h_{old}(q)`$ replaced by $`\widehat{h}(q)`$. From the fact that $`\widehat{h}(q)`$ is identical with $`h_{old}(q)`$ as a function of $`q`$, Eq. (81), we finally conclude,

$`P_𝒩=\widehat{P}_𝒩,`$ (92)
that is, the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge is also invariant under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation. We note that the manifest invariance of the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge is lost if we express it in terms of $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ as Eq. (20). This is because $`E(q)`$ is not an invariant function under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation, as we will see below. From Eq. (81), we have,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{old}^{\prime \prime }(q)}{h_{old}^{}(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}^{\prime \prime }(q)}{\widehat{h}^{}(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{h_{new}^{\prime \prime }(q)}{h_{new}^{}(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma h_{new}^{}(q)}{\gamma h_{new}(q)+\delta }}.`$ (93)
The function $`h(q)`$ is defined so that Eq. (49) is fulfilled and thus the relation between $`E(q)`$ before and after the transformation reads,

$`E(q)=\widehat{E}(q){\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma h_{new}^{}(q)}{\gamma h_{new}(q)+\delta }}.`$ (94)
On the other hand, $`W(q)`$ is an invariant function:

$`\widehat{W}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Q}\left(h_{new}(q)\right)}{h_{new}^{}(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{Q\left(\widehat{h}(q)\right)}{\widehat{h}^{}(q)}}=W(q).`$ (95)
Therefore, the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge of the form (20) is expressed as,

$`P_𝒩`$ $`=(i)^𝒩{\displaystyle \underset{k=(𝒩1)/2}{\overset{(𝒩1)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}+W(q)kE(q)\right)`$
$`=(i)^𝒩{\displaystyle \underset{k=(𝒩1)/2}{\overset{(𝒩1)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}+\widehat{W}(q)k\widehat{E}(q)+k{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma h_{new}^{}(q)}{\gamma h_{new}(q)+\delta }}\right).`$ (96)
### IV.4 An example

As an example, we will demonstrate the equivalence between the case $`P(h)=2h`$ and $`P(h)=2h^3`$. In the previous paper ANST2 , we classified them as different cases, namely, case (1) for the former and case (3a) for the latter. However, it is easy to see that the latter is obtained from the former by the following $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation:

$`h_{old}\widehat{h}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_{new}}}.`$ (97)
In this case, the transformation of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ defined by Eqs. (79) reads,

$`P(h_{old})`$ $`=2h_{old},`$ $`Q(h_{old})`$ $`=b_2h_{old}^2+b_1h_{old}+b_0`$
$``$ $`\widehat{P}(h_{new})`$ $`=2h_{new}^3,`$ $`\widehat{Q}(h_{new})`$ $`=b_0h_{new}^2b_1h_{new}b_2.`$ (98)
From Eq. (80), the functions $`h_{old}(q)`$ and $`h_{new}(q)`$ are calculated as,

$`h_{old}(q)=q^2,h_{new}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}},`$ (99)
which is consistent with Eq. (97). The transvectants appeared in Eq. (82) become,

$`H(P)`$ $`=3,`$ $`(P,Q)^{(1)}`$ $`=4\left(3b_2h_{old}^2+b_1h_{old}b_0\right)`$
$``$ $`H(\widehat{P})`$ $`=3h_{new}^4,`$ $`(\widehat{P},\widehat{Q})^{(1)}`$ $`=4\left(b_0h_{new}^4b_1h_{new}^33b_2h_{new}^2\right).`$ (100)
Substituting Eqs. (98) and (100) for Eq. (82), we have the potentials $`V_𝒩^\pm `$ and $`\widehat{V}_𝒩^\pm `$ as functions of $`h`$:

$`V_𝒩^\pm (h_{old})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}h_{old}(b_2h_{old}+b_1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{4}}(b_03𝒩)h_{old}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2\pm 2𝒩b_0+𝒩^21}{8h_{old}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{4}}(b_0𝒩)R,`$ (101a)
$`\widehat{V}_𝒩^\pm (h_{new})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8h_{new}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{h_{new}}}+b_1\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2(b_03𝒩)}{4h_{new}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2\pm 2𝒩b_0+𝒩^21}{8}}h_{new}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{4}}(b_0𝒩)R.`$ (101b)
Finally, we confirm the invariance of the potentials as functions of $`q`$ by substituting Eq. (99) for the above (101):

$`V_𝒩^\pm \left(h_{old}(q)\right)=\widehat{V}_𝒩^\pm \left(h_{new}(q)\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q^2\left(b_2q^2+b_1\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{4}}(b_03𝒩)q^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2\pm 2𝒩b_0+𝒩^21}{8q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{4}}(b_0𝒩)R.`$ (102)
The functions $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ are calculated as,

$`E(q)={\displaystyle \frac{h_{old}^{\prime \prime }(q)}{h_{old}^{}(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}},\widehat{E}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{h_{new}^{\prime \prime }(q)}{h_{new}^{}(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{q}},`$ (103)
$`W(q)=\widehat{W}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(b_2q^3+b_1q+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{q}}\right).`$ (104)
Thus, the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge of the form (20) reads,

$`P_𝒩=\widehat{P}_𝒩=(i)^𝒩{\displaystyle \underset{k=(𝒩1)/2}{\overset{(𝒩1)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{2}}q^3{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2}}q{\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{2q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{q}}\right).`$ (105)
### IV.5 Classification of Models

For a given $`P(h)`$, the function $`h(q)`$ is determined by Eq. (80) and a particular type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model is obtained by substituting this $`h(q)`$ for Eq. (82). Since the potentials $`V_𝒩^\pm (q)`$ and the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge are invariant under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation, the type A models can be classified according to the inequivalent elliptic integral (80) under the transformation. The elliptic integral (80) can be classified according to the distribution of the zeros of $`P(h)`$, e.g., multiplicity of the zeros. This idea was first introduced in Ref. LoKaOl3  to classify the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-solvable models. Under the transformation (79a) of $`GL(2,)`$ or $`GL(2,)`$, every quartic polynomial $`P(h)`$ with real or complex coefficients is equivalent to one of the eight or five forms, respectively, as shown in Table 1.

In Table 1, $`\nu ,g_2,g_3K`$ according to the transformation group $`GL(2,K)`$, and $`\nu 0`$, $`0<k<1`$, $`g_2^327g_3^20`$. In Ref. Tanak1 ; Tanak2 , more general quasi-solvable $`M`$-body systems constructed by $`𝔰𝔩(M+1)`$ generators are classified according to the above scheme and the explicit form of the potential for each the cases is shown. The type A models in this article correspond to the models for $`M=1`$ (with $`b_i\pm b_i`$ for $`H_𝒩^{}`$) in Ref. Tanak1 ; Tanak2 . So, we do not repeat the exhibition of the potentials in this article.

## V 2-fold and 2nd-derivative Polynomial Supersymmetry

All that we have not investigated yet on type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry is the anti-commutator of $`Q_𝒩^{}`$ and $`Q_𝒩`$, namely, the mother Hamiltonian. For this purpose, it is quite instructive to analyze 2-fold supersymmetry. Let us first consider general 2-fold supersymmetry, in which 2-fold supercharge is given by,

$`P_2=p^2+w_1(q)p+w_0(q).`$ (106)
In this case, a pair of Hamiltonians $`H_2^\pm =p^2/2+V_2^\pm (q)`$ satisfies the intertwining relation $`P_2H_2^{}H_2^+P_2=0`$ if and only if,

$`V_2^\pm (q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}w_1(q)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{w_1^{\prime \prime }(q)}{w_1(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{w_1^{}(q)^2}{2w_1(q)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_1}{w_1(q)^2}}\right]\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}w_1^{}(q)C_2,`$ (107a)
$`w_0(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}w_1(q)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{w_1^{\prime \prime }(q)}{w_1(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{w_1^{}(q)^2}{2w_1(q)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_1}{w_1(q)^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}w_1^{}(q).`$ (107b)
where $`C_i`$ are arbitrary constants. From the form of $`V_2^\pm (q)`$, it is indicated that $`w_1^{}(q)=w_1(q)`$, that is, $`w_1(q)`$ is pure imaginary in order that $`V_2^\pm (q)`$ be real. The above result was first reported in Refs. AnIoCaDe1 ; AnIoNi1  and later reexamined in Ref. AST2 . In Refs. AnIoCaDe1 ; AnIoNi1 , the anti-commutator of the 2-fold supercharges was given by the following form:

$`2_2=\{Q_2^{},Q_2\}=4\left(𝐇_2+C_2\right)^2+C_1,`$ (108)
that is, it is a polynomial of degree 2 in $`𝐇_2`$. Later, it was proved in Ref. AST1  that, for all $`𝒩`$, the anti-commutator of $`Q_𝒩^{}`$ and $`Q_𝒩`$ becomes a polynomial of degree $`𝒩`$ in the original Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$ if $`Q_𝒩^{}`$ and $`Q_𝒩`$ satisfying Eq. (7) are uniquely determined for the given $`𝐇_𝒩`$. Furthermore, it was also proved in Ref. AST1  that, for the above 2-fold supersymmetric systems, 2-fold supercharges are unique unless there is a constant $`C_3`$ which satisfies,

$`w_1^{\prime \prime }(q)2iw_1(q)w_1^{}(q)2iV_2^{^{}}(q)=2C_3w_1^{}(q),`$ (109)
or equivalently,

$`w_1^{}(q)i\left(w_1(q)\right)^22iV_2^{}(q)=2C_3w_1(q),`$ (110)
where the integral constant is omitted since it can be absorbed in $`V_2^{}(q)`$. If Eq. (110) is the case, the 2-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonians $`H_2^\pm `$ satisfy another intertwining relation $`\Delta P_2H_2^{}H_2^+\Delta P_2=0`$ and its conjugation with the following 1-fold supercharges:

$`\Delta P_2=p+w_1(q)iC_3,\Delta P_2^{}=pw_1(q)+iC_3.`$ (111)
This result is almost evident from the fact that the condition (110) together with Eq. (107a) implies,

$`V_2^\pm (q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(iw_1(q)+C_3\right)^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}w_1^{}(q){\displaystyle \frac{C_3^2}{2}},`$ (112)
that is, the 2-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`𝐇_2`$ in this case is simultaneously ordinary supersymmetric (except for the irrelevant constant term),

$`[\Delta Q_2,𝐇_2]=[\Delta Q_2^{},𝐇_2]=0,\{\Delta Q_2^{},\Delta Q_2\}=2𝐇_2+C_3^2,`$ (113)
with respect to the supercharges defined by,

$`\Delta Q_2=\Delta P_2^{}\psi ,\Delta Q_2^{}=\Delta P_2\psi ^{}.`$ (114)
Therefore, if we define new 2-fold supercharges by,

$`Q_2(\lambda )`$ $`=Q_2+\lambda ^{}\Delta Q_2=\left(P_2^{}+\lambda ^{}\Delta P_2^{}\right)\psi ,`$ (115a)
$`Q_2^{}(\lambda )`$ $`=Q_2^{}+\lambda \Delta Q_2^{}=\left(P_2+\lambda \Delta P_2\right)\psi ^{},`$ (115b)
the 2-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`𝐇_2`$ with $`w_1(q)`$ satisfying Eq. (110) commutes with $`Q_2(\lambda )`$ and $`Q_2^{}(\lambda )`$ for arbitrary $`\lambda `$:

$`[Q_2(\lambda ),𝐇_2]=[Q_2^{}(\lambda ),𝐇_2]=0.`$ (116)
On the other hand, the anti-commutator of these new 2-fold supercharges becomes,

$`\{Q_2^{}(\lambda ),Q_2(\lambda )\}`$ $`=4\left(𝐇_2+C_2\right)^2+|\lambda |^2\left(2𝐇_2+C_3^2\right)+C_1`$
$`+\lambda \{Q_2,\Delta Q_2^{}\}+\lambda ^{}\{Q_2^{},\Delta Q_2\}.`$ (117)
It is now evident that the above anti-commutator cannot be, in general, a polynomial in $`𝐇_2`$ since it contains the term as $`(\lambda +\lambda ^{})p^3`$. Therefore, 2-fold supersymmetry does not always correspond to 2nd-derivative polynomial supersymmetry.

Next, let us return to the case of type A 2-fold supersymmetry. From the definition of the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge (20), type A 2-fold supersymmetry is a special case of 2-fold supersymmetry where $`w_1(q)`$ and $`w_0(q)`$ in Eq. (106) are given by,

$`w_1(q)=2iW(q),w_0(q)=\left(W^{}(q)+W(q)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}(q)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E(q)^2}{4}}\right).`$ (118)
Substituting the above for the condition (107), we see that Eq. (107a) is equivalent to Eq. (21a) while Eq. (107b) to Eq. (21b). Furthermore, if we substitute Eq. (118) for Eq. (110), we find that the uniqueness of the type A 2-fold supercharge is guaranteed unless there is a constant $`C_3`$ which satisfies,

$`12W(q)^2E(q)^2+2E^{}(q)=16C_3W(q).`$ (119)
In terms of $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$, the above condition is rewritten as,

$`\left(3Q(h)^2+H[P]\right)^2=32C_3^2P(h)Q(h)^2.`$ (120)
When $`P(h)`$ is (at most) a polynomial of fourth degree (remember that $`P(h)`$ can be an arbitrary function in the 2-fold supersymmetric case), both side of Eq. (120) are (at most) polynomials of eighth degree belonging to the multiple representation $`\rho _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8},4}`$ defined in Eq. (156). Therefore, Eq. (120) is a polynomial identity and the set of its solution constitutes a hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the parameter space $`^{5+3}`$ or $`^{5+3}`$ spanned by $`\{a_i,b_i\}`$. On this hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, 2-fold supercharges are not determined uniquely and the type A 2-fold supercharges can be deformed as Eq. (115) without destroying 2-fold supersymmetry. However, it should be noted that the polynomiality of the anti-commutator of the undeformed type A 2-fold supercharges is preserved on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The uniqueness of $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges is only a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the polynomiality. Conversely, we can choose $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges such that the anti-commutator of them becomes a polynomial in the Hamiltonian.

We note that the general 2-fold supersymmetry is weakly quasi-solvable since we cannot generally obtain two independent analytic elements of $`\mathrm{ker}P_2`$ where $`P_2`$ is given by Eq. (106) with (107b). Nevertheless, we can know the two spectra in the solvable sector. The mother Hamiltonian (108) is always a polynomial in the original Hamiltonian. Since it corresponds to the characteristic polynomial which determines the spectra in the solvable sector, they are given by the solutions of $`4(E+C_2)^2+C_1=0`$. This example shows a novel feature of weak quasi-solvability. Even if, for a given operator $`P`$, there is no analytic element of $`𝒱_𝒩`$ defined by Eq. (11), we can know the spectra in the solvable sector if the anti-commutator of $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges constructed from $`P`$ can be arranged as a polynomial in the Hamiltonian $`H`$ satisfying the weak quasi-solvability condition (12).

## VI Mother Hamiltonians and generalized Bender–Dunne polynomials

### VI.1 Polynomiality of Type A Mother Hamiltonians

Let us come back to further investigation into type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry. Suppose the pair of type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric Hamiltonians $`H_𝒩^\pm =p^2/2+V_𝒩^\pm (q)`$ with the potentials (21a) also satisfies the intertwining relation with respect to an $``$-fold supercharge ($`𝒩>`$) given by,

$`P_{}=p^{}i𝒩W(q)p^1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}w_n(q)p^n.`$ (121)
From a direct calculation, we have,

$`2i^{}\left(P_{}H_𝒩^{}H_𝒩^+P_{}\right)=\left(𝒩W^{\prime \prime }2𝒩^2WW^{}+2V_𝒩^{^{}}2w_2^{}\right)^1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}}[2(i)^k𝒩W^{}w_k+2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{k}}\right)V_𝒩^{(k)}+2𝒩\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{k}}\right)WV_𝒩^{(1k)}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=k+1}{\overset{2}{}}}(i)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)w_nV_𝒩^{(nk)}+2(i)^{k1}w_{k1}^{}+(i)^kw_k^{\prime \prime }]^k.`$ (122)
Therefore, $`w_k(q)`$ ($`k=0,\mathrm{},2`$) must satisfy,

$`w_2^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{2}}W^{\prime \prime }𝒩^2WW^{}+V_𝒩^{^{}},`$ (123a)
$`w_{k1}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=k+1}{\overset{2}{}}}(i)^{n+1k}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)V_𝒩^{(nk)}w_n+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{w_k^{\prime \prime }}{2}}𝒩W^{}w_k\right)`$
$`i^{k1}\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{k}}\right)V_𝒩^{(k)}+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{k}}\right)𝒩WV_𝒩^{(1k)}\right](k=1,\mathrm{},2),`$ (123b)
in addition to,

$$\begin{array}{c}w_0^{\prime \prime }2𝒩W^{}w_0+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}(i)^nnV_𝒩^{(n)}w_n\hfill \\ \hfill +2(i)^{}\left[V_𝒩^{()}+(1)𝒩WV_𝒩^{(1)}\right]=0.\end{array}$$
(124)
The set of the first-order differential equations (123) can be integrated out in the order from $`w_{𝒩2}(q)`$ to $`w_0(q)`$ since all the terms appeared in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (123) becomes known functions depending only on $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ in the order. Thus, we obtain,

$`w_k(q)=f_k(E(q),W(q))+C_k(k=0,\mathrm{},2),`$ (125)
where $`C_k`$ are integral constants. We can put $`C_k=0`$ without any loss of generality; if $`C_{^{}}0`$ for an $`^{}`$, we can always split the $``$-fold supercharge as,

$`P_{}\left(C_{^{}}\right)=P_{}+C_{^{}}P_{^{}},`$ (126)
which means the system is also $`^{}`$-fold supersymmetric. Therefore, $`w_k(q)`$ and hence $`P_{}`$ are uniquely determined. On the other hand, if the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric potentials (21a) can be rewritten as the type A $``$-fold supersymmetric ones with $`W(q)`$ replaced by $`𝒩W(q)/`$, that is, if the following relations,

$`V_𝒩^\pm [E(q),W(q)]=V_{}^\pm [E(q),𝒩W(q)/],`$ (127)
are satisfied, it is evident that the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric system is also type A $``$-fold supersymmetric with respect to the following type A $``$-fold supercharge:

$`P_{}={\displaystyle \underset{k=(1)/2}{\overset{(1)/2}{}}}\left(pi{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{}}W(q)+ikE(q)\right).`$ (128)
As we have just shown, however, $`P_{}`$ is unique and thus the $``$-fold supercharge determined by the solutions of Eqs. (123) must be the type A $``$-fold supercharge Eq. (128). Furthermore, the constraint (124) must be equivalent to the relation (127). Summarizing the result, we have shown that type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge is unique unless the system satisfies Eq. (127) for an $``$ ($`0<<𝒩`$). The relation (127) is equivalent to,

$`12W(q)^2^2\left(E(q)^22E^{}(q)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\left(h^{}\right)^2}}\left(3Q(h)^2+^2H[P]\right)=0,`$ (129)
and its solutions again constitute a hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the parameter space spanned by $`\{a_i,b_i\}`$. Outside the hyperplane, the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge is unique and the mother Hamiltonian is expressed as a polynomial $`𝒫_𝒩`$ in the original Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$:

$`_𝒩={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩\}=𝒫_𝒩\left(𝐇_𝒩\right)\text{for}\{a_i,b_i\}^{5+3}\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{or}^{5+3}\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (130)
On the other hand, as has been shown in Eq. (19), this polynomial $`𝒫_𝒩`$ corresponds to the characteristic polynomial which determines the spectra in the solvable sector AST2 . Since the characteristic polynomial itself is constructed from a finite algebraic operation, it has no discontinuity in the parameter space. Therefore, Eq. (130) must be held on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and thus the type A mother Hamiltonian must be a polynomial in the original Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝒩`$ in the whole parameter space.

### VI.2 Generalized Bender–Dunne polynomials

In 1996, Bender and Dunne introduced a set of polynomials which determines the spectra in the solvable sector of the quasi-exactly solvable model of case II, namely, the sextic anharmonic oscillator BeDu1 . Soon after, Finkel et al. generalized the idea to all the $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ quasi-exactly solvable models FiLoRo1 . In the following, we will make a generalization without imposing the normalizability of the solvable sector. Let the bases $`\{\varphi ^\pm \}`$ of the solvable subspaces $`𝒱_𝒩^\pm `$ be,

$`\varphi _n^\pm =h^{n1}\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)^1(n=1,\mathrm{},𝒩),`$ (131)
and the gauged Hamiltonians be,

$`\left(G_𝒩U^1\right)H_𝒩^\pm \left(G_𝒩U^1\right)^1=P(h){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dh^2}}P_3^\pm (h){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}P_2^\pm (h).`$ (132)
Then we have,

$`H_𝒩^\pm \varphi _n^\pm =(n1)(n2)P(h)\varphi _{n2}^\pm (n1)P_3^\pm (h)\varphi _{n1}^\pm P_2^\pm (h)\varphi _n^\pm .`$ (133)
From Eqs. (60), and (69b) with (71) and (74), the $`P_i^\pm (h)`$ are expressed as,

$`P_3^\pm (h)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩2}{2}}P^{}(h)Q(h),`$ (134a)
$`P_2^\pm (h)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(𝒩1)(𝒩2)}{12}}P^{\prime \prime }(h)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}Q^{}(h)+R.`$ (134b)
Substituting Eqs. (61), (62) and (134) for Eq. (133), we obtain the matrix elements $`𝐒_{n,m}^\pm `$ defined in Eq. (14):

$`H_𝒩^\pm \varphi _n^\pm `$ $`=(n𝒩)(n𝒩+1)a_4\varphi _{n+2}^\pm (n𝒩)\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{2}}\right)a_3b_2\right]\varphi _{n+1}^\pm `$
$`\left\{\left[(n1)(n𝒩)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(𝒩1)(𝒩2)\right]a_2\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩+1}{2}}\right)b_1+R\right\}\varphi _n^\pm `$
$`(n1)\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩+2}{2}}\right)a_1b_0\right]\varphi _{n1}^\pm (n1)(n2)a_0\varphi _{n2}^\pm .`$ (135)
As we have discussed in Section IV, there are five independent type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models under the $`GL(2,)`$ transformation. By a suitable $`GL(2,)`$ transformation, we can always transform $`P(h)`$ so that $`a_0=0`$ in all the five cases, see Table 2. In Table 2, $`e_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) denote the three different single roots of the algebraic equation $`2x^3g_2x/2g_3/2=0`$ and $`h_i`$ ($`i=2,3`$) are given by $`h_i=e_ie_1`$. So, we set $`a_0=0`$ hereafter. We note that case I corresponds to the case where $`P(h)`$ has a quadruple root and thus $`P(h)=\text{constant}`$ (quadruple root at infinity) or $`P(h)(hh_0)^4`$ (quadruple root at finite $`h_0`$). Therefore, in contrast to in all the other cases, case II–V, we cannot simultaneously set $`a_4=0`$ and $`a_0=0`$ by any $`GL(2,)`$ transformation in case I. We also drop another irrelevant constant by putting $`R=0`$.

In the next, we introduce a set of functions $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ by putting a solution of the Schrödinger equation as follows:

$`\psi ^\pm =\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)}{(\pm b_0)^nn!}}\varphi _{n+1}^\pm \hfill & \text{if}a_1=0,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)}{(a_1)^nn!\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n\frac{𝒩2}{2}\frac{b_0}{a_1}\right)}}\varphi _{n+1}^\pm \hfill & \text{if}a_10.\hfill \end{array}`$ (138)
From the requirement that the above $`\psi ^\pm `$ satisfies $`H_𝒩^\pm \psi ^\pm =E\psi ^\pm `$, we obtain a four-term recursion relation for $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$:

$`P_{n+1}^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ $`=\left(E+A_n^{[𝒩]}\right)P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)n(n𝒩)B_n^{[𝒩]}P_{n1}^{[𝒩]}(E)`$
$`+n(n1)(n𝒩)(n𝒩1)C_n^{[𝒩]}P_{n2}^{[𝒩]}(E),`$ (139)
where $`A_n^{[𝒩]}`$, $`B_n^{[𝒩]}`$ and $`C_n^{[𝒩]}`$ are given by,

$`A_n^{[𝒩]}`$ $`=\left[n(n𝒩+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(𝒩1)(𝒩2)\right]a_2\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩1}{2}}\right)b_1,`$ (140a)
$`B_n^{[𝒩]}`$ $`=\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{2}}\right)a_1b_0\right]\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{2}}\right)a_3b_2\right],`$ (140b)
$`C_n^{[𝒩]}`$ $`=a_4\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{2}}\right)a_1b_0\right]\left[\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩+2}{2}}\right)a_1b_0\right].`$ (140c)
We can set $`P_0^{[𝒩]}(E)=1`$ without any loss of generality. Then, each $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ generated by Eq. (139) becomes a monic polynomial of $`n`$th degree. We call it a generalized Bender–Dunne polynomial (GBDP). In the case of $`a_4=0`$, Eq. (139) reduces to a three-term recursion relation with (in general) $`n(n𝒩)B_n^{[𝒩]}0`$ for $`n𝒩`$ and thus the set of $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ forms a weakly orthogonal polynomial system Chiha . Therefore, case I is special in the sense that the set of polynomials $`P_n^{[𝒩]}`$ does not form a weakly orthogonal polynomial system. One of the most notable properties of the GBDP is the factorization property; due to the structure of Eq. (139), all the polynomials $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ for $`n𝒩`$ are factorized as,

$`P_{𝒩+n}^{[𝒩]}(E)=Q_n^{[𝒩]}(E)P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E)(n0),`$ (141)
where $`Q_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$ satisfying another four-term recursion relation:

$`Q_{n+1}^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ $`=\left(E+A_{𝒩+n}^{[𝒩]}\right)Q_n^{[𝒩]}(E)n(n+𝒩)B_{𝒩+n}^{[𝒩]}Q_{n1}^{[𝒩]}(E)`$
$`+n(n1)(n+𝒩)(n+𝒩1)C_{𝒩+n}^{[𝒩]}Q_{n2}^{[𝒩]}(E).`$ (142)
In the case of $`a_4=0`$, Eq. (142) reduces to a three-term recursion relation with (in general) $`n(n+𝒩)B_{𝒩+n}^{[𝒩]}0`$ for all $`n>0`$ and thus the set of $`Q_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ forms an orthogonal polynomial system Chiha . Therefore, case I is again special in the sense that the set of polynomials $`Q_n^{[𝒩]}`$ does not form an orthogonal polynomial system. Due to the factorization property (141), $`P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ reserves special status among the GBDPs. We call $`P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ $`𝒩`$-th critical GBDP after the terminology in Ref. BeDu1 .

When $`E`$ takes one of the spectral values $`E_n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},𝒩`$) in the solvable sector, $`\psi ^\pm `$ must be an element of $`𝒱_𝒩^\pm `$. From the factorization property (141), the condition $`\psi ^\pm 𝒱_𝒩^\pm `$ is fulfilled if and only if,

$`P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E_n)=0(n=1,\mathrm{},𝒩).`$ (143)
This means that all the zeros of the $`𝒩`$-th critical GBDP must correspond to the spectra in the solvable sector of the quasi-solvable Hamiltonians $`H_𝒩^\pm `$. On the other hand, they are also given by solutions of the characteristic equation (15). Therefore, each of the critical GBDP is proportional to the corresponding characteristic polynomial. Comparing the coefficients of the highest-degree term with each other, we have,

$`det𝐌_𝒩^\pm (E)=2^𝒩P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E).`$ (144)
As we have proved before, the type A mother Hamiltonian is expressed solely by the characteristic polynomial of the original Hamiltonian as Eq. (19). Combining Eq. (19) with (144), we finally obtain an intriguing relation:

$`_𝒩={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}det𝐌_𝒩^\pm (𝐇_𝒩)=2^{𝒩1}P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(𝐇_𝒩).`$ (145)
Furthermore, remembering that the mother Hamiltonian is defined by the anti-commutator of the $`𝒩`$-fold supercharges (16), we get the complete type A $`𝒩`$-fold superalgebra:

$$[Q_𝒩,𝐇_𝒩]=[Q_𝒩^{},𝐇_𝒩]=0,$$
(146a)
$$\{Q_𝒩,Q_𝒩\}=\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩^{}\}=0,$$
(146b)
$$\{Q_𝒩^{},Q_𝒩\}=2^𝒩P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(𝐇_𝒩).$$
(146c)
### VI.3 Examples

In order to confirm the previous argument, we will show the explicit results for $`𝒩=1,2,3`$. By solving the recursion relation (139), we obtain $`P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ ($`n𝒩`$) as follows:

1) $`𝒩=1`$:

$`P_1^{[1]}(E)=E,`$ (147)
2) $`𝒩=2`$:

$`P_1^{[2]}(E)`$ $`=E\pm {\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2}},`$ (148a)
$`P_2^{[2]}(E)`$ $`=E^2+b_0b_2{\displaystyle \frac{b_1^2}{4}},`$ (148b)
3) $`𝒩=3`$:

$`P_1^{[3]}(E)`$ $`=E+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{3}}\pm b_1,`$ (149a)
$`P_2^{[3]}(E)`$ $`=E^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(a_23b_1\right)E`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}\left(4a_2^29a_1a_318a_1b_2\pm 12a_2b_118a_3b_036b_0b_2\right),`$ (149b)
$`P_3^{[3]}(E)`$ $`=E^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(3a_1a_3a_2^2+12b_0b_23b_1^2)E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}(2a_2^39a_1a_2a_3`$
$`+27a_1^2a_4108a_4b_0^2+54a_3b_0b_118a_2b_1^236a_2b_0b_2+54a_1b_1b_2).`$ (149c)
On the other hand, the direct calculation of the mother Hamiltonians reads as follows:

1) $`𝒩=1`$:

$`2_1=2𝐇_1,`$ (150)
2) $`𝒩=2`$:

$`2_2=4\left(𝐇_2\right)^2+D_2[Q],`$ (151)
3) $`𝒩=3`$:

$`2_3=8\left(𝐇_3\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left(i_2[P]3D_2[Q]\right)𝐇_3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{27}}\left(j_3[P]+9I_{1,2}[P,Q]\right).`$ (152)
In the above, $`D_2`$, $`i_2`$, $`j_3`$ and $`I_{1,2}`$ are the absolute invariants expressed in terms of $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$, see Eqs. (169)–(172). Comparing the critical GBDPs, Eqs. (147), (148b), and (149c), obtained by solving the recursion relation (139) with the mother Hamiltonians (150)–(152), and noting that we have put $`a_0=0`$, we confirm the relation (145) for $`𝒩=1,2,3`$. We also note that since the mother Hamiltonians are invariant under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation, all the coefficients of the critical GBDPs should be expressed solely in terms of the absolute invariants listed in Eq. (161), as the above examples indicate. From the facts that all the GBDPs are homogeneous polynomials in $`E`$, $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ due to the structure of the recursion relation (139), and that all the critical GBDPs are symmetric under the transformation $`b_ib_i`$, the general form of the critical GBDPs should be,

$`P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ $`=E^𝒩+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{𝒩2}{}}}E^k[{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_6}{}}\delta _{2n_1+2n_2+3n_3+3n_4+4n_5+12n_6,𝒩k}\times `$
$`\times C_{k;n_1,\mathrm{},n_6}^{[𝒩]}\left(D_2\right)^{n_1}\left(i_2\right)^{n_2}\left(j_3\right)^{n_3}\left(I_{1,2}\right)^{n_4}\left(I_{2,2}\right)^{n_5}\left(I_{3,3}\right)^{2n_6}].`$ (153)
where $`C_{k;n_1,\mathrm{},n_6}^{[𝒩]}`$ are constants. For example, the first five are,

$`P_1^{[1]}(E)`$ $`=E,`$ (154a)
$`P_2^{[2]}(E)`$ $`=E^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}D_2,`$ (154b)
$`P_3^{[3]}(E)`$ $`=E^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(i_23D_2\right)E+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}\left(j_3+9I_{1,2}\right),`$ (154c)
$`P_4^{[4]}(E)`$ $`=E^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(4i_25D_2\right)E^2+4I_{1,2}E+\left(i_2\right)^2+2I_{2,2}+i_2D_2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}\left(D_2\right)^2,`$ (154d)
$`P_5^{[5]}(E)`$ $`=E^5\left(7i_25D_2\right)E^32\left(j_37I_{1,2}\right)E^2`$
$`+4\left(3\left(i_2\right)^2+4I_{2,2}\right)E+8\left(i_2D_2\right)\left(j_3+I_{1,2}\right).`$ (154e)
Since the zeros of the critical GBDPs correspond to the spectra of $`H_𝒩^\pm `$ in the solvable sector, these spectra can be regarded as functions of the six absolute invariants. Furthermore, as an interpretation of Eq. (153), the critical GBDPs, and equivalently the type A mother Hamiltonians, can be regarded as generating functions of the absolute invariants composed of $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$.

## VII Concluding Remarks

In this article, we have fully investigated general aspects of type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetry. The two different approaches in Section III reveal both the analytic and algebraic structures of the systems. The intimate relation between the algebraic forms of the pair Hamiltonians, Eqs. (57) and (76), provides an interesting problem. Suppose we have a quasi-solvable system $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ which is represented by a quadratic polynomial of a set of first-order differential operators constituting a finite dimensional representation of a Lie algebra. If we construct another system $`\overline{H}`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ by interchanging the order of the quadratic terms and interchanging the sign of the coefficients of the linear terms, do $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ (with suitable gauge transformations) always form an $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric pair? This problem may be extended to quasi-solvable many-body systems Tanak1 ; Tanak2 .

The invariance of the Hamiltonians as well as the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supercharge under the $`GL(2,K)`$ transformation enable us to obtain the complete classification of the type A models. This invariance also plays an essential role in generalizing the Bender–Dunne polynomials to for all the type A models. With regard to the issue, we should stress that, up to now, we have found no reason that a set of the polynomials should be weakly orthogonal, although all the existing papers concerning about the issue BeDu1 ; KrUsWa1 ; FiLoRo1 ; KhMa1 ; KhMa2 ; FiLoRo2 ; Gangu2 , as far as we know, have required weak orthogonality by imposing, for instance, the normalizabiliy, or restricted the considerations in which weak orthogonality is fulfilled. One of the most essential properties that sets of polynomials associated with quasi-solvable systems should share is the factorization property (141). The most general form of a recursion relation for a set of polynomials $`P_n^{[𝒩]}`$ which guarantee the factorization property may be the following:

$`P_{n+1}^{[𝒩]}(E)=\left(E+A_{0,n}^{[𝒩]}\right)P_n^{[𝒩]}(E)+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}}\left[()^k{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}(nl)(n𝒩l)A_{k,n}^{[𝒩]}P_{nk}^{[𝒩]}(E)\right].`$ (155)
Then, an interesting question is, what conditions a set of the coefficients $`\{A_{k,n}^{[𝒩]}\}`$ should satisfy for the existence of a quasi-solvable system whose spectra in its solvable sector are given by the zeros of the critical polynomial $`P_𝒩^{[𝒩]}(E)`$ obtained by the above recursion relation. This question may provide an alternative way to find out a new quasi-solvable and also a new $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric model.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank H. Aoyama, F. Finkel, D. Gómez-Ullate, A. González-López, N. Nakayama, C. Quesne, M. A. Rodríguez, R. Sasaki, M. Sato and K. Takasaki for useful discussions. The author would also like to thank all the members of Departamento de Física Teórica II, Universidad Complutense, for their kind hospitality during his stay. This work was supported in part by a JSPS research fellowship.

## Appendix A Invariants of a System of Polynomials

Since the type A $`𝒩`$-fold supersymmetric models have the underlying $`GL(2,K)`$ invariance discussed in Section IV, all the relevant quantities should be expressed in terms of the covariants and invariants under the transformation. In this appendix, we summarize the covariants and invariants of a system of polynomials needed in this article. For more details, see Ref. LoKaOl3  and references cited therein.

The multiplier representation $`\rho _{m,i}`$ of $`GL(2,K)`$ on the space of polynomials of degree at most $`m`$ is defined by,

$`F(h)\widehat{F}(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\gamma h+\delta )^mF(\widehat{h}),`$ (156)
where $`\widehat{h}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are defined by Eq. (77). For example, we see from Eqs. (79) that $`P(h)`$ belongs to the representation $`\rho _{4,2}`$ while $`Q(h)`$ belongs to the representation $`\rho _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},1}`$.

In order to construct a complete system of covariants and invariants, the process of transvection is essential. Let $`F(h)`$ be a polynomial of degree at most $`m`$ belonging to the representation $`\rho _{m,i}`$ and $`G(h)`$ be a polynomial of degree at most $`n`$ belonging to the representation $`\rho _{n,j}`$. The $`r`$th transvectant of $`F`$ and $`G`$ is defined by,

$`(F,G)^{(r)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{r}{}}}(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(mr+k)!(nk)!}{(mr)!(nr)!}}F^{(rk)}G^{(k)}.`$ (157)
Then, $`(F,G)^{(r)}`$ is a polynomial of degree at most $`m+n2r`$ belonging to the representation $`\rho _{m+n2r,i+j+r}`$.

For a single quadratic polynomial $`Q`$, there are two independent covariants, namely, $`Q`$ itself and its discriminant $`D_2`$ given by,

$`D_2[Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Q,Q)^{(2)}.`$ (158)
For a single quartic polynomial $`P`$, there are five independent covariants, namely, $`P`$ itself, the Hessian $`H`$ and the Jacobian $`J`$ given by,

$`H[P]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(P,P)^{(2)}=PP^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(P^{}\right)^2,`$ (159a)
$`J[P]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(P,H)^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left[4P^2P^{(3)}6PP^{}P^{\prime \prime }+3\left(P^{}\right)^3\right],`$ (159b)
and the two invariants given by,

$`i_2[P]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(P,P)^{(4)},j_3[P]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(P,H)^{(4)}.`$ (160)
The discriminant of $`P`$ is expressed in terms of the above invariants as $`D_6[P]=i_2[P]^3j_3[P]^2`$.

According to the invariant theory of polynomials, the complete list of independent covariants for the system consisting of a quartic and a quadratic polynomial is the following:

1) Absolute invariants $`\rho _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$:

$`D_2[Q],i_2[P],j_3[P],I_{1,2}[P,Q],I_{2,2}[P,Q],I_{3,3}[P,Q],`$ (161)
2) Quadratic covariants $`\rho _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},1}`$:

$`Q,(P,Q)^{(2)},(H,Q)^{(2)},(P,Q^2)^{(3)},(H,Q^2)^{(3)},(J,Q^2)^{(4)},`$ (162)
3) Quartic covariants $`\rho _{4,2}`$:

$`P,H[P],(P,Q)^{(1)},(H,Q)^{(1)},(J,Q)^{(2)},`$ (163)
4) Sextic covariant $`\rho _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},3}`$:

$`J[P].`$ (164)
In the above, the absolute invariants $`I_{1,2}`$, $`I_{2,2}`$ and $`I_{3,3}`$ are given by,

$`I_{1,2}[P,Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(P,Q^2)^{(4)},I_{2,2}[P,Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(H,Q^2)^{(4)},I_{3,3}[P,Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64800}}(J,Q^3)^{(6)}.`$ (165)
We can express the above quantities in terms of $`h(q)`$, $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ with the aid of the following relations derived from Eqs. (49) and (63):

$$P=\frac{1}{2}\left(h^{}\right)^2,P^{}=h^{\prime \prime }=Eh^{},P^{\prime \prime }=E^{}+E^2,$$
(166a)
$$P^{(3)}=\frac{1}{h^{}}\left(E^{\prime \prime }+2EE^{}\right),P^{(4)}=\frac{1}{\left(h^{}\right)^2}\left[E^{(3)}+EE^{\prime \prime }+2\left(E^{}\right)^22E^2E^{}\right],$$
(166b)
$$Q=Wh^{},Q^{}=\left(W^{}+EW\right),$$
(167a)
$$Q^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{h^{}}\left(W^{\prime \prime }+EW^{}+E^{}W\right).$$
(167b)
For example, the Hessian $`H`$ and the Jacobian $`J`$ are expressed as,

$`H[P]={\displaystyle \frac{\left(h^{}\right)^2}{4}}\left(2E^{}E^2\right),J[P]={\displaystyle \frac{\left(h^{}\right)^3}{24}}\left(E^{\prime \prime }EE^{}\right).`$ (168)
Among the covariants (161)–(164), the absolute invariants play an essential role in Section VI. In the following, we show the explicit forms of them in terms of the coefficients of the polynomials $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$, as well as in terms of $`E(q)`$ and $`W(q)`$ (for the first four invariants because the expressions for the last two are lengthy):

$`D_2[Q]`$ $`=2QQ^{\prime \prime }\left(Q^{}\right)^2`$
$`=2WW^{\prime \prime }\left(W^{}\right)^2+\left(2E^{}E^2\right)W^2`$
$`=4b_0b_2b_1^2,`$ (169)
$`i_2[P]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[2PP^{(4)}2P^{}P^{(3)}+\left(P^{\prime \prime }\right)^2\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[E^{(3)}EE^{\prime \prime }+3\left(E^{}\right)^24E^2E^{}+E^4\right]`$
$`=12a_0a_43a_1a_3+a_2^2,`$ (170)
$`2j_3[P]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[12PP^{\prime \prime }P^{(4)}6P\left(P^{(3)}\right)^29\left(P^{}\right)^2P^{(4)}+6P^{}P^{\prime \prime }P^{(3)}2\left(P^{\prime \prime }\right)^3\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[6E^{}E^{(3)}3\left(E^{\prime \prime }\right)^23E^2E^{(3)}`$
$`+10\left(E^{}\right)^3+3E^3E^{\prime \prime }24E^2\left(E^{}\right)^2+12E^4E^{}2E^6]`$
$`=72a_0a_2a_427a_0a_3^227a_1^2a_4+9a_1a_2a_32a_2^3,`$ (171)
$`4I_{1,2}[P,Q]`$ $`=P^{(4)}Q^22P^{(3)}QQ^{}+2P^{\prime \prime }\left[QQ^{\prime \prime }+\left(Q^{}\right)^2\right]6P^{}Q^{}Q^{\prime \prime }+6P\left(Q^{\prime \prime }\right)^2`$
$`=\left[E^{(3)}EE^{\prime \prime }+7\left(E^{}\right)^28E^2E^{}+2E^4\right]W^2`$
$`2\left(E^{\prime \prime }EE^{}\right)WW^{}+\left(2E^{}E^2\right)\left[4WW^{\prime \prime }+\left(W^{}\right)^2\right]+3\left(W^{\prime \prime }\right)^2`$
$`=4\left(6a_4b_0^23a_3b_0b_1+2a_2b_0b_2+a_2b_1^23a_1b_1b_2+6a_0b_2^2\right),`$ (172)
$`2I_{2,2}[P,Q]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^{(4)}Q^22H^{(3)}QQ^{}+2H^{\prime \prime }\left[QQ^{\prime \prime }+\left(Q^{}\right)^2\right]6H^{}Q^{}Q^{\prime \prime }+6H\left(Q^{\prime \prime }\right)^2\right\}`$
$`=3\left(8a_2a_43a_3^2\right)b_0^26\left(6a_1a_4a_2a_3\right)b_0b_1`$
$`+\left(24a_0a_4+3a_1a_32a_2^2\right)\left(2b_0b_2+b_1^2\right)6\left(6a_0a_3a_1a_2\right)b_1b_2`$
$`+3\left(8a_0a_23a_1^2\right)b_2^2,`$ (173)
$`I_{3,3}[P,Q]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}\{J^{(6)}Q^33J^{(5)}Q^2Q^{}+3J^{(4)}Q[QQ^{\prime \prime }+2\left(Q^{}\right)^2]6J^{(3)}Q^{}[3QQ^{\prime \prime }+\left(Q^{}\right)^2]`$
$`+18J^{\prime \prime }Q^{\prime \prime }[QQ^{\prime \prime }+2\left(Q^{}\right)^2]90J^{}Q^{}\left(Q^{\prime \prime }\right)^2+90J\left(Q^{\prime \prime }\right)^3\}`$
$`=\left(8a_1a_4^24a_2a_3a_4+a_3^3\right)b_0^3\left(16a_0a_4^2+2a_1a_3a_44a_2^2a_4+a_2a_3^2\right)b_0^2b_1`$
$`+\left(8a_0a_3a_44a_1a_2a_4+a_1a_3^2\right)\left(b_0^2b_2+b_0b_1^2\right)6\left(a_0a_3^2a_1^2a_4\right)b_0b_1b_2`$
$`\left(a_0a_3^2a_1^2a_4\right)b_1^3\left(8a_0a_1a_44a_0a_2a_3+a_1^2a_3\right)\left(b_0b_2^2+b_1^2b_2\right)`$
$`+\left(16a_0^2a_4+2a_0a_1a_34a_0a_2^2+a_1^2a_2\right)b_1b_2^2\left(8a_0^2a_34a_0a_1a_2+a_1^3\right)b_2^3.`$ (174)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Membrane-spanning peptides such as the ion channel gramicidin dimer, cause membrane deformation which contribute significantly to both the energetics of the insertion and the membrane-mediated interaction between the channels. Recently, interest in this field shifted from study of individual channels to study of collective effects in channel kinetics. Here we discuss an efficient way to describe the membrane-mediated interaction between the insertions in terms of coupled harmonic oscillators and corresponding ”spring constants”.

## 2 Variational principle, boundary conditions and Euler-Lagrange equation.

We consider an elastic system extended in $`x,y`$plane, where the deformation can be described by a $`2`$dimensional field of ”vertical” displacement $`u(𝐫)`$ ($`𝐫=(x,y)`$ is the radius vector in the mid-plane of the system). The examples include smectic and similar models for lipid bilayers , and ”floating plate” model of classical elastic theory (see  for review).

The elastic boundary problem can be formulated as a variational (minimum) principle for the energy functional

$$F^{(2)}[u]=g^{(2)}(u,u,\mathrm{\Delta }u,\mathrm{})𝑑f$$
(1)
where $`g^{(2)}`$, the surface density of the elastic energy, is a quadratic function of the surface displacement $`u`$ and its derivatives. We will consider a membrane with $`N`$ cylindrical insertions, assuming that on the contour $`\gamma _i`$ of $`ith`$ insertion both $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`u(𝐫)`$ are fixed functions of $`𝐫_{\gamma _i}`$, the position vector for the points belonging to $`\gamma _i`$. It leads to the boundary conditions

$$u(𝐫)|_{𝐫_{\gamma _i}}=u_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})$$
(2)
$$u(𝐫)|_{𝐫_{\gamma _i}}^n=s_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})$$
(3)
$`n`$” designates the direction normal to $`\gamma _i`$at the point $`𝐫_{\gamma _i}.`$Note that the vertical displacement $`u_i`$ in the immediate contact of a membrane with an inserted peptide is typically described by the ”hydrophobic matching condition”  leading to a particular case of Eq. 2 with $`u_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})=u_0=const`$.

Additional conditions on the external membrane boundary (designated as $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$) are:

$$u(𝐫)|_\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=0$$
(4)
$$u(𝐫)|_\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=0$$
(5)
In many cases, including the biharmonic problem with smooth and continuous boundaries that we consider (, Ch. 6), the variational principle $`\delta F^{(2)}=0`$ (the minimum condition for the energy functional) leads to the Euler-Lagrange equation which we present for now as

$$\text{L}(u)=0$$
(6)
where L is a linear differential operator 111Which means that $`\text{L}(c_1u_1+c_2u_2)=c_1\text{L}u_1+c_2\text{L}u_2`$($`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the arbitrary constants). The linearity does not impose, however, any restrictions on the order of the differential equation (which for most of the applications considered is biquadratic).. The elastic energy $`E`$ $`=\mathrm{min}F^{(2)}[u]`$ is the value of $`F^{(2}[u]`$ calculated with the solutions of Eqs. 6-5 in place of $`u`$. We will show now that in some important cases $`E`$can be explicitly presented as a quadratic form of the boundary parameters, such as $`u_i`$ and $`𝐬_i`$.

## 3
Effective spring constants

### 3.1
Boundary displacements and contact slopes fixed to constants

Suppose now that the boundary displacements and the contact slopes are fixed at the $`ith`$ insertion to the constants

$`u_i`$ and $`s_i.`$ Some preliminary results for this case were reported in . Eqs. 2, 3 can be written as

$$u(𝐫)|_{\gamma _i}=u_i$$
(7)
$$u(𝐫)|_{\gamma _i}^n=s_i$$
(8)
We now introduce the ”superfinite” elements, $`\varphi _i^u(𝐫)`$ and $`\varphi _i^s(𝐫),`$solutions of Eq. 6 satisfying boundary conditions Eq. 4-5 and following conditions at the internal boundaries:

$$\varphi _i^u(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}=\delta _{ik},\varphi _i^u(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}^n=0$$
(9)
$$\varphi _i^s(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}=0,\varphi _i^s(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}^n=\delta _{ik}$$
(10)
where $`\delta _{ik}`$ is the Kronecker symbol. The solution of Eqs. 6 -5, 7, 8 can be written as a linear combination of the superfinite elements:

$$u(𝐫)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(u_i\varphi _i^u(𝐫)+s_i\varphi _i^s(𝐫))$$
(11)
Substituting this result into Eq. 1 allows presenting $`E`$ as a quadratic form of the boundary parameters:

$$E=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=i}{\overset{N}{}}c_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }\alpha _i\beta _j$$
(12)
where $`c_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ are the effective spring constants describing interaction between the insertions $`i`$ and $`j`$ ($`c_{ii}^{\alpha \beta }`$ corresponds to the ”self energy”of the $`i`$th insertions). Such a ”linear spring model” was first introduced for a single insertion in  and later generalized in . Eq. 12 implies that the additional summation is performed over the repeated indexes, $`\alpha ,\beta (=u,s).`$

The effective spring constants satisfy the symmetry relation

$$c_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=c_{ji}^{\beta \alpha }\text{and, consequently},c_{ij}^{\alpha \alpha }=c_{ji}^{\alpha \alpha }.$$
(13)
As an illustration, consider the expression for $`g^{(2)}`$which is typical in study of membranes:

$$g^{(2)}=B(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2+Au^2$$
(14)
where $`A`$and $`B`$ are proportional respectively to the membrane stretching and bending elastic constants and can be dependent on $`𝐫`$, but not on $`u;`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }=^2/x^2+^2/y^2`$ is the Laplace operator.

Combining Eqs. 11, 14 and 12, we find the spring constants:

$$c_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=(2\delta _{ij})(B\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _j^\beta +A\varphi _i^\alpha \varphi _j^\beta )𝑑f$$
(15)
### 3.2 Azimuthal variation of the contact slope

#### 3.2.1 General formulas

A possibility that the contact slope can become anisotropic at the contours of two interacting insertions was studied in . The slope was presented as

$$s_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})=a_i+b_if_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})$$
(16)
where $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ do not depend on $`𝐫,`$ and $`f_i(𝐫)`$ are the fixed functions. In practice, functions $`f_i(𝐫)`$ approximate the azimuthal variation of the contact slope. If energy is minimized over the slope parameters $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$, then different choices of $`f_i(𝐫)`$ result in different families of trial functions $`s_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})\text{[6]}`$.

The surface displacement $`u(𝐫)`$ can be expressed now through the boundary parameters $`a_i,b_i`$and $`u_i.`$

$$u(𝐫)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[u_i\varphi _i^u(𝐫)+a_i\varphi _i^a(𝐫)+b_i\varphi _i^b(𝐫)]$$
(17)
where $`\varphi _i^u(𝐫)`$and $`\varphi _i^a(𝐫)`$satisfy respectively the boundary conditions 9 and 10, while $`\varphi _i^b(𝐫)`$ satisfies the following conditions:

$$\varphi _i^b(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}=0,\varphi _i^b(𝐫)|_{\gamma _k}^n=\delta _{ik}f_i(𝐫_{\gamma _i})$$
(18)
The energy is still described by Eq. 12 with the spring constants defined by Eq. 12; the additional summation is now performed over the repeated indexes $`\alpha ,\beta =(u,a,b)`$ .

#### 3.2.2 Applications for two insertions

We consider now two identical insertions. Due to possible fluctuations, parameters $`u_i,a_i`$ and $`b_i,`$ and functions $`f_i(𝐫)`$ for two insertions can still be different. The energy of two insertions is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`c_{11}^{uu}(u_1^2+u_2^2)+c_{11}^{aa}(a_1^2+a_2^2)+c_{11}^{bb}(b_1^2+b_2^2)+2c_{11}^{ua}(u_1a_1+u_2a_2)+`$ (19)
$`2c_{11}^{ub}(u_1b_1+u_2b_2)+2c_{11}^{ab}(a_1b_1+a_2b_2)+c_{12}^{uu}u_1u_2+c_{12}^{aa}a_1a_2+c_{12}^{bb}b_1b_2+`$
$`c_{12}^{ua}(u_1a_2+u_2a_1)+c_{12}^{ub}(u_1b_2+u_2b_1)+c_{12}^{ab}(a_1b_2+a_2b_1)`$
where we used the symmetry conditions $`c_{11}^{\alpha \beta }=c_{22}^{\alpha \beta },c_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=c_{ji}^{\alpha \beta }=c_{ij}^{\beta \alpha }.`$

We now consider equilibrium setting. This case was discussed in . The allowed functions $`f_i(𝐫)`$should satisfy the condition $`f_1(𝐫)=f_2(𝐫),`$ where $`𝐫=0`$ designates the midpoint between the insertions, with boundary parameters for both channels identical: $`u_1=u=u,a_1=a_2=a,b_1=b_2=b.`$Then, the energy can be presented as

$$E=C_{uu}u^2+C_{aa}a^2+C_{bb}b^2+C_{ua}ua+C_{ub}ub+C_{ab}ab$$
(20)
where

$$C_{a\beta }=(2\delta _{\alpha \beta })(2c_{11}^{\alpha \beta }+c_{12}^{\alpha \beta })$$
(21)
Thus the total number of the effective spring constants is reduced to six. We intent to study the optimized (”relaxed”, ”equilibrium”) slope, so that

$$\frac{E}{a}=0,\frac{E}{b}=0$$
(22)
These conditions lead to

$$a=\frac{2C_{bb}C_{ua}C_{ab}C_{ub}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}u,b=\frac{2C_{aa}C_{ub}C_{ab}C_{ua}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}u,\mathrm{\Delta }=C_{ab}^24C_{aa}C_{bb}$$
(23)
As a result, the total energy minimized over $`a`$and $`b`$ can be written as

$$E_{\mathrm{min}}=Ku^2$$
(24)
$$K=\frac{C_{bb}(C_{ua}^24C_{aa}C_{uu})+C_{ab}(C_{ab}C_{uu}C_{ua}C_{ub})+C_{aa}C_{ub}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(25)
We can now see that six effective spring constants $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ define the equilibrium slope parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$and the equilibrium energy $`E_{\mathrm{min}}.`$

The effective spring constants can be found from Eq. 15 . Sometimes, however, it is more practical to use the energy values $`E[\{u,a,b\}]`$defined for different sets $`\{u,a,b\}`$ of the boundary parameters.

For every distance $`d`$ between the insertions, the elastic energy $`E[\{u,a,b\}]`$can be calculated numerically . Then, all six spring constants can be found. The following equations illustrate this approach:

$`C_{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E[\{u,0,0\}]}{u^2}},C_{aa}={\displaystyle \frac{E[\{0,a,0\}]}{a^2}},C_{bb}={\displaystyle \frac{E[\{0,0,b\}]}{b^2}},`$
$`C_{ua}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E[\{u,a,0\}]C_{uu}u^2C_{aa}a^2}{ua}};C_{ub}={\displaystyle \frac{E[\{u,0,b\}]C_{uu}u^2C_{bb}b^2}{ub}};`$
$`C_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E[\{0,a,b\}]C_{aa}a^2C_{bb}b^2}{ab}};`$
With these constants, the equilibrium (or minimized over the slope parameters) interaction energy profile $`E_{\mathrm{min}}(d)`$ can be determined from Eq. 20$`.`$

## 4 Final remarks

It was shown that interaction energy between the insertions can be described in terms of effective spring constants accounting for the coupling between various degrees of freedom introduced through the boundary conditions. After the spring constants are defined, the equilibrium slope (which can in general become anisotropic) and corresponding interaction energy can be defined analytically. This approach is much more efficient than the direct energy minimization used in . Some applications of this approach will be considered elsewhere.