text:
# Identifying Earth matter effects on supernova neutrinos at a single detector

## 1 Introduction

Our knowledge of neutrino masses and mixing parameters has been rapidly improving in the past few years. We know that the neutrino flavors $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ mix among themselves, and we already have measured the mass squared differences and two of the three mixing angles to a good accuracy . The most important unknowns are the value of the third mixing angle, whether the neutrino mass hierarchy is normal or inverted, and the magnitude of the leptonic CP violation. The neutrino spectra from a core collapse supernova (SN) can shed light on the first two of these unknowns.

Neutrinos produced inside a SN core undergo oscillations on their way out through the mantle and envelope of the star, through the interstellar space, and possibly even through some part of the Earth before arriving at the detector. The spectra of these neutrinos carry information about the two mass squared differences and the $`\nu _e`$ flavor component in the three mass eigenstates. Of course this information comes convoluted with the primary fluxes of the neutrinos produced inside the star, and the extraction of the oscillation parameters depends crucially on our understanding of these primary fluxes.

The uncertainties in the calculations of the primary flux spectra remain large, so only some of the robust features of these spectra can be used with confidence to extract the mixing parameters. Even with this limitation, it has been argued  that the observations of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectra at the detectors on Earth may reveal the type of the neutrino mass hierarchy and imply a range for the third mixing angle. Significant modifications of neutrino spectra can take place if the neutrinos travel through the Earth matter before reaching the detector, and these Earth effects can provide perhaps the most concrete signatures for some of the neutrino mixing scenarios .

Any signature of neutrino oscillations depends on the flavor-dependent differences between the primary spectra. Recent studies  reveal that these differences are much smaller than had been assumed before. This makes the identification of Earth effects harder than that expected in the previous analyses, and one needs to reevaluate the potential of the detectors from the perspective of these “pessimistic” assumptions about the primary fluxes and spectra.

The comparison of the neutrino signals observed at two detectors would be the most efficient way of detecting the Earth effects. However the detectors need to be sufficiently far apart so that the Earth effects are different for both of them, and sufficiently large to observe a statistically significant signal. Currently Super-Kamiokande is the only large detector that can measure the neutrino energies and can detect more than a few thousands of events from a galactic SN.

Though two detectors, both capable of measuring the neutrino energies, is definitely the most desirable option, it is still possible to detect Earth effects without having to measure the energies of individual neutrinos. Indeed, it has recently been shown that for a galactic SN, the comparison of the number of Cherenkov photons detected at Super-Kamiokande and IceCube as a function of time may be able to identify the Earth effects . The location of the SN can be anywhere within a specific 70% region of the sky for the effects to be observable.

The motivations to look for a way to identify the Earth effects at a single detector are manifold, the cancellation of systematic uncertainties being the major one. Moreover, in conjunction with the two-detector signature mentioned above, the fraction of the sky for a favorable location of the SN increases to about 85% when Super-Kamiokande is also employed as the “single” detector. For nearly 35% of the sky fraction for the SN location, these two ways of detecting the Earth effects act as confirmatory tests of each other. The ranges of primary neutrino flux parameters that give an Earth effect signature through these two procedures also differs slightly, since the two-detector method involving IceCube relies on the measurement of integrated luminosity, whereas the one-detector method relies on the analysis of the spectral shape. In this sense, the two methods are complementary to each other.

The naive method of fitting the observed neutrino signal for the primary fluxes and neutrino mixing parameters is inefficient for several reasons. The primary fluxes – their average energies, spectral widths as well as the magnitude of the total fluxes – are time dependent, and only a few rough features can be said to be known with any confidence. One may try to get rid of the time dependence by dividing the signal into several time bins, but this reduces the available statistics. Even within each time bin, one typically has to fit for as many as 5 parameters of the primary spectra, not counting the uncertainties in the neutrino mixing parameters.

However, robust identification of Earth effects can be achieved by observing that the parameters that govern the oscillation frequency of the neutrinos inside the Earth are relatively well measured, and more importantly, completely independent of the primary neutrino spectra. Therefore, the Earth effects can be identified merely by identifying the presence of this oscillation frequency in the observed spectrum. The oscillation frequency does not change with time, thus obviating the need for several time bins. This oscillating component is expected to be a small addition to the otherwise approximately blackbody spectrum that forms the major component of the signal. In order to extract this small oscillation component, we propose a Fourier analysis of the spectrum, which can separate the signals of different frequency from their superposition. We perform a numerical simulation to explore the efficiency of this method at a water Cherenkov detector like Super-Kamiokande, and a large scintillation detector like the one proposed in Ref. , which has a much better energy resolution.

Since the Earth effects can be observed only for certain neutrino mixing scenarios, the mere identification of these effects can already tell us whether, for example, the neutrino mass hierarchy is normal. This is a daunting task even at the future long-baseline experiments. In addition, the magnitude of the Earth effects as a function of time gives us important information about the primary neutrino spectra that is extremely useful for understanding the SN dynamics.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the modifications of the primary neutrino spectra by the Earth matter effects. In Sec. 3, we introduce the Fourier transform for extracting the oscillation frequency of neutrinos inside the Earth, and propose a procedure for identifying the Earth effects without having to make any assumptions about the primary neutrino spectra. In Sec. 4, we explore this method at scintillation and water Cherenkov detectors through a Monte Carlo simulation. Sec. 5 concludes.

## 2 Neutrino mixing parameters and Earth effects on the $`\overline{𝝂}_𝒆`$ spectrum

Neutrino oscillations are now firmly established by measurements of solar and atmospheric neutrinos and the KamLAND  and K2K  long-baseline experiments. The weak interaction eigenstates $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are non-trivial superpositions of three mass eigenstates $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$,

$$\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha i}\nu _i,\alpha \{e,\mu ,\tau \},i\{1,2,3\},$$
(1)
where $`U`$ is the leptonic mixing matrix. It can be written in the canonical form

$$U=R_{23}(\theta _{23})R_{13}(\theta _{13})R_{12}(\theta _{12}),$$
(2)
where $`R_{ij}(\theta _{ij})`$ corresponds to the rotation in the $`i`$$`j`$ plane through an angle $`\theta _{ij}`$. We have neglected the CP violating effects, which are irrelevant for SN neutrinos. From a global 3-flavor analysis of all the available data, one finds the 3$`\sigma `$ ranges for the mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$ and mixing angles as summarized in Table 1.

A SN core is essentially a neutrino blackbody source, but small flavor-dependent differences of the fluxes and spectra remain. Since these differences are very small between $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$, we represent both these species by $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. We denote the fluxes of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ at Earth that would be observable in the absence of oscillations by $`F_{\overline{e}}^0`$ and $`F_{\overline{x}}^0`$, respectively. For both $`F_{\overline{e}}^0`$ and $`F_{\overline{x}}^0`$, we assume a distribution of the form

$$F(E)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{E_0}\frac{(1+\alpha )^{1+\alpha }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha )}\left(\frac{E}{E_0}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[(\alpha +1)\frac{E}{E_0}\right],$$
(3)
where $`E_0`$ is the average energy, $`\alpha `$ a parameter that typically takes on values 2.5–5 depending on the flavor and the phase of neutrino emission, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ the overall flux at the detector. The values of the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and the spectral parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`E_0`$ are different for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. We represent these by the appropriate subscripts. Two of the most important robust features of the primary spectra are

(1) the energy hierarchy of the neutrino species: $`E_{\nu _e}<E_{\overline{\nu }_e}<E_{\overline{\nu }_x}`$,

(2) “pinching” of the spectra: $`\alpha _i>2`$ for all species.

Apart from a heavy water detector like SNO, the neutrino detectors are sensitive mainly to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ in the SN energy range. We shall therefore concentrate only on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum in this paper. In the presence of oscillations a $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ detector actually observes the flux

$$F_{\overline{e}}^D(E)=\overline{p}^D(E)F_{\overline{e}}^0(E)+\left[1\overline{p}^D(E)\right]F_{\overline{x}}^0(E),$$
(4)
where $`\overline{p}^D(E)`$ is the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability after propagation through the SN mantle and perhaps part of the Earth before reaching the detector. The bulk of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are observed through the inverse beta decay reaction $`\overline{\nu }_epne^+`$. The cross section $`\sigma `$ of this reaction is proportional to $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^2`$, making the spectrum of neutrinos observed at the detector $`N(E_{\overline{\nu }_e})\sigma F_{\overline{e}}^DE_{\overline{\nu }_e}^2F_{\overline{e}}^D`$.

A significant modification of the survival probability due to the propagation through the Earth appears only for those combinations of neutrino mixing parameters shown in Table 2. The Earth matter effects depend strongly on two parameters, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ . The “normal hierarchy” corresponds to $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2>0`$, whereas the “inverted hierarchy” corresponds to $`m_3<m_1<m_2`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2<0`$. Note that the presence or absence of the Earth effects discriminates between values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ less or greater than $`10^3`$, i.e. $`|\theta _{13}|`$ less or larger than about $`1.8^{}`$. Thus, the Earth effects are sensitive to values of $`|\theta _{13}|`$ that are much smaller than the current limit.

Let us consider those scenarios where the mass hierarchy and the value of $`\theta _{13}`$ are such that the Earth effects appear for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. In such cases the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability $`\overline{p}^D(E)`$ is given by

$$\overline{p}^D\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\theta }_{e2}^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\overline{\theta }_{e2}^{}2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}^2\left(12.5\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}L}{E}\right),$$
(5)
where the energy dependence of all quantities will always be implicit. Here $`\overline{\theta }_{e2}^{}`$ is the mixing angle between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_2`$ in Earth matter while $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ is the mass squared difference between the two anti-neutrino mass eigenstates $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_2`$ in units of $`10^5`$eV2, $`L`$ is the distance traveled through the Earth in units of 1000 km, and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy in MeV. We have assumed a constant matter density inside the Earth, which is a good approximation for $`L<10000`$ km, i.e. as long as the neutrinos do not pass through the core of the Earth.

The energy dependence of $`\overline{p}^D`$ introduces modulations in the energy spectrum of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. These modulations may be observed in the form of local peaks and valleys in Fig. 1(a), which shows the spectrum of the event rate, $`\sigma F_{\overline{e}}^D`$, at a detector as a function of the neutrino energy. Fig. 1(b) shows the same neutrino signal as a function of the “inverse-energy” parameter, defined as

$$y12.5/E.$$
(6)
Whereas the distance between the peaks of the modulation increases with energy in the energy spectrum, the peaks in the inverse-energy spectrum are nearly equispaced and hence have a single dominating frequency. This makes it easier to distinguish these modulations from random background fluctuations that have no fixed pattern.

The equidistant peaks in the modulation of the inverse-energy spectrum are a necessary feature of the Earth effects. Indeed, the net $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux at the detector may be written using (4) and (5) in the form

$$F_{\overline{e}}^D=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}F_{\overline{x}}^0+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}F_{\overline{e}}^0+\mathrm{\Delta }F^0\overline{A}_{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}Ly),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^0(F_{\overline{e}}^0F_{\overline{x}}^0)`$ depends only on the primary neutrino spectra, whereas $`\overline{A}_{}\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\theta }_{e2}^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\overline{\theta }_{e2}^{}2\theta _{12})`$ depends only on the mixing parameters and is independent of the primary spectra. The last term in (7) is the Earth oscillation term that contains a frequency $`k_{}2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}L`$ in $`y`$, with the coefficient $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^0\overline{A}_{}`$ being a comparatively slowly varying function of $`y`$. The first two terms in (7) are also slowly varying functions of $`y`$, and hence contain frequencies in $`y`$ that are much smaller than $`k_{}`$. The dominating frequency $`k_{}`$ is the one that appears in the modulation of the inverse-energy spectrum in Fig. 1(b).

The frequency $`k_{}`$ is completely independent of the primary neutrino spectra, and indeed can be determined to a good accuracy from the knowledge of the solar oscillation parameters, the Earth matter density, and the direction of the SN. If this frequency component is isolated from the inverse-energy spectrum of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, the Earth effects would be identified. In the next section, we shall show how this can be achieved through the Fourier transform of the inverse-energy spectrum.

## 3 Identifying the Earth matter effects

### 3.1 Fourier transform of the inverse-energy spectrum

Taking the Fourier transform of a function is the standard way of extracting components of different frequencies present in the function. The Fourier transform of a function $`f(y)`$ is

$$g(k)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(y)e^{iky}𝑑y$$
(8)
while the “power spectrum” $`G_f(k)|g(k)|^2`$ gives the strength of the frequency $`k`$ present in $`f(y)`$.

In Fig. 2(a), we show the power spectrum $`G_{\sigma F}(k)`$ of the $`y`$-spectrum $`\sigma F_{\overline{e}}^D`$. The peak at $`k2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2L=72`$ corresponds to the oscillations in Earth matter. The large peak at low values of $`k`$, which has the value of unity at $`k=0`$, is the dominant contribution due to the first two terms in (7). As may be observed, the Earth effect peak is cleanly isolated from the dominant contribution. The figure also allows us to put a lower bound on the value of $`k_{}`$ for which the Earth effects will be detectable: if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2L<20`$, the Earth effect peak will be lost in the dominant low frequency peak. Physically speaking, this implies that the neutrinos have to travel a minimum distance through the Earth for the Earth effects to be detectable. So this is not a limitation of this particular method, but a general limitation on the identification of Earth effects.

The Earth effect peak has a finite width due to the finite $`y`$-dependence of the coefficient of the oscillating term $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^0\overline{A}_{}`$, and of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$. The magnitude of the width is a measure of the $`y`$-dependence of these quantities, whereas the area under the peak gives the total contribution of the oscillating Earth effect term.

In Fig. 3(a), we show the envelope of the Earth effect term, $`T_{}\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }F^0\overline{A}_{}`$, for the typical neutrino spectra parameters during the cooling phase, normalized such that $`\sigma F_{\overline{x}}^0𝑑y=1`$. The power spectrum of the Fourier transform $`G_T(k)`$ of this envelope is shown in Fig. 3(b). Since $`T_{}`$ is the coefficient of the Earth matter oscillations term $`\mathrm{sin}^2(k_{}y)`$ and $`k_{}`$ is nearly constant over all the energy range, the width of the Earth effect peak in Fig. 2(a) is due mainly to the width of $`G_T(k)`$. We parameterize this width by $`w`$, defined as the value of $`k`$ where $`G_T(k)`$ is half its maximum value. This would correspond to the half width at half maximum of the $`k_{}72`$ peak in Fig. 2(a).

In Fig. 3(b), we observe $`w7`$. The value of $`w`$ depends on the primary fluxes, but it is in the range of 3-10 for almost all the allowed parameter range. The exact value of $`w`$ is not crucial for this analysis, however this estimation is useful in two ways. It allows us to get rid of spurious peaks by applying a selection criterion of a minimum width of the peak, and it also gives us the maximum range of $`k`$-values around the mean $`k_{}`$ for which the Earth effect term contributes.

The neutrino detectors have an energy threshold of about 5–10 MeV, which corresponds to $`y=`$ 1.25–2.5. Although the number of events below this energy threshold is expected to be very small (See Fig. 1), the presence of a sharp threshold may introduce high frequency components in the $`y`$-spectrum. Although the threshold is not sharp in real life, we show an extreme example of the effect of a sharp threshold in Fig. 2(b), taking a threshold of 10 MeV. Since the Fourier transform of a step function is a series of equispaced frequencies, we observe that these high equispaced frequencies are superposed on top of the actual $`G_{\sigma F}(k)`$. The spacing between these frequencies is much smaller than the width of the Earth effect peak, so the observation of the peak and the area under the peak are not much affected, even in this extreme situation. In reality, the energy threshold is expected to be much smoother and should not affect the identification of the peak and the measurement of its strength. In all the numerical simulations henceforth, we introduce a sharp energy threshold of 5 MeV in order to take care of the threshold effects.

### 3.2 The background due to statistical fluctuations

Since the spectrum is observed as a discrete set of neutrinos with individual energies (and hence, individual $`y`$ values), we have to approximate $`g(k)`$ by the discrete sum

$$g(k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{events}{}e^{iky},$$
(9)
where $`N`$ is the total number of events. The statistical fluctuations in the spectrum can contribute to frequency components that are comparable to $`k_{}`$. This acts as a background for the actual Earth effect peak.

The magnitude of this background can be estimated by assuming that the distribution of $`ky(\mathrm{modulo}2\pi )`$ is completely random. This is definitely a good approximation for large values of $`k`$ independent of the details of the distribution of $`y`$. In this approximation, the sum in (9) above represents a two dimensional random walk with unit step. This implies that the value of $`G_N(k)`$ obeys an exponential distribution $`P(G)=e^G`$, which has a mean $`\mu =1.0`$ and variance $`\sigma ^2=1.0`$ independent of the number of events $`N`$. The background due to the statistical fluctuations is thus nearly 1.0 on average, and the “signal” of the peak should rise above this average level in order to be identified.

This is illustrated in Fig 4(a), where the distance travelled by the neutrinos through the Earth is $`L=0`$. Note that the low frequency background is dominant for $`k<40`$. In Fig. 4(b), we show the same neutrino signal, but now with $`L=6`$. The Earth effect peak stands out above the background. Though the level of the background is not affected by the number of events, the magnitude of the signal grows proportional to $`N`$. Clearly, the Earth effect peak would grow above the background level when the number of events is sufficiently high.

Although the peak identification may be possible “by eye” in many cases, as in Fig 4(a), the standard particle physics method of resonance identification may be employed for the task. Firstly, we apply a lower $`k`$-cut to cut away all $`k<k_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, where $`k_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is the value of $`k`$ where the dominant peak falls to the background level. In Fig 4(a), for example, $`k_{\mathrm{cut}}40`$. Although we have made a rough estimate of the background above, the actual background may be calculated by averaging the spectrum $`G_N(k)`$ away from the value $`k_{}`$, i.e. in the region where we do not expect the Earth effect peak.

We know from Fig. 2 that the half width at half maximum of the peak in $`k`$ should be $`w3`$$`10`$. We then expect that most of the Earth effects contribute to values of $`k`$ within a range of $`W`$ around the peak, where $`W`$ may be taken to be $`4w`$, for example. We can then choose any interval in $`k`$ with a range of $`W`$, and integrate the power spectrum within this range. Applying the Central Limit Theorem to the background distribution $`P(G)`$, we can estimate the integral of the background within this interval to be $`B=\mu _BW\pm \sigma _B\sqrt{W}`$. For $`\mu _B=1.0`$, $`\sigma _B=1.0`$ and $`W=20`$, we get $`B20\pm 4.5`$. This implies that $`_WG_N(k)𝑑k>35`$, for example, would correspond to a more than $`3\sigma `$ detection of a positive signal. Depending on the actual data, the value of $`W`$ may be optimized. The procedure of measuring the area under the peak is more efficient than just measuring the peak height since it can weed out the spurious high peaks that do not have the minimum width dictated by $`G_T(k)`$.

The number of events needed in order to see the signal above the background depends strongly on the primary neutrino spectra, since the coefficient of the Earth effect term depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^0`$. In Fig. 5(a), we show the Earth effect term $`T_{}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_{}y)`$ in comparison with the term $`\sigma F_{\overline{x}}^0`$, normalized such that $`\sigma F_{\overline{x}}^0=1`$. In Fig. 5(b) we show the normalized term $`\sigma F_{\overline{x}}^0`$ for comparison. The area under this curve is unity. The area $`𝒜`$ under the curve in Fig. 5(a) may then be taken to be a measure of the net contribution per event of the Earth effect term to the $`y`$-spectrum. For the primary spectrum parameters used here, $`𝒜0.03`$ per event.

We show in Fig. 6 the dependence of $`𝒜`$ on the parameters of the primary spectra. We keep the parameters $`\alpha _{\overline{\nu }_x}=3`$ and $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}=15`$ MeV fixed, and show $`𝒜`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0/\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_x}^0`$ and $`E_{\overline{\nu }_x}`$ for two typical values of $`\alpha _{\overline{\nu }_e}`$. During the accretion phase, $`\alpha _{\overline{\nu }_e}>\alpha _{\overline{\nu }_x}`$, which is the situation depicted in Fig. 6(a). During the cooling phase, the $`\alpha `$ values for both spectra are very similar, which is depicted in Fig. 6(b). The stars roughly correspond to the parameter values obtained in the SN simulations . It may be observed that for these parameter values, $`𝒜0.01`$ during the accretion phase and $`𝒜0.03`$ during the cooling phase, so that the Earth effects during the accretion phase are expected to be much smaller. The relative magnitude of these effects thus also provides a test for the SN simulations.

We can estimate the number of events required for a peak identification as follows. In order to get a $`3\sigma `$ identification, we need the “signal” contribution $`S`$ such that $`S>3\sqrt{\sigma _S^2+\sigma _B^2}`$ where $`\sigma _S^2=S`$. With $`\sigma _B=4.5`$, this corresponds approximately to $`S>20`$. In order to reach this strength $`S`$ with an average contribution of $`𝒜0.03`$ per event for example, we need at least $`S/𝒜700`$ events. This is a very rough, and indeed an optimistic, estimate of the minimum number of events needed in order to detect Earth effects unambiguously. In reality, the energy resolution of the detectors tend to smear out the oscillations and decrease the magnitude of their strength, thus increasing the required number of events. We shall study the effects of the energy resolution of the detectors in Sec. 4 and get a realistic estimate of the number of events needed to identify the Earth effects. The relative strength of the Earth effects for different primary spectra can still be read off from Fig. 6.

Note that the above procedure can be employed without any prior knowledge of $`k_{}`$. Actually, if the value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ and $`L`$ is known, we already know the value of $`k_{}`$ to look for. This helps in getting rid of any background due to spurious peaks. On the other hand, if this peak is identified unambiguously, the value of $`k_{}`$ can help in improving the accuracy of the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. We shall study this in the next subsection.

### 3.3 Determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$

The current $`3\sigma `$ range of the solar mass squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=(5.4`$$`19)\times 10^5`$ eV2 is obtained mainly through the combination of the limits from Super-Kamiokande and KamLAND. Although this range is expected to narrow significantly with the future KamLAND data, it is worthwhile to note that the Fourier analysis of the SN neutrino spectra can also determine this value to an accuracy of a few percent.

Once the Earth effect peak is identified, the value of $`k_{}`$ gives the value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ since the value of $`L`$ should be well known once the SN direction is established. The error in the measurement of the position of the peak may be roughly estimated by $`w/k_{}`$. Since we expect $`w3`$$`10`$, and $`k_{}`$ may be as high as $`2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{(max) }L\text{(max) }400`$, even this conservatively estimated error may be only a few percent. As long as $`k_{}>40`$, which is the minimum value of $`k_{}`$ for the Earth effects to be detectable, the error due to determination of the peak position is less than 25%.

The value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\left[\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}+(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}+2VE/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2)^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(10)
where $`V`$ is the magnitude of the matter potential inside the Earth. In Fig. 7, we show the $`y`$-dependence of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ with various values of solar parameters. Since the $`y`$-spectrum is significant only for $`y>0.2`$, the deviation of this ratio from unity at $`y0.2`$ may be taken as a conservative estimate of the error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ from the SN spectral analysis. The figure shows that for $`y>0.2`$, the values of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ differ by less than 25%, and this difference decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ values. Therefore, it may be safely assumed that effectively, we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ to within 25%.

Throughout our analysis, we have assumed a constant matter density inside the mantle of the Earth. Actually the density may vary by as much as 30% along the neutrino trajectory in the extreme case where the trajectory is nearly tangent to the core. Since $`V\rho `$, this density variation contributes to the energy dependence of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ through the term involving $`EV`$ in (10), and smears the Earth effect peak. However, since the variation in $`E`$ by a factor of five is already taken care of in the above error estimation, the additional smearing due to the Earth density variation may be safely neglected.

Combining the error due to the peak determination and the error due to the difference in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, even conservatively the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ would be known to within 35%. KamLAND may have already pinned this value down to a much better precision, however since no other planned experiment would be able to reach a 35% precision on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ in near future, this could be the first confirmation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ value measured at KamLAND. At high values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`L`$, the error due to the peak width as well as the error due to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ difference decreases and the accuracy in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ measurement may become competitive with KamLAND. For example, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=15\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`L=3000`$ km, the error in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ from the SN spectral analysis would be less than 15%, comparable with the accuracy expected at KamLAND .

## 4 The effect of finite energy resolution

The neutrino signal measured at the detector through the inverse beta decay process $`\overline{\nu }_epne^+`$, which is the dominant reaction in both the water Cherenkov as well as the scintillation detector, can be written in the form

$$N_e(E_e)𝑑E_e^{}(E_e,E_e^{})(E_e^{})𝑑Ed\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{d^2\sigma (E_e^{},E,\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{dE_e^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }F_{\overline{e}}(E),$$
(11)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the incoming antineutrino, $`E_e^{}`$ is the true energy and $`E_e`$ is the measured energy of the outgoing positron. The differential cross section of the inverse beta decay process is $`[d^2\sigma (E_e^{},E,\mathrm{cos}\theta )/(dE_e^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta )]`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the antineutrino and the positron. We denote by $`(E_e^{})`$ the efficiency of positron detection, and $`(E_e,E_e^{})`$ is the energy resolution function. We neglect the elastic $`\nu `$$`e`$ scattering interactions, which account for less than a few percent of the total number of events, and can even be weeded out through their strongly forward peaked angular distribution.

We take $`(E_e^{})`$ to be uniform over the whole energy range except for a sharp lower threshold of 5 MeV. The resolution function $`(E_e,E_e^{})`$ is a Gaussian distribution with mean $`E_e^{}`$ and the standard deviation $`\sigma _\mathrm{D}`$ given by the energy resolution of the detector D, where D is SC for a scintillation detector and SK for a Cherenkov one. We take the inverse beta decay process to be completely elastic, so that the differential cross section involves a $`\delta `$ function nonvanishing only at $`E_e^{}E/[1+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )E/m_p]`$, where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. The angular distribution is approximated to be isotropic, and the cross section proportional to $`E^2`$. This corresponds to the differential cross section in  in the limit of degenerate neutron and proton masses, vanishing electron mass, and isotropic angular distribution. These approximations made here retain the essential features of the observed spectra. We finally normalize $`N_e(E_e)`$ to the number of events using $`N_e(E_e)𝑑E_e=N`$.

The outgoing positrons are detected in the water Cherenkov detectors through the Cherenkov photons that they radiate. In the scintillation detectors, the positrons are detected through photons produced in the scintillation material. Since a larger number of photons can be produced in a scintillation detector, these have typically a much better energy resolution than the water Cherenkov detectors. Indeed, whereas at Super-Kamiokande we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SK}}1.5`$ MeV $`(E/10`$ MeV$`)^{1/2}`$ , the energy resolution of a scintillation detector may be as good as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SC}}0.22`$ MeV $`(E/10`$ MeV$`)^{1/2}`$ , which is more than a factor of 5 better.

Since the identification of Earth effects as described in this paper relies on the detection of the modulations (see Fig. 1), and the finite energy resolution tends to smear them out, it is clear that the energy resolution plays a crucial role in the efficiency of detecting Earth effects. To illustrate this, we show in Fig. 8 the same energy spectrum of the signals as observed at a scintillation and a Cherenkov detector. One can clearly see how the poor energy resolution of the Cherenkov detector smears out the modulations.

The difference between Figs. 8(a) and (b) is reflected in the number of events required for the signal to rise above the background at the two detectors. A numerical simulation that generates inverse beta decay events in each of the detectors illustrates the comparative efficiency of the Fourier analyses at these two detectors. In Fig. 9, we show the Fourier transforms of the spectra at these two detectors with 2000 events each. Whereas the peak can be identified even by eye at the scintillation detector, the Fourier power spectrum at the Cherenkov detector is indistinguishable from background.

In Fig 9(a), the area under the peak is around 80. Since the area under the peak grows nearly linearly with the number of events, this indicates that at a scintillation detector, the signal starts becoming visible at around $`N1000`$. At the proposed 50 kiloton scintillation detector LENA  for example, one expects about 13,000 events from a SN at 10 kpc. This is an order of magnitude more than the statistics required for identifying the Earth effects. Indeed, a much smaller scintillation detector may be sufficient for this purpose.

At a water Cherenkov detector, the energy resolution is poor compared to a scintillation one. Indeed, the energy resolution is of nearly the same size as the wavelength of the Earth effect modulations for $`k_{}50`$. It is therefore much harder to identify the modulations. In Fig. 10(a), we show the Fourier transform of the $`y`$-spectra generated at a Cherenkov detector with 100,000 events. We expect that we need more than 60,000 events to be able to identify the peak unambiguously. This indicates that Super-Kamiokande may be too small for detecting the Earth effects by itself in this parameter range. However the proposed Hyper-Kamiokande would have the required size.

If the modulation wavelength is larger than the energy resolution, which is the case for low $`k_{}`$, the peak is easier to detect. In addition, if the differences in the primary spectra of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ are larger than those taken in this paper till now, the peak identification can be achieved with a much smaller number of events. In Fig. 10(b), we show the power spectrum with the average energies of the primary spectra differing by 40%, and the value of $`L`$ decreased to 4000 km. In such a “favorable” range, even a few thousand events would be enough at a water Cherenkov detector, so that Super-Kamiokande has a chance of performing a successful Earth effect detection. However in the light of the latest calculations of SN spectra, such a large energy difference is basically ruled out.

Note that even for a scintillation detector, the energy resolution becomes comparable to the modulation wavelength for large $`k_{}`$ values, so the number of events required will increase with $`k_{}`$. At values of $`k_{}>200`$, the modulations get significantly washed out even at a scintillation detector.

## 5 Conclusions

The modulations introduced in the neutrino spectrum by the Earth matter effects provide a way of detecting the presence of these effects without prior assumptions about the flavor-dependent source spectra. We have demonstrated that a Fourier analysis of the inverse-energy spectrum of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ signal may reveal a peak corresponding to the neutrino oscillation frequency in Earth. The position of this peak is insensitive to the primary spectra, and depends only on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and the distance travelled through the Earth. We study the feasibility of the identification of this peak.

The number of events required for an unambiguous identification depends crucially on the energy resolution of the detector. The task is certainly feasible at a large water Cherenkov detector like Hyper-Kamiokande that can detect nearly $`10^5`$ events from a galactic SN. However, scintillation detectors generically have a much better energy resolution than the Cherenkov ones, and typically a scintillation detector can detect the Earth effects with only about 2000 events. This indicates that a scintillation detector large enough to detect a few thousand events from a galactic SN is highly desirable.

The identification of the Earth effects severely restricts the neutrino mixing parameter space, since the effects are present only with certain combinations of the neutrino mass hierarchy and the mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ is measured at a laboratory experiment to be greater than $`10^3`$, then the Earth effects on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum imply the normal mass hierarchy. However if the Earth effects are not detected, it does not rule out any neutrino mixing parameters, owing to the current uncertainties in the primary fluxes.

A galactic SN is a rare event, expected to occur only a few times per century. However this time scale should be compared with that of those laboratory experiments which would be sensitive to the mass hierarchy and values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ as low as $`10^3`$. Determination of these two quantities is a difficult challenge even for the experiments that may be running in the next few decades . If a SN is observed within the next decade, the information gained may even be useful in fine-tuning the design parameters of these experiments.

The Fourier analysis described in this paper also yields the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ to a good accuracy if the matter effects are identified. Though KamLAND should pin down $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ to within a few percent in the next few years, a galactic SN will provide a completely independent confirmatory test of this value. For large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`L`$, the accuracy in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ through the SN spectral analysis becomes comparable with KamLAND.

Models of SNe generically predict time variations in the neutrino flux spectra and hence in the magnitude of Earth effects. The relative strength of the detected Earth effects as a function of time thus provides a test for these models.

In order to reap the benefits of the Earth effects, the detector needs to be shadowed by the Earth from the SN. The probability of such an occurrence is increased by having more than one detector spaced far apart from each other. From the point of view of SN neutrinos, several “small” (a few kiloton) scintillation detectors at different locations are far more useful than a single large one.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant No. SFB-375 and by the European Science Foundation (ESF) under the Network Grant No. 86 Neutrino Astrophysics. We thank M. Kachelriess for a careful reading of the manuscript, E. Lisi for helpful comments, and R. Tomàs for useful discussions.

## References


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Derivations and structure of the Lie algebras of Xu type111AMS Subject Classification-Primary: 17B40, 17B65, 17B70
Supported by a grant from Educational Department of China

(appeared in Manuscripta Math., 105 (2001), 483-500)

Yucai Su222Email: ycsu@sjtu.edu.cn

Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, China

Abstract. We determine the derivation algebras and the isomorphism classes of a family of the simple Lie algebras introduced recently by Xu \[Manuscripta Math, 100, 489–518 (1999)\]. The structure space of these algebras is given explicitly.

1. Introduction

Xu \[X\] recently introduced two new families of infinite-dimensional simple Lie algebras and a new family of infinite-dimensional simple Lie superalgebras. These algebras are generalizations of the algebras introduced by Block \[B\] and Dokovic and Zhao \[DZ\].

In this paper, we shall determine the derivation algebras and the isomorphism classes of the second family of the simple Lie algebras introduced by Xu. The problems for the first family of the algebras are settled in \[SZ\].

Below we shall introduce the normalized form of these algebras. Let $`IF`$ be an algebraically closed field with characteristic 0. All the vector spaces are assumed over $`IF`$. Denote by $`ZZ`$ the ring of integers and by $`IN`$ the additive semigroup of numbers $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$.

Take an additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^4`$ such that

$$\sigma =(1,0,1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }IF1_{[p]}\{0\},\mathrm{\Gamma }(1_{[q]}+IF1_{[q+1]})\mathrm{},$$
$`(1.1)`$
for $`p=1,2,3,4,`$ $`q=1,3`$, where here and below, we use the notation

$$a_{[p]}=(0,\mathrm{},0,{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^p},0\mathrm{},0)IF^4\text{for}aIF,p=1,2,3,4.$$
$`(1.2)`$
An element $`\alpha IF^4`$ will be denoted by $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4)`$. For $`p=1,2,3,4`$, pick $`J_p=\{0\}`$ or $`IN`$, and set $`J=J_1\times J_2\times J_3\times J_4.`$ Elements in $`J`$ will be denoted by $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,i_3,i_4)`$. Denote by $`𝒜_4=𝒜_4(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ the semigroup algebra of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J`$ with a basis $`\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J\}`$ and the algebraic operation $``$ defined by:

$$x^{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\beta ,𝐣}=x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢),(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J.$$
$`(1.3)`$
Then $`x^{0,0}`$ is an identity element, which will be simply denoted by 1. For simplicity, we denote $`x^\alpha =x^{\alpha ,0}`$. For $`p=1,2,3,4`$, we define derivation $`_p`$ of $`𝒜_4`$ by

$$_p(x^{\alpha ,𝐢})=\alpha _px^{\alpha ,𝐢}+i_px^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[p]}}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J,$$
$`(1.4)`$
where we adopt the convention that if a notion is not defined but technically appears in an expression, we always treat it as zero; for instance, $`x^{\alpha ,1_{[1]}}=0`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We define the following algebraic operation $`[,]`$ on $`𝒜_4=𝒜_4(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$:

$$[u,v]=x^{\sigma ,0}(_1(u)_2(v)_1(v)_2(u))+(u+_3(u))_4(v)(v+_3(v))_4(u),$$
$`(1.5)`$
for $`u,v𝒜_4`$. Denote

$$\sigma _1=1_{[3]}=(0,0,1,0),\sigma _2=1_{[1]}2_{[3]}=(1,0,2,0).$$
$`(1.6)`$
We treat $`x^{\sigma _i}=0`$ if $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`i=1,2.`$ Then $`x^{\sigma _1,0}`$ is in the center of $`𝒜_4`$. Form a quotient Lie algebra $`_4=_4(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)=𝒜_4/IFx^{\sigma _1}`$, whose induced Lie bracket is still denoted by $`[,]`$.

Theorem 1.1. The Lie algebra $`(_4,[,])`$ is simple if $`J\{0\}`$ or $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`_4^{(1)}=[_4,_4]`$ is simple and $`_4=_4^{(1)}(IFx^{\sigma _1,0}+IFx^{\sigma _2,0})`$.

The above theorem was due to Xu \[X\] and the simple Lie algebras $`_4^{(1)}`$, which will now be simply denoted by $``$ or $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$, are the normalized form of the second family of the algebras constructed in \[X\]. We shall refer these algebras to as the Lie algebras of Xu type. We will denote the image of the element $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ still by $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$. In particular, we have $`x^{\sigma _1,0}=0`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if $`J\{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$ otherwise, then $``$ has a basis

$$B=\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J,(\alpha ,𝐢)(\sigma _1,0)\}.$$
$`(1.7)`$
In Section 2, we shall determine the derivations of $``$, then in Section 3, we shall give the isomorphism classes and structure space of the Lie algebras of Xu type. Our main results are Theorems 2.1, 3.2, 3.3.

2. Derivations of $``$

We shall determine the structure of the derivation algebra of the Lie algebra $``$.

Recall that a derivation $`d`$ of the Lie algebra $``$ is a linear transformation on $``$ such that $`d([u,v])=[d(u),v]+[u,d(v)]`$ for $`u,v.`$ Denote by $`\text{Der}`$ the space of the derivations of $``$. It is well known that $`\text{Der}`$ forms a Lie algebra with respect to the commutator of linear transformations of $``$, and $`\text{ad}_{}`$ is an ideal of $`\text{Der}`$. Elements in $`\text{ad}_{}`$ are called inner derivations, while elements in $`\text{Der}\backslash \text{ad}_{}`$ are called outer derivations.

We rewrite (1.5) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}[x^{\alpha ,𝐢},x^{\beta ,𝐣}]& =(\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2)x^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma ,𝐢+𝐣}+(\alpha _1j_2\beta _1i_2)x^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[2]}}\\ & +(i_1\beta _2j_1\alpha _2)x^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}}+(i_1j_2j_1i_2)x^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}1_{[2]}}\\ & +((\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _4)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}+((\alpha _3+1)j_4(\beta _3+1)i_4)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[4]}}\\ & +(i_3\beta _4j_3\alpha _4)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[3]}}+(i_3j_4j_3i_4)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[3]}1_{[4]}},\end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
for $`(\alpha ,𝐢),(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$. For convenience, we fix four elements in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$\tau _1=\sigma ,\tau _2=(0,a,1,0),\tau _3=0,\tau _4=(0,0,1,b)\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ for some }a,bIF\backslash \{0\}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
Note that by (1.1) there exist $`a^{},b^{},c^{},d^{},e^{}F`$ with $`a^{},b^{},e^{}0`$ such that

$$(a^{},0,0,0),(0,b^{},0,0),(1,c^{},0,0),(0,0,1,d^{}),(0,0,0,e^{})\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

then $`(0,kb^{}+c^{},1,0)=k(0,b^{},0,0)+(1,c^{},0,0)\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`(0,0,1,d^{})+k(0,0,0,e^{})=(0,0,1,d^{}+ke^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for all $`kZZ`$; in particular, by choosing $`k`$ with $`a=kb^{}+c^{}0`$, $`b=d^{}+ke^{}0`$, it shows that such $`a,b`$ exist.

Observing from (1.5), we see

$$\text{ad}_{x^{\tau _p}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}_2& \text{if }p=1,\\ a_2x^{\tau _2+\sigma }_1& \text{if }p=2,\\ _4& \text{if }p=3,\\ a_4x^{\tau _4}(_3+1)& \text{if }p=4,\end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
where in general, $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_p`$ is the operator on $`:(x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_p)(x^{\beta ,𝐣})=x^{\alpha ,𝐢}(_p(x^{\beta ,𝐣}))`$, and $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ acts on $``$ via the multiplication of $`𝒜_4`$.

Denote by Hom$`{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$ the space of additive functions $`\mu :\mathrm{\Gamma }IF`$ satisfying $`\mu (\sigma )=0`$. For each $`\mu \text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$, one can define a linear transformation $`d_\mu `$ by

$$d_\mu (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})=\mu (\alpha )x^{\alpha ,𝐢}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Since $`\mu (\sigma )=0`$ it is straightforward to verify by (2.1) that $`d_\mu \text{Der}`$. We regard Hom$`{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$ as a subspace of $`\text{Der}`$ by the embedding: $`\mu d_\mu `$. Define $`_{t_p}`$ by

$$_{t_p}(x^{\alpha ,𝐢})=i_px^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[p]}}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J\text{ and }p=1,2,3,4.$$
$`(2.5)`$
Then by (2.1), one can verify that $`_{t_p}`$ are derivations of $``$ (of course, $`_{t_p}=0`$ if $`J_p=\{0\}`$). Assume that $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Observe that for $`p=1,2,3,4`$, if $`J_p=\{0\}`$, then $`x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}}`$ but $`[x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}},]`$ and thus we can define the outer derivations (cf. (2.1))

$$d_p=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}}}|_{}:x^{\beta ,𝐣}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\beta _2x^{\beta +1_{[1]},𝐣}+j_2x^{\beta +1_{[1]},𝐣1_{[2]}}& \text{ if }& p=1,\\ \beta _1x^{\beta +1_{[1]},𝐣}j_1x^{\beta +1_{[1]},𝐣1_{[1]}}& \text{ if }& p=2,\\ \beta _4x^{\beta 1_{[3]},𝐣}+j_4x^{\beta 1_{[3]},𝐣1_{[4]}}& \text{ if }& p=3,\\ (\beta _3+1)x^{\beta 1_{[3]},𝐣}j_3x^{\beta 1_{[3]},𝐣1_{[3]}}& \text{ if }& p=4,\end{array}$$
$`(2.6)`$
i.e., $`d_1=x^{1_{[1]}}_2,d_2=x^{1_{[1]}}_1,d_3=x^{1_{[3]}}_4`$ and $`d_4=x^{1_{[3]}}(_3+1)`$. If $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`J_p\{0\}`$, we set $`d_p=0`$. If $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can define another outer derivation

$$\overline{d}_2=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _2}}|_{}:x^\beta \beta _2x^{\beta +2_{[1]}1_{[3]}}\beta _4x^{\beta +1_{[1]}2_{[3]}},$$
$`(2.7)`$
i.e., $`\overline{d}_2=x^{2_{[1]}1_{[3]}}_2x^{1_{[1]}2_{[3]}}_4`$, and we set $`\overline{d}_2=0`$ if $`J\{0\}`$ or $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then we have

Theorem 2.1. $`\text{Der}`$ is spanned by $`\text{ad}_{},\text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF),_{t_p},d_p`$ and $`\overline{d}_2`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4.`$

Proof. Let $`d\text{Der}`$ and let $`D`$ be the subspace of $`\text{Der}`$ spanned by the elements mentioned in the theorem. The proof of the theorem is equivalent to proving that $`dD`$. We shall prove that after a number steps in each of which $`d`$ is replaced by $`dd^{}`$ for some $`d^{}D`$ the 0 derivation is obtained and thus proving that $`dD`$. This will be done by a number of claims.

Claim 1. We can suppose $`d(x^\sigma )=d(1)=0`$.

Assume

$$d(x^{\tau _p})=\underset{(\alpha ,𝐢)M_p}{}e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}x^{\alpha +\tau _p,𝐢}\text{for}p=1,2,3,4\text{ and some }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}IF,$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $`M_p=\{(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J|e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}0\}`$ is a finite set. We set $`e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}=0`$ if $`(\alpha ,𝐢)M_p`$.

First assume that $`J_4\{0\}`$. By induction on $`i_4`$, we can write $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}=[1,u]`$ for some $`u`$: if $`\alpha _4=0`$, then $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}=(i_4+1)^1[1,x^{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[4]}}]`$, or otherwise, $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}\alpha _4^1[1,x^{\alpha ,𝐢}]=\alpha _4^1i_4x^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[4]}}`$, which by the inductive assumption can be written as $`[1,v]`$ for some $`v`$. By this, we can write $`d(1)=[1,u]`$ for some $`u`$, and so replacing $`d`$ by $`d\text{ad}_u`$ gives $`d(1)=0`$.

Applying $`d`$ to $`[1,x^{\tau _p}]=0`$ for $`p=1,2`$, we obtain that $`_4(d(x^{\tau _p}))=0`$, i.e.,

$$\alpha _4=i_4=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}0,$$
$`(2.9)`$
for $`p=1,2`$. Similarly, applying $`d`$ to $`[1,x^{\tau _4}]=bx^{\tau _4}`$, we see that (2.9) also holds for $`p=4`$. If $`J_2\{0\}`$, then similarly we can write $`d(x^\sigma )=[x^\sigma ,v]`$ for some $`v`$. Since $`_4(d(x^\sigma ))=0`$, we can choose $`v`$ to satisfy $`_4(v)=0`$. Thus if we replace $`d`$ by $`d\text{ad}_v`$, then we still have $`d(1)=0`$, and we have $`d(x^\sigma )=0`$.

So suppose $`J_2=\{0\}`$. Then each term $`x^{\alpha +\tau _1,𝐢}`$ with $`\alpha _20`$ appearing on the right-hand side of (2.8) for $`p=1`$ can be written as $`\alpha _2^1[x^\sigma ,x^{\alpha +\tau _1,𝐢}]`$. Thus again we can replace $`d`$ by $`d\text{ad}_v`$ for some $`v`$ which satisfies $`_4(v)=0`$, to obtain

$$\alpha _2=i_2=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(p)}0,$$
$`(2.10)`$
holds for $`p=1`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^\sigma ,x^{\tau _2}]=ax^{\tau _2}`$, using (2.10), we see that $`\alpha _2=i_2=0`$ if $`e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(2)}0`$, i.e., (2.10) holds for $`p=2`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^\sigma ,x^{\tau _4}]=0`$, we see that (2.10) holds for $`p=4`$ also. By calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\tau _2,𝐢}`$ in $`[d(x^\sigma ),x^{\tau _2}]+[x^\sigma ,d(x^{\tau _2})]=ad(x^{\tau _2})`$, using (2.10), we obtain

$$(a(\alpha _11)e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}+a(i_1+1)e_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[1]}}^{(1)})ae_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(2)}=ae_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(2)},$$
$`(2.11)`$
where, if $`J_1=\{0\}`$, then the second term vanishes. By induction on $`i_1`$ ranging from $`\mathrm{max}\{j_1|(\alpha ,𝐣)M_1\}`$ down to zero, we obtain

$$e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}=0\text{ if }\alpha _11\text{ or }i_10.$$
$`(2.12)`$
By calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\tau _4\sigma ,𝐢}`$ in $`d([x^\sigma ,x^{\tau _4}])=0`$, using (2.10), we obtain

$$b\alpha _3e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}+b(i_3+1)e_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(1)}=0.$$
$`(2.13)`$
where, the second term is vanishing if $`J_3=\{0\}`$. By induction on $`i_3`$ ranging from $`\mathrm{max}\{j_3|(\alpha ,𝐣)M_1\}`$ down to zero, we obtain

$$\alpha _3=i_3=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}0.$$
$`(2.14)`$
(2.9), (2.10), (2.12) and (2.14) show that if $`e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}0`$, then $`(\alpha ,𝐢)=(1_{[1]},0)`$, but then $`e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(1)}`$ is the coefficient of the term $`x^{1_{[1]}\sigma }=x^{\sigma _1}=0`$ (cf (2.8) and the statements before (1.7)). Thus we have $`d(x^\sigma )=0`$.

Next assume that $`J_4=\{0\}`$. If $`J_2\{0\}`$, by interchanging positions between $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ in the above arguments, we can obtain the result as above. Thus suppose $`J_2=\{0\}`$. As the statement before (2.10), we can assume that $`_2(d(x^\sigma ))=0`$. Similarly, we can assume that $`_4(d(1))=0`$. Then as the proof above, we can obtain that (2.9), (2.10) hold for $`p=1,2,3,4`$. Then (2.11)-(2.14) also hold and so again we can assume that $`d(x^\sigma )=0`$. Similarly, by calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\tau _2,𝐢}`$ in $`d([1,x^{\tau _2}])=0`$ and calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\tau _4,𝐢}`$ in $`d([1,x^{\tau _4}])=bx^{\tau _4}`$, we obtain that if $`e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(3)}0`$, then $`(\alpha ,𝐢)=(\sigma _1,0)`$ (which corresponds to the term $`x^{\sigma _1}=0`$), and so we have $`d(1)=d(x^\sigma )=0`$. This proves Claim 1.

Claim 2. We can assume that $`d(x^{\tau _p})=0`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4.`$

By Claim 1, we see that (2.9), (2.10) hold for $`p=2,4`$. For each term $`x^{\alpha +\tau _2,𝐢}`$ appearing in the right-hand side of (2.8), using $`[x^{\tau _2},x^{\alpha \sigma ,𝐢}]=a(\alpha _11)x^{\alpha +\tau _2,𝐢}ai_1x^{\alpha +\tau _2,𝐢1_{[1]}}`$, we see that one can replace $`d`$ by $`d\text{ad}_u`$ for some $`u`$, where $`u`$ is a linear combination of some $`x^{\alpha \sigma ,𝐢}`$, so that $`u`$ satisfies $`_2(u)=_4(u)=0`$, to obtain (here we would like to remark that in case $`J=\{0\},\alpha =2_{[1]}1_{[3]}`$, then $`\alpha \sigma =\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}`$, but $`\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha \sigma }}=\overline{d}_2`$ by (2.7), this is where we make use of $`\overline{d}_2`$),

$$\alpha _1=1,i_1=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(2)}0.$$
$`(2.15)`$
By calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\tau _2+\tau _4+\sigma ,𝐢}`$ in $`d([x^{\tau _2},x^{\tau _4}])=0,`$ using (2.15), we obtain

$$\alpha _1=i_1=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(4)}0.$$
$`(2.16)`$
Then, using $`[x^{\tau _4},x^{\alpha ,𝐢}]=b(\alpha _3+1)x^{\alpha +\tau _4,𝐢}bi_3x^{\alpha +\tau _4,𝐢1_{[3]}}`$, we see that one can replace $`d`$ by $`d\text{ad}_u`$ for some $`u`$ which satisfies $`_1(u)=_2(u)=_4(u)=0`$, to obtain

$$\alpha _3=1,i_3=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(4)}0.$$
$`(2.17)`$
Then by $`d([x^{\tau _2},x^{\tau _4}])=0`$, it gives

$$\alpha _3=i_3=0\text{ if }e_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(2)}0.$$
$`(2.18)`$
Using (2.15)-(2.18), we see that $`M_2`$ or $`M_4`$ is either empty, or a singleton $`\{(1_{[1]},0)\}`$ or $`\{(\sigma _1,0)\}`$, thus by replacing $`d`$ by

$$da^1e_{1_{[1]},0}^{(2)}\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[1]}}}b^1e_{\sigma _1,0}^{(4)}\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[3]}}},$$
$`(2.19)`$
where, the last two terms are either in $`\text{ad}_{}`$ or in $`IFd_1+IFd_3`$ (cf. (2.6)), we obtain that $`d(x^{\tau _p})=0`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4`$. This proves Claim 2.

Now for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$, assume

$$d(x^\beta )=\underset{(\alpha ,𝐢)M_\beta }{}c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢}\text{ for some }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}IF,$$
$`(2.20)`$
where $`M_\beta =\{(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J|c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}0\}`$ is a finite set. Again we set $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}=0`$ if $`(\alpha ,𝐢)M_\beta `$. By applying $`d`$ to $`[x^\sigma ,x^\beta ]=\beta _2x^\beta ,[1,x^\beta ]=\beta _4x^\beta `$, by Claim 1, we obtain

$$\alpha _2=\alpha _4=i_2=i_4=0\text{ if }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}0.$$
$`(2.21)`$
Furthermore, if $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\beta _1=0`$, then by applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\tau _2},x^\beta ]=0`$, we obtain

$$\alpha _1=i_1=0\text{ if }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}0\text{ and }\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ with }\beta _1=0.$$
$`(2.22)`$
By (1.1), we can fix an element $`\gamma =(0,0,c,0)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`cIF\backslash \{0,1,2\}`$.

Claim 3. We can assume that $`d(x^\gamma )=0`$.

If $`c_{0,0}^{(\gamma )}0`$, we can define an additive function $`\mu \text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$ satisfying that $`\mu (\tau _p)=0`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4`$ (cf. (2.2)) and that $`\mu (\gamma )=c_{0,0}^{(\gamma )}`$, as follows:

$$\mu :\alpha c^1c_{0,0}^{(\gamma )}(\alpha _1+a^1\alpha _2+\alpha _3+b^1\alpha _4),$$
$`(2.23)`$
so if we replace $`d`$ by $`dd_\mu `$, $`c_{0,0}^{(\gamma )}`$ is vanishing. Since $`d_\mu (x^{\tau _p})=0`$, we still have Claim 2 after this replacement. Furthermore, if $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`c_{\sigma _1,0}^{(\gamma )}0`$, then we can replace $`d`$ by $`d+c_{\sigma _1,0}^{(\gamma )}(c+1)^1\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[4]}}}`$ so that $`c_{\sigma _1,0}^{(\gamma )}`$ vanishes also. Noting that $`[x^{\sigma _1,1_{[4]}},1]=x^{\sigma _1}=0`$ according to the statements before (1.7) and that $`[x^{\sigma _1,1_{[4]}},x^{\tau _p}]=0`$ for $`p=1,2,4`$, we still have Claim 2 after this replacement. Therefore we can suppose

$$c_{0,0}^{(\gamma )}=c_{\sigma _1,0}^{(\gamma )}=0.$$
$`(2.24)`$
Let $`j,kZZ`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\gamma +j\tau _4},x^{k\tau _4}]=b((c+1)kj)x^{\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4}`$, where, the coefficient $`b((c+1)kj)=(cj+1)kb(k+1)jb`$ is obtained from the 5th term of the right-hand side of (2.1), and by calculating the coefficients of $`x^{\alpha +\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4,𝐢}`$, using (2.21) and canceling the common factor $`b`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}((c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4)}=& ((\alpha _3+c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}+(i_3+1)kc_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}\\ & +((c+1)kj(\alpha _3+1))c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(k\tau _4)}j(i_3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(k\tau _4)},\end{array}$$
$`(2.25)`$
where, if $`J_3=\{0\}`$, the second and the last terms of the right-hand side of (2.25) are zero. Assume that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma )}0`$ for some $`(\alpha ,𝐢)`$. Since we shall be only involved in the choices of $`j,k`$ with $`3j,k,j+k3`$, we can set

$$𝐦=\mathrm{max}\{𝐢|c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}0\text{ or }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(j\tau _4)}0\text{ for some }j=3,\mathrm{},3\}.$$
$`(2.26)`$
Taking $`j=0,𝐢=𝐦`$ in (2.25), and canceling the common factor $`k`$, we have

$$(c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +k\tau _4)}=(\alpha _3+c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}+(c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}\text{ if }k0.$$
$`(2.27)`$
Multiplying (2.25) by $`c+1`$ and using (2.27) to substitute the left-hand side and the first term of the right-hand side, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}k\alpha _3(\alpha _3+c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=& (c+1)(((c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{((j+k)\tau _4)}\\ & ((\alpha _3+c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(j\tau _4)}((c+1)kj(\alpha _3+1))c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}),\end{array}$$
$`(2.28)`$
if $`j,k+j0`$. Interchanging $`j`$ and $`k`$, and adding the result to (2.28), canceling the common factor $`j+k`$, we obtain

$$\alpha _3(\alpha _3+c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=c(c+1)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{((j+k)\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(j\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)})\text{ if }j,k,j+k0.$$
$`(2.29)`$
Denote by $`c^{}`$ the left-hand side factored by $`c(c+1)`$, which does not depend on $`j,k`$. Noting that by Claim 2, $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\tau _4)}=0`$, using this in (2.29), we can solve

$$\alpha _3(\alpha _3+c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=c(c+1)c^{},c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}=(k1)c^{}\text{for}k0.$$
$`(2.30)`$
Using (2.30) in (2.28), by letting $`jk`$, we obtain

$$(\alpha _3+1)c^{}=0.$$
$`(2.31)`$
Assume that $`\alpha _3(\alpha _3+1)(\alpha _3+c+1)0`$. (2.30), (2.31) show that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}=0`$, and that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +k\tau _4)}=0`$ by (2.27), this is contrary to (2.26). Thus this case dos not occur.

Next assume that $`\alpha _3=0`$. Then (2.21), (2.22) show that $`\alpha =0`$. Then (2.30) gives

$$c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}=0.$$
$`(2.32)`$
If $`𝐦=0`$, then the assumption that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma )}0`$ contradicts (2.24). So $`𝐦0`$. Then (2.21), (2.22) mean that $`m_30`$ and so $`J_3\{0\}`$. By (2.32), setting $`𝐢=𝐦`$ in (2.25), we obtain that $`((c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4)}=((c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}.`$ Setting $`j=0`$, this gives

$$c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +k\tau _4)}=c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}.$$
$`(2.33)`$
Thus the left-hand side does not depend on $`k`$. Taking $`𝐢=𝐦1_{[3]}`$ in (2.25), using (2.32), (2.33), we obtain

$$((c+1)kj)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(k\tau _4)})=m_3kc_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}.$$
$`(2.34)`$
Setting $`k=1`$, noting that by Claim 2, $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\tau _4)}=0`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(c+1j)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+1)\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)})=m_3c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )},\\ (cj)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+2)\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+1)\tau _4)})=m_3c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )},\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(2.35)\\ (2.36)\end{array}`$
where (2.36) is obtained from (2.35) by replacing $`j`$ by $`j+1`$. Multiplying (2.36) by $`c+1j`$, multiplying (2.35) by $`cj`$, adding the results to kill the term $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+1)\tau _4)}`$, we obtain

$$(cj)(c+1j)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+2)\tau _4)}c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)})=m_3(2c+12j)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}.$$
$`(2.37)`$
Setting $`k=2`$ in (2.34), multiplying it by $`(cj)(c+1j)`$, multiplying (2.37) by $`2(c+1)j`$, subtracting the obtained results from each other, we obtain

$$(cj)(c+1j)(2(c+1)j)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(2\tau _4)}=m_3((2c+3)j2(c+1)^2)c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}.$$
$`(2.38)`$
The left-hand side is a polynomial on $`j`$ of degree 3, while the right-hand side is of degree 1. This forces $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=0`$. This, together with (2.32), (2.33), contradicts (2.26). Thus this case dos not occur either.

Next assume that $`\alpha _3=1`$. Then (2.21), (2.22) show that $`\alpha =\sigma _1`$. If $`𝐦=0`$, then (2.24) contradicts the assumption that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma )}0`$. So $`𝐦0`$ and then $`J_3\{0\}`$. Using (2.30) in (2.27), we obtain

$$c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +k\tau _4)}=(kc1)c^{}.$$
$`(2.39)`$
Taking $`𝐢=𝐦1_{[3]}`$ in (2.25), using (2.30), (2.39), we obtain

$$((c+1)kj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+k)\tau _4)}(ckj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}(c+1)kc_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(k\tau _4)}=m_3(jk(c+1))c^{},$$
$`(2.40)`$
for $`k0`$. Setting $`k=1`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(c+1j)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+1)\tau _4)}(cj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}=m_3(j(c+1))c^{},\\ (cj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+2)\tau _4)}(cj1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+1)\tau _4)}=m_3(jc)c^{},\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(2.41)\\ (2.42)\end{array}`$
where (2.42) is obtained from (2.41) by replacing $`j`$ by $`j+1`$. Multiplying (2.41) by $`cj1`$ and (2.42) by $`c+1j`$ and adding the results together, we obtain

$$(c+1j)(cj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+2)\tau _4)}(cj1)(cj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}=m_3(2(jc)^2+jc+1)c^{}.$$
$`(2.43)`$
Setting $`k=2`$ in (2.40), we have

$$(2(c+1)j)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +(j+2)\tau _4)}(2cj)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}2(c+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(2\tau _4)}=m_3(j2(c+1))c^{}.$$
$`(2.44)`$
Multiplying (2.43) by $`(2(c+1)j)`$ and (2.44) by $`(c+1j)(cj)`$ and adding the results together, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(cj)(c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(\gamma +j\tau _4)}+(c+1j)c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(2\tau _4)})\\ =m_3(j2(c+1))(jc+1)(jc1)(2(c+1))^1c^{}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.45)`$
Multiplying (2.41) by $`cj1`$ and using (2.45) to substitute both terms of the left-hand side of the resulting expression, noting that the coefficient of $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦1_{[3]}}^{(2\tau _4)}`$ becomes vanishing, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}m_3(jc1)((j2c1))(jc+2)(jc)\\ +(cj1)(j2c2)(jc+1))(2(c+1))^1c^{}=m_3(jc1)(cj1)c^{}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.46)`$
This shows that $`c^{}=0`$, and so we again get a contradiction to (2.26).

Finally assume that $`\alpha _3=c1`$. Then the first equation of (2.30) shows that $`c^{}=0`$, the second shows that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(k\tau _4)}=0`$, and (2.27) shows that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma +k\tau _4)}=0`$ for $`k0`$, and then taking $`k=j0`$ in (2.25) gives that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐦}^{(\gamma )}=0`$, this is again contrary to (2.26). This shows that it is wrong to make the assumption that $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\gamma )}0`$ for some $`(\alpha ,𝐢)`$. Thus $`d(x^\gamma )=0`$. This proves Claim 3.

By the statement after (2.2), we can take $`e=ka^{}10,\pm 1`$ for some $`kZZ`$ such that $`\eta =(e,0,1,0)=k(a^{},0,0,0)\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Fix such an $`\eta `$.

Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\tau _i},x^\eta ]=[x^\gamma ,x^\eta ]=0,i=1,3,4`$, we obtain $`(\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4)=(i_2,i_3,i_4)=0`$ if $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\eta )}0`$. If $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`c_{\sigma +\sigma _1,0}^{(\eta )}0`$, then we can replace $`d`$ by $`d+c_{\sigma +\sigma _1,0}^{(\eta )}e^1\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[2]}}}`$ (this does not affect Claims 1,2,3) so that $`c_{\sigma +\sigma _1,0}^{(\eta )}`$ becomes zero. Now using similar arguments to those given after (2.24) in the proof of Claim 3, we can prove

$$\alpha =𝐢=0\text{ if }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\eta )}0.$$
$`(2.47)`$
In fact, if we use the new symbol $`y^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ to denote $`x^{\alpha \sigma ,𝐢}`$, then in case $`𝐢=𝐣=0`$, (2.1) becomes $`[y^\alpha ,y^\beta ]=((\alpha _1+1)\beta _2(\beta _1+1)\alpha _2)y^{\alpha +\beta }+(\alpha _3\beta _4\beta _3\alpha _4)y^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma }`$. This shows that there is a symmetry between $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$.

Claim 4. We can suppose $`d(x^\beta )=0`$ for all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$.

Suppose $`\beta _40`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\tau _4},x^\beta ]=b(\beta _3+1)x^{\beta +\tau _4},[x^\gamma ,x^\beta ]=(c+1)\beta _4x^{\beta +\gamma },`$ using Claim 2, Claim 3, (2.21), canceling the common factors $`b`$ and $`(c+1)\beta _4`$, we obtain respectively

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\beta _3+\alpha _3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}+(i_3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(\beta )}& =& (\beta _3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta +\tau _4)},\\ c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}& =& c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta +\gamma )}.\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(2.48)\\ (2.49)\end{array}`$
Replacing $`\beta `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ in (2.48), using (2.49), we have

$$(c+\beta _3+\alpha _3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}+(i_3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(\beta )}=(c+\beta _3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta +\tau _4)}.$$
$`(2.50)`$
This together with (2.48) gives $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta +\tau _4)}=c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}`$, and then (2.48) becomes

$$\alpha _3c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}+(i_3+1)c_{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[3]}}^{(\beta )}=0.$$
$`(2.51)`$
As in (2.13), this shows

$$\alpha _3=i_3=0\text{ if }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}0.$$
$`(2.52)`$
If $`\beta _4=0`$, replacing $`\beta `$ by $`\beta \tau _4`$ in the arguments above, we still have (2.52). Similarly, using $`\tau _2,\eta `$ in placing of $`\tau _4,\gamma `$ in the above arguments, we can prove that $`\alpha _1=i_1=0`$ if $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta )}0`$. This and (2.52), (2.21) show that $`M_\beta `$ is either empty or a singleton $`\{(0,0)\}`$. Therefore, we can rewrite (2.20) as $`d(x^\beta )=\mu (\beta )x^\beta `$ by letting $`\mu (\beta )=c_{0,0}^{(\beta )}`$. Using this, by setting $`𝐢=𝐣=0`$ in (2.1) and applying $`d`$ to it, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2)(\mu (\alpha )+\mu (\beta ))& =& (\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2)\mu (\alpha +\beta +\sigma ),\\ ((\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _4)(\mu (\alpha )+\mu (\beta ))& =& ((\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _4)\mu (\alpha +\beta ).\end{array}$$
$`(2.53)`$
From this, one can easily obtain that $`\mu `$ is an additive function such that $`\mu (\sigma )=0`$. Thus $`\mu \text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$, and by replacing $`d`$ by $`dd_\mu `$, we have Claim 4. This also proves the theorem if $`J=\{0\}`$.

Claim 5. If $`J\{0\}`$, then $`d_{p=1}^4IF_{t_p}`$.

Say, $`J_1\{0\}`$. Assume

$$d(x^{\beta ,1_{[1]}})=\underset{(\alpha ,𝐢)M_{\beta ,1}}{}c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta ,1)}x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢}\text{for}\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ and some }c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta ,1)}IF,$$
$`(2.54)`$
where $`M_{\beta ,1}=\{(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J|c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta ,1)}0\}`$ is a finite set. Again we set $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{(\beta ,1)}=0`$ if $`(\alpha ,𝐢)M_{\beta ,1}`$. Denote $`^{(0)}=\mathrm{span}\{x^\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}\}.`$ Then by Claim 4, $`d(^{(0)})=0`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^\sigma ,x^{\tau _2,1_{[1]}}]=ax^{\tau _2,1_{[1]}}`$ and $`[x^{\tau _p},x^{\tau _2,1_{[1]}}]^{(0)}`$ for $`p=2,3,4`$, we obtain as before (for instance, (2.13)) that $`M_{\tau _2,1}=\mathrm{}`$ or a singleton $`\{(0,0)\}`$. Replacing $`d`$ by $`dc_{0,0}^{(\tau _2,1)}_{t_1}`$, we can suppose $`d(x^{\tau _2,1_{[1]}})=0`$. Similarly, if $`J_p\{0\}`$ for $`p=2,3,4`$, by replacing $`d`$ by $`df_{t_p}`$ for some $`fIF`$, we can suppose $`d(x^{\eta ,1_{[2]}})=0`$ if $`p=2`$, or $`d(x^{\tau _4,1_{[3]}})=0`$ if $`p=3`$, or $`d(x^{\gamma ,1_{[4]}})=0`$ if $`p=4`$. Note that $``$ is generated by $`^{(0)}(\{x^{\tau _2,1_{[1]}},x^{\eta ,1_{[2]}},x^{\tau _4,1_{[3]}},x^{\gamma ,1_{[4]}}\})`$. Since a derivation is determined by its actions on generators, we obtain $`d()=0`$. This proves Claim 5 and the theorem.

3. Structure of $``$

Before stating the main result of this paper, we need one more lemma. First recall that a linear transformation $`T`$ on a vector space $`V`$ is locally finite if for any $`uV`$, the subspace

$$V_u=\mathrm{span}\{T^n(u)|nIN\},$$
$`(3.1)`$
is finite dimensional; locally nilpotent if for any $`uV`$ there exists $`nIN`$ such that $`T^n(u)=0`$; semi-simple if for any $`uV`$, $`V_u`$ has a basis consisting of eigenvectors of $`T`$.

Lemma 3.1. The sets of locally nilpotent, semi-simple and locally finite elements of $`\text{Der}`$ are respectively

$$(\text{Der})_n=\underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}IF_{t_p},(\text{Der})_s=\text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF),(\text{Der})_f=(\text{Der})_n+(\text{Der})_s.$$
$`(3.2)`$
Note that $`\text{ad}_{x^\sigma },\text{ad}_1\text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)+_{p=1}^4IF_{t_p}`$.

Proof. Note that a linear transformation on the vector space $``$ of the form

$$T=c_{\alpha ,𝐢,p}x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_p+c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{}x^{\alpha ,𝐢}+c_p_{t_p},$$
$`(3.3)`$
where $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ acts on $``$ via the multiplication of $`𝒜_4`$, is locally finite if and only if

$$c_{\alpha ,𝐢,p}=c_{\alpha ,𝐢}^{}=0\text{for all}(\alpha ,𝐢)(0,0).$$
$`(3.4)`$
See, for example, the proof of \[SX, Lemma 4.1\]. Observe from (2.1) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}=& x^{\alpha +\sigma ,𝐢}(\alpha _1_2\alpha _2_1)+i_1x^{\alpha +\sigma ,𝐢1_{[1]}}_2i_2x^{\alpha +\sigma ,𝐢1_{[2]}}_1\\ & +x^{\alpha ,𝐢}((\alpha _3+1)_4\alpha _4(_3+1))+i_3x^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[3]}}_4i_4x^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[3]}}(_3+1).\end{array}$$
$`(3.5)`$
From this, one immediately sees that if $`d=c_{\alpha ,𝐢}\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}+c_p_{t_p}+d_\mu `$, where $`c_{\alpha ,𝐢},c_pF`$ and $`d_\mu `$ is defined in (2.4) with $`\mu \text{Hom}{}_{ZZ}{}^{}(,IF)`$ (recall that $`d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4,\overline{d}_2`$ has the form $`\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}`$, cf. (2.6), (2.7) ) is locally finite if and only if

$$c_{\alpha ,𝐢}=0\text{ for all }(\alpha ,𝐢)(0,0),(\sigma ,0).$$
$`(3.6)`$
From this, one can easily obtain the lemma.

Theorem 3.2. The Lie algebras $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ and $`^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J^{})`$ are isomorphic if and only if there exist $`a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4IF`$ with $`a_2,a_40`$ and $`a_1=0`$ if $`J_1=\{0\}J_2`$ and $`a_3=0`$ if $`J_3=\{0\}J_4`$, such that either (i) $`J=J^{}`$ and the map

$$\varphi :\beta =(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3,\beta _4)\beta ^{}=\beta \left(\begin{array}{cc}{}_{a_1a_2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{1\; 0}}& 0\\ 0& {}_{a_3a_4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{1\; 0}}\end{array}\right)=(\beta _1+a_1\beta _2,a_2\beta _2,\beta _3+a_3\beta _4,a_4\beta _4),$$
$`(3.7)`$
is a group isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$; or else (ii) $`(J_1,J_2,J_3,J_4)=(J_3^{},J_4^{},J_1^{},J_2^{})`$ and the map

$$\varphi :\beta =(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3,\beta _4)\beta ^{}=\beta \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& {}_{a_1a_2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{1\; 0}}\\ {}_{a_3a_4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{1\; 0}}& 0\end{array}\right)=(\beta _3+a_3\beta _4,a_4\beta _4,\beta _1+a_1\beta _2,a_2\beta _2),$$
$`(3.8)`$
is a group isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

Proof. We shall ALWAYS use the symbol $`y`$ in place of $`x`$ for the algebra $`^{}`$ and use the same notation with a prime to denote any other element associated with $`^{}`$.

$``$”: For convenience, we denote $`t_p=x^{0,1_{[p]}}`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4`$. Recall (1.3), we have the commutative associative algebra structure $`(𝒜_4,)`$. We define two algebra structures $`(𝒜_4,_1)`$ and $`(𝒜_4,_2)`$ (which are not necessarily associative) by $`u_1v=x^\sigma _1(u)_2(v)`$ and $`u_2v=(_3(u)+u)_4(v)`$. Then we have $`[u,v]=u_1v+u_2vv_1uv_2u`$ and

$$x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_1x^{\beta ,𝐣}=x^{\alpha +\beta +\sigma ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}1_{[2]}}(\alpha _1t_1+i_1)(\beta _2t_2+j_2)\text{ if }i_1+j_1,i_2+j_21.$$
$`(3.9)`$
Assume that we have case (i). Define a character of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e., a multiplicative function $`\chi :\mathrm{\Gamma }IF\backslash \{0\}`$ such that $`\chi (\sigma )=a_2a_4^1`$. We prove that such a character exists: suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing $`\sigma `$ such that such character exists for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, choose $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }`$. If there exists $`nIN`$ such that $`\alpha =n\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then we define $`\chi (\beta )=\chi (\alpha )^{1/n}`$, otherwise we set $`\chi (\beta )=1`$. Then $`\chi `$ extends to a character on the group generated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\beta `$, which contradicts the maximality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

First suppose $`a_1=a_3=0`$. We shall verify that

$$\psi :x^{\beta ,𝐢}a_4^1\chi (\beta )y^\beta ^{}(t_1^{})^{i_1}(a_2t_2^{})^{i_2}(t_3^{})^{i_3}(a_4t_4^{})^{i_4},\text{ where }\beta ^{}=\varphi (\beta )\text{ (cf. (3.7))},$$
$`(3.10)`$
is an isomorphism $`(𝒜_4,_1)(𝒜_4^{},_1)`$ (and symmetrically, it is also an isomorphism $`(𝒜_4,_2)(𝒜_4^{},_2)`$ ). Suppose $`i_1+j_1,i_2+j_21`$ (if otherwise, the verification is easier). Using (3.9), since $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta +\sigma )=\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma `$ by (3.7), we have

$$\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_1x^{\beta ,𝐣})=a_4^1\chi (\alpha +\beta +\sigma )y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma }u(\alpha _1t_1^{}+i_1)(\beta _2a_2t_2^{}+j_2),$$
$`(3.11)`$
where $`u=(t_1^{})^{i_1+j_11}(a_2t_2^{})^{i_2+j_21}(t_3^{})^{i_3+j_3}(a_4t_2^{})^{i_4+j_4}`$, and

$$\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})_1\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})=a_4^2\chi (\alpha )\chi (\beta )y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma }u(\alpha _1^{}t_1^{}+i_1)(\beta _2^{}a_2t_2^{}+a_2j_2)$$
$`(3.12)`$
where the coefficient $`a_2`$ before $`j_2`$ is arisen from $`_2^{}((a_2t_2^{})^{j_2})`$. Thus $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})_1\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})=\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_1x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$ is equivalent to $`a_2(\alpha _1t_1^{}+i_1)(\beta _2a_2t_2^{}+j_2)=(\alpha _1^{}t_1^{}+i_1)(\beta _2^{}a_2t_2^{}+a_2j_2),`$ which is obvious since $`\alpha _1^{}=\alpha _1,\beta _2^{}=a_2\beta _2`$. Thus $`\psi `$ induces an isomorphism of $`^{}`$.

Suppose $`a_10`$ or $`a_30`$. We define

$$\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐢})=a_4^1\chi (\beta )y^\beta ^{}(t_1^{})^{i_1}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})^{i_2}(t_3^{})^{i_3}(a_4t_4^{}+a_3t_3^{})^{i_4}.$$
$`(3.13)`$
Note that if $`a_10`$ then $`J_2=\{0\}`$ or $`J_1,J_2\{0\}`$ and if $`a_30`$ then $`J_4=\{0\}`$ or $`J_3,J_4\{0\}`$, thus the right-hand side of (3.13) is in $`^{}`$. We claim that $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism $`^{}`$ (but not necessarily an isomorphism $`(𝒜,_q)(𝒜^{},_q)`$ for $`q=1,2`$). If we define two Lie brackets $`[,]_q`$ by $`[u,v]_q=u_qvv_qu`$ for $`q=1,2`$, then $`[u,v]=[u,v]_1+[u,v]_2`$. We want to prove

$$[\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}),\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})]_q=\psi ([x^{\alpha ,𝐢},x^{\beta ,𝐣}]_q),$$
$`(3.14)`$
for $`q=1,2`$. Again suppose $`i_1+j_1,i_2+j_21`$, and suppose $`q=1`$ (the proof for $`q=2`$ is similar). First we calculate $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}_1x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$, which is the term

$$a_4^1y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma }(t_1^{})^{i_1+j_11}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})^{i_2+j_22}(t_3^{})^{i_3+j_3}(a_4t_4^{}+a_3t_3^{})^{i_4+j_4},$$
$`(3.15)`$
where if $`i_2+j_22<0`$ the corresponding factor does not appear, multiplied by the term

$$\chi (\alpha +\beta +\sigma )(\alpha _1t_1^{}+i_1)(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})(\beta _2(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})+j_2).$$
$`(3.16)`$
Similarly, $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})_1\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$ is (3.15) multiplied by

$$a_4^1\chi (\alpha )\chi (\beta )(\beta _2^{}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})+a_2j_2)((\alpha _1^{}t_1^{}+i_1)(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})+a_1i_2t_1^{}),$$
$`(3.17)`$
where the factor $`(\beta _2^{}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})+a_2j_2)`$ is arisen from $`_2^{}(y^\beta ^{}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})^{j_2})`$ and the last factor is arisen from $`_1^{}(y^\alpha ^{}(t_1^{})^{i_1}(a_2t_2^{}+a_1t_1^{})^{i_2})`$. If we denote by $`D(\alpha ,\beta )`$ the difference between (3.16) and (3.17), then (3.14) is equivalent to $`D(\alpha ,\beta )D(\beta ,\alpha )=0`$, which is straightforward to verify.

Assume that we have case (ii). We define a new Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},\stackrel{~}{J})`$ by taking

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=(\alpha _3^{},\alpha _4^{},\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{})|\alpha ^{}=(\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{},\alpha _3^{},\alpha _4^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\},\\ \stackrel{~}{J}=\{\stackrel{~}{𝐢}=(i_3^{},i_4^{},i_1^{},i_2^{})|𝐢^{}=(i_1^{},i_2^{},i_3^{},i_4^{})J^{}\}.\end{array}$$
$`(3.18)`$
It is straightforward to verify that $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(y^{\alpha ^{},𝐢^{}})=z^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{𝐢}},$$
$`(3.19)`$
is a Lie algebra isomorphism, where the symbol $`z`$ is the symbol $`x`$ for the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. So, it suffices to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, but using definition (3.18), case (ii) for the pair of algebras $`(,^{})`$ becomes case (i) for the pair of algebras $`(,\stackrel{~}{})`$.

$``$”: Suppose $`\psi :^{}`$ is an isomorphism. Then $`\psi `$ induces an isomorphism $`\psi :\text{Der}\text{Der}^{}`$, which maps $`(\text{Der})_\mathrm{n},(\text{Der})_\mathrm{s},(\text{Der})_\mathrm{f}`$ respectively to $`(\text{Der}^{})_\mathrm{n},(\text{Der}^{})_\mathrm{s}`$, $`(\text{Der}^{})_\mathrm{f}`$. Denote by $`_\mathrm{s}`$, $`_\mathrm{f}`$ the set of ad-semi-simple, ad-locally finite elements of $``$ respectively, then by Lemma 3.1, $`_\mathrm{f}=IF+IFx^\sigma `$. Thus we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (x^\sigma )\\ \psi (1)\end{array}\right)=G\left(\begin{array}{c}y^\sigma \\ 1\end{array}\right)\text{ for some }G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_1& b_2\\ b_3& b_4\end{array}\right)GL_2,$$
$`(3.20)`$
where in general, $`GL_n`$ is the group of $`n\times n`$ invertible matrices over $`IF`$ and where, we put minus sign before $`x^\sigma `$ for later convenient use. Note that

$$\{u|[_\mathrm{f},u]=0\}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|\alpha _2=\alpha _4=i_2=i_4=0\text{ or }\alpha =\sigma _1,|𝐢|=1\},$$
$`(3.21)`$
where $`|𝐢|=_{p=1}^4i_p`$ is the level of $`𝐢`$. Denote the subalgebra in (3.21) by $`^{}`$. Then we have $`\psi (^{})=^{}.`$ Observe that $`_\mathrm{f}=_\mathrm{s}(J_2,J_4)=(\{0\},\{0\})`$ and that $`^{}`$ is not abelian $`(J_2,J_4)(\{0\},\{0\})`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(J_2,J_4)=(\{0\},\{0\})(J_2^{},J_4^{})=(\{0\},\{0\}),\text{ and}\\ \sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\text{ if }(J_2,J_4)(\{0\},\{0\}).\end{array}$$
$`(3.22)`$
If $`(J_2,J_4)(\{0\},\{0\})`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we redenote the derived subalgebra $`[^{},^{}]`$ of $`^{}`$ by $`^{}`$. Thus in any case,

$$^{}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|\alpha _2=\alpha _4=i_2=i_4=0\},\text{ and we have }\psi (^{})=^{}.$$
$`(3.23)`$
Note that $`J=\{0\}(\text{Der})_\mathrm{n}=\{0\}`$ and note that

$$\{u|(u)=0\text{ for all }(\text{Der})_\mathrm{n}\}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|𝐢=0\text{ or }\alpha =\sigma _1,|𝐢|=1\}.$$
$`(3.24)`$
If we denote the derived subalgebra of (3.24) by $`^{(0)}`$, then

$$^{(0)}=\mathrm{span}\{x^\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}\},$$
$`(3.25)`$
is the Lie algebra $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\{0\})`$ (cf. Theorem 1.1), and we have

$$J=\{0\}J^{}=\{0\},\text{ and }\psi (^{(0)})=^{(0)}.$$
$`(3.26)`$
We shall study a feature of $`^{(0)}`$ analogous to that of the Lie algebras introduced by Zhao \[Z\]. To do this, take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}=\{(0,\alpha _2,0,\alpha _4)|(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4)\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ to be the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ under the natural projection $`\pi _{24}:\mathrm{\Gamma }IF1_{[2]}+IF1_{[4]}`$. Take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }|\pi _{24}(\alpha )=0\}`$, the kernel of $`\pi _{24}`$. Then by (2.1),

$$^{(0)}=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}}{}_\lambda ^{(0)}\text{ is }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}\text{-graded with }_\lambda ^{(0)}=\mathrm{span}\{x^\alpha |\pi _{24}(\alpha )=\lambda \},$$
$`(3.27)`$
and $`_0^{(0)}=^{(0)}^{}`$ and $`\psi (_0^{(0)})=^{}_0^{(0)}`$ by (3.23), (3.26), and there is a bijection $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}^{}`$ such that $`\psi (_\lambda ^{(0)})=^{}_\lambda ^{(0)}`$ since $`(_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}}_\lambda ^{(0)})\backslash \{0\}`$ is the set of common eigenvectors of $`\text{ad}_{x^\sigma }`$ and $`\text{ad}_1`$.

Claim 1. If $`\lambda 0`$, then $`_\lambda ^{(0)}`$ is a cyclic $`_0^{(0)}`$-module (i.e., generated by one element), the nonzero scalar multiples of $`x^\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$ with $`\pi _{24}(\alpha )=\lambda `$ are the only generators.

For any $`u=_{i=1}^mc_ix^{\mu _i}`$, where $`m>1,c_1,\mathrm{},c_mIF\backslash \{0\},\pi _{24}(\mu _i)=\lambda `$ and $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _m`$ are distinct, it is straightforward to verify that $`\mathrm{span}\{_{i=1}^mc_ix^{\alpha +\mu _i}|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}\}`$ is a proper $`_0^{(0)}`$-submodule of $`_\lambda ^{(0)}`$, and that it contains $`u`$, where in general, we use $`u`$ to denote the cyclic $`_0^{(0)}`$-submodule generated by $`u`$. Thus $`u`$ is not a generator of $`_\lambda ^{(0)}`$ as a $`_0^{(0)}`$-module.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$ with $`\pi _{24}(\alpha )=\lambda `$ and $`\lambda 0`$. Say $`\lambda _20`$ (the proof for $`\lambda _40`$ is similar). Choose $`\eta =(e,0,1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma },e0,\pm 1`$ as in the paragraph before (2.47), then $`\eta _k=k\eta +(k1)\sigma =(ke+k1,0,1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$ for $`kZZ`$ (except possibly one $`k`$), and we have

$$\begin{array}{c}[x^{\eta _k},x^\alpha ]=(ke+k1)\alpha _2x^{\alpha +k\eta +k\sigma }x^\alpha \text{ and}\\ [x^{\beta k\eta (k+1)\sigma },x^{\alpha +k\eta +k\sigma }]=(\beta _1kek1)\alpha _2x^{\alpha +\beta }+\beta _3\alpha _4x^{\alpha +\beta \sigma }x^\alpha ,\end{array}$$
$`(3.28)`$
for all $`kZZ`$ (except possibly two $`k`$’s) and all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$. This proves that $`\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha +\beta }|\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}\}`$ is contained in $`x^\alpha `$. Since $`_\lambda ^{(0)}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha +\beta }|\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}\}`$, we obtain that $`x^\alpha `$ is a generator of $`_\lambda ^{(0)}`$ as a $`_0^{(0)}`$-module.

By Claim 1, there exists a bijection $`\varphi :\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^{}`$ such that

$$\psi (x^\alpha )=c_\alpha y^\alpha ^{}\text{ for }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}\text{ and some }c_\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}.$$
$`(3.29)`$
Using this and (3.20), we have

$$c_\alpha \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _2\\ a_4\end{array}\right)y^\alpha ^{}=c_\alpha G\left(\begin{array}{c}[y^\sigma ,y^\alpha ^{}]\\ [1,y^\alpha ^{}]\end{array}\right)=c_\alpha G\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _2^{}\\ \alpha _4^{}\end{array}\right)y^\alpha ^{},\text{ i.e., }\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _2\\ \alpha _4\end{array}\right)=G\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _2^{}\\ a_4^{}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(3.30)`$
for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$. Let $`\tau _2,\tau _4`$ be as in (2.2), and write $`\varphi (\tau _p)=\tau _p^{}=(\tau _{p1}^{},\tau _{p2}^{},\tau _{p3}^{},\tau _{p4}^{})`$ for $`p=2,4`$. Then applying $`\psi `$ to $`\alpha _1ax^{\alpha +\tau _2+\sigma }=[x^\alpha ,x^{\tau _2}],`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1ac_{\alpha +\tau _2+\sigma }y^{\varphi (\alpha +\tau _2+\sigma )}=& c_\alpha c_{\tau _2}(\alpha _1^{}\tau _{22}^{}\tau _{21}^{}\alpha _2^{})y^{\alpha ^{}+\tau _2^{}+\sigma }\\ & +c_\alpha c_{\tau _2}((\alpha _3^{}+1)\tau _{24}^{}(\tau _{23}^{}+1)\alpha _4^{})y^{\alpha ^{}+\tau _2^{}},\end{array}$$
$`(3.31)`$
for $`\alpha ,\alpha +\tau _2\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,3}.`$ The left-hand side has only one term, thus one of two terms in the right-hand side must be zero for all such $`\alpha `$. This shows that $`\tau _{22}^{}=\tau _{21}^{}=0`$ or $`\tau _{24}^{}=\tau _{23}^{}+1=0`$. If necessary, by considering the isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\psi :\stackrel{~}{}`$ instead of $`\psi `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ are defined in (3.18), (3.19), we can suppose

$$\tau _{24}^{}=\tau _{23}^{}+1=0.$$
$`(3.32)`$
By this and (3.30), we have $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ 0\end{array}\right)=G\left(\begin{array}{c}\tau _{22}^{}\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}b_1\tau _{22}^{}\\ b_3\tau _{22}^{}\end{array}\right)`$, to give that $`b_3=0`$. Similarly, from $`(\alpha _3+1)bx^{\alpha +\tau _4}=[x^\alpha ,x^{\tau _4}],`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\alpha _3+1)bc_{\alpha +\tau _4}y^{\varphi (\alpha +\tau _4)}=& c_\alpha c_{\tau _4}((\alpha _1^{}\tau _{42}^{}\tau _{41}^{}\alpha _2^{})y^{\alpha ^{}+\tau _4^{}+\sigma }\\ & +((\alpha _3^{}+1)\tau _{44}^{}(\tau _{43}^{}+1)\alpha _4^{})y^{\alpha ^{}+\tau _4^{}},\end{array}$$
$`(3.33)`$
for $`\alpha ,\alpha +\tau _4\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,3}`$, so $`\tau _{42}^{}=\tau _{41}^{}=0`$ or $`\tau _{44}^{}=\tau _{43}^{}+1=0`$. But from $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ b\end{array}\right)=G\left(\begin{array}{c}\tau _{42}^{}\\ \tau _{44}^{}\end{array}\right)`$, we see that $`\tau _{44}^{}0`$, thus

$$\tau _{42}^{}=\tau _{41}^{}=0\text{ and so }b_2=0\text{ and }G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_1& 0\\ 0& b_4\end{array}\right).$$
$`(3.34)`$
Suppose $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$, applying $`\psi `$ to (2.1) with $`𝐢=𝐣=0`$, using (3.30), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2)c_{\alpha +\beta +\sigma }y^{\varphi (\alpha +\beta +\sigma )}+((\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _4)c_{\alpha +\beta }y^{\varphi (\alpha +\beta )}\\ (\alpha _1^{}\beta _2\beta _1^{}\alpha _2)b_1^1c_\alpha c_\beta y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma }((\alpha _3^{}+1)\beta _4(\beta _3^{}+1)\alpha _4)b_4^1c_\alpha c_\beta y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}}=0.\end{array}$$
$`(3.35)`$
This in particular implies that $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta )=\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}`$ or $`\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma `$ for ALL $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$ such that $`(\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _40`$. From this one can deduce that $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta )=\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$ as follows: (3.33) shows that $`\varphi (\alpha +\tau _4)=\alpha ^{}+\tau _4^{}`$, setting $`\beta =\alpha +\tau _4`$ in (3.35) shows that $`\varphi (2\alpha )=2\alpha ^{}`$ by noting that the first, third terms are vanishing; write $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta )=\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+k_{\alpha ,\beta }\sigma `$, where $`k_{\alpha ,\beta }=0,1`$; if $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta )=\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma `$ for some $`\alpha ,\beta `$, then $`2\alpha ^{}+2\beta ^{}+k_{2\alpha ,2\beta }\sigma =\varphi (2\alpha )+\varphi (2\beta )+k_{2\alpha ,2\beta }\sigma =\varphi (2\alpha +2\beta )=\varphi ((\alpha +\beta )+(\alpha +\beta ))=2(\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma )+k_{\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +\beta }\sigma `$, and $`k_{2\alpha ,2\beta }=2+k_{\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +\beta }2`$, a contradiction. Thus, $`\varphi `$ can be uniquely extended to a group isomorphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Using this and applying $`\psi `$ to $`[x^\alpha ,x^{\alpha \sigma }]=\alpha _2\alpha _4x^\sigma `$, by (3.20), (3.34), we obtain $`\alpha _2b_4\alpha _4b_1y^\sigma =c_\alpha c_{\alpha \sigma }(\alpha _2^{}\alpha _4^{}y^\sigma )=c_\alpha c_{\alpha \sigma }(\alpha _2b_1^1\alpha _4b_4^1y^\sigma )`$, i.e.,

$$c_ac_{\alpha \sigma }=b_1b_4\text{for}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}.$$
$`(3.36)`$
Comparing the coefficients of $`y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}},y^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\sigma }`$ in (3.35), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}((\alpha _3+1)\beta _4(\beta _3+1)\alpha _4)c_{\alpha +\beta }& =& ((\alpha _3^{}+1)\beta _4(\beta _3^{}+1)\alpha _4)b_4^1c_\alpha c_\beta ,\\ (\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2)c_{\alpha +\beta +\sigma }& =& (\alpha _1^{}\beta _2\beta _1^{}\alpha _2)b_1^1c_\alpha c_\beta ,\\ (\alpha _3\beta _4\beta _3\alpha _4)c_{\alpha \beta 2\sigma }& =& (\alpha _3^{}\beta _4\beta _3^{}\alpha _4)b_4^1c_{\alpha \sigma }c_{\beta \sigma },\\ ((\alpha _1+1)\beta _2(\beta _1+1)\alpha _2)c_{\alpha \beta \sigma }& =& ((\alpha _1^{}+1)\beta _2(\beta _1^{}+1)\alpha _2)b_1^1c_{\alpha \sigma }c_{\beta \sigma },\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(3.37)\\ (3.38)\\ (3.39)\\ (3.40)\end{array}`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$, where the last two equations are obtained from the first two by replacing $`\alpha ,\beta `$ by $`\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma `$ respectively. Setting $`\alpha =\tau _2=(0,a,1,0)`$ in (3.38), (3.39) and multiplying the obtained two equations, using (3.36), (3.32), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\beta _1a\beta _4& =& (\tau _{21}^{}\beta _2\beta _1^{}a)\beta _4,\\ (\beta _3+1)b\beta _2& =& ((\tau _{43}^{}+1)\beta _4(\beta _3^{}+1)b)\beta _2,\end{array}$$
$`(3.41)`$
for all $`\beta ,\beta +\tau _2,\beta +\tau _4\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$, where the second equation is obtained analogously from (3.37), (3.40) and by setting $`\alpha =\tau _4=(0,0,1,b)`$ and using (3.34). Now if we take

$$a_1=a^1\tau _{21}^{},a_2=b_1^1,a_3=b^1(\tau _{43}^{}+1),a_4=b_4^1,$$
$`(3.42)`$
(note that $`\tau _{21}^{},\tau _{43}^{}`$ are fixed number since $`\tau _2,\tau _4`$ are fixed), then by (3.41), (3.30), (3.34), we see that (3.7) holds for $`\beta ,\beta +\tau _2,\beta +\tau _4\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$ and $`\beta _20\beta _4`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is a group isomorphism, we obtain that (3.7) holds for all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This proves the theorem if $`J=\{0\}`$.

Assume that $`J\{0\}`$. Since $`\psi (x^\sigma )IFy^\sigma `$ and $`\text{ad}_{x^\sigma }`$ is semi-simple $`J_2=\{0\}`$, thus we obtain that $`J_2=J_2^{}`$. Similarly, $`J_4=J_4^{}`$. Assume that $`J_1\{0\}=J_1^{}`$. Then we can find $`t_1=x^{0,1_{[1]}}^{}`$ (cf. (3.23)) with $`[t_1,x^{\tau _2}]=ax^{\tau _2+\sigma }`$, but we can not find $`u^{}^{}`$ with $`[u^{},y^{\tau _2^{}}]=y^{\tau _2^{}+\sigma }`$ because for any $`y^{\alpha ^{},𝐢^{}}^{}`$, $`[y^{\alpha ^{},𝐢^{}},y^{\tau _2^{}}]=\alpha _1^{}\tau _{22}^{}y^{\tau _2^{}+\alpha ^{}+\sigma ,𝐢^{}}`$ can not produce a nonzero term $`y^{\tau _2^{}+\sigma }`$. This is a contradiction. Thus $`J_1=J_1^{}`$. Similarly $`J_3=J_3^{}`$. This proves $`J=J^{}`$.

It remains to prove that $`a_1=0`$ if $`J_1=\{0\}J_2`$ (the proof for $`a_3=0`$ if $`J_3=\{0\}J_4`$ is similar). Consider $`\psi (x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}})`$. Since $`_p(x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}})=[u,x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}}]=0`$ for $`p=1,4,u=1,x^{\tau _2},x^{\tau _4}`$ and $`_q(x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}})`$ $`(\mathrm{mod}IFx^{\tau _2})`$ is equal to a scalar multiple of $`x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}}`$ for $`q=2,3`$, we obtain that $`\psi (x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}})^{(0)}+IFy^{\tau _2^{},1_{[2]}}`$. Write $`\psi (x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}})=u^{}+a_0^{}y^{\tau _2^{},1_{[2]}}`$ for some $`u^{}^{(0)}`$ and $`a_0^{}IF\backslash \{0\}`$, then $`0=\psi ([x^{\tau _2},x^{\tau _2,1_{[2]}}])=c_{\tau _2}([y^{\tau _2^{}},u^{}]+a_0^{}\tau _{21}^{}y^{2\tau _2^{}+\sigma })`$, but there does not exists $`u^{}^{(0)}`$ such that $`[u^{},y^{\tau _2^{}}]=y^{2\tau _2^{}+\sigma }`$. Thus $`\tau _{21}^{}=0`$ and (3.42) gives that $`a_1=0`$. This completes the proof of the theorem.

For $`n>0`$, denote by $`M_{n\times n}`$ the algebra of $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $`IF`$ and by $`GL_n`$ the group of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $`IF`$. Let $`M=\{\stackrel{}{m}=(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)|m_p=0,1`$ for $`p=1,2,3,4\}`$, corresponding to 16 possible choices of $`J`$. For $`\stackrel{}{m}M`$, let $`G_\stackrel{}{m}`$ be the subgroup of $`GL_4`$ generated by all matrices $`(_C^A{}_{D}{}^{B})`$ satisfying

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{either }B=C=0\text{ and }A,D\text{ have the form }(_{a_1}^1{}_{a_2}{}^{0}),(_{a_3}^1{}_{a_4}{}^{0}),\text{ or else }\\ (m_1,m_2)=(m_3,m_4),A=D=0\text{ and }B,C\text{ have the form }(_{a_1}^1{}_{a_2}{}^{0}),(_{a_3}^1{}_{a_4}{}^{0}),\end{array}$$
$`(3.43)`$
such that $`a_2,a_40`$ and $`a_1=0`$ if $`m_1=0m_2`$ and $`a_3=0`$ if $`m_3=0m_4.`$

Define an action of $`G_\stackrel{}{m}`$ on $`IF^4`$ by $`g(\alpha )=\alpha g^1`$ for $`\alpha IF^4,gG_\stackrel{}{m}.`$ For any additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^4`$ and $`gG_\stackrel{}{m}`$, the set $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{g(\alpha )|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ also forms an additive subgroup of $`IF^4`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the set of subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^4`$ satisfying (1.1). Denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\stackrel{}{m}=\{g(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Omega }|gG_\stackrel{}{m}\}`$ and set $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\stackrel{}{m}=\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_\stackrel{}{m}`$, the quotient set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\stackrel{}{m}`$. Then Theorem 3.2 implies the following theorem.

Theorem 3.3. There exists a 1-1 correspondence between the set of the isomorphism classes of the simple Lie algebras $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ of Xu type and the following set

$$=\{(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,\omega )|\stackrel{}{m}=(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)M,\omega \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\stackrel{}{m}\}.$$
$`(3.44)`$
In other word, $``$ is the structure space of the simple Lie algebras $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ of Xu type.

References

\[B\] Block, R.: On torsion-free abelian groups and Lie algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 9, 613-620 (1958)

\[DZ\] Dokovic, D. and Zhao, K.: Derivations, isomorphisms and second cohomology of generalized Block algebras, Alg. Colloq. 3, 245-272 (1996)

\[SX\] Su, Y. and Xu, X.: Structure of divergence-free Lie algebras, J.Alg. 243 (2001), 557-595.

\[SZ\] Su, Y. and Zhou, J.: Structure of the Lie algebras with a feature of Block algebras, Comm. Alg. 30 (2002), 3205-3226.

\[X\] Xu, X.: Generalizations of Block algebras, Manuscripta Math. 100, 489-518 (1999)

\[Z\] Zhao, K.: A Class of infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 62, 71-84 (2000)