text:
# Reduction Theorems for Optimal Unambiguous State Discrimination of Density Matrices

## I Introduction

Discrimination between quantum mechanical states is a standard task in quantum communication protocols. Typically, the signals are represented by non-orthogonal quantum states, often even in the form of mixed states due to the effect of noisy transmission channels. It is known that non-orthogonal pure states cannot be discriminated exactly, that means, with full efficiency without any error. However, it is possible to discriminate between them unambiguously in a certain fraction of the cases. This problem was formulated by Dieks dieks  and Ivanovic ivanovic  for two pure states with equal a priori probabilities, and was elegantly solved by Peres peres . The more general scenario of two pure states with arbitrary a priori probabilities was investigated and solved by Jaeger and Shimony jaeger . More general scenarios with a higher number of signal states were treated, with analytic results for signal states that satisfy certain symmetries terno , chefles .

It is only recently that the problem of generalization to mixed states has been considered. One of the first works describes the optimal unambiguous discrimination between a pure state and a density matrix of rank $`2`$ hillery , which has been generalized for a rank $`n`$ density matrix bergou . In a more recent paper, Rudoph et al. rudolph  solved other special cases, for example that of two density matrices of rank $`(n1)`$ in a $`n`$-dimensional subspace. Finally, necessary and sufficient conditions for optimality and some numerical methods are discussed by Fiurasek and Jezek fiurasek  and by Eldar eldar .

In this article, we present two theorems that allow to reduce the general problem of optimal unambiguous state discrimination of two density matrices to standard forms. This standard problem can be formulated as optimal unambiguous state discrimination of two density matrices of rank $`n`$ that are defined in a minimal Hilbert space of dimension $`2n`$. We show that the previously given examples involving density matrices can be reduced effectively to the optimal unambiguous state discrimination of two pure states, as solved by Jaeger and Shimony jaeger . The next challenge is therefore to discriminate two density matrices with a two dimensional rank in a four dimensional Hilbert space.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we present the mathematical background of the unambiguous state discrimination and introduce some notations. Then, in section III and IV, based on a geometrical approach, we present two theorems to simplify the problem of unambiguous state discrimination between two arbitrary density matrices. In section V, we propose a brief discussion on the consequences of the two previous theorems including a generalization to discrimination between more than two density matrices. Finally, we present our conclusions in section VI.

## II Optimal Unambiguous State Discrimination

If quantum states cannot be discriminated exactly, one can search for an optimal distinction between them. The meaning of “optimal” needs to be made precise, and in quantum state estimation theory helstrom  this is typically expressed via cost-functions. These cost functions provide a figure of merit for different measurements. Optimal unambiguous state discrimination is an extreme case in that we are looking for a measurement that either identifies a state uniquely (conclusive result) or fails to identify it (inconclusive result). The goal is to minimize the fraction of the inconclusive results. For the problem to be properly stated, one needs to fix the set of quantum states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ together with the corresponding a priori probabilities $`\{p_i\}`$ of their appearance. The measurements involved are typically generalized measurements kraus  which are described by a Positive Operator Valued Measure (POVM). A POVM is a set of positive semi-definite and hermitian operators $`\{F_k\}`$ that satisfies the completeness relation $`_kF_k=𝟙`$ on the Hilbert space spanned by the signals. The probability to obtain outcome $`k`$ for a given signal $`\rho _i`$ is then given by $`p(k|i)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _iF_k)`$.

###### Definition 1

A measurement described by a POVM $`\{F_k\}`$ is called an Unambiguous State Discrimination Measurement (USDM) on a set of states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ iff the following conditions are satisfied:

* The POVM contains the elements $`\{F_\mathrm{?},F_1,\mathrm{}F_N\}`$ where $`N`$ is the number of different signals in the signal set. The element $`F_\mathrm{?}`$ is connected to an inconclusive result, while the other elements $`F_i`$ correspond to an identification of signal state $`\rho _i`$.
* No signals are wrongly identified, that is $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _iF_k)=0iki,k=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

Each USD Measurement gives rise to a failure probability, that is, the rate of inconclusive results. This can be calculated as

$`Q[\{F_k\}]:={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _iF_\mathrm{?}).`$ (1)
###### Definition 2

A measurement described by a POVM $`\{F_k^{opt}\}`$ is called an Optimal Unambiguous State Discrimination Measurement (OptUSDM) on a set of states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ with the corresponding a priori probabilities $`\{p_i\}`$ iff the following conditions are satisfied

* The POVM $`\{F_k^{opt}\}`$ is a USD measurement on $`\{\rho _i\}`$
* The probability of inconclusive results is minimal, that is $`Q[\{F_k^{opt}\}]=\mathrm{min}_{FUSDM}Q[\{F_k\}]`$.

In this article, we are searching for an optimal USD measurement to discriminate two arbitrary density matrices $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ that are prepared with a priori probability $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ respectively. We find that this general problem can be reduced to a simpler standard situation. Moreover, the reduction can be applied as well to the case of more than two density matrices, as seen later.

Firstly, let us fix some notations. The reduction theorems make use of the support $`𝒮_P:=\mathrm{support}(P)`$ of positive semi-definite and hermitian operator $`P`$. The support of a positive semi-definite and hermitian operator is defined as the subspace spanned by eigenvectors of $`P`$ corresponding to non-zero eigenvalues. We denote also $`r_P:=\mathrm{rank}(P)=\mathrm{dim}(𝒮_P)`$, the rank of $`P`$. Next we define, in a Hilbert space $``$, the sum and the intersection of two Hilbert subspaces $`_1`$ and $`_2`$. The sum $`_1+_2`$ of the subspaces $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ is defined to be the set consisting of all sums of the form $`a_1+a_2`$, where $`a_1_1`$ and $`a_2_2`$. $`_1+_2`$ is a Hilbert subspace of $``$. The intersection $`_1_2`$ is defined to be the set consisting of all the elements $`a`$, where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. $`_1_2`$ is a Hilbert subspace of $``$. The complementary orthogonal subspace (orthogonal complement) of a subspace $`𝒮`$ in $``$, written $`𝒮^{}`$, is the set of all the elements of $``$ orthogonal to $`𝒮`$. We then have $`=𝒮𝒮^{}`$, the direct sum of the two orthogonal subspaces. Finally, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒮`$ the orthogonal projection onto the subspace $`𝒮`$.

## III Common subspace of the supports

In the first theorem, we will consider the situation where the supports of the two density matrices have a common subspace. This is the case whenever we find that

$`\mathrm{dim}\left(𝒮_{\rho _1}\right)+\mathrm{dim}\left(𝒮_{\rho _2}\right)>\mathrm{dim}\left(\right)`$ (2)
Here $``$ is the Hilbert space spanned by the two supports. In this case, it can be written as

$`=^{}_{}`$ (3)
where $`_{}=𝒮_{\rho _1}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ is the common subspace of the two supports, and $`^{}`$, its orthogonal complement in $``$. The first reduction theorem will eliminate the common subspace $`_{}`$ from the problem. The intuitive reason is that in this subspace no unambiguous discrimination is possible, so the population of the two density matrices on it will contribute always only to the failure probability, never to the conclusive results. This is made precise in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1

Reduction Theorem for a Common Subspace

Suppose we are given two density matrices $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ on $``$ with a priori probabilities $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ such that their respective supports $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ and $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ have a non-empty common subspace $`_{}`$. We denote by $`^{}`$ the orthogonal complement of $`_{}`$ in $``$ while $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{_{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}`$ denote respectively the projector onto $`_{}`$ and $`^{}`$. Then the optimal USD measurement is characterised by POVM elements of the form

$`F_1^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}`$ (4)
$`F_2^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_2^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}`$ (5)
$`F_\mathrm{?}^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mathrm{?}^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{_{}}`$ (6)
where the operators $`F_1^{{}_{}{}^{}opt},F_2^{{}_{}{}^{}opt},F_\mathrm{?}^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}`$ form a POVM $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ with support on $`^{}`$ describing the OptUSDM of a reduced problem defined by

$`\rho _1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_1}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}},`$ $`p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1p_1}{N}},`$ $`N_1=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (7)
$`\rho _2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}},`$ $`p_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_2p_2}{N}},`$ $`N_2=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (8)
$`N=N_1p_1+N_2p_2.`$ (9)
And finally, the corresponding failure probability can be written in terms of $`Q^{}[\{F_k^{opt}\}]`$, the failure probability of the reduced problem, as

$`Q[\{F_k^{opt}\}]`$ $`=`$ $`(1N_1)p_1+(1N_2)p_2`$
$`+`$ $`NQ^{}[\{F_k^{opt}\}].`$
### Proof

To prove the reduction theorem, we state as a first step the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1

For any positive semi-definite operators $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)=0`$ iff the support of the two positive semi-definite operators are orthogonal :

$`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)=0S_AS_B.`$ (11)
Indeed, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are positive semi-definite operators, they are diagonalisable with eigenvalues $`\alpha _i>0(i=1,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ and $`\beta _j>0(j=1,\mathrm{},r_B)`$. Thus

$`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\beta _j|\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i|)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\alpha _i\beta _j|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_j|^2`$
vanishes iff $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_i\}_i`$ and $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}_j`$ span orthogonal subspaces.

A USD measurement described by $`\{F_k\}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{Tr}(F_1\rho _2)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(F_2\rho _1)=0`$ by definition. It means, as a consequence of Lemma 1, that $`S_{F_1}S_{\rho _2}`$ and $`S_{F_2}S_{\rho _1}`$. Since $`_{}`$ is a subspace of $`S_{\rho _1}`$ and $`S_{\rho _2}`$, it follows that $`S_{F_1}_{}`$ and $`S_{F_2}_{}`$. Therefore, by writing the block-matrices in $`=_{}^{}`$, we have

$`F_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& F_1^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$`F_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& F_2^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (18)
The completeness relation on $``$ implies firstly

$`F_\mathrm{?}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝟙_{_{}}& 0\\ 0& F_\mathrm{?}^{}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{_{}}+F_\mathrm{?}^{}`$ (21)
and secondly by the completeness relation on the reduced subspace $`^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}F_k^{}=𝟙_{^{}}.`$ (22)
It follows also that the $`F_k^{}`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{?}`$) are positive semi-definite and hermitian operators. Therefore, by definition, $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ is a POVM on $`^{}`$. The fact that $`F_\mathrm{?}`$ is equal to identity in the subspace $`_{}`$ is here a direct consequence of the property of an USDM on $``$. Next we will see that $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ is a POVM of a USD in $`^{}`$.

We define $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{_{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}`$ as the projector onto $`_{}`$ and $`^{}`$ respectively. Thus $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{_{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}=𝟙_{}`$. For any USDM, because of the diagonal block form of the POVM, we find for $`Q`$

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`p_1\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1F_\mathrm{?})+p_2\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2F_\mathrm{?})`$
$`=`$ $`(1N_1)p_1+(1N_2)p_2`$
$`+`$ $`(N_1p_1+N_2p_2)(p_1^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})+p_2^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{}))`$
$`\mathrm{with}\rho _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}`$ (24)
$`\rho _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}.`$ (25)
Here $`p_i^{}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) is the a priori probability corresponding to the new density matrix $`\rho _i^{}`$ ($`p_1^{}+p_2^{}=1`$)

$`p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1p_1}{N_1p_1+N_2p_2}},N_1=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (26)
$`p_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_2p_2}{N_1p_1+N_2p_2}},N_2=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}).`$ (27)
We notice that $`𝒮_{\rho _1^{}}𝒮_{\rho _2^{}}=0`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1F_2)=0`$ implies $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_2^{})=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2F_1)=0`$ implies $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_1^{})=0`$. Then $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ defines a POVM describing a USDM on $`\{\rho _i^{}\}`$ in $`^{}`$. The problem is now reduced to the subspace $`^{}`$ and it remains to consider the optimality of the reduced USDM.

We can write $`Q`$ such as

$`Q=(1N_1)p_1+(1N_2)p_2+(N_1p_1+N_2p_2)Q^{}`$ (28)
where $`Q^{}=p_1^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})+p_2^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})`$ is, by definition, the failure probability of discriminating unambiguously $`\rho _1^{}`$ and $`\rho _2^{}`$ in $`^{}`$.

The previous equality implies that the failure probability $`Q`$ is minimal iff the failure probability $`Q^{}`$ is minimal. Thus we have that $`\{F_k\}`$ describes an optimal USDM on $`\{\rho _i\}`$ $``$ $`Q`$ is minimal $``$ $`Q^{}`$ is minimal $``$ $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ describes an optimal USDM on $`\{\rho _i^{}\}`$. This completes the proof.

## IV Orthogonal subspaces of the supports

We now consider the case where the supports of the two density matrices have no common subspace. That can always be reached thanks to the previous reduction theorem for common subspace. If there is a part of $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ orthogonal to $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$, we can decompose $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ into this orthogonal subspace and another one. (See Fig. 1.) It turns out that this subspace of $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ orthogonal to $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ can be split off and leads to an unambiguous discrimination without error. The same is true for $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$.

###### Theorem 2

Reduction Theorem for Orthogonal Subspaces

Suppose we are given two density matrices $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ in $``$ with rank $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$, respectively, and with their associated a priori probabilities $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. Assuming that their supports $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ and $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ have no common subspace, one can construct a decomposition

$`=^{}^{{}_{}{}^{}}`$ (29)
with $`^{{}_{}{}^{}}=S_1^{}S_2^{}`$, $`𝒮_1^{}=𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ and $`𝒮_2^{}=𝒮_{\rho _2}^{}𝒮_{\rho _1}`$.

The solution of the optimal USDM problem can be given, with help of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_1^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_2^{}}`$, the projection onto $`𝒮_1^{}`$ and $`𝒮_2^{}`$, respectively, in $`=^{}^{{}_{}{}^{}}`$, by

$`F_1^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_2^{}}`$ (30)
$`F_2^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_2^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_1^{}}`$ (31)
$`F_\mathrm{?}^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mathrm{?}^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}.`$ (32)
The operators $`F_1^{{}_{}{}^{}opt},F_2^{{}_{}{}^{}opt},F_\mathrm{?}^{{}_{}{}^{}opt}`$ form a POVM $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ with support on $`^{}`$ describing the OptUSDM of a reduced problem defined by

$`\rho _1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_1}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}},`$ $`p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1p_1}{N}},`$ $`N_1=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (33)
$`\rho _2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}},`$ $`p_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_2p_2}{N}},`$ $`N_2=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (34)
$`N=N_1p_1+N_2p_2.`$ (35)
And finally, the corresponding failure probability can be written in terms of $`Q^{}[\{F_k^{opt}\}]`$, the failure probability of the reduced problem as

$`Q[\{F_k^{opt}\}]`$ $`=`$ $`NQ^{}[\{F_k^{opt}\}].`$ (36)
### Proof

We translate the problem using a Naimark’s extension and projection-valued measure (PVM). This idea is inspired by the first work of Sun et al. hillery  where an extended Hilbert space has been used. Let us repeat the Naimark theorem: Given $`\{F_k\}`$ as a POVM on a Hilbert space $``$, it exists an embedding of $``$ into a larger Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ such that the measure can be described by projections onto orthogonal subspaces in $`𝒦`$. More precisely, there exist a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, an embedding $``$ such that $`=𝒦`$ and a PVM $`\{E_k\}`$ in $`𝒦`$ such that with P, the projection defined by $`P𝒦=`$, $`F_k=PE_kP,k`$.

To the three POVM elements $`F_k`$ in $``$ correspond three PVM elements $`E_k`$ in $`𝒦`$. The subspaces defined by $`\{E_k\}`$ result in a decomposition into orthogonal subspaces

$`𝒦=𝒮_{E_1}𝒮_{E_2}𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}`$ (37)
which give raise to non-orthogonal subspaces in $``$ as $`𝒮_{F_k}=P𝒮_{E_k}P`$. We can therefore translate properties of the USD POVM to the embedding of $``$ into $`𝒦`$.

Next we take a look at the embedding of $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ and $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ into $`𝒦`$ and we translate the conditions for an USDM into the embedded language. We denote embedded subspaces of $`𝒦`$ by the same symbol as the original subspace of $``$. Then $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1E_2)=0`$ implies that $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ is orthogonal to $`𝒮_{E_2}`$. Similarly, we find that $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ is orthogonal to $`𝒮_{E_1}`$. Therefore, we can write

$`𝒮_{\rho _1}𝒮_{E_1}𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$ (38)
$`𝒮_{\rho _2}𝒮_{E_2}𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$ (39)
where $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$ and $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$ are defined as subspaces of $`𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}`$ with minimal dimension fullfiling the above decompositions in the sense that $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}i}}=\mathrm{support}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_{\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{?}}}𝒮_{\rho _\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_{\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{?}}})`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

The optimality condition means in particular that no information should be obtained from the conditional states following an inconclusive result. If the two failure spaces $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$ and $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$ are different, it will be possible to distinguish the conditional states which arise from a projection onto $`𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}`$ hillery . Therefore the optimality condition implies that $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}=𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$ and then

$`𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}=𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}=𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}.`$ (40)
In the framework of the Naimark extension, this condition translates as follows : the equality of $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$ and $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$ implies that a subspace $`𝒮_1^{}=𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ satisfies $`𝒮_1^{}𝒮_{E_2}`$ in order to assure that the overlap between any state in $`𝒮_1^{}`$ and any state in $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ will be zero. Similarly, $`𝒮_2^{}𝒮_{E_1}`$.

Then it exists a subspace $`_2`$ in $`𝒮_{E_2}`$ such that we can write $`𝒮_{E_2}=𝒮_1^{}_2`$. In the same way, $`𝒮_{E_1}=𝒮_2^{}_1`$ with $`_1`$ in $`𝒮_{E_1}`$. It follows that

$`𝒮_{\rho _1}𝒮_2^{}_1𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$ (41)
$`𝒮_{\rho _2}𝒮_1^{}_2𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}.`$ (42)
The fact that $`𝒮_2^{}𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ implies that

$`𝒮_{\rho _1}=𝒮_2^{}_1^{},`$ (43)
with $`_1^{}_1𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}`$. In the same way, with $`_2^{}_2𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$,

$`𝒮_{\rho _2}=𝒮_1^{}_2^{}.`$ (44)
The orthogonal projection $`E_1`$ then can be decomposed into a sum of orthogonal projectors as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_2^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }__1^{}`$ and the orthogonal projection $`E_2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_1^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }__2^{}`$. These projectors are mapped into $``$ via the projection $`P`$ as $`P\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_i^{}}P=\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_i^{}}`$. We define $`F_i^{}=P\mathrm{\Pi }__iPi=1,2`$ so that

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_2^{}}`$ (45)
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`F_2^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_1^{}}.`$ (46)
with $`𝒮_{F_1^{}}(𝒮_1^{})^{}`$ and $`𝒮_{F_2^{}}(𝒮_2^{})^{}`$. Moreover, $`𝒮_{F_1}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ then $`𝒮_{F_1}𝒮_1^{}`$ and, similarly, $`𝒮_{F_2}𝒮_2^{}`$. Then $`F_1^{}`$ and $`F_2^{}`$ have support on a subspace $`^{}`$, which is the complementary orthogonal subspace of $`^{{}_{}{}^{}}=𝒮_1^{}𝒮_2^{}`$.

Therefore in $`=^{}𝒮_1^{}𝒮_2^{}=^{}^{{}_{}{}^{}}`$, we find

$`F_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F_1^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝟙_{𝒮_\mathrm{𝟙}^{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (50)
$`F_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F_2^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 𝟙_{𝒮_\mathrm{𝟚}^{}}\end{array}\right).`$ (54)
From here, we will follow the same argumentation as we used in the proof of theorem 1. The completeness relation on $``$ implies firstly

$`F_\mathrm{?}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F_\mathrm{?}^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (58)
and secondly the completeness relation on the reduced subspace $`^{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}F_k^{}=𝟙_{^{}}.`$ (59)
It follows also that the $`F_k^{}`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{?}`$) are positive semi-definite operators. Therefore, by definition, $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ is a POVM on $`^{}`$.

For any USDM, because of the diagonal block form of the POVM, we find for $`Q`$

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`p_1\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1F_\mathrm{?})+p_2\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2F_\mathrm{?})`$
$`=`$ $`(N_1p_1+N_2p_2)(p_1^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})+p_2^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{}))`$
$`\mathrm{with}\rho _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}`$ (61)
$`\rho _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}.`$ (62)
Here $`p_i^{}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) is the a priori probability corresponding to the new density matrix $`\rho _i^{}`$ ($`p_1^{}+p_2^{}=1`$)

$`p_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1p_1}{N_1p_1+N_2p_2}},N_1=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}})`$ (63)
$`p_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_2p_2}{N_1p_1+N_2p_2}},N_2=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}).`$ (64)
Moreover, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1F_2)=0`$ implies $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_2^{})=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2F_1)=0`$ implies $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_1^{})=0`$. Then $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ defines a POVM describing a USDM on $`\{\rho _i^{}\}`$ in $`^{}`$.

We can rewrite the failure probability $`Q`$ as

$`Q=(N_1p_1+N_2p_2)Q^{}`$ (65)
where $`Q^{}=p_1^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})+p_2^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2^{}F_\mathrm{?}^{})`$ is, by definition, the failure probability of discriminating unambiguously $`\rho _1^{}`$ and $`\rho _2^{}`$ in $`^{}`$ with a priori probabilities $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$, respectively.

And again, we have that $`\{F_k\}`$ describes an optimal USDM on $`\{\rho _i\}`$ $``$ $`Q`$ is minimal $``$ $`Q^{}`$ is minimal $``$ $`\{F_k^{}\}`$ describes an optimal USDM on $`\{\rho _i^{}\}`$. This completes the proof.

## V Consequences and generalization

At this point, it is useful to introduce a notation to summarise our knowledge about the USD of two density matrices. We have $`=𝒮_{\rho _1}+𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ then $`\mathrm{dim}\left(\right)=\mathrm{dim}\left(𝒮_{\rho _1}\right)+\mathrm{dim}\left(𝒮_{\rho _2}\right)\mathrm{dim}\left(𝒮_{\rho _1}𝒮_{\rho _2}\right)`$. It implies, by denoting the dimension of the Hilbert space $``$ as $`d`$, that the respective ranks of the density matrices satisfies

$`r_1+r_2d.`$ (66)
For example, the case of two density matrices of the same rank $`(n1)`$ in an Hilbert space of dimension $`n`$ described by Rudolph et al. rudolph  can be written as “$`\left(n1\right)+\left(n1\right)>n`$” while the USD between one pure state and a mixed state described by Bergou et al. bergou  can be characterised as the “$`1+n=(n+1)`$” case.

Now we discuss interesting consequences to the two above theorems. First of all, the first theorem corresponds to the elimination of the common subspace. A common subspace is present when $`r_1+r_2>d`$ holds. Its dimension is $`d_{}=r_1+r_2d`$. Therefore, after elimination of that subspace, we end up in the case $`r_1^{}+r_2^{}=d^{}`$ with $`r_1^{}=r_1d_{}`$ and similarly for $`r_2^{}`$ and $`d^{}`$. Then, we can reduce the Rudolph’s case of discriminating unambiguously two density matrices of the same rank $`(n1)`$ in an Hilbert space of dimension $`n`$ to the “$`1+1=2`$” case of two pure states because the common subspace is ($`n2`$)-dimensional. Rudolph et al. rudolph  already noticed it in their paper. The reduction is constructive given $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$.

The second theorem corresponds to the elimination of the orthogonal part of one support with respect to the other, i.e., $`𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ and $`𝒮_{\rho _2}^{}𝒮_{\rho _1}`$. The non-empty subspaces $`𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ and $`𝒮_{\rho _2}^{}𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ can be found systematically. For example, $`𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ can be found by projecting $`𝒮_{\rho _1}`$ onto $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ and then by taking the complementary orthogonal subspace in $`𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ of that projection. As a matter of fact, this assures that we can reduce the general USD problem always to that of two density matrices of the same rank $`r`$, $`r\mathrm{min}(r_1,r_2)`$, in a Hilbert space of $`2r`$ dimensions. Indeed, if after the reduction the rank of $`\rho _2^{}`$ is bigger than the rank of $`\rho _1^{}`$, then the subspace $`𝒮_{\rho _1^{}}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2^{}}`$ is at least of dimension $`r_2^{}r_1^{}`$ and can be eliminated. With the help of the two above theorems, we can reduce any problem of discriminating unambiguously two density matrices $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, with rank $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ respectively, in a Hilbert space $``$, into a problem of discriminating unambiguously two density matrices $`\rho _1^{}`$ and $`\rho _2^{}`$ with rank $`r`$ ($`r\mathrm{min}(r_1,r_2)`$) in $`^{}`$, a 2$`r`$-dimensional Hilbert space. The reduction is constructive. The first theorem allows us to split off the common subspace and the second theorem leads to the reduce problem of discriminating unambiguously two density matrices of the same rank.

As a consequence, we can reduce, for example, the problem of USD between a pure state and a density matrix, the “$`1+n=(n+1)`$” case, to the problem of discriminating unambiguously two pure states, that is to say the “$`1+1=2`$” case, by splitting off $`𝒮_{\rho _1}^{}𝒮_{\rho _2}`$ of dimension $`(n1)`$. The two states are the original pure state $`\rho _1`$ and the unit vector corresponding to the projection of the original pure state onto the support of the mixed state $`\rho _2`$.

It implies that the only two exact solutions of OptUSD between mixed states that are known so far, on one hand, Bergou et al. bergou  and, on the other hand, Rudolph et al. rudolph , can be derived from the “$`1+1=2`$” case of Jaeger and Shimonyjaeger .

It is also interesting to note that the dimension of the failure space can not be greater than the lowest rank of the involved density matrices. First we have $`F_\mathrm{?}=PE_\mathrm{?}P`$ so that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒮_{F_\mathrm{?}})\mathrm{dim}(𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}})`$. Second the dimension of $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}i}}`$ can not be greater than $`r_i`$ because $`𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}i}}=\mathrm{support}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_{\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{?}}}𝒮_{\rho _\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒮_{\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{?}}})`$, for $`i=1,2`$, and $`𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}=𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}1}}=𝒮_{E_{\mathrm{?}2}}`$. Therefore

$`\mathrm{dim}𝒮_{E_\mathrm{?}}\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{dim}𝒮_{\rho _i}.`$ (67)
This result looks natural considering that we can finally reduce any problem of discriminating two density matrices with rank $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$, respectively, to the problem of discriminating two density matrices of the same rank $`r`$, $`r\mathrm{min}_ir_i`$.

Finally, a generalization to more than two density matrices can be achieved. Considering $`N`$ density matrices $`\rho _k(k=1\mathrm{}N)`$ with a priori probabilities $`p_k`$, we can construct $`N`$ pairs of density matrices $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1=\rho _i`$, $`i[1,..,N]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2=\frac{_{j=1,ji}^Np_j\rho _j}{1p_i}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1=p_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2=1p_i`$, and apply the two reduction theorems to these two density matrices in the following sense. We notice that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2`$ has no physical meaning. Actually, as soon as a common subspace between any $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1}`$ and $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}`$ exists, we can split it off from all the $`𝒮\rho _i`$’s because if we cannot discriminate unambiguously this part of the support of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2`$ then we can not discriminate unambiguously between this part of the support of all the $`\rho _j`$. The second theorem must be used more carefully. As soon as a subspace of $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1}`$ is orthogonal to $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}`$ ($`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}^{}𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1}\{0\}`$), we can eliminate it from the problem because it is orthogonal to the supports of all the $`\rho _j`$, $`ji`$. However we cannot eliminate a subspace of $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}`$ orthogonal to $`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1}`$ ($`𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1}^{}𝒮_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}\{0\}`$) because we know nothing about the orthogonality of this subspace for all the states in $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2`$. In other words, we can only reduce the density matrix $`\rho _i`$ corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1`$.

## VI Conclusion

We have shown that the problem of discriminating unambiguously any two density matrices can be reduced to the problem of discriminating unambiguously two density matrices of the same rank $`r`$ in a Hilbert space of 2$`r`$ dimensions. Firstly, we can split off any common subspace of the supports and, secondly, we can eliminate the part of the support of $`\rho _2`$ which is orthogonal to the support of $`\rho _1`$ and vice versa.

Finally, all the previous exact solutions of USD between two mixed states can be reduced to the the “$`1+1=2`$” case that is to say, the unambiguous discrimination of two pure states.

To conclude, given any two density matrices, we can explicitly reduce the problem “$`r_1+r_2d`$” to a problem “$`r+r=2r`$”, where $`rr_1r_2`$, which is the discrimination between two density matrices sharing the same rank. For the theoretical side, it implies that the only relevant cases to study are the “$`r+r=2r`$” cases, $`r`$. The next step should be to solve analytically the general “$`2+2=4`$” case.

Acknowledgements

We thank Aska Dolinska, Marcos Curty and Peter van Loock for very useful discussions. This work was supported by the DFG under the Emmy-Noether programme, the EU FET network RAMBOQ (IST-2002-6.2.1) and the network of competence QIP of the state of Bavaria (A8).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

GENERALIZED VIRASORO AND SUPER-VIRASORO ALGEBRAS

AND MODULES OF THE INTERMEDIATE SERIES

(Appeared in J. Alg. 252 (2002), 1-19.)

Yucai Su and Kaiming Zhao

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

†Institute of Mathematics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100010, China.

§1. Introduction

Recently, a number of new classes of infinite-dimensional simple Lie algebras over a Field of characteristic 0 were discovered by several authors (see the references at the end of this paper). Among those algebras, are the generalized Witt algebras. The higher rank Virasoro algebras was introduced by Patera and Zassenhaus \[PZ\], which are 1-dimensional universal central extensions of some generalized Witt algebras, and the higher rank super-Virasoro algebras was introduced by Su \[S\].

In this paper, we will introduce and study generalized Virasoro and super-Virasoro algebras which are slightly more general than higher rank Virasoro and super-Virasoro algebras. In Section 2, we give the definition and all the automorphisms of generalized Virasoro algebras, which are different from that given in \[PZ\] for higher rank Virasoro algebras. In Section 3, we exhibit many two dimensional subalgebras of generalized Virasoro algebras, which should occur but were not collected in \[PZ\] for higher rank Virasoro algebras. We believe our results are correct although they are different from those given in \[PZ\]. Section 4 devotes to determining all modules of the intermediate series over the generalized Virasoro algebras, see Theorem 4.6. Then in Section 5 we introduce the notion of generalized super-Virasoro algebras and determine the modules of the intermediate series over the generalized super-Virasoro algebras, see Theorem 5.4. Our work here generalizes the results of \[PZ\] and \[S\] in the following two ways, first, the ground field is any field of characteristic 0, not necessarily algebraically closed; second, the subgroup $`M`$ of $`IF`$ is arbitrary, not necessarily of finite rank.

§2. Generalized Virasoro algebras

Let $`A`$ be a torsion free abelian additive group, $`IF`$ any field of characteristic 0, $`T`$ a vector space over $`IF`$. Denote by $`IFA`$ the group algebra of $`A`$ over $`IF`$. The elements $`t^x,xA`$, form a basis of this algebra, and the multiplication is defined by $`t^xt^y=t^{x+y}`$. The tensor product $`W=IFA_{IF}T`$ is a free left $`IFA`$-module. We denote an arbitrary element of $`T`$ by $``$. We shall write $`t^x`$ instead of $`t^x`$. Choose a pairing $`\varphi :T\times AIF`$ which is $`IF`$-linear in the first variable and additive in the second one. For convenience we shall also use the following notations:

$$\varphi (,x)=,x=(x),T,xA.$$
$`(2.1)`$
The following bracket

$$[t^x_1,t^y_2]=t^{x+y}(_1(y)_2_2(x)_1),x,yA,_1,_2T,$$
$`(2.2)`$
makes $`W=W(A,T,\varphi )`$ into a Lie algebra, which was referred to as a generalized Witt algebra and studied in \[DZ2\]. The following result was proved there.

Theorem 2.1. (1) $`W=W(A,T,\varphi )`$ is simple if and only if $`A0`$ and $`\varphi `$ is nondegenerate.

(2) If $`\theta :WW^{}`$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism between two simple algebras $`W=W(A,T,\varphi )`$ and $`W^{}=W(A^{},T^{},\varphi ^{})`$, then there exists $`\chi \mathrm{Hom}(A,IF^{})`$ where $`IF^{}`$ is the multiplicative group $`IF\{0\}`$, isomorphisms $`\sigma :AA^{}`$ and $`\tau :TT^{}`$ satisfying $`\tau (),\sigma (x)=,x`$ such that $`\theta (t^x)=\chi (x)t^{\sigma (x)}\tau ()`$.

(3) For a simple generalized Witt algebra $`W=W(A,T,\varphi )`$, the second cohomology group $`H^2(W,IF)=0`$ if $`\mathrm{dim},T2`$, and if $`T=IF`$ is 1-dimensional, then $`H^2(W,IF)`$ is 1-dimensional, spanned by the cohomology class $`[\psi ]`$ where $`\psi :W\times WIF`$ is the 2-cocycle defined by $`\psi (t^x,t^y)=\delta _{x+y,0}(x)^3,x,yA.`$

In this paper we are interested in the 1-dimensional universal central extension of the simple algebras $`W(A,T,\varphi )`$ in the case that $`T=IF`$ is 1-dimensional. In fact this leads us to the following definition.

Definition 2.2. Let $`M`$ be an abelian additive subgroup of $`IF`$, the generalized Virasoro algebra $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is defined to be the Lie algebra with $`IF`$-basis $`\{L_\mu ,c|\mu M\}`$, subject to the following commutation relations:

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_\mu ,L_\nu ]=(\nu \mu )L_{\mu +\nu }+\frac{1}{12}(\mu ^3\mu )\delta _{\mu +\nu ,0}c,\\ [c,L_\mu ]=[c,c]=0,\end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
for $`\mu ,\nu M`$.

It is straightforward to verify that $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is $`M`$-graded

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Vir}[M]=_{\mu M}\text{Vir}[M]_\mu ,\\ \text{Vir}[M]_\mu =\{\begin{array}{c}IFL_\mu ,\mathrm{if}\mu 0,\\ IFL_0IFc,\mathrm{if}\mu =0,\end{array}\\ [\text{Vir}[M]_\mu ,\text{Vir}[M]_\nu ]\text{Vir}[M]_{\mu +\nu }.\end{array}$$
$`(2.4)`$
From the above theorem we see that $`\text{Vir}[M]\text{Vir}[M^{}]`$ if and only if there exists $`aIF^{}`$ such that $`M^{}=aM`$. It is clear that $`\text{Vir}[ZZ]`$ is the ordinary Virasoro algebra, and if $`M`$ is of rank $`n`$, $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is a higher rank Virasoro algebra defined and studied in \[PZ\]. We can easily deduce the following theorem from Theorem 2.1.

Theorem 2.3. (i) For any $`\chi \mathrm{Hom}(M,IF^{})`$, the mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _\chi :\text{Vir}[M]\text{Vir}[M],\\ L_x\chi (x)L_x,xM;cc\end{array}$$

is an automorphism of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$.

(ii) For any $`aS(M):=\{\alpha IF|\alpha M=M\}`$, the mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _a^{}:\text{Vir}[M]\text{Vir}[M],\\ L_xa^1L_{ax},xM;ca^1c\end{array}$$

is an automorphism of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$.

(iii) Aut($`\text{Vir}[M])\mathrm{Hom}(M,IF^{})\times |S(M)`$.

In Theorem 3 of \[PZ\], mappings in (a) are not automorphisms of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$, mappings in (c) should be modified to (ii) of the above theorem. The reason of those errors are the inaccuracy of Lemma 1 which we shall discuss in the next section.

§3. Finite dimensional subalgebras of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$

In this section we shall discuss finite dimensional subalgebras of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$. It suffices to consider this problem for only the centerless algebra $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]=\text{Vir}[M]/IFc`$.

Lemma 3.1. Let $`T`$ be any finite dimensional subalgebras of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$. Then $`dimT3`$. If $`dimT=3`$, then there exists a nonzero $`nM`$ such that $`T=IFL_n+IFL_0+IFL_n`$.

Proof. On the contrary, suppose $`dimT4`$, and $`X_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$ are four linearly independent elements in $`T`$. We choose a total ordering “$``$”on $`M`$ compatible with the group structure. For an element $`X=_{\mu M}a_\mu L_\mu \stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$, we define supp$`(X)=\{\mu M|a_\mu 0\}`$. Let max{supp$`(X_i)`$}$`=x_i`$. We may assume that $`x_1>0`$. If $`x_2>0`$ also, and $`x_1x_2`$, then $`X_1,X_2`$ generate an infinite dimensional subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$, a contradiction. So $`x_2=x_1`$. By subtracting a suitable multiple of $`X_1`$ from $`X_2`$, we get $`X_2^{}`$ with max{supp$`(X_2^{})`$}$`0`$. In this way we may assume that max{supp$`(X_i)`$}$`0`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$. We consider min{supp$`(X_i)`$}$`=x_i0`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$. Assume $`x_2<0`$. By subtracting suitable multiples of $`X_2`$ from $`X_3,X_4`$ respectively, we get two linearly independent elements $`X_3^{},X_4^{}`$ such that $`X_3^{},X_4^{}IFL_0`$, a contradiction. Thus $`dimT3`$.

If $`dimT=3`$, from the above discussion we can choose a basis $`\{Y_1,Y_2,Y_3\}`$ such that supp($`Y_1)0`$, supp($`Y_2)=0`$, supp($`Y_3)0`$. Then there exists a nonzero integer $`n`$ such that $`T=IFL_n+IFL_0+IFL_n`$.

Lemma 3.2. (i) Let $`xM\{0\}`$. Then for any positive integer $`n`$ and any $`\alpha IF`$, the following two elements span a two dimensional subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$:

$$X=L_0+\alpha L_x,Y=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \mathrm{ad}L_x)L_{nx}.$$

(ii) If $`T`$ is a two dimensional subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$, then $`T`$ is not abelian. If further $`X=L_0+\alpha L_xT`$, then there is an element $`YT`$ such that $`Y=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \mathrm{ad}L_x)L_{nx}`$ for some integer $`n>0`$.

Proof. Part (i) is easy to verify. We omit the details.

(ii) It is clear that $`T`$ is not abelian. Since $`dimT=2`$, there exists another $`YTIFX`$ such that $`[X,Y]=aX+bY`$ for some $`a,bIF`$. Further we can change $`Y`$, such that $`[X,Y]=bY0`$. Applying exp(ad$`(aL_x))`$ to $`[X,Y]=bY`$, we get

$$[L_0,\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}(bL_x))Y]=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}(bL_x))Y,$$

where exp(ad$`(bL_x))Y`$ can be an infinite sum. Thus there exists a positive integer $`n`$ such that exp(ad$`(bL_x))Y=b^{}L_{nx}`$, i.e., $`Y=b^{}\mathrm{exp}(b\mathrm{ad}L_x)L_{nx}`$.

The above Lemma does not determine all 2-dimensional subalgebras of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$. Let $`X=(3/16)L_0+L_1+L_2,`$ $`Y=(3/16)L_0+(1/16)L_1+(1/16^2)L_2`$, then $`IFX+IFY`$ is a subalgebra. This subalgebra and the ones in Lemma 3.2 are not included in \[PZ, Lemma 1\] and \[PZ, Theorem 4\]. There are certainly some other subalgebras. It is not easy to determine all 2-dimensional subalgebras of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$. Here we are not able to solve this problem, but we can reduce this problem to determining all 2-dimensional subalgebras of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[ZZ]`$.

Lemma 3.3. Let $`\{X,Y\}`$ be a basis of a two dimensional subalgebra $`T`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Vir}}[M]`$. then $`\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{supp}(X),\mathrm{supp}(Y)\}`$ is a group of rank 1, i.e., isomorphic to $`ZZ`$.

Proof. It is clear that span$`\{`$supp$`X`$, span$`Y\}`$ is a free group of finite rank. We may assume that $`[X,Y]=bY0`$. Choose a total ordering “$``$”on $`M`$ compatible with the group structure. If max{supp$`(Y)\}>0`$, and max{supp$`(X)\}>0`$, they must be equal. By subtracting a suitable multiple of $`Y`$ from $`X`$, we get $`X^{}`$ with max{supp$`(X^{})\}=0`$. Then $`[X^{},Y]=bY0`$. If supp$`(X^{})=\{0\}`$, we obtain that supp$`(Y)`$ is a singleton, the lemma is true in this case. Suppose min{supp$`(X^{})\}<0`$. If min{supp$`(Y)\}<0`$, they must be equal since otherwise dim$`T>2`$. By subtracting a suitable multiple of $`X`$ from $`Y`$, we get $`Y^{}`$ with min{supp$`(Y^{})\}=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{supp}(X),\mathrm{supp}(Y)\}=\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{supp}(X^{}),\mathrm{supp}(Y^{})\}`$, if it is a group of rank $`>1`$, then we can choose another ordering $`^{}`$ of $`M`$ such that one of the following is true: (1) max{supp$`(Y^{})\}>0`$ and max{supp$`(X^{})\}>0`$, (2) min{supp$`(X^{})\}<0`$, and min{supp$`(Y^{})\}<0`$. In either cases we deduce that dim$`T>2`$, a contradiction. Thus our lemma follows.

§4. Modules of the intermediate series

Let $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ be the generalized Virasoro algebra defined in Definition 2.2. A Harish-Chandra module over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is a module $`V`$ such that

$$V=_{\lambda IF}V_\lambda ,V_\lambda =\{vV|L_0v=\lambda v\},\mathrm{dim}V_\lambda <\mathrm{},\lambda IF.$$
$`(4.1)`$
Definition 4.1. A module of the intermediate series over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is an indecomposable Harish-Chandra module $`V`$ such that $`\mathrm{dim}V_\lambda 1`$ for all $`\lambda IF`$.

For any $`a,bIF`$, as in the Virasoro algebra case, one can define the following three series of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-modules $`A_{a,b}(M),A_a(M),B_a(M)`$, they all have basis $`\{v_\mu |\mu M\}`$ with actions $`cv_\mu =0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_{a,b}(M):& L_\mu v_\nu =(a+\nu +\mu b)v_{\mu +\nu },& \\ A_a(M):& L_\mu v_\nu =(\nu +\mu )v_{\mu +\nu },\nu 0,& L_\mu v_0=\mu (\mu +a)v_\mu ,\\ B_a(M):& L_\mu v_\nu =\nu v_{\mu +\nu },\nu \mu ,& L_\mu v_\mu =\mu (\mu +a)v_0,\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(4.2\mathrm{a})\\ (4.2\mathrm{b})\\ (4.2\mathrm{c})\end{array}`$
for all $`\mu ,\nu M`$. We use $`A_{a,b}^{}(M)`$, $`A_a^{}(M)`$, $`B_a^{}(M)`$ to denote the nontrivial subquotient of $`A_{a,b}(M)`$, $`A_a(M)`$, $`B_a(M)`$ respectively. As results in \[KR\], $`A_{a,b}^{}(M)A_{a,b}(M)`$ if and only if $`aM`$ and $`b=0`$, or $`aM`$ and $`b=1`$. Note that we made a slight change in the modules $`A_a(M)`$, $`B_a(M)`$. But the notation here is obviously neater and simpler than the old ones. You can see this from the following theorem which is similar to \[S, Prop.2.2\].

Theorem 4.2. Among the $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-modules $`A_{a,b}(M)`$, $`A_a(M)`$, $`B_a(M)`$ for $`a,bIF`$, and their nontrivial subquotients, we have only the following module isomorphisms:

(i) $`A_{a,b}(M)A_{a^{},b}(M)`$ if $`aa^{}M`$,

(ii) $`A_{a,0}(M)A_{a^{},1}(M)`$ for $`aM`$ with $`aa^{}M`$,

(iii) $`A_{a,b}^{}(M)A_{a^{},b}^{}(M)`$ if $`aa^{}M`$,

(iv) $`A_{a,0}^{}(M)A_{a^{},1}^{}(M)`$ for $`aIF`$ with $`aa^{}M`$,

(v) $`A_a^{}(M)B_b^{}(M)A_{0,0}(M)`$ for $`a,bIF`$.

The following lemma is quite clear.

Lemma 4.3. Suppose $`M_0M`$ is a subgroup of $`M`$, and $`V`$ is a Harish-Chandra module over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ with a weight $`\alpha `$. If

$$V\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{a,b}(M),\alpha =a,\hfill & \\ B_a(M),\alpha =0,\hfill & \\ A_a(M),\alpha =0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M)IFv_0,\alpha =0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}(M),\alpha =0,\hfill & \end{array}$$

for some $`a,bIF`$, then there exists $`x_0M`$ such that

$$V(\alpha +x_0,M_0):=_{zM_0}V_{\alpha +x_0+z}\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{a,b}(M_0),\hfill & \\ B_a(M_0),\hfill & \\ A_a(M_0),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_0)IFv_0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}(M_0),\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively, and in the last four cases $`\alpha +x_0M_0`$.

Su \[S\] proved the following

Theorem 4.4. Suppose $`MIF`$ is an additive subgroup of rank $`n`$, and $`IF`$ is algebraically closed of characteristic 0. A module of the intermediate series over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is isomorphic to one of the following: $`A_{a,b}(M)`$, $`A_a(M)`$, $`B_a(M)`$ for $`a,bIF`$, and their nonzero subquotients.

It is natural to ask: are these three series of modules the only modules of the intermediate series over the generalized Virasoro algebra $`\text{Vir}[M]`$? You will see the affirmative answer. Before we proceed the proof, we need an auxiliary theorem. Similar to Theorem 2.3 of \[OZ5\] (where the result is the same as in the following theorem but only for $`\text{Vir}[ZZ]`$) we have

Theorem 4.5. Suppose $`MIF`$ is an additive subgroup of rank $`n`$. Let $`V=_{jM}V_j`$ be a $`M`$-graded $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-module with $`dimV>1`$ and $`dimV_j1`$ for all $`jM`$. Suppose there exists $`aIF`$ such that $`L_0`$ acts on $`V_j`$ as the scalar $`a+j`$. Then $`V`$ is isomorphic to one of the following for appropriate $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$: (i) $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(M)`$, (ii) $`A_{0,0}^{}IFv_0`$ as direct sum of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-modules, (iii) $`A_\alpha (M)`$, (iv) $`B_\alpha (M)`$, (v) $`A_{0,0}(M)`$.

Proof. We may assume that $`ZZM`$. Denote the algebraically closed extension of $`IF`$ by $`\overline{IF}`$. Write $`\mathrm{sl}_2=\overline{IF}d_1+\overline{IF}d_0+\overline{IF}d_1`$ which is the 3-dimensional simple Lie algebra. Consider the $`\overline{IF}`$ extensions $`\overline{V}=\overline{IF}_{IF}V`$, $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[M]=\overline{IF}_{IF}\text{Vir}[M]`$, $`\overline{V}_i=\overline{IF}_{IF}V_i`$. It is well known that any submodule of a $`M`$-graded module is still $`M`$-graded. Claim 1 $`\overline{V}`$ has no finite dimensional $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[M]`$-submodule of dimension $`>1`$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $`U`$ is a finite dimensional $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[M]`$-submodule of $`\overline{V}`$ of dimension $`>1`$. From \[S, Theorem 2.1\], we see that each irreducible subquotient of $`U`$ must be a 1-dimensional trivial $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[M]`$-module. Contrary to the fact that each weight space of $`\overline{V}`$ with respect to $`L_0`$ is 1-dimensional. So Claim 1 holds.

This claim implies that if $`U`$ is a subquotient of $`\overline{V}`$ then $`dimU=1`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.

Claim 2 If $`U`$ is a $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[M]`$-subquotient of $`\overline{V}`$ and $`dimU=\mathrm{}`$, then $`UV_{a+x}0`$ for all $`xM`$ with $`x+a0`$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $`UV_{a+x_0}=0`$ for $`x_0M`$ with $`x_0+a0`$. Choose $`x_1M`$ such that $`UV_{a+x_1}0`$. Consider the $`\overline{\text{Vir}}[ZZ(x_1x_0)]`$-module $`U^{}=_{kZZ}V_{a+x_0+k(x_1x_0)}`$. By \[OZ5, Theorem 2.3\] we must have $`U^{}A_{0,0}^{}(ZZ(x_1x_0))`$. This forces $`a+x_0=0`$, contrary to the choice of $`x_0`$. Thus Claim 2 follows.

We shall determine $`V`$ case by case.

Case 1: $`\overline{V}`$ is irreducible.

It follows from \[S, Theorem 2.1\] that $`\overline{V}A_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(M)`$ for appropriate $`\alpha ,\beta \overline{IF}`$. Note that $`\alpha IF`$. If $`\overline{V}A_{0,0}^{}(M)`$, we can choose a basis $`\{v_i|iM\mathrm{with}i0\}`$ for $`\overline{V}`$ such that $`L_iv_j=jv_{i+j}`$ with $`v_0=0`$. There exists $`\gamma \overline{IF}`$ so that $`\gamma v_1V\{0\}`$. Then $`\gamma v_iV`$. Thus $`VA_{0,0}^{}(M)`$. If $`\overline{V}\simeq ̸A_{0,0}^{}(M)`$, we can choose a basis $`\{v_i|iM\}`$ for $`\overline{V}`$ such that

$$L_iv_j=(j+\alpha +i\beta )v_{i+j}.$$
$`(4.3)`$
There exists an integer $`i_0`$ so that $`L_{\pm 1}v_i0`$ for all integer $`ii_0`$. We may assume that $`\gamma v_{i_0}V`$ where $`\gamma \overline{IF}\{0\}`$. Define

$$w_{i+i_0}=\gamma L_1^iv_{i_0}=\gamma \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}(\alpha +\beta +j+i_0)v_{i+i_0},i0.$$

Then $`w_iV`$ for all $`ii_0`$, and $`L_jw_iV`$ for all $`j2,i>i_0+2`$. Using (4.3) we see that

$$\begin{array}{c}L_1w_{i+i_0}=(\alpha +\beta +i_0+i1)(\alpha \beta +i_0+i)w_{i+i_01},\\ L_2w_{i+i_0}=(\alpha +\beta +i_0+i1)(\alpha +\beta +i_0+i2)(\alpha 2\beta +i_0+i)w_{i+i_01}.\end{array}$$

It follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha +\beta +i_0+i1)(\alpha \beta +i_0+i)IF,i2,\\ (\alpha +\beta +i_0+i1)(\alpha +\beta +i_0+i2)(\alpha 2\beta +i_0+i)IF,i2.\end{array}$$

We can deduce that $`\beta (\beta 1),2\beta (\beta 1)(\beta 2)IF`$. Thus we get $`\beta IF`$. Therefore if we replace $`v_i`$ with $`\gamma v_i`$ for all $`iZZ`$, then $`v_iV`$ and (4.3) still holds. Thus $`VA_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(M)`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta IF`$.

Case 2: $`\overline{V}`$ is reducible.

Let $`U`$ be a proper submodule of $`\overline{V}`$. From Claims 1 and 2 we know that $`U`$ is irreducible and that $`dimU=1`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.

Subcase 1: $`dimU=1`$.

Setting $`U=\overline{V}_{i_0}`$, we see that $`L_0\overline{V}_{i_0}=0`$. Then $`\overline{V}/U`$ is irreducible. From Case 1 we must have $`\overline{V}/U\overline{A}_{0,0}^{}(M):=\overline{IF}_{IF}A_{0,0}^{}(M)`$. If $`\overline{V}`$ is decomposable, then $`\overline{V}=\overline{A}_{0,0}^{}(M)\overline{V}_0`$ as $`\overline{\text{Vir}}`$-modules, which implies that $`V=A_{0,0}^{}(M)V_0`$ as Vir-modules. If $`\overline{V}`$ is indecomposable, by \[S, Theorem 2.1\] we have $`\overline{V}\overline{A}_{0,0}(M)`$, or $`\overline{V}\overline{B}_\alpha (M)`$ for appropriate $`\alpha \overline{IF}`$. In the first case we have $`VA_{0,0}(M)`$, In the second case, by changing the basis we can see that, in fact, $`\alpha IF`$ and $`VB_\alpha (M)`$.

Subcase 2: $`dimU=\mathrm{}`$.

Claim 1 tells us that $`dim(\overline{V}/U)=1`$, and $`\overline{V}/U=\overline{V}_0`$. This implies that $`L_0V_0=0`$ and $`\overline{V}=U\overline{V}_0`$ as subspaces. We deduce that $`U`$ is irreducible. By Case 1 we have $`UA_{0,0}^{}(M)`$. If $`\overline{V}`$ is decomposable, then $`\overline{V}=\overline{A}_{0,0}^{}(M)\overline{V}_{i_0}`$ as submodules. And it follows that $`V=A_{0,0}^{}(M)V_0`$ as Vir-submodules. If $`\overline{V}`$ is indecomposable, then \[S, Theorem 2.1\] ensures $`\overline{V}\overline{A}_{0,1}(M)`$, or $`\overline{V}A_\alpha (M)`$ for appropriate $`\alpha \overline{IF}`$. In the first case we have $`VA_{0,1}(M)`$, In the second case, by changing the basis we can see that, in fact, $`\alpha IF`$ and $`VA_\alpha (M)`$.

Now we are ready to classify modules of the intermediate series over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ for any $`M`$ and any field $`IF`$ of characteristic 0.

Theorem 4.6. A module of the intermediate series over $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ is isomorphic to one of the following: $`A_{a,b}(M)`$, $`A_a(M)`$, $`B_a(M)`$ for $`a,bIF`$, and their nonzero subquotients.

Proof. Suppose $`V`$ is a module of the intermediate series. As it is indecomposable, there exists some $`aIF`$ such that

$$V=_{\mu M}V_{\mu +a}.$$
$`(4.4)`$
If $`aM`$, we choose $`a=0`$.

For $`xM`$ and any subgroup $`N`$ of $`M`$, we define

$$V(a+x,N)=_{zN}V_{a+x+z}.$$
$`(4.5)`$
It clear that $`V(a+x,N)`$ is a $`\text{Vir}[N]`$-module.

If $`dimV=1`$, then $`V`$ is the 1-dimensional trivial $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-module. Next we shall always assume that $`dimV>1`$.

If $`MZZ`$, \[OZ5, Theorem 2.3\] ensures that Theorem 4.6 holds. Next we shall always assume that $`M\simeq ̸ZZ`$.

Claim 1. $`V_{a+x}0`$ for all $`xM`$ with $`a+x0`$.

Suppose, to the contrary, that $`V_{a+x_0}=0`$ for $`x_0M`$ with $`x_0+a0`$. Choose $`x_1M`$ such that $`V_{a+x_1}0`$. Consider the $`\text{Vir}[ZZ(x_1x_0)]`$-module $`U=_{kZZ}V_{a+x_0+k(x_1x_0)}`$. By \[OZ5, Theorem 2.3\] we must have $`UA_{0,0}^{}(ZZ(x_1x_0))`$. This forces $`a+x_0=0`$, contrary to the choice of $`x_0`$. Thus Claim 1 follows.

From Claim 1 and Theorem 4.5 we know that $`c`$ acts trivially on $`V`$.

Now we fix an arbitrary nonzero $`z_0M`$, let $`\{x_i|iI\}`$ be the set of all representatives of cosets of $`ZZz_0`$ in $`M`$. If $`aM`$, we choose $`x_0=0`$. It is clear that $`V=_{iI}V(a+x_i,ZZz_0)`$, see (4.5) for the definition. From Claim 1 and Theorem 4.5 we know that, for any $`iI\{0\}`$, there exists $`b_iIF`$ such that

$$V(a+x_i,ZZz_0)A_{a+x_i,b_i}(ZZz_0),$$
$`(4.6)`$
and

$$V(a+x_0,ZZz_0)\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{a+x_0,b_0}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ B_\alpha (ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0)IFv_0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \end{array}$$

for some $`b_0,\alpha IF`$.

Suppose $`M_0`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`M`$ satisfying the following two conditions:

(C1) Let $`\{x_i|iI^{}\}`$ be the set of all representatives of cosets of $`M_0`$ in $`M`$ with $`0I^{}`$ and $`x_0=0`$. Then for all $`iI^{}\{0\}`$,

$$V(a+x_i,M_0)A_{a+x_i,b_i}(M_0),$$

for some $`b_iIF`$;

(C2)

$$V(a+x_0,M_0)\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{a+x_0,b_0}(M_0),\hfill & \\ B_\alpha (M_0),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (M_0),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_0)IFv_0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_0),\hfill & \end{array}$$

for some $`b_0,\alpha IF`$.

From the above discussion we know that such an $`M_0`$ exists. It suffices to show that $`M_0=M`$.

Otherwise we suppose $`M_0M`$. So $`|I^{}|>1`$, and $`x_1MM_0`$ for $`1I^{}`$. Denote $`M_1=M_0+ZZx_1`$. Let $`\{y_i|iJ\}`$ be the set of all representatives of cosets of $`M_1`$ in $`M`$ with $`0J`$ and $`y_0=0`$, and $`\{ix_1|iK\}`$ be the set of all representatives of cosets of $`M_0`$ in $`M_1`$, where $`KZZ`$.

Claim 2. For any fixed $`jJ`$ we have

$$V(a+y_j,M_1)\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{a+y_j,\alpha }(M_1),\hfill & \\ B_\alpha (M_1),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (M_1),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_1)IFv_0,\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_1),\hfill & \end{array}$$

for some $`\alpha IF`$.

We shall show this claim in two cases.

Case 1: For all $`iK`$,

$$V(a+ix_1+y_j,M_0)A_{a+ix_1+y_j,b_i}(M_0),$$
$`(4.7)`$
for some $`b_iIF`$.

From Theorem 4.2, we have two choices for some $`b_i`$. From (4.7) we deduce that

$$V(a+ix_1+y_j,ZZz_0)A_{a+y_j+ix_1,b_i}(ZZz_0).$$
$`(4.8)`$
For any $`z_0M_0\{0\}`$, rank$`(ZZz_0+ZZx_i)=1`$ or $`2`$. Then for all $`iK`$, \[S, Theorem 2.1\] and Lemma 4.3 ensure that $`V(a+ix_1+y_j,ZZz_0+ZZx_1)=V(a+y_j,ZZz_0+ZZx_1)=_{zZZz_0+ZZx_1}V_{a+y_j+z}A_{a+y_j,b}(ZZz_0+ZZx_1)`$ for some $`bIF`$. Thus for all $`iK`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}V(a+ix_1+y_j,ZZz_0)A_{a+y_j+ix_1,b}(ZZz_0),\\ V(a+y_j,ZZx_1)A_{a+y_j,b}(ZZx_1),\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(4.9)\\ (4.10)\end{array}`$
Combining (4.8) with (4.9), we can choose $`b_i`$ such that $`b=b_i`$ for all $`iZZ`$, i.e.,

$$V(a+ix_1+y_j,M_0)A_{a+ix_1+y_j,b}(M_0),$$
$`(4.11)`$
Using (4.10) and (4.11), we choose a basis $`v_{y_j+z}V_{a+y_j+z}`$ for all $`zM_1`$ and all $`iK`$ as follows:

(N1) Choose $`v_{kx_1+y_j}V_{a+kx_1+y_j}`$ for all $`kZZ`$ such that

$$L_{ix_1}v_{y_j+kx_1}=(a+y_j+kx_1+ix_1b)v_{y_j+kx_1+ix_1},i,kZZ;$$

(N2) For any $`iK`$, choose $`v_{ix_1+y_j+z}V_{a+ix_1+y_j+z}`$ for all $`zM_0\{0\}`$ such that

$$L_yv_{y_j+ix_1+z}=(a+y_j+ix_1+z+by)v_{y_j+ix_1+z+y},y,zM_0.$$

Applying Lemma 4.3 to (4.10) gives

$$V(a+y_j,ZZz_0+ZZx_1)A_{a+y_j,b}(ZZz_0+ZZx_1).$$
$`(4.12)`$
Then we can choose a basis $`v_{y_j+z}^{}V_{a+y_j+z}`$ for all $`zZZz_0+ZZx_1`$ with $`v_{y_j}^{}=v_{y_j}`$ such that

$$L_yv_{y_j+ix_1+z}^{}=(a+y_j+ix_1+z+by)v_{y_j+ix_1+z+y}^{}.$$

Combining this with (N1) and (N2), we deduce that $`v_{y_j+z}^{}=v_{y_j+z}`$ for all $`zZZz_0+ZZx_1`$, i.e.,

$$L_yv_{y_j+z}^{}=(a+y_j+z+by)v_{y_j+z+y}^{},y,zZZz_0+ZZx_1.$$

Since $`z_0M_0`$ is arbitrary, the above equation holds for all $`y,zM_1`$. This yields that $`V(a+y_j,M_1)A_{a+y_j,b}(M_1)`$. So Claim 2 is true for this case.

Case 2: $`a=0`$ and

$$V(0,M_0)=_{zM_0}V_z\{\begin{array}{cc}B_\alpha (M_0),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (M_0),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_0)IFv_0,\mathrm{or}\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(M_0),\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.13)`$
for some $`\alpha IF`$.

In this case, $`j=0,y_j=0`$. It is clear that, for any $`iK\{0\}`$, since $`ix_1M_0`$ we have

$$V(ix_1,M_0)=A_{ix_1,b_i}(M_0).$$
$`(4.14)`$
For any $`zM_0ZZx_1`$, rank$`(ZZz+ZZx_i)=1`$ or $`2`$. If $`M_0ZZx_1`$, then $`M_1ZZ`$, Claim 2 is automatically true. Now suppose $`z_0M_0ZZx_1`$ is a fixed arbitrary element. Then for all $`iK`$, \[S, Theorem 2.1\], Lemma 4.3 and (4.13) ensure that

$$V(ix_1,ZZz_0+ZZx_1)=V(0,ZZz_0+ZZx_1)\{\begin{array}{cc}B_\alpha (ZZz_0+ZZx_1),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (ZZz_0+ZZx_1),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0+ZZx_1)IFv_0,\mathrm{or}\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0+ZZx_1),\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively. Thus

$$V(ix_1,ZZz_0)\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{ix_1,0}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_{ix_1,1}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_{ix_1,0}^{}(ZZz_0),\mathrm{or}\hfill & \\ A_{ix_1,0}^{}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \end{array}iK\{0\},$$
$`(4.15)`$
$$V(0,ZZz_0)\{\begin{array}{cc}B_\alpha (ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_\alpha (ZZz_0),\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0)IFv_0,\mathrm{or}\hfill & \\ A_{0,0}^{}(ZZz_0),\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.16)`$
$$V(z_0,ZZx_1)\{\begin{array}{cc}A_{z_0,0}(ZZx_1),\hfill & \\ A_{z_0,1}(ZZx_1),\hfill & \\ A_{z_0,0}^{}(ZZz_0),\mathrm{or}\hfill & \\ A_{z_0,0}^{}(ZZx_1),\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.17)`$
respectively. From (4.14) and (4.15) we can choose $`b_i`$ ($`iK\{0\}`$) such that

$$b_i=b=0,1,0,\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
$`(4.18)`$
corresponding to the four cases respectively. Using (4.15), (4.16), (4.17), (4.18) and (4.14), we choose a basis $`v_{ix_1+z}V_{ix_1+z}`$ for all $`zM_0`$ and all $`iK`$ as follows:

(N1’) Choose $`v_{z_0+kx_1}V_{z_0+kx_1}`$ for all $`kZZ`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_{ix_1}v_{z_0+jx_1}=(z_0+jx_1)v_{z_0+(i+j)x_1},i,jZZ,\hfill & \\ L_{ix_1}v_{z_0+jx_1}=(z_0+(i+j)x_1)v_{z_0+(i+j)x_1},i,jZZ,\hfill & \\ L_{ix_1}v_{z_0+jx_1}=(z_0+jx_1)v_{z_0+(i+j)x_1},i,jZZ,\hfill & \\ L_{ix_1}v_{z_0+jx_1}=(z_0+jx_1)v_{z_0+(i+j)x_1},i,jZZ,\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively;

(N2’) For any $`jK`$, choose $`v_{jx_1+z}V_{jx_1+z}`$ for all $`zM_0\{z_0\}`$ such that, if $`jK\{0\}`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_zv_{z_0+jx_1+y}=(z_0+jx_1+y)v_{z_0+jx_1+z+y},y,zM_0,\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+jx_1+y}=(z_0+z+jx_1+y)v_{z_0+jx_1+z+y},y,zM_0,\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+jx_1+y}=(z_0+jx_1+y)v_{z_0+jx_1+z+y},y,zM_0,\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+jx_1+y}=(z_0+jx_1+y)v_{z_0+jx_1+z+y},y,zM_0,\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively; if $`j=0`$, $`y,zM_0`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_zv_y=yv_{z+y}\mathrm{for}y+z0,L_zv_z=z(z+\alpha )v_0,\hfill & \\ L_zv_y=(z+y)v_{z+y}\mathrm{for}y0,L_zv_0=z(z+\alpha )v_z,\hfill & \\ L_zv_y=yv_{z+y}\mathrm{for}y(y+z)0,\hfill & \\ L_zv_y=yv_{z+y}\mathrm{for}y(y+z)0,\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively.

Note that this choice of basis can always be done although we have sometimes $`M_0ZZx_10`$.

For any $`z_1M_0`$, (4.13) yields (4.13) with $`M_0`$ replaced into $`ZZz_1`$. Applying Lemma 4.3 gives (4.13) with $`M_0`$ replaced into $`ZZz_1+ZZx_1`$. Then we can choose a basis $`v_{z_0+z}^{}V_{z_0+z}`$ for all $`zM_2:=ZZz_1+ZZx_1`$ with $`v_{z_0}^{}=v_{z_0}`$ such that, for all $`y,zM_2`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_zv_{z_0+y}^{}=(z_0+y)v_{z_0+z+y}^{}\mathrm{if}z_0+y+z0,L_zv_z^{}=z(z+\alpha )v_0^{},\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+y}^{}=(z_0+z+y)v_{z_0+z+y}^{}\mathrm{if}z_0+y0,L_zv_0^{}=z(z+\alpha )v_z^{},\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+y}^{}=(z_0+y)v_{z_0+z+y}^{},\hfill & \\ L_zv_{z_0+y}^{}=(z_0+y)v_{z_0+z+y}^{},\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively. Combining this with (N1’) and (N2’), we deduce that $`v_{z_0+z}^{}=v_{z_0+z}`$ for all $`zZZz_1+ZZx_1`$. Since $`z_1M_1`$ is arbitrary, we can deduce (4.13) with $`M_0`$ replaced by $`M_1`$. So Claim 2 is true for this subcase.

Claim 2 is contrary to the choice of $`M_0`$. Therefore we must have $`M_0=M`$. This completes the proof of this theorem.

§5. Generalized super-Virasoro algebras

In this section, we shall first introduce the notion of the generalized super-Virasoro algebras which generalizes the notion of the high rank super-Virasoro algebras introduced in \[S\], and then determine the modules of the intermediate series over the generalized super-Virasoro algebras.

Roughly speaking, a generalized super-Virasoro algebra is a Lie superalgebra which is a nontrivial $`ZZ/2ZZ`$-graded extension of a generalized Virasoro algebra. Thus, suppose $`\text{SVir}[M]=\text{SVir}_{\overline{0}}[M]\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]`$ is a $`ZZ/2ZZ`$-graded extension of a generalized Virasoro algebra $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ such that $`\text{SVir}_{\overline{0}}[M]=\text{Vir}[M]`$ and $`\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]`$ is a nontrivial irreducible $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-module of the intermediate series. By Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.6, $`\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]`$ is a subquotient module of $`A_{\alpha ,b}(M)`$ for some $`\alpha ,bIF`$, so by rewriting (4.2a), there is a subset $`M^{}`$ of $`M`$, where $`M^{}=M`$ if $`\alpha M,b0,1`$ or $`M^{}=M\backslash \{0\}`$ if $`\alpha =0,b=0,1`$, such that there exists a basis $`\{G_\mu |\mu \alpha +M^{}\}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_\mu ,G_\nu ]=(\nu +\mu b)G_{\mu +\nu },\\ [c,G_\nu ]=0,\end{array}\mu M,\nu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.1)`$
Since we are considering a nontrivial extension, we have $`0[G_\mu ,G_\nu ]\text{Vir}[M]`$ for some $`\mu ,\nu M^{}`$. As it has the weight $`\mu +\nu `$, thus we have $`\mu +\nu M`$ and so

$$2\alpha M.$$
$`(5.2)`$
In general, since $`[\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M],\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]]\text{SVir}_{\overline{0}}[M]=\text{Vir}[M]`$, we can write

$$[G_\mu ,G_\nu ]=x_{\mu ,\nu }L_{\mu +\nu }+\delta _{\mu +\nu ,0}y_\mu c,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{},$$
$`(5.3)`$
for some $`x_{\mu ,\nu },y_\mu IF`$. Applying $`\mathrm{ad}L_\lambda ,\lambda M`$ to (5.3), using (5.1) and definition (2.3), we obtain that

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mu +\lambda b)x_{\mu +\lambda ,\nu }+(\nu +\lambda b)x_{\mu ,\nu +\lambda }=(\mu +\nu \lambda )x_{\mu ,\nu },\\ \delta _{\mu +\lambda +\nu ,0}(\mu +\lambda b)y_{\mu +\lambda }+\delta _{\mu +\nu +\lambda ,0}(\nu +\lambda b)y_\mu =\frac{1}{12}(\lambda ^3\lambda )\delta _{\lambda +\mu +\nu ,0}x_{\mu ,\nu },\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(5.4\mathrm{a})\\ (5.4\mathrm{b})\end{array}`$
holds for all $`\lambda M,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}`$.

We shall consider (5.4a-b) in two cases.

Case 1: Suppose $`[\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M],\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]]IFc`$, i.e., $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=0`$ for all $`\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}`$.

By taking $`\nu =\mu \alpha +M^{},\lambda =2\mu M`$ in (5.4b), we obtain

$$\mu (12b)(y_\mu +y_\mu )=0,\mu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.5)`$
First suppose $`b\frac{1}{2}`$. Then (5.5) gives $`y_\mu =y_\mu `$. On the other hand, from the definition of Lie superalgebras we have

$$y_\mu =y_\mu ,\mu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.6)`$
This forces $`y_\mu =0,\mu \alpha +M^{}`$ and so, we obtain the trivial extension. Therefore $`b=\frac{1}{2}`$, and so $`M^{}=M`$. Then in (5.4b), by taking $`\lambda =(\nu +\mu )M`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}(\mu \nu )(y_\nu y_\mu )=0,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M.$$
$`(5.7)`$
In particular, by setting $`\nu =\alpha `$, we have $`y_\mu =y_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha \mu \alpha +M`$ and by (5.6), we have $`y_\alpha =y_\alpha `$. This shows that $`y_\mu =yIF`$ must be a nonzero scalar. By rescaling the basis $`\{G_\mu |\mu \alpha +M\}`$ if necessary, we can suppose $`y_\mu =1`$ for all $`\mu \alpha +M`$ and so from (5.1) and (5.3), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_\mu ,G_\nu ]=(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\mu )G_{\mu +\nu },[c,G_\nu ]=0,\\ [G_\nu ,G_\lambda ]=\delta _{\nu +\lambda ,0}c,\end{array}\mu M,\nu ,\lambda \alpha +M.$$
$`(5.8)`$
It is immediate to check that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}\mathrm{Vir}[M,\alpha ]=\mathrm{span}\{L_\mu ,G_\nu ,c|\mu M,\nu \alpha +M\}`$ with commutation relations (2.3) and (5.8) defines a Lie superalgebra for any subgroup $`M`$ of $`IF`$ and $`\alpha IF`$ such that $`2\alpha M`$.

Case 2: Suppose $`[\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M],\text{SVir}_{\overline{1}}[M]]IFc`$, i.e., $`x_{\mu ,\nu }0`$ for some $`\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}`$.

Using the super-Jacobian identity,

$$[G_\lambda ,[G_\mu ,G_\nu ]]=[[G_\lambda ,G_\mu ],G_\nu ][G_\mu ,[G_\lambda ,G_\nu ]],\mu ,\nu ,\lambda \alpha +M^{},$$
$`(5.9)`$
by applying $`G_\lambda `$ to (5.3) and using (5.1), we have

$$(\lambda +(\mu +\nu )b)x_{\mu ,\nu }=(\nu +(\lambda +\mu )b)x_{\lambda ,\mu }+(\mu +(\lambda +\nu )b)x_{\lambda ,\nu },\lambda ,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.10)`$
Setting $`\lambda =\nu =\mu \alpha +M^{}`$ in (5.10), we obtain

$$3\mu (1+2b)x_{\mu ,\mu }=0,\mu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.11)`$
If $`b\frac{1}{2}`$, then

$$x_{\mu ,\mu }=0,0\mu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.12)`$
By setting $`\nu =\mu `$ in (5.4a), and then substituting $`\mu +\lambda `$ by $`\nu `$, using (5.12) and noting that $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=x_{\nu ,\mu }`$, we obtain

$$2(\mu (1b)+\nu b)x_{\mu ,\nu }=0,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}.$$
$`(5.13)`$
Suppose $`x_{\mu _0,\nu _0}0`$ for some $`\mu _0,\nu _0\alpha +M^{}`$, then (5.13) and $`x_{\mu _0,\nu _0}=x_{\nu _0,\mu _0}`$ give $`\mu _0(1b)+\nu _0b=0=\nu _0(1b)+\mu _0b`$. From this, we have $`\mu _0=\nu _0`$, thus we obtain

$$x_{\mu ,\nu }=0,\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{},\mu \nu .$$
$`(5.14)`$
But when $`\mu =\nu `$, by taking $`\lambda 0`$ in (5.4a), we again obtain $`x_{\mu ,\mu }=0`$. Thus $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=0`$ for all $`\mu ,\nu \alpha +M^{}`$, a contradiction. Therefore we obtain $`b=\frac{1}{2}`$. So, $`M^{}=M`$. Then in (5.10), by letting $`\lambda =\mu `$, we obtain $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=x_{\mu ,\mu }`$ for all $`\mu ,\nu \alpha +M`$. Therefore we have $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=x_{\nu ,\nu }=x_{\alpha ,\nu }=x_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$ is a nonzero scalar. By rescaling basis $`\{G_\mu |\mu \alpha +M\}`$ if necessary, we can suppose $`x_{\mu ,\nu }=2`$ for all $`\mu ,\nu \alpha +M`$.

By letting $`\nu =\mu \alpha +M`$, $`\lambda =2\mu M`$ in (5.4b), we obtain

$$\mu y_\mu =\frac{1}{12}\mu (4\mu ^21),\mu \alpha +M.$$
$`(5.15)`$
Thus if $`\alpha M`$, we obtain that

$$y_\mu =\frac{1}{3}(\mu ^2\frac{1}{4}),$$
$`(5.16)`$
holds for all $`\mu \alpha +M`$. If $`\alpha M`$, then (5.16) holds for all $`\mu 0`$. To prove (5.16) also holds for $`\mu =0`$ when $`\alpha M`$, setting $`\nu =0,\lambda =\mu M`$ in (5.4b), we see this immediately. Thus (5.1) and (5.3) have the following forms:

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_\mu ,G_\nu ]=(\nu \frac{1}{2}\mu )G_{\mu +\nu },[c,G_\nu ]=0,\\ [G_\nu ,G_\lambda ]=2L_{\nu +\lambda }\frac{1}{3}(\nu ^2\frac{1}{4})\delta _{\nu +\lambda ,0}c,\end{array}\mu M,\nu ,\lambda \alpha +M.$$
$`(5.17)`$
It is immediate to check that $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]=\mathrm{span}\{L_\mu ,G_\nu ,c|\mu M,\nu \alpha +M\}`$ with commutation relations (2.3) and (5.17) defines a Lie superalgebra for any subgroup $`M`$ of $`IF`$ and $`\alpha IF`$ such that $`2\alpha M`$.

Thus we have in fact proved

Lemma 5.1 Suppose $`W=W_{\overline{0}}W_{\overline{1}}`$ is a Lie superalgebra such that $`W_{\overline{0}}\text{Vir}[M]`$ and $`W_{\overline{1}}`$ is an irreducible $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-module of the intermediate series, where $`M`$ is an additive subgroup of $`IF`$. Then $`W`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}\mathrm{Vir}[M,\alpha ]`$ or $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$ for a suitable $`\alpha IF`$ with $`2\alpha M`$.

This result leads us the following definition

Definition 5.2. A generalized super-Virasoro algebra is a Lie superalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}\mathrm{Vir}[M,\alpha ]`$ defined by (2.3) and (5.8) or $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$ defined by (2.3) and (5.17), where $`M`$ is a subgroup of $`IF`$, $`\alpha IF`$ with $`2\alpha M`$.

Now we are in a position to consider modules of the intermediate series over the generalized super-Virasoro algebras. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}\mathrm{Vir}[M,\alpha ]`$ is just a trivial extension of $`\text{Vir}[M]`$ modulo the center $`IFc`$, the modules of the intermediate series over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}\mathrm{Vir}[M,\alpha ]`$ are simply those modules over the generalized Virasoro algebra $`\text{Vir}[M]`$. Thus we shall be only interested in considering $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$.

First we give the precise definition.

Definition 5.3. A $`ZZ/2ZZ`$-graded vector space $`V=V_{\overline{0}}V_{\overline{1}}`$ is called a module of the intermediate series over $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$ if it is an indecomposable $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$-module such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{SVir}_\sigma [M,\alpha ]V_\tau V_{\sigma +\tau },\sigma ,\tau ZZ/2ZZ,\\ \mathrm{dim}_{IF}(V_\sigma )_\lambda 1,\text{ where }(V_\sigma )_\lambda =\{vV_\sigma |L_0v=\lambda v\},\lambda IF,\sigma ZZ/2ZZ.\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}\\ (5.18)\\ \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\end{array}`$
As in \[S\], \[S1\], there exist three series of modules $`SA_{a,b}(M,\alpha ),`$ $`SA_a(M,\alpha ),`$ $`SB_a(M,\alpha )`$ for $`a,bIF`$ comparable with those of the generalized Virasoro algebra defined in (4.2a-c). Precisely, $`SA_{a,b}(M,\alpha ),SA_a(M,\alpha )`$ have basis $`\{v_\mu |\mu M\}\{w_\nu |\nu \alpha +M\}`$ and $`SB_a[M,\alpha ]`$ has basis $`\{v_\nu |\nu \alpha +M\}\{w_\mu |\mu M\}`$ such that the central element $`c`$ acts trivially and

$`\begin{array}{ccc}SA_{a,b}(M,\alpha ):& L_\lambda v_\mu =(a+\mu +\lambda b)v_{\lambda +\mu },& L_\lambda w_\nu =(a+\nu +\lambda (b\frac{1}{2}))w_{\lambda +\nu },\\ & G_\eta v_\mu =w_{\eta +\mu },& G_\eta w_\nu =(a+\nu +2\eta (b\frac{1}{2}))v_{\eta +\nu },\end{array}`$ (5.19a)

$`\begin{array}{cccc}SA_a(M,\alpha ):& L_\lambda v_\mu =(\mu +\lambda )v_{\lambda +\mu },\mu 0,& L_\lambda v_0=\lambda (\lambda +a)v_\lambda ,& L_\lambda w_\nu =(\nu +\frac{\lambda }{2})w_{\lambda +\nu },\\ & G_\eta v_\mu =w_{\eta +\mu },\mu 0,& G_\eta v_0=(2\eta +a)w_\eta ,& G_\eta w_\nu =(\nu +\eta )v_{\eta +\nu },\end{array}`$ (5.19b)

$`\begin{array}{cccc}SB_a(M,\alpha ):& L_\lambda v_\nu =(\nu +\frac{\lambda }{2})v_{\lambda +\mu },& L_\lambda w_\mu =\mu w_{\lambda +\mu },\mu \lambda ,& L_\lambda w_\lambda =\mu (\mu +a)w_0,\\ & G_\eta v_\nu =w_{\eta +\nu },\nu \lambda ,& G_\eta v_\eta =(2\eta +a)w_0,& G_\eta w_\mu =\mu v_{\eta +\mu },& \end{array}`$ (5.19c)

for all $`\lambda ,\mu M,\nu ,\eta \alpha +M`$.

Now we are ready to prove following theorem.

Theorem 5.4. A module of the intermediate series over $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$ is isomorphic to one of the following: $`SA_{a,b}(M,\alpha )`$, $`SA_a(M,\alpha )`$, $`SB_a(M,\alpha )`$ for $`a,bIF`$, and their nonzero subquotients.

Proof. Let $`V=V_{\overline{0}}V_{\overline{1}}`$ be a module of the intermediate series over $`\text{SVir}[M,\alpha ]`$. Since $`V`$ is indecomposable, there exists some $`aIF`$ such that $`V_{\overline{0}}=_{\lambda M}(V_{\overline{0}})_{a+\lambda }`$ and $`V_{\overline{1}}=_{\lambda M}(V_{\overline{1}})_{a+\alpha +\lambda }`$. We always take $`a=0`$ if $`aM`$. Since $`V_{\overline{0}},V_{\overline{1}}`$ are $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-modules such that $`dim(V_\sigma )_\lambda 1,\sigma ZZ/2ZZ,\lambda IF`$, they have the form $`A_{a,b}(M),A_a(M),B_a(M)`$ or their subquotients or the direct sum of the two composition factors of $`A_{0,0}(M)`$. Since we can interchange $`V_{\overline{0}}`$ and $`V_{\overline{1}}`$ if necessary, it suffices to consider the following cases.

Case 1: Suppose $`V_{\overline{0}}=IFv_0`$.

Let $`w_\nu =G_\nu v_0,\nu \alpha +M`$, then applying $`L_\mu ,G_\eta `$ to $`G_\nu v_0`$, by (5.17), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}L_\mu w_\nu =L_\mu G_\nu v_0=(\nu \frac{\mu }{2})w_{\mu +\nu },\mu M,\nu \alpha +M,\\ G_\eta w_\nu =G_\eta G_\nu v_0=G_\nu w_\eta ,\eta ,\nu \alpha +M.\end{array}$$
$`(5.20)`$
Since $`G_\eta w_\nu =0`$ for all $`\eta +\nu 0`$, we have

$$(\nu \eta )w_{2\eta +\nu }=L_{2\eta }w_\nu =G_\eta ^2w_\nu =0.$$
$`(5.21)`$
Thus $`w_\nu =0`$ for all $`\nu \alpha +M`$ and $`V`$ is a trivial module.

Case 2: Suppose $`V_{\overline{0}}=A_{0,0}^{}(M)`$.

Then we can choose a basis $`\{v_\mu |\mu M^{}\}`$, where $`M^{}=M\{0\}`$ such that

$$L_\lambda v_\mu =(\lambda +\mu )v_{\lambda +\mu },\lambda M,\mu M^{}.$$
$`(5.22)`$
First fix $`0\mu _0M`$. For any $`\nu \alpha +M`$, then $`\nu \mu _0\alpha +M`$ and we set $`w_\nu ^{}=G_{\nu \mu _0}v_{\mu _0}`$. If $`2\nu \mu _00`$, then we have $`G_{\nu \mu _0}w_\nu ^{}=L_{2(\nu \mu _0)}v_{\mu _0}=(2\nu \mu _0)v_{2\nu \mu _0}0`$ and so $`w_\nu ^{}0`$. Also if $`\nu _0\alpha +M`$ such that $`2\nu _0\mu _0=0`$, then $`G_{\nu _0}w_{2\nu _0}^{}=G_{\nu _0}^2v_{\mu _0}=L_{2\nu _0}v_{\mu _0}=3\mu _0v_{2\mu _0}0`$. This shows that $`w_\nu ^{}0`$ for all $`\nu \alpha +M`$. Therefore we can choose a basis $`\{w_\nu |\nu \alpha +M\}`$ of $`V_{\overline{1}}`$ such that there exists $`bIF`$ and

$$L_\mu w_\nu =(\nu +b\mu )w_{\mu +\nu },$$
$`(5.23)`$
holds for $`\mu M,\nu \alpha +M,\nu 0,\mu +\nu 0.`$ For any $`0\nu \alpha +M`$, applying $`L_{2\nu }`$ to $`w_\nu `$, we have $`\nu (2b1)w_\nu =L_{2\nu }w_\nu =G_\nu G_\nu w_\nu G_\nu (V_{\overline{0}})_0=\{0\}.`$ Thus $`b=\frac{1}{2}`$ and so (5.23) holds for all $`\mu M,\nu \alpha +M`$. Now suppose

$$G_\nu v_\mu =a_{\nu ,\mu }w_{\nu +\mu },G_\nu w_\eta =b_{\nu ,\eta }x_{\nu +\eta },0\mu M,\nu ,\eta \alpha +M,$$
$`(5.24)`$
for some $`a_{\nu ,\mu },b_{\nu ,\eta }IF`$. We can suppose $`a_{\mu ,\nu }=1`$ for some $`\mu ,\nu `$. Apply $`G_\nu ,L_{2\nu }`$ to (5.24), by (5.22-23), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}a_{\nu ,\mu }b_{\nu ,\nu +\mu }=\mu +2\nu ,& b_{\nu ,\eta }a_{\nu ,\nu +\eta }=\eta +\nu ,\\ (2\nu +\mu )a_{\nu ,\mu }=(2\nu +\mu )a_{\nu ,\mu +2\nu },& (3\nu +\eta )b_{\nu ,\eta }=(\eta +\nu )b_{\nu ,\eta +2\nu }.\end{array}$$
$`(5.25)`$
Now one can proceed exactly as in \[S1, §2\] to prove that $`a_{\nu ,\mu }=1`$ and $`b_{\nu ,\eta }=\eta +\nu `$, so that $`V`$ is the quotient module of $`SA_0(M)`$.

Case 3: Suppose $`V_{\overline{0}}=A_a(M),B_a(M),A_{0,0}(M)`$ or direct sum of two submodules $`A_{0,0}^{}(M)IFv_0`$.

Similar to the proof of Cases 2, it is not difficult to show $`V=SA_a(M),SB_a(M),SA_{0,0}(M)`$ or direct sum of two submodules $`SA_{0,0}^{}(M)IFv_0`$ (this can not occur since $`V`$ is indecomposable).

Case 4: Suppose both $`V_{\overline{0}}`$ and $`V_{\overline{1}}`$ are simple $`\text{Vir}[M]`$-module of type $`A_{a,b}(M)`$.

As in case 2, we can deduce similar equation as (5.25) and the proof is exactly analogous to that of \[S, Theorem 3.1\]. We obtain that $`V`$ is of type $`SA_{a,b}(M)`$.

References

\[DZ1\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Some simple subalgebras of generalized Block algebras, J. Alg., Vol.192, 74-101(1997).

\[DZ2\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Derivations, isomorphisms, and second cohomology of generalized Witt algebras, Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc., Vol.350(2), 643-664(1998).

\[DZ3\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Some infinite-dimensional simple Lie algebras in characteristic $`0`$ related to those of Block, J. Pure and Applied Algebras, Vol.127(2), 153-165(1998).

\[DZ4\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Generalized Cartan type $`W`$ Lie algebras in characteristic zero, J. Alg., Vol.195, 170-210(1997).

\[DZ5\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Generalized Cartan type $`S`$ Lie algebras in characteristic zero, J. Alg., Vol.193, 144-179(1997).

\[DZ6\] D.Z. Djokovic and K. Zhao, Second cohomology of Generalized Cartan type $`S`$ Lie algebras in characteristic zero, J. Pure and Applied Algebras, 136(1999), 101-126.

\[KR\] V. G. Kac and Raina, Bombay lectures on highest weight representations of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, World Sci., Singapore, 1987.

\[OZ1\] J.M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras of type L, Comm. Alg., accepted for publication.

\[OZ2\] J.M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras of generalized Block type, Proc. of Amer. Math. Soc., Vol.127, No.6, 1641-1650(1999).

\[OZ3\] J.M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Generalized Poisson bracket and Lie algebras of type H in characteristic 0, Math. Z., Vol.230, 107-143(1999).

\[OZ4\] J.M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Generalized Cartan type K Lie algebras in characteristic 0, Comm. Alg., 25(1997), 3325-3360.

\[OZ5\] J.M. Osborn and K. Zhao, Doubly $`𝐙`$-graded Lie algebras containing a Virasoro algebra, J. Alg., 219(1999), 266-298.

\[PZ\] J. Patera and H. Zassenhaus, The higher rank Virasoro algebras, Comm. Math. Phys. 136(1991), 1-14.

\[S\] Y. C. Su, Harish-Chandra modules of the intermediate series over the high rank Virasoro algebras and high rank super-Virasoro algebras, J. Math. Phys. 35(1994), 2013-2023.

\[S1\] Y. C. Su, Classification of Harish-Chandra modules over the super-Virasoro algebras, Comm. Alg. 23(1995), 3653-3675.