Two faces of $N=7,8$ superconformal mechanics

Armen Nersessian; Sergey Krivonos

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Two faces of $N=7,8$ superconformal mechanics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using a single-dilaton supercharge ansatz and explicit $g_2\subset so(7)\subset so(8)$ embeddings built from octonion structure constants, the paper constructs supercharges and Hamiltonians realizing $OSp(8|2)$, $F(4)$, and $N=7$ $G(3)$…

desk verdict New classical G(3) mechanics is a plausible advance, but the closure is asserted, not shown, and the printed formulas have enough typos to keep it out of the reliable category until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13651 v2 pith:UTHPNUIM submitted 2025-04-18 hep-th

Sergey Krivonos , Armen Nersessian This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 81T6017B25 PACS 11.30.Pb

keywords superconformalmechanicsN=7supersymmetryN=8OSp(8|2)F(4)algebraG(3)g2octonions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a single template for one-dimensional superconformal particle models—supercharges of the form $p_r\psi+(1/r)(\text{R-symmetry generator})\psi$ with one dilaton field $r$—can realize the three superconformal algebras $OSp(8|2)$, $F(4)$, and $G(3)$. The load-bearing ingredient is a chain of explicit embeddings $g_2\subset so(7)\subset so(8)$, written in covariant form through the totally antisymmetric octonion structure constants $c_{ijk}$ and their dual $f_{ijkl}$. The paper writes down the supercharges and Hamiltonians for all three models in two R-symmetry frames, one with manifest $so(7)$ symmetry and one with manifest $su(2)\times su(2)$ symmetry. If correct, the $N=7$ case is the first classical $G(3)$ superconformal mechanics built on the $(1,7,7,1)$ supermultiplet, and the explicit embeddings are new.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the universal ansatz $Q=p_r\psi+(1/r)(\text{R-symmetry generator})\psi$ with $D=\frac12 rp_r$, $K=\frac12 r^2$, and $S=r\psi$, where a single dilaton $r$ and eight fermions $\psi_0,\psi_i$ carry the full superconformal algebra. What makes it work is the chain of covariant embeddings $g_2\subset so(7)\subset so(8)$ built from the totally antisymmetric octonion multiplication constants $c_{ijk}$ and the dual four-index tensor $f_{ijkl}$; these constants appear explicitly in the supercharges and Hamiltonians. The embeddings select exactly the R-symmetry currents that close the brackets $\{Q,S\}$ into the required $so(7)$ or $so(8)$ generators, and the same structure is re-expressed in the manifest $su(2)\times su(2)$ basis through identification and symmetrization of indices.

What would settle it

Compute the full Poisson-bracket closure of the proposed supercharges, in particular the brackets $\{Q_i,Q_j\}=2i\delta_{ij}H$ and $\{Q_i,S_j\}=2i\delta_{ij}D-iW_{ij}$, and the Jacobi identities; any uncancelled term involving the octonion tensors $c_{ijk}$ or $f_{ijkl}$ that is not absorbed into the stated R-symmetry currents would invalidate the algebra. For the $N=7$ model, try to construct a superfield or Lagrangian formulation on precisely the $(1,7,7,1)$ multiplet; if extra bosonic fields are forced by the closure of the supersymmetry transformations, the model as presented is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the universal supercharge ansatz (1.1)–(1.2) closes to the three superconformal algebras $OSp(8|2)$, $F(4)$, and $G(3)$ once the R-symmetry currents are taken from the chain of embeddings $g_2\subset so(7)\subset so(8)$. The authors present two self-contained realizations: one with manifest $so(7)$ symmetry, where the supercharges are (3.5), (3.13), and (3.21) with Hamiltonians (3.7), (3.15), and (3.23), and one with manifest $su(2)\times su(2)$ symmetry, where the corresponding objects are (4.4), (4.12), and (4.24) with Hamiltonians (4.5), (4.13), and (4.25). They exhibit the conserved R-symmetry currents that rotate the supercharges and show that the bosonic parts of the Hamiltonians describe free particles on cones, with fermionic terms interpretable as spin-orbit coupling. They further claim that the $N=7$ $G(3)$ model is the first classical example built on the $(1,7,7,1)$ supermultiplet and that the explicit $g_2$ and $so(7)$ embeddings have not been presented before.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that a single bosonic dilaton coordinate $r$ together with the fermions is enough to close the full superconformal algebra, and in the $N=7$ case that the $(1,7,7,1)$ supermultiplet really supports the $G(3)$ symmetry without additional bosonic fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The three explicit supercharges and Hamiltonians provide a uniform Hamiltonian construction of $OSp(8|2)$, $F(4)$, and $G(3)$ superconformal mechanics in two R-symmetry frames.
The $N=7$ $G(3)$ model gives a classical realization of the $(1,7,7,1)$ supermultiplet with one bosonic and seven fermionic components, extending the quantum version to a classical Hamiltonian system.
The covariant embeddings $g_2\subset so(7)\subset so(8)$ built from octonion constants make the octonion multiplication directly visible in the supercharges and Hamiltonians.
Because the angular parts of the Hamiltonians are built from R-symmetry Casimirs, the models describe supersymmetric extensions of free particles on cones, and setting the bosonic R-symmetry generators to zero reduces them to simpler known mechanics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same construction pattern suggests that replacing the bosonic realization of the R-symmetry currents by different phase-space variables would produce different interacting bosonic systems with identical $N=7$ or $N=8$ superconformal extension; the paper states this flexibility for the $N=4$ case and plans it for these cases.
The explicit appearance of $c_{ijk}$ in the supercharges indicates that a future superspace formulation of the $N=7$ model would likely have octonionic structure constants built directly into its superfield constraints, which could be tested by matching a component Lagrangian to (3.21)–(3.23).
The same $c_{ijk}$-based embeddings could be truncated to lower supersymmetry or smaller exceptional groups, yielding one-dimensional models with reduced-symmetry mechanics; the paper does not explore this.
These one-dimensional models may serve as a concrete laboratory for exceptional algebraic structures in dynamics, with potential relevance to holographic models whose internal symmetry is exceptional.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read.

The genuinely new thing is the classical N=7 G(3) supercharges and Hamiltonians, in both so(7) and su(2)×su(2) forms, plus the explicit octonionic embeddings g2⊂so(7)⊂so(8). That is a real advance over Toppan's quantum construction and worth a careful look. The uniform treatment of OSp(8|2) and F(4) alongside is a useful organizing frame, even if those parts largely reproduce known material.

The weaknesses are real. First, there are index-level typos that should have been caught: (2.14) writes the χ bracket with ε^{ij}ε^{AB} instead of ε^{ab}ε^{αβ}, and (3.15) has a term with free indices (the \hat V_j should presumably be \hat V_k). These are fixable but suggest the manuscript wasn't proofread.

More concerning is the N=7 closure. The equality in (3.21) between the middle form and the quartic form is not shown, and substituting their own convention \hat W_{jk}=iψ_jψ_k into \hat{\mathcal W}_{jk} does not trivially give the printed -i/12 coefficient. I haven't run the full calculation, but the paper doesn't display the Poisson bracket {Q_i,Q_j}=2iδ_{ij}H or the simplification of H in (3.23). So the central claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. If the coefficient is off by a factor of two, the model doesn't close. That is load-bearing.

There's also an overstatement about the (1,7,7,1) supermultiplet: the physical phase space is just (r,p_r) plus ψ_i. The auxiliary bosons of that multiplet are nowhere present. The authors admit this in a one-line aside, but the abstract promises more than the construction delivers.

Net: the paper is a plausible lead but not yet reliable. The G(3) results need a computer-algebra check and a corrected, complete derivation. The typos are minor. I'd send it to a referee who can verify the brackets; if the G(3) part cleans up, it's a solid contribution. If not, the novelty narrows to embeddings.

Recommendation: yes, send to peer review, but the referee should put the N=7 closure at the top of the checklist.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs Hamiltonian formulations of N=8 and N=7 superconformal mechanics with R-symmetries so(8), so(7), and g2, following the universal ansatz Q = p_r ψ + (1/r)(R-symmetry currents)ψ, D = (1/2) r p_r, K = (1/2) r^2, and S = r ψ. Two presentations are given: a manifest so(7)-covariant one in Section 3 and a manifest su(2)×su(2)-covariant one in Section 4. The paper also presents explicit embeddings g2 ⊂ so(7) ⊂ so(8) built from octonionic structure constants, and claims a new classical N=7 G(3) superconformal mechanics based on the (1,7,7,1) supermultiplet. The target superalgebras OSp(8|2), F(4), and G(3) are fixed external benchmarks, and no parameters are fitted.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a useful uniform Hamiltonian framework for N=7,8 superconformal mechanics and explicit octonionic embeddings that are checkable. The use of fixed external superalgebras and the absence of fitted constants make the claims falsifiable, and the explicit appearance of octonionic structure constants is a nice feature. However, the core new claim, the N=7 G(3) model, is not supported by the displayed formulas: the supercharges and Hamiltonian in Section 3.3 are mutually inconsistent, and no closure computation is shown. The F(4) Hamiltonian also suffers from an index defect. These issues must be resolved before the paper can be considered for publication.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Eqs. (3.21) and (3.23)] The printed supercharge and Hamiltonian for the G(3) model are internally inconsistent. With the convention (2.2), \hat W_{jk} = i\psi_j\psi_k, so the first equality in (3.21) gives Q_i = p_r\psi_i - (i/6r) f_{ijkl}\psi_j\psi_k\psi_l, not the displayed -i/(12r). Moreover, imposing the defining bracket {Q_i,Q_j}=2i\delta_{ij}H from (3.22) on the cubic supercharge yields a quartic term with coefficient 1/(6r^2) (with the normalization of (3.1)), whereas (3.23) has coefficient 1/(48r^2); the intermediate evaluation of \hat{\mathcal W}_{ij}\hat{\mathcal W}_{ij} that would select 1/48 is not shown. Since this is the principal new result and the closing bracket {Q_i,Q_j} is never displayed, the formulas as written do not establish the N=7 super-Poincaré algebra or the G(3) dynamical symmetry.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.15)] The last term of the F(4) Hamiltonian, c_{ijk}(W_{ij}-\frac16\hat W_{ij})\hat V_j, contains the index j three times, so the expression is not a well-defined scalar. Presumably \hat V_k is intended (as in the analogous term of the supercharge (3.13)). As printed, the F(4) Hamiltonian is undefined.
[Section 3.3 and Conclusion] The model in Section 3.3 contains one bosonic coordinate r and seven fermionic components, but the Conclusion states that the N=7 model is constructed on the (1,7,7,1) supermultiplet. The (1,7,7,1) multiplet comprises 1+7 bosonic and 7+1 fermionic degrees of freedom; the construction as presented does not include the additional bosons or the additional fermion. The multiplet identification should be corrected, or the construction should be extended to the full (1,7,7,1) content.
[Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.24) and (4.25)] The su(2)×su(2)-covariant G(3) supercharges and Hamiltonian are asserted without a displayed closure computation. The Hamiltonian's final quartic expression also leaves index contractions implicit. In the absence of an explicit check of {Q_i^a,Q_j^b} and {q^{ab},q^{cd}} against the brackets (4.21), the claimed G(3) symmetry is not supported by the text.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.2, Eq. (2.14)] The bracket {\chi^{a\alpha},\chi^{b\beta}} is written with \varepsilon^{ij}\varepsilon^{AB}; according to the index assignments it should be \varepsilon^{ab}\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta}.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.17)] The text refers to 'the Poincaré (4.12)' but the intended reference is to the supercharges of Section 3.2, i.e. Eq. (3.12), not Eq. (4.12).
[Section 3.3, Eq. (3.23)] The second equality uses x^2 where r^2 is meant; the variable x is not introduced.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (4.15)] In the last bracket {q^{a\alpha},s^{b\beta}}, the term 4i\varepsilon_{ij}\varepsilon_{ab}D should involve \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta} rather than \varepsilon_{ij}; the indices i,j are not present in that bracket.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the superalgebras are external benchmarks and the construction is checked by explicit brackets; only the general ansatz is inherited from prior self-cited work, and that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims target the fixed, external superconformal algebras OSp(8|2), F(4), and G(3). No parameter is fitted to data and no quantity is renamed as a prediction. The general form of the supercharges, Q = p_r psi + (1/r)(R-symmetry generators)psi, is taken from the authors' previous work [15,16], but the paper also supplies an independent justification via (1.2)-(1.3), and this ansatz does not by itself fix the R-symmetry content or the specific coefficients in (3.5), (3.13), and (3.21). The g2 and so(7) embeddings are written explicitly in (2.8)-(2.11) and verified through Poisson brackets, rather than being imported as a black box. The N=7 G(3) section asserts the closure relations (3.22), (3.24), and (3.26) without displaying the full Poisson-bracket computation, and the printed coefficients in (3.21)/(3.23) have been independently questioned; however, an omitted or even erroneous computation is a correctness concern, not a circularity. The admitted limitation in Section 3.3, 'Alas, we did not find any possibility to include in the game more bosonic fields,' likewise bears on completeness of the (1,7,7,1) realization, not on whether the derivation reduces to its own inputs. Overall, the construction is self-contained against fixed algebra benchmarks; the self-citations are routine and not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: the octonion constants are fixed, and the sign alpha in Eq. (2.10) is a discrete embedding label, not a fit. The load-bearing assumptions are the canonical phase-space realization, the universality of the dilaton ansatz, and the validity of the octonion and g2 identities, none of which are proved in the text.

assumptions (5)

standard math The canonical Poisson brackets (2.1) and (2.14) define the phase-space realization.
The entire construction is built on these brackets; they are taken as the definition of the classical variables.
domain assumption The dilaton ansatz (1.2): D = 1/2 r p_r, K = 1/2 r^2, S = r psi_i, with supercharges Q = p_r psi + (1/r) Theta, holds for all three superconformal algebras.
Introduced from supersymmetric mechanics, not derived in this paper. If closure requires extra fields beyond r and the psi variables, the models are incomplete.
standard math The octonionic antisymmetric tensors c_ijk and f_ijkl obey the identities behind the g2 Poisson brackets (2.9), (2.25), and (3.26).
Standard octonion algebra results, but the paper does not prove the identities; they are load-bearing for the R-symmetry closure.
domain assumption The embeddings so(8) -> so(7) -> g2 given by (2.8), (2.10), (2.11), and (2.20)-(2.24) are valid and cover the needed subalgebra chains.
Partly from [13,14] and previous papers; the paper asserts these embeddings in new form without full proof.
ad hoc to paper The N=7 model can be formulated with only one bosonic r and seven fermionic psi_i, with no auxiliary bosons needed in the Hamiltonian realization.
The authors state in Section 3.3 that they could not find a way to include more bosonic fields, so the absence of the other fields of the (1,7,7,1) multiplet is an unproved working assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two faces of $N=7,8$ superconformal mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTHPNUIM

@misc{pith2026250413651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two faces of $N=7,8$ superconformal mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTHPNUIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13651}
}

abstract

Two variants of $N=7$ superconformal mechanics with manifest $so(7)$ and $su(2) \times su(2)$ $R$-symmetries possessing exceptional $G(3)$ dynamical symmetry are presented. To construct these $G(3)$ theories, we developed two new versions of covariant embedding of the exceptional $g_2$ algebra into the $so(7)$ algebra and then the embedding of $so(7)$ into $so(8)$. As a result, two $N=8$ superconformal mechanics with the $OSp(8|2)$ and $F(4)$ superconformal algebras and $N=7, G(3)$ superconformal mechanics were constructed in a uniform way. The constants of the octonion multiplication play a key role in the construction of superconformal mechanics with manifest $so(7)$ symmetry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Superconformal mechanics from N-extended Euler-Calogero-Moser and Calogero models
hep-th 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-particle N-extended Euler-Calogero-Moser models produce SU(1,1|N) superconformal mechanics after center-of-mass decoupling; the Calogero case yields only Osp(N|2).
G-structures for AdS$_2$ solutions
hep-th 2025-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A G-structure framework classifies supersymmetric AdS2 solutions of Type II supergravity, yielding two new families: massive IIA with a weak G2 manifold and IIB with AdS2 x S2 x CY2 x Sigma2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Van Proeyen, Tools for supersymmetry , Ann.U.Craiova Phys

A. Van Proeyen, Tools for supersymmetry , Ann.U.Craiova Phys. 9 (1999) I, 1-48, Contribution to: Spring School on Quantum Field Theory: Supersymmetry and Superstring s, 1-48; hep-th/9910030

arXiv 1999
[2]

Ivanov, S.O

E.A. Ivanov, S.O. Krivonos, V.M. Leviant, Geometric superﬁeld approach to superconformal mechanics , J.Phys. A 22 (1989) 4201

1989
[3]

Kuznetsova, M

Z. Kuznetsova, M. Rojas, F. Toppan, Classiﬁcation of irreps and invariants of the N -extended supersymmetric quantum mechanics , JHEP 03 (2006) 098; arXiv:hep-th/0511274

arXiv 2006
[4]

Khodaee, F

S. Khodaee, F. Toppan, Critical scaling dimension of D-module representations of N = 4 , 7, 8 Super- conformal Algebras and constraints on Superconformal Mech anics, J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012) 103518; arXiv:1208.3612 [hep-th]

arXiv 2012
[5]

Diaconescu, R

D.-E. Diaconescu, R. Entin, A Non-Renormalization Theorem for the d=1, N=8 Vector Multi plet, Phys.Rev. D 56 (1997) 8045-8052, hep-th/9706059

arXiv 1997
[6]

Bellucci, E

S. Bellucci, E. Ivanov, S. Krivonos, O. Lechtenfeld, N = 8 superconformal mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B 684 (2004) 321; arXiv:hep-th/0312322

arXiv 2004
[7]

A new N = 8 nonlinear supermultiplet

S. Bellucci, S. Krivonos, A. Marrani, “A new N = 8 nonlinear supermultiplet”, Phys.Rev. D74:045005,2006; arXiv:hep-th/0605165

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[8]

Delduc, E

F. Delduc, E. Ivanov, New model of N = 8 superconformal mechanics , Phys. Lett. B 654 (2007) 200, arXiv:0706.2472 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007

Show all 18 references

[9]

Fedoruk, E

S. Fedoruk, E. Ivanov, Multiparticle N = 8 mechanics with F (4) superconformal symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 938 (2019) 714, arXiv:1810.13366 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Fedoruk and E

S. Fedoruk and E. Ivanov, N = 8 invariant interaction of dynamical and semi-dynamical N = 4 multiplets, Phys.Rev. D 109 (2024) 8, 085007; arXiv:2402.00539 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Couplings in D(2, 1;α) superconformal mechanics from the SU (2) perspective

A. Galajinsky, “Couplings in D(2, 1;α) superconformal mechanics from the SU (2) perspective”, JHEP 03 (2017) 054; arXiv:1702.01955[hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Aizawa, Z

N. Aizawa, Z. Kuznetsova, F. Toppan, The quasi-nonassociative exceptional F(4) deformed quant um oscilla- tor, J. Math. Phys. 59, 022101 (2018); arXiv:1711.02923 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Toppan, ”The octonionically-induced N=7 exceptional G(3) superco nformal quantum mechanics” , arXiv:1912.05596[hep-th]

F. Toppan, ”The octonionically-induced N=7 exceptional G(3) superco nformal quantum mechanics” , arXiv:1912.05596[hep-th]

1912 arXiv
[14]

De Wit, H

B. De Wit, H. Nicolai, The parallelizing S7 torsion in gauged N = 8 supergravity, Nuclear Physics B231(1984)506. 13

1984
[15]

Note on N = 8 supersymmetric mechanics with dynamical and semi-dynamical multiplets

E. Khastyan. S.Krivonos, A. Nersessian, “Note on N = 8 supersymmetric mechanics with dynamical and semi-dynamical multiplets”, arXiv:2408.14958 [hep-th]

arXiv
[16]

Krivonos, A

S. Krivonos, A. Nersessian, ”N = 8 superconformal mechanics: Direct construction”, Phys.Lett. B 863 (2025) 139373; arXiv: 2411.18345[hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[17]

Supersymmetries and Qua ntum Symmetries

S. Krivonos, A. Nersessian, Note on supersymmetric mechanics with spin-orbit interact ion, arXiv:2504.11935[hep-th], To appear in Proceedings of Workshop “Supersymmetries and Qua ntum Symmetries” (SQS’2024, July 29 - August 3, 2024, Dubna)

2024
[18]

Hakobyan, S

T. Hakobyan, S. Krivonos, O. Lechtenfeld, A. Nersessian, Hidden symmetries of integrable conformal me- chanical systems , Phys.Lett. A374 (2010) 801; arXiv:0908.3290 [hep-th]. 14

2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Van Proeyen, Tools for supersymmetry , Ann.U.Craiova Phys

A. Van Proeyen, Tools for supersymmetry , Ann.U.Craiova Phys. 9 (1999) I, 1-48, Contribution to: Spring School on Quantum Field Theory: Supersymmetry and Superstring s, 1-48; hep-th/9910030

arXiv 1999

[2] [2]

Ivanov, S.O

E.A. Ivanov, S.O. Krivonos, V.M. Leviant, Geometric superﬁeld approach to superconformal mechanics , J.Phys. A 22 (1989) 4201

1989

[3] [3]

Kuznetsova, M

Z. Kuznetsova, M. Rojas, F. Toppan, Classiﬁcation of irreps and invariants of the N -extended supersymmetric quantum mechanics , JHEP 03 (2006) 098; arXiv:hep-th/0511274

arXiv 2006

[4] [4]

Khodaee, F

S. Khodaee, F. Toppan, Critical scaling dimension of D-module representations of N = 4 , 7, 8 Super- conformal Algebras and constraints on Superconformal Mech anics, J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012) 103518; arXiv:1208.3612 [hep-th]

arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

Diaconescu, R

D.-E. Diaconescu, R. Entin, A Non-Renormalization Theorem for the d=1, N=8 Vector Multi plet, Phys.Rev. D 56 (1997) 8045-8052, hep-th/9706059

arXiv 1997

[6] [6]

Bellucci, E

S. Bellucci, E. Ivanov, S. Krivonos, O. Lechtenfeld, N = 8 superconformal mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B 684 (2004) 321; arXiv:hep-th/0312322

arXiv 2004

[7] [7]

A new N = 8 nonlinear supermultiplet

S. Bellucci, S. Krivonos, A. Marrani, “A new N = 8 nonlinear supermultiplet”, Phys.Rev. D74:045005,2006; arXiv:hep-th/0605165

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[8] [8]

Delduc, E

F. Delduc, E. Ivanov, New model of N = 8 superconformal mechanics , Phys. Lett. B 654 (2007) 200, arXiv:0706.2472 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007