Classification of thin Jordan schemes

Proof of ?: One readily checks that for any pair r,s\in S,

Since any \phi\in\mathsf{JAut}({\mathfrak S}) preserves I_\Omega, we conclude that

thereby implying that s=r^t\iff \phi(s)=\phi(r)^t.

Proof of ?: It follows from part (a) that

If s^t = \phi(s) for some \phi\in\Phi, then \Phi(s^t) = \Phi(\phi(s))=\Phi(s), which implies \Phi(s) is symmetric. If, on the other hand, s^t\neq \phi(s) for every \phi\in\Phi, then \psi(s^t)\neq \phi(s) and consequently \psi(s^t)\cap \phi(s) = \emptyset for every pair \psi,\phi\in\Phi. Therefore \Phi(s^t)\cap \Phi(s) = \bigcup_{\psi,\phi\in\Phi} (\psi(s^t)\cap\phi(s)) = \emptyset, whereby \Phi(s) is anti-symmetric in this case.

Proof of ?: Denote {\mathcal A}:=\mathbb{C}[S] and extend each \phi\in\Phi on {\mathcal A} linearly via \phi(\underline{s}) := \underline{\phi(s)}. We will use the same notation for the induced linear operator on {\mathcal A}. Then

Since \phi(I_\Omega)=I_\Omega and \phi(J_\Omega)=J_\Omega, the subspace {}^\Phi\!\!{\mathcal A} = \{X\in{\mathcal A} \mid \forall_{\phi\in\Phi}\ \phi(X) = X\} is a coherent Jordan algebra. It is easy to verify that the matrices \{ \underline{\Phi(s)}\}_{s\in S} form the standard basis of {}^\Phi\!\!{\mathcal A}.

By [MuzReiKli22, Proposition 2.2] there exists a partition \Omega = \Omega_1\cup \Omega_0 with |\Omega_1|=|\Omega_0| such that every regular relation is contained in \Omega_0^2\cup\Omega_1^2 and each nonregular one is contained in either \Omega_0\times\Omega_1 or \Omega_1\times\Omega_0. Thus S splits into a disjoint union S=S_r\cup S_{0,1}\cup S_{1,0} where S_r stands for all regular relations while S_{i,1-i}:=\{s\in S \mid \subseteq \Omega_i\times\Omega_{1-i}\}.

Define n_s:=\frac{1}{2} p_{\{s,s^t\}}^{1_{\Omega}} for each s\in S_{i,1-i}. Then |s|=n_s |\Omega_i|, and it follows from \sum_{s\in S_{i,1-i}} |s|=|\Omega_i|\cdot |\Omega_{1-i}| that \sum_{s\in S_{i,1-i}} n_s=|\Omega|/2. Since all summands in the latter sum are nonnegative integers, we conclude |S_{i,1-i}|\leq |\Omega|/2 for i=0,1.

Since a basic relation s is regular if and only if s\subseteq\Omega_0^2\cup\Omega_1^2, we can write

Arguing as before we conclude that |S_r|\leq |\Omega|/2. Combining together all of the above, we obtain

Moreover, by the above arguments it follows that |S|=\frac{3}{2}|\Omega| if and only if n_s=1 for all s\in S.

Clearly, \mathcal J(\mathcal{C}) is a linear subspace of M_{2n}(\mathbb{F}). Since \mathcal{C} is itself closed under Schur-Hadamard multiplication, so is \mathcal J(\mathcal{C}).

It remains to show closure of the Jordan product. To this end, let A,B,C,D,E,F\in \mathcal{C}. Then

Let \mathfrak{J}=(\Omega,\mathcal{C}) be a nonregular thin Jordan scheme and let \mathcal{A} be its adjacency algebra. Let {\mathcal S}=\{A_i\}_{i=1}^r be the standard basis of \mathcal{A}. By [MuzReiKli22, Proposition 2.2], each element of {\mathcal S} is of one of the following shapes:

where A,B,C,D are certain matrices of order n, and where O denotes the zero matrix. Since \mathfrak{S} is thin, each of A,B,C,D is a permutation matrix.

Let us choose the following designations:

Note that \mathcal{K}=\mathcal{H}^t=\mathcal{H}^{-1} and \sum \mathcal{G}_1 = \sum \mathcal{G}_2 = \sum \mathcal{H} = \sum \mathcal{K} = J. Moreover, |\mathcal{G}_1| = |\mathcal{G}_2| = |\mathcal{H}| = |\mathcal{K}| = n.

We next prove

Suppose \begin{bsmallmatrix} A & O\\[1mm]O & B_1\end{bsmallmatrix}, \begin{bsmallmatrix} A & O\\[1mm]O & B_2\end{bsmallmatrix}\in {\mathcal S} with B_1\neq B_2. Then \begin{bsmallmatrix} O & O \\[1mm] O & B_1-B_2\end{bsmallmatrix}\in \mathcal{A}, whence also

But since \mathcal{A} is closed under taking powers, we thereby obtain \begin{bsmallmatrix} O & O\\[1mm] O & I\end{bsmallmatrix}\in\mathcal{A}, a contradiction under the assumption that \mathfrak{J} is a Jordan-scheme. It therefore follows that B_1=B_2.

This establishes a bijection between \mathcal{G}_1 and \mathcal{G}_2 which we denote by A\mapsto \varphi(A). Clearly, \mathcal{G}_1 is the standard basis of a thin homogeneous coherent J-algebra, and likewise for \mathcal{G}_2.

We next show that

To see this, first observe that for all C\in \mathcal{H}, D\in \mathcal{K} we have

Since |C\mathcal{K}| = |\mathcal{K}|=|\mathcal{G}_1|, there exists D\in \mathcal{K} for which A = CD. By (?), \varphi(A) = DC holds for this D.

Next we establish

To this end, let A\in \mathcal{G}_1. By (?), there exists D\in \mathcal{K} such that A=CD and \varphi(A) = DC. From this it follows that D=C^{-1}A, hence \varphi(A) = C^{-1} A C.

Let P be a permutation matrix and let X\in {\mathcal A} be arbitrary. Then conjugation X\mapsto PXP^{-1} preserves each of the operations \cdot, \tau, \star, \circ on {\mathcal A}. In other words, the resulting algebra \mathcal{A}'= P\mathcal{A}P^{-1} is a homogeneous coherent J-algebra, and the Jordan schemes corresponding to \mathcal{A} and \mathcal{A'} are combinatorially isomorphic.

Next we claim that:

To see this, let C\in \mathcal{H} and let P:= \begin{bsmallmatrix} I & O \\[1mm] O & C\end{bsmallmatrix}. Then from (?) it follows that

By (?) we may now assume that \mathcal{G}_1=\mathcal{G}_2 and moreover that \varphi is the identity-map. Henceforth, we make these assumptions.

Since A = \varphi(A) = C^{-1} A C, an immediate consequence of (?) is

For A\in \mathcal{G}_1 and C\in \mathcal{H}, we next compute

which proves

We next claim \mathcal{G}_1 is an abelian group. To this end, let C\in \mathcal{H} and let A,A'\in \mathcal{G}_1. Then

and the claim is proved.

Finally, it remains to show that \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{G}_1. For this purpose, let C=(c_{i,j}) be the unique element of \mathcal{H} with c_{1,1}=1, i.e. C\vec{e}_1 = \vec{e}_1. (Note that this element exists because \sum \mathcal{H} = J.) Let k\in \{1,\dots,n\} and let A_k=\big(a^{(k)}_{i,j}\big) be the unique element of \mathcal{G}_1 with a^{(k)}_{1,k}=1, i.e. A_k\vec{e}_1=\vec{e_k}. (This element exists due to \sum \mathcal{G}_1 = J.)

Since A_k C\colon \vec{e}_1\mapsto \vec{e}_k, CA_k\colon \vec{e}_1\mapsto C\vec{e}_k, and A_kC=CA_k by (?), it follows that C = I. We thereby conclude that \mathcal{H}=\{AC\mid A\in \mathcal{G}_1\}= \mathcal{G}_1. As \mathcal{K}=\mathcal{H}^{-1}, we also have \mathcal{K}=\mathcal{G}_1. But now it is clear that \mathcal{A} = \mathcal J(\mathcal{G}_1).

Parts (a) and (b) follow from Propositions 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. For part (c), clearly, if G\cong H then \mathcal J(G)\cong \mathcal J(H). For the reverse direction we note that G can be reconstructed from \mathcal J(G) as follows: observe that the WL-closure \mathcal{W} of \mathcal J(G) is equal to

In other words it is a coherent algebra with two fibres where each fibre constituent coincides with {\mathcal A}(G,G).

Proof of ?: We have a\diamond 1_\Omega = S(\omega_0,a(1_\Omega(\omega_0)))= S(\omega_0,a(\omega_0)) = a. Similarly, 1_\Omega\diamond a = a.

Proof of ?: This follows at once from the identity a^{t}(a(\omega_0))=\omega_0=1_\Omega(\omega_0).

Proof of ?: a\diamond b=c\Leftrightarrow a(b(\omega_0)) = c(\omega_0)\Leftrightarrow b(\omega_0)=a^{t}(c(\omega_0))\Leftrightarrow a^{t}\diamond c=b.

Proof of ?: We have x(a(\omega_0))=b(\omega_0). Therefore, x=S(a(\omega_0),b(\omega_0)).

Proof of ?: If s\neq t\in S, then s\cap t=\emptyset. Thus \sigma(s)=s(\omega_0)\neq t(\omega_0)=\sigma(t) which proves \sigma is injective. To prove surjectivity, pick an arbitrary \omega\in\Omega and set s:=S(\omega_0,\omega). Then \sigma(s)=s(\omega_0)=\omega.

Proof of ?: We must show a\sigma = \sigma \ell_a for each a\in S. But this is equivalent to showing \forall_{s\in S}:\ a(\sigma(s)) =\sigma(\ell_a(s)). Now a(\sigma(s)) = a(s(\omega_0)) = (a\diamond s)(\omega_0) = \sigma(\ell_a(s)).

Proof of ?: We must show S(\sigma(u),\sigma(v)) = 1_S(v/u)=v/u for all u,v\in S. Denote w:=v/u. Then w\diamond u = v which implies w(u(\omega_0))=v(\omega_0). Hence w = S(\sigma(u),\sigma(v)).

Proof of ?: This is an immediate consequence of (?).

Proof of ?: As u\diamond v\neq v\diamond u, we have \ell_{u\diamond v}\cap \ell_{v\diamond u} = \emptyset. But then (u\diamond v)\diamond w\neq (v\diamond u)\diamond w holds for every w\in S, whence the result follows once more from (?).

If u and v commute, then we are done by Proposition 3.8(a). So for the balance of the proof we assume u\diamond v\ne v\diamond u.

Proof of ?: By (?), \ell_u \ell_v\cup \ell_v \ell_u = \ell_{u\diamond v}\cup \ell_{v\diamond u} while by (?), (u\diamond v)\diamond w \in \{u\diamond (v\diamond w), v\diamond (u\diamond w) \}. More precisely,

But this is equivalent to \ell_{u\diamond v} = \ell_u \ell_v 1_{\mathfrak a}\cup \ell_v \ell_u 1_{\overline{\mathfrak a}}.

Proof of ?: From (a) and the fact that u^t\diamond (u\diamond v) = v, it follows that \ell_v\subseteq \ell_{u^t}\ell_{u\diamond v}\cup \ell_{u\diamond v}\ell_{u^t}. Taking into account that \ell_{u^t}=\ell_u^{-1} we now obtain

which simplifies to

Below we determine the cardinality of the intersection of \ell_v with each set appearing in (?).

Together, this implies (\ell_v 1_{\mathfrak a}\cup \ell_v \ell_u 1_{\overline{\mathfrak a}}\ell_u^{-1})\cap \ell_v =\ell_v which in turn yields \ell_u 1_{\overline{\mathfrak a}}\ell_u^{-1}=1_{\overline{\mathfrak a}}, or equivalently, \ell_u(\overline{\mathfrak a})=\overline{\mathfrak a}. Similarly, we obtain the equality \ell_v(\overline{\mathfrak a})=\overline{\mathfrak a} from u\leftrightarrow v symmetry.

Since u\diamond \mathfrak a({u,v})= \mathfrak a({u,v}), it follows that u^t\diamond(u\diamond \mathfrak a({u,v}))=u^t\diamond \mathfrak a({u,v}). By Proposition 3.6?, u^t\diamond(u\diamond \mathfrak a({u,v})) = \mathfrak a({u,v}) whence u^t\diamond \mathfrak a(u,v) = \mathfrak a({u,v}). Analogously, v^t\diamond \mathfrak a(u,v) = \mathfrak a({u,v}). Now since 1_\Omega\in \mathfrak a(u,v), we obtain u^t\diamond v^t\in \mathfrak a({u,v})=\mathfrak a({v,u}). Therefore (v\diamond u)\diamond (u^t\diamond v^t) = v\diamond (u\diamond (u^t\diamond v^t)) = v\diamond v^t =1_\Omega. Together with (v\diamond u)\diamond (v\diamond u)^t=1_\Omega, we conclude that (v\diamond u)^t = u^t\diamond v^t as desired.

Equality (L) follows from equation (?), while (R) and (M) follow from the inclusion u\in \mathfrak a({u,v})=\mathfrak a({v,u}).

A loop is Moufang iff it is simultaneously a left and right Bol loop. We start by showing that (S,\diamond) is a left Bol loop. To this end, we must prove the identity

But this identity is equivalent to \ell_y \ell_z \ell_y = \ell_{y\diamond(z\diamond y)}. To establish the latter identity, we first note that \mathcal J:=\langle \underline{\ell}_s\rangle_{s\in S} is \star-closed. Therefore \underline{\ell}_y\underline{\ell}_z\underline{\ell}_y = 2(\underline{\ell}_y\star(\underline{\ell}_z\star\underline{\ell}_y) - (\underline{\ell}_y\star \underline{\ell}_y)\star \underline{\ell}_z)\in \mathcal J. This implies the permutation matrix \underline{\ell}_y\underline{\ell}_z\underline{\ell}_y is a linear combination of pairwise disjoint permutation matrices \underline{\ell}_s,s\in S. But this can only occur if \underline{\ell}_y\underline{\ell}_z\underline{\ell}_y =\underline{\ell}_w for some w\in S, or equivalently, \ell_y\ell_z\ell_y=\ell_w. We further argue that since (S,\{\ell_s\}_{s\in S}) is a Jordan scheme, we have \ell_w = \ell_{y\diamond(z\diamond y)} if and only if \ell_w(1_S) = \ell_{y\diamond(z\diamond y)}(1_S). (We have here used the fact that in a Jordan scheme two relations are either equal or disjoint.) We now compute

Thus identity (Proof) holds, and (S,\diamond) is indeed a left Bol loop.

To see that (S,\diamond) is a right Bol loop, we must establish the identity

Similarly to the above, this identity is equivalent to r_y r_z r_y = r_{(y\diamond z)\diamond y}. From Proposition 3.10 it follows that r_z = \tau \ell_{z^t} \tau where \tau\in\mathsf{Sym}(S) is the involutory transpose permutation on S, i.e. \tau(x)=x^t. Since (S,\diamond) is a left Bol loop, we have \ell_{y^t}\ell_{z^t}\ell_{y^t} = \ell_{y^t\diamond(z^t\diamond y^t)}. Conjugating both sides of this identity by \tau, we obtain on one hand

while on the other hand

Thus identity (?) holds, and (S,\diamond) is a right Bol loop as well.

Since a^t=a, each element of the loop (S,\diamond) has order two. It is well known that a Moufang loop of exponent two is a group (cf. [Che74, Proposition 2]). Hence (S,\diamond) is an elementary abelian 2-group.

(\Leftarrow) Let (S,\diamond) be an RA-loop. Then (S,\diamond) is a Moufang loop [CheGoo86], and therefore every element a has an inverse a^{-1} satisfying \forall_{a,b\in S}\ a\diamond (a^{-1}\diamond b) = b. This implies that \ell_{a^{-1}}= \ell_a^{-1} = \ell_a^{\,t}. Together with \ell_{1_\Omega}=1_S, we conclude that the partition L:=\{\ell_a\}_{a\in S} of S^2 is a rainbow. If \diamond is associative, then (L,S) is a thin association scheme, and therefore it is a Jordan scheme as well.

If \diamond is nonassociative, then (L,S) is a Jordan scheme if and only if

Observe that this is equivalent to the following relation in the loop ring RS:

If a,b,c associate in lexicographic order, then by Theorem 3.14 they associate in any order and (?) follows. If a,b,c do not associate, then by Theorem 3.14 a\diamond (b\diamond c) = (b\diamond a)\diamond c, b\diamond (a\diamond c) = (a\diamond b)\diamond c and (?) holds once more.

(\Rightarrow) Assume now that the permutations L=\{\ell_u\}_{u\in S} form a Jordan scheme. Choosing \omega_0=1_\Omega we obtain a binary operation \odot on L via

Thus it always holds that \ell_a\odot \ell_b = \ell_{a\diamond b}. Therefore the mapping a\mapsto \ell_a is an isomorphism between the magmas (L,\odot) and (S,\diamond).

By Proposition 3.12, (L,\odot) is a Moufang loop. We must check the two conditions of Theorem 3.14. If \ell_u,\ell_v,\ell_w associate, then they generate a subgroup of L and therefore associate in any order. (Here we have used the fact that any subloop of a Moufang loop that is generated by three associate elements is associative.) Thus the first condition of Theorem 3.14 is satisfied.

To check the second condition, we consider a nonassociate triple \ell_u,\ell_v,\ell_w, i.e. \ell_u\odot(\ell_v\odot \ell_w)\neq (\ell_u\odot\ell_v)\odot \ell_w. Then it follows from (?) that \ell_u\odot (\ell_v\odot \ell_w) = (\ell_v\odot \ell_u)\odot \ell_w and \ell_v\odot (\ell_u\odot \ell_w) = (\ell_u\odot \ell_v)\odot \ell_w.

It remains to show that (\ell_u\odot \ell_v)\odot \ell_w = \ell_u\odot (\ell_w\odot \ell_v). Since \ell_u,\ell_v,\ell_w do not associate, the elements \ell_w^{-1},\ell_v^{-1},\ell_u^{-1} do not associate either. Now (?) implies \ell_w^{-1}\odot (\ell_v^{-1}\odot \ell_u^{-1}) = (\ell_v^{-1}\odot \ell_w^{-1})\odot \ell_u^{-1}. Taking the inverse of both sides, we obtain (\ell_u\odot \ell_v)\odot \ell_w = \ell_u\odot (\ell_w\odot \ell_v). Combining this with the equality of the previous paragraph, we conclude that (L,\odot) satisfies the second condition of Theorem 3.14. Hence (L,\odot), and therefore (S,\diamond), are RA-loops.

The reverse direction is obvious. To prove the forward direction, we assume that \mathcal J and \mathcal J' are isomorphic Jordan schemes (i.e. rainbows). In other words, there exists a bijection f:L\rightarrow L' such that f\{\ell_a\}_{a\in L}f^{-1} = \{\ell'_a\}_{a\in L'}. The latter is equivalent to the existence of a bijection \ \varphi:L\rightarrow L' satisfying f\ell_a f^{-1} = \ell'_{\varphi(a)} for all a\in L. This yields

Since both \mathcal J and \mathcal J' are Jordan schemes, the above equality is equivalent to

Since the left-hand side of this equality is equal to \ell'_{\varphi(a\diamond b)}\cup\ell'_{\varphi(b\diamond a)}, we conclude that

as desired.

Proof of ?: Define g^*=g\alpha(g) where \alpha(g)=e if g\in Z(G) and \alpha(g)=s otherwise. We must show (gh)^*=h^*g^*, which is equivalent to showing [g,h]=\alpha(g)\alpha(h)\alpha(gh)^{-1}.

It follows from the properties of a group that g,h\in G do not commute if and only if the cosets gZ(G), hZ(G), ghZ(G) are pairwise distinct. In this case [g,h]=s=\alpha(g)=\alpha(h)=\alpha(gh), and the required equality holds.

On the other hand, if g,h commute then they belong to an abelian subgroup N:=\langle g,h,Z(G)\rangle that is normal in G. As the restriction of \alpha to N is a homomorphism, we have \alpha(gh)^{-1}\alpha(g)\alpha(h)=e=[g,h], thereby completing the proof of part (a).

Proof of ?: For any g\in Z(G) and h\in G, it follows from the product formula (?) that gh=hg, g^*=g. Therefore,

implying (g,0)\in Z(L).

From this it follows that (g,0), g\in Z(G), commutes with every element of L. If g\not\in Z(G), then (g,0) and (g,1) do not commute. Hence, neither (g,0) nor (g,1) lies in Z(L).

Proof of ?: Given that L is an RA-loop, it is also a Moufang loop. Thus its left nucleus N_\lambda(L) coincides with its right nucleus N_\rho(L). We claim N_\rho(L)=Z(L).

To this end, let f,g,h\in G, x,y\in\{0,1\} and define

Using (?), we compute

If f\in Z(G) then f^*=f, which together with (hf)^*=f^*h^* implies \mathsf{L}=\mathsf{R}. Therefore, Z(G)\times\{0\}\subseteq N_\rho(L).

If f\not\in Z(G) then f^*=fs\not\in Z(G), which implies hgf^*\neq hf^*g for any g\in G that does not commute with f^*. Therefore \mathsf{L}\neq\mathsf{R} for every g with [g,f]\neq e. Hence (f,0)\not\in N_\rho(L) for any f\not\in Z(G).

It remains to show that (f,1)\not\in N_\rho(L) for any f\in G. For arbitrary g,h\in G, we compute \mathsf{L}:=((g,1)\diamond (h,1))\diamond (f,1), \mathsf{R}:=(g,1)\diamond ((h,1)\diamond (f,1)). Applying (?), we now obtain

It follows from g_0\in Z(G) that g_0^*=g_0. Thus \mathsf{L}=\mathsf{R} holds iff fh^*g=gh^*f. If f\not\in Z(G), then choosing h=e and g\not\in C_G(f) we obtain \mathsf{L}\neq\mathsf{R}. (Here C_G(f) denotes the centralizer in G of f.) If f\in Z(G), then we may take g,h\in G with [h^*,g]\neq e to ensure \mathsf{L}\neq\mathsf{R}. We thereby conclude that (f,1)\not\in N_\rho(L) for any f\in G.

Let \mathfrak{X}=(\Omega,C) be the coherent closure of G. Since H centralizes G, each h\in H is an automorphism of every g\in G. Therefore every basic relation of \mathfrak{X} is a union of 2-orbits of H. We must show that each 2-orbit of H is a union of basic relations of \mathfrak{X}.

Pick an arbitrary pair (\omega_1,\omega_2)\in \Omega^2 and define G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2} to be the set of all g\in G that map \omega_1 to \omega_2, that is G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2} = \{g\in G\mid g(\omega_1)=\omega_2\}= \{g\in G \mid (\omega_1,\omega_2)\in g\}. Note that G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2} is nonempty and G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2} = gG_{\omega_1} for any g\in G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2}.

The relation r_{\omega_1,\omega_2} := \bigcap_{g\in G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2}} g is nonempty and is the union of certain elements from C. We claim r_{\omega_1,\omega_2} is a 2-orbit of H. Fix a permutation g\in G_{\omega_1\rightarrow \omega_2} and write r_{\omega_1,\omega_2} = g r_{\omega_1,\omega_1}. Obviously r_{\omega_1,\omega_1}=1_{\Omega_1} where \Omega_1 is the fixed-point set \mathsf{Fix}(G_{\omega_1}) of \Omega under G_{\omega_1}. Clearly \Omega_1 is H-invariant implying that 1_{\Omega_1} is H-invariant as well.

Observe that the action of H on 1_{\Omega_1} is semiregular. Otherwise, given any \omega\in H, if there were to exist h,\omega',\omega''\in H such that h(\omega)=\omega and h(\omega')=\omega'', then for any element g\in G_{\omega\to\omega'} we would obtain the contradiction g(\omega)=hgh^{-1}(\omega)= h(g(\omega))=\omega''.

Finally, it is well known that |\Omega_1|=[N_G(G_{\omega_1}):G_{\omega_1}] = |C_{{\sf Sym }(\Omega)}(G)|=|H|. Hence H acts transitively in 1_{\Omega_1}, and therefore it also acts transitively in g1_{\Omega_1}=r_{\omega_1,\omega_2}. We conclude that r_{\omega_1,\omega_2} is a 2-orbit of H.

Recall that N_\rho:=\{z\in S \mid \forall_{x,y\in S}\ x\diamond (y\diamond z) = (x\diamond y)\diamond z\}. It is easy to see that N_\rho contains 1_\Omega and is \diamond-closed. Together with r_{y\diamond z} = r_y r_z, we obtain that \widehat{N}_\rho is a subgroup of {\sf Sym }(S). Note that \widehat{N}_\rho acts semiregularly on S.

A permutation \phi\in {\sf Sym }(S) centralizes G if and only if it commutes with \ell_s for every s\in S, that is, if \phi(s\diamond u)=s\diamond \phi(u) for all s,u\in S. Substituting u=1_\Omega into this equality, we obtain \phi = r_{\phi(1_\Omega)}, i.e. \phi(x)=x\diamond \phi(1_\Omega). Thus the equality \forall_{s,u\in S}\ \phi(s\diamond u)=s\diamond \phi(u) becomes \forall_{s,u\in S}\ (s\diamond u)\diamond \phi(1_\Omega) = s\diamond (u\diamond \phi(1_\Omega)) whence \phi(1_\Omega)\in N_\rho. To summarize, \phi\in C_{{\sf Sym }(S)}(G) implies \phi=r_{\phi(1_\Omega)} and \phi(1_\Omega)\in N_\rho.

On the other hand, if s\in N_\rho then

in other words r_s\ell_u = \ell_u r_s.

Proof of ?: Let \Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_k be a complete set of H-orbits on \Omega. Clearly |\Omega_i|=|H| for all i\in [k]. Note that \Omega_1\times [k] is the point set of (\Omega_1,C\mathord{\upharpoonright}_{\Omega_1})\otimes \mathfrak{D}_k. Thus, to build a bijection f:\Omega_1\times [k] \rightarrow \Omega we choose arbitrary \omega_i\in \Omega_i,i\in [k]. Define f(\omega,i) = h(\omega_i) where h\in H is the unique element satisfying \omega = h(\omega_1).

We now check that f maps basic relations of (\Omega_1,C\mathord{\upharpoonright}_{\Omega_1})\otimes \mathfrak{D}_k onto basic relations of \mathfrak{C}. Since in both configurations all basic relations have the same cardinality, namely |H|, it is sufficient to prove the following holds for any quadruple of points (\alpha,i),(\beta,j),(\alpha',i'),(\beta',j')\in \Omega_1\times [k]:

It follows from the first equality that i'=i and j'=j. Also \alpha' = h(\alpha) and \beta'=h(\beta) where h is the unique element of H that maps \alpha to \alpha'. Let a,b\in H be elements satisfying \alpha=a(\omega_1),\beta=b(\omega_1) from which \alpha'=ha(\omega_1) and \beta'=hb(\omega_1) follows. Then we obtain f(\alpha,i) =a(\omega_i), f(\beta,j)=b(\omega_j) and f(\alpha',i) =ha(\omega_i), f(\beta',j)=hb(\omega_j). The latter equality implies (f(\alpha',i),f(\beta',j))=(h(f(\alpha,i)),h(f(\beta,j))), whence we have r(f(\alpha,i),f(\beta,j))=r(f(\alpha',i'),f(\beta',j')) proving (a).

Proof of ?: We first describe the group of isomorphisms \mathsf{Iso}(\mathfrak{C}) (referred to as color automorphisms in [KliMuzPecWolZie07]). Since H acts semiregularly on \Omega, H is 2-closed [Wie69]. In this case \mathsf{Iso}(\mathfrak{C}) coincides with the normalizer of H in the symmetric group {\sf Sym }(\Omega).

Under the identification \mathfrak{C} with (\Omega_1,C\mathord{\upharpoonright}_{\Omega_1})\otimes \mathfrak{D}_k. a semiregular action of H on \Omega_1\times [k] is given by h(\omega,i)=(h(\omega),i). Denoting by F the set of basic relations of (\Omega_1,C\mathord{\upharpoonright}_{\Omega_1}), we can now describe the basic relations of \mathfrak{C} in the following manner: [f]_{i,j}=\{((\alpha,i),(\beta,j)) \mid (\alpha,\beta)\in f\} where f\in F. In what follows, we set C:=\{[f]_{ij} \mid f\in F,i,j\in [k]\}.

Since H acts regularly on \Omega_1, its 2-orbit scheme is thin, i.e. each f\in F is a permutation on \Omega_1 and F is a regular permutation subgroup of {\sf Sym }(\Omega_1). Note that F is the centralizer of H in {\sf Sym }(\Omega_1) and F\cong H.

We next describe certain elements of the group \mathsf{AAut}(\mathfrak{C}). Given v\in F^k, we define a permutation \hat{v}\in{\sf Sym }(C) by \hat{v}: [f]_{i,j}\mapsto [v_i^{-1}fv_j]_{i,j}. It is easy to check that \hat{v} is an algebraic automorphism of \mathfrak{C}. Another class of algebraic automorphisms comes from the symmetric group S_k={\sf Sym }([k]), namely every permutation \psi\in S_k permutes the basic relations in the following manner: [f]_{i,j}\mapsto [f]_{\psi(i),\psi(j)}. We denote such induced permutations by \hat{\psi}.

A third class of algebraic automorphisms comes from {\sf Aut}(F), namely \psi\in {\sf Aut}(F) permutes the basic relations by [f]_{i,j}\mapsto [\psi(f)]_{i,j}. In keeping with the above, we denote these induced permutations by \hat{\psi}. One can easily check that the three types of automorphisms just described generate a group isomorphic to F^k\rtimes (S_k\times{\sf Aut}(F)).

Pick an arbitrary \phi\in \mathsf{JAut}(\mathfrak{C}). Then \forall_{i\in [k]}\ \phi(I_{\Omega_i})=I_{\Omega_{{\varphi}(i)}} for a suitably chosen {\varphi}\in S_k. Since \hat{\varphi}\in \mathsf{AAut}(\mathfrak{C}), we have that \hat{\varphi}^{-1}\phi is a Jordan automorphism of \mathfrak{C} that fixes each fiber I_{\Omega_i},i\in [k]. Thus, in what follows we may assume \forall_{i\in [k]}\ \phi(I_{\Omega_i})=I_{\Omega_i}.

Consider now the matrices E_{i,j}:=\frac{1}{|H|}\underline{\Omega_i\times \Omega_j}. The linear span {\mathcal A}_0:=\langle E_{i,j}\rangle_{i,j\in [k]} is a two-sided ideal of {\mathcal A}:=\mathbb{C}[C] isomorphic to M_k(\mathbb{C}). Since E_{i,i} is the unique nonzero solution to the equations X\star I_{\Omega_i} = X, X\star X = X, X\circ X = \frac{1}{|H|} X and \phi(I_{\Omega_i}) = I_{\Omega_i}, we obtain \phi(E_{i,i})=E_{i,i} for each i \in [k]. Given i\neq j\in [k], the equations E_{i,i}\star X =\frac{1}{2} X, E_{j,j}\star X =\frac{1}{2} X and X\circ X = \frac{1}{|H|} X have two nonzero solutions E_{i,j} and E_{j,i}. Hence for any pair i\neq j, it is either the case that \phi(E_{i,j})=E_{j,i},\phi(E_{j,i})=E_{i,j} or \phi(E_{i,j})=E_{i,j},\phi(E_{j,i})=E_{j,i}. Let us call a pair switched in the former case and non-switched in the latter case.

Our next step is to show that if a single pair \{i,j\}\subseteq [k] is switched, then all pairs in [k] are switched. This is trivial if k=2. For k\geq 3, it suffices to prove that given any three distinct elements i,j,\ell\in [k], if \{i,j\} is switched then \{i,\ell\} and \{j,\ell\} are also switched.

By way of contradiction, suppose \{i, j\} is a switched pair and at least one of \{i,\ell\} and \{j,\ell\} is non-switched. First suppose \{i,\ell\} is non-switched. Then \phi(E_{i,j})=E_{j,i},\phi(E_{j,i})=E_{i,j} and \phi(E_{i,\ell})=E_{i,\ell}, \phi(E_{\ell,i})=E_{\ell,i}. This implies

a contradiction. Thus we are in the case where \{i,j\} and \{i,\ell\} are switched and \{j,\ell\} is non-switched. But here, just as above, we reach the contradiction

We conclude that every pair in [k] is switched or every such pair is non-switched.

It follows from above that \phi acts on {\mathcal A}_0\cong M_k(\mathbb{C}) either trivially or via matrix transposition. Combining \phi with \tau in the latter case, we may assume \phi acts trivially on {\mathcal A}_0, i.e. \phi(E_{i,j}) = E_{i,j} for all i,j\in [k]. This implies the set of relations \{[f]_{i,j}\}_{f\in F} is \phi-invariant for any i,j\in [k], i.e. there exists a permutation \phi_{ij}\in{\sf Sym }(F) such that \phi([f]_{i,j}) = [\phi_{ij}(f)]_{i,j}.

It follows from 2[f]_{ii}\star [h]_{ii} = [fh]_{ii}+[hf]_{ii} that \phi_{ii}(fh)\in\{\phi_{ii}(f)\phi_{ii}(h),\phi_{ii}(h)\phi_{ii}(f)\}. Thus \phi_{ii} is a half-automorphism [Sco57] of F. According to [Sco57], \phi_{ii} is either an automorphism or an anti-automorphism.

For every pair i\neq j and f,h\in F we have 2[f]_{i,j}\star [h]_{j,i}=[fh]_{i,i}+[hf]_{j,j}. Applying \phi to both sides, we obtain

for all f,h\in F. Substituting f=e into (?) now gives

It follows from f_{ii}(e)=e that \phi_{ij}(e)=\phi_{ji}(e)^{-1}. Substituting h=e into (?) we obtain \phi_{ij}(f)=\phi_{ii}(f)\phi_{ji}(e)^{-1}. Together with \phi_{ji}(h)=\phi_{ij}(e)^{-1}\phi_{ii}(h) this yields

It now follows from (?) that \phi_{ii}(f)\phi_{ii}(h) = \phi_{ii}(fh), i.e. \phi_{ii} is an automorphism of F for every i\in [k].

Since \phi_{11}^{-1}\in {\sf Aut}(F), it induces an algebraic automorphism \widehat{\phi_{11} ^{-1}}\in\mathsf{AAut}(\mathfrak{C}) which acts via [f]_{ij}\mapsto [\phi_{11}^{-1}(f)]_{ij}. Replacing \phi by \phi \widehat{\phi_{11}^{-1}},we may assume that \phi_{11} is trivial. This yields \phi_{jj}(h)=\phi_{j1}(e)^{-1}\phi_{11}(h)\phi_{1j}(e). Setting a_j:=\phi_{1j}(e)\in F, we may write \phi_{jj}(h)=a_j^{-1}ha_j for each j\in[k]. Also \phi_{1j}(f) = \phi_{11}(f) \phi_{j1}(e)^{-1} = f a_j.

To complete the proof, it suffices to show that \phi = \hat{a} where a:=(a_1,\dots,a_k)\in F^k. The equality \phi = \hat{a} is equivalent to \phi([f]_{ij})=\hat{a}([f]_{ij})=[a_i^{-1}fa_j]_{ij}.

It follows from (?) that \phi_{ij}(f)=\phi_{ii}(f)\phi_{ji}(e)^{-1}=a_i^{-1} f a_i \phi_{ji}(e)^{-1}. So it remains to show that \phi_{ji}(e)=a_j^{-1}a_i. If i=j, this equality follows from \phi_{ii}\in{\sf Aut}(F). Hence we assume i\neq j. But now 2[e]_{ji} = [e]_{j1}\star [e]_{1i} implies \phi_{ji}(e)=\phi_{j1}(e)\phi_{1i}(e)=\phi_{1j}(e)^{-1}\phi_{1i}(e)=a_j^{-1}a_i as desired.

By way of contradiction, assume \mathfrak{S} is the algebraic fusion of a coherent configuration \mathfrak{C}=(S,C) with respect to a certain subgroup \Phi\leq\mathsf{JAut}(\mathfrak{C}). Then \hat{s} =\Phi(c) for every s\in S and c\in C contained in \hat{s}. In particular, this implies that each c\in C is thin. By [ChePon24, Exercise 2.7.35], every such configuration is Schurian, i.e. there exists H\leq{\sf Sym }(S) such that C is the set of 2-orbits of H. Since every 2-orbit of H is thin, we have that H is semiregular. Thus by Proposition 4.3, \mathsf{JAut}(\mathfrak{C})=\mathsf{TAut}(\mathfrak{C}). Hence the subgroup \Phi_0:=\Phi\cap\mathsf{AAut}(\mathfrak{C}) has index at most two in \Phi. Moreover, since \Phi_0\leq \mathsf{AAut}(\mathfrak{C}), the rainbow {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C}=(S,C_0) where C_0:=\{\Phi_0(c)\}_{c\in C} is a coherent configuration. Thus \hat{S}={}^{\Phi}C\sqsubseteq C_0 \sqsubseteq C. Since \mathfrak{S} is not a coherent configuration, the inclusion \hat{S}\sqsubseteq C_0 must be proper, and [\Phi:\Phi_0]=2. In particular, \Phi_0 is normal in \Phi, which in turn implies that each \Phi-orbit on C is either a \Phi_0-orbit or a disjoint union of two \Phi_0-orbits of equal size. Therefore, each \hat{s}\in\hat{S} is either a basic relation of {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} or the union of two basic relations of {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} of equal size. Since {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} and {}^{\Phi}\mathfrak{C} are distinct, there exists \hat{s}\in\hat{S} which splits into a disjoint union of two basic relations of {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} of equal size, say \hat{s}=c_1\cup c_2. It follows from |c_1|=|c_2|=|S|/2 that both c_1 and c_2 are nonregular basic relations of {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C}. Therefore {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} is a nonhomogeneous coherent configuration, that is, each of its basic relations is nonregular. This in turn implies that all basic relations of {}^{\Phi_0}\mathfrak{C} have size |S|/2.

Observe that the coherent closure \mathfrak{T}=(S,T) of \mathfrak{S} satisfies \hat{S}\sqsubset T \sqsubseteq C_0. By Proposition 4.2, the basic relations of T coincide with the 2-orbits of the right nucleus N_\rho of the loop (S,\diamond). In particular, |t|=|N_\rho| for each t\in T. It follows from Proposition 3.18 that N_\rho = Z(S), and therefore |N_\rho|=|S|/8. Since each t\in T is the union of basic relations of C_0, a basic relation c\in C_0 has cardinality at most |S|/8, contrary to |c|=|S|/2. As this is an obvious contradiction, the proof is complete.