text:
# Quiver varieties and tensor products

## Introduction

Let $`𝔤`$ be a symmetric Kac-Moody Lie algebra and let $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ be the quantum enveloping algebra of Drinfeld-Jimbo attached to $`𝔤`$. For each dominant weight $`𝐰`$ of $`𝔤`$, the author associated a nonsingular variety $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ (called a quiver variety), containing a half dimensional subvariety $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ . It is related to the representation theory of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ as follows:

1. The top degree homology group $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)`$ has a structure of a $`𝔤`$-module, simple with highest weight $`𝐰`$. ()
2. The set $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ of irreducible components of $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ has a structure of a crystal, isomorphic to the crystal of the simple $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$-module with highest weight $`𝐰`$. (Kashiwara-Saito )

Suppose $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$. Let $`𝐋𝔤=𝔤[x,x^1]`$ be the loop algebra of $`𝔤`$ and let $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ be the quantum loop algebra (the quantum affine algebra without centeral extension and degree operator) with the integral form $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)`$ generated by $`q`$-divided powers. In , the author showed the following:

1. The equivariant $`K`$-homology group $`K^{H_𝐰\times ^{}}(𝔏(𝐰))`$ has a structure of $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)[x_1^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_L^\pm ]`$-module, which is simple and has various nice properties.

Here $`L=_kh_k,𝐰`$ and $`H_𝐰`$ is a torus of dimension $`L`$ acting on $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ and $`𝔏(𝐰)`$. We call it a universal standard module, and denote it by $`M(𝐰)`$. (In the main body of this article, we replace $`H_𝐰`$ by a product of general linear groups, and $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)[x_1^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_N^\pm ]`$ by the invariant part of a product of symmetric groups.) It was shown that any simple $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module is obtained as a quotient of a specialization of $`M(𝐰)`$. This specialization is called a standard module. Moreover, the multiplicities of simple modules in standard modules are computable by a combinatorial algorithm .

In this article, we generalize results (1),(2),(3) to the case of tensor products of simple modules. For given dominant weights $`𝐰^1`$, $`𝐰^2`$, …, $`𝐰^N`$ we introduce another half-dimensional subvarity $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of $`𝔐(𝐰)`$, containing $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ ($`𝐰=𝐰^1+\mathrm{}+𝐰^N`$), and show the followings:

1. $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ has a structure of a $`𝔤`$-module, isomorphic to the tensor product of simple $`𝔤`$-modules with highest weights $`𝐰^1`$, …, $`𝐰^N`$. (Theorem 5.2)
2. The set $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has a structure of a crystal, isomorphic to the tensor product of the crystals $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)`$, …, $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^N)`$. (Theorem 4.6)
3. When $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$, the equivariant $`K`$-homology group $`K^{H_𝐰\times ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{})`$ is isomorphic to the tensor product of universal standard modules $`M(𝐰^1)`$, …, $`M(𝐰^N)`$. (Theorem 6.11)

The result (2)’ means that $`\{\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)𝐰P^+\}`$ is a closed family of highest weight normal crystals (see §1.2 for definition). This property characterizes crystals of simple highest weight modules. Thus we obtain a new proof of (2).

As an application of (3)’, we give a new proof of the main result of Varagnolo-Vasserot  (see Corollary 6.12). It says that a standard module is a tensor product of fundamental representations in an appropriately chosen order.

We also give a combinatorial description of the crystal $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ in §8. It is essentially the same as a combinatorial description of $`V(𝐰)`$, provided by the embedding theorem of the crystal $`(\mathrm{})`$ of the lower part of the quantized enveloping algebra (). We shall discuss this description further, relating it with the theory of $`q`$–characters in a separate publication.

The varieties $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, $``$ are defined as attracting sets of a $`^{}`$-action for some one parameter subgroup $`\lambda :^{}H_𝐰`$. The relation between the $`^{}`$-action and tensor products has been known to many people after the author related the quiver varieties to Lusztig’s construction of canonical bases , since Lusztig defined the comultiplcation in a geometric way (see ). Moreover, when $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_n`$ and $`𝐰`$ is a multiple of the fundamental weight corresponding to the vector representation, the quiver variety $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ is isomorphic to the cotangent bundle of the $`n`$-step partial flag variety. In this case the comultiplication was constructed by Ginzburg-Reshetkhin-Vasserot . The result was also mentioned without detail in an earlier paper by Grojnowski . And the author used the $`^{}`$-action to compute Betti numbers of $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ (when $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A`$), and checked that the generating function of the Euler numbers is the character of the tensor product . For general $`𝔤`$, Grojnowski mentioned, in his ‘advertisement’  of his book, that the coproduct is defined by the localization to the fixed point set of the $`^{}`$-action. However the details of the construction of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structures were not given. The details were given in , and by the localization, tensor products were studied, but only for generic parameters \[14.1.2, loc. cit.\] (see also Lemma 6.4). Tensor products for arbitrary parameters need further study, and it was first done by Varagnolo-Vasserot . The result (3)’ above is motivated by their study, although the author knew $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ before their paper appeared.

The variety $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is an analogue of subvarieties of cotangent bundles of flag varieties, introduced by Lusztig . (Our notation is taken from his.) In his picture, $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ corresponds to Slodowy’s variety, $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ to the Springer fiber $`_x`$. The equivariant $`K`$-homology group of $`_x`$ is a module of the affine Hecke algebra $`\widehat{H}_q`$. The equivariant $`K`$-homology of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is an induced module of a module of above type for a smaller affine Hecke algebra.

One of motivations of  was a conjectural construction of a base in the equivariant $`K`$-homology of $`_x`$. Lusztig pointed out a possibility of a similar construction for quiver varieties . Combining a result in  with a recent result by Kashiwara , the universal standard module $`M(𝐰)`$ has a global crystal base. It is interesting to compare his base with Lusztig’s (conjectural) base.

Finally we comment that there is a geometric construction of tensor products of two simple $`𝔤`$-modules by Lusztig . His variety is a subvariety of a product of quiver varieties. In fact, an open subvariety of an analogue of Steinberg variety, which will be denoted by $`Z(𝐰)`$ in this article. The relation between his variety and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is not clear, although there is an example where a close relation can be found (see §9). And it seems difficult to generalize his varities to the case of tensor products of several modules. (Compare §7).

After this work was done, we were informed that Malkin also defined the variety $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and obtained the result (2)’ above .

### Acknowledgement

This work originated in G. Lusztig’s question about analogue of his variety in quiver varieties, asked at the Institute for Advanced Study, 1998 winter. It is a great pleasure for me to answer his question after two years. I would like to thank I. Grojnowski for explaining me his construction of tensor products for generic parameters during 2000 winter. I also express my sincere gratitude to M. Kashiwara for interesting discussions about crystal.

## 1. Preliminaries (I) – algebraic part

### 1.1. Quantized enveloping algebra

We briefly recall the definition of the quantized enveloping algebra in this subsection. See  for further detail.

A root datum consists of

1. $`P`$ : free $``$-module (weight lattice),
2. $`P^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(P,)`$ with a natural pairing $`,:PP^{}`$,
3. a finite set $`I`$ (index set of simple roots)
4. $`\alpha _kP`$ ($`kI`$) (simple root),
5. $`h_kP^{}`$ ($`kI`$) (simple coroot),
6. a symmetric bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`P`$.

Those are required to satisfy the followings:

1. $`h_k,\lambda =2(\alpha _k,\lambda )/(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)`$ for $`kI`$ and $`\lambda P`$,
2. $`𝐂\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(h_k,\alpha _l)_{k,l}`$ is a symmetrizable generalized Cartan matrix, i.e., $`h_k,\alpha _k=2`$, and $`h_k,\alpha _l_0`$ and $`h_k,\alpha _l=0h_l,\alpha _k=0`$ for $`kl`$,
3. $`(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)2_{>0}`$,
4. $`\{\alpha _k\}_{kI}`$ are linearly independent,
5. there exists $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_kP`$ ($`kI`$) such that $`h_l,\mathrm{\Lambda }_k=\delta _{kl}`$ (fundamental weight).

Let $`𝔤`$ be the symmetrizable Kac-Moody Lie algebra corresponding to the generalized Cartan matrix $`𝐂`$ with the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥=P^{}_{}`$. Let $`Q=_k\alpha _kP`$ be the root lattice. Let $`P^+`$ be the semigroup of dominant weights, i.e., $`P^+=\{\lambda h_k,\lambda 0\}`$. Let $`Q^+=_k_0\alpha _k`$.

Let $`q`$ be an indeterminate. For nonnegative integers $`nr`$, define

$$[n]_q\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1},[n]_q!\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}[n]_q[n1]_q\mathrm{}[2]_q[1]_q\hfill & (n>0),\hfill \\ 1\hfill & (n=0),\hfill \end{array}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right]_q\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{[n]_q!}{[r]_q![nr]_q!}.$$

The quantized universal enveloping algebra $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ of the Kac-Moody algebra $`𝔤`$ is the $`(q)`$-algebra generated by $`e_k`$, $`f_k`$ ($`kI`$), $`q^h`$ ($`hP^{}`$) with relations

(1.1a)
$$q^0=1,q^hq^h^{}=q^{h+h^{}},$$

(1.1b)
$$q^he_kq^h=q^{h,\alpha _k}e_k,q^hf_kq^h=q^{h,\alpha _k}f_k,$$

(1.1c)
$$e_kf_lf_le_k=\delta _{kl}\frac{t_kt_k^1}{q_kq_k^1},$$

(1.1d)
$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{b}{}}(1)^pe_k^{(p)}e_le_k^{(bp)}=\underset{p=0}{\overset{b}{}}(1)^pf_k^{(p)}f_lf_k^{(bp)}=0\text{for }kl\text{,}$$

where $`q_k=q^{(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)/2}`$, $`t_k=q^{(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)h_k/2}`$, $`b=1h_k,\alpha _l`$, $`e_k^{(p)}=e_k^p/[p]_{q_k}!`$, $`f_k^{(p)}=f_k^p/[p]_{q_k}!`$.

Let $`𝐔_q(𝔤)^+`$ (resp. $`𝐔_q(𝔤)^{}`$) be the $`(q)`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ generated by elements $`e_k`$’s (resp. $`f_k`$’s). Let $`𝐔_q(𝔤)^0`$ be the $`(q)`$-subalgebra generated by elements $`q^h`$ ($`hP^{}`$). We have the triangular decomposition $`𝐔_q(𝔤)𝐔_q(𝔤)^+𝐔_q(𝔤)^0𝐔_q(𝔤)^{}`$.

Let $`𝐔_q^{}(𝔤)`$ be the $`[q,q^1]`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ generated by elements $`e_k^{(n)}`$, $`f_k^{(n)}`$, $`q^h`$ for $`kI`$, $`n_{>0}`$, $`hP^{}`$.

In this article, we take the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ given by

(1.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }q^h=q^hq^h,\mathrm{\Delta }e_k=e_kq^{h_k}+1e_k,\\ \mathrm{\Delta }f_k=f_k1+q^{h_k}f_k.\end{array}$$

Note that this is different from one in , although there is a simple relation between them \[13, 1.4\]. The results in  hold for either comultiplication (tensor products appear in (1.2.19) and (14.1.2)). In \[34, §2\] another comultiplication was used. If we reverse the order of the tensor product, the results hold.

For each dominant weight $`\lambda P^+`$, there is unique simple module $`V(\lambda )`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$. The highest weight vector is denoted by $`b_\lambda `$.

Later we use the classical counter part of $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$. We just erase $`q`$ in the above notation, e.g., $`𝐔_q(𝔤)𝐔(𝔤)`$, etc. Simple highest weight modules are denoted by the same notation $`V(\lambda )`$.

### 1.2. Crystal

Let us review the notion of crystals briefly. See  for detail.

###### Definition 1.3.

A crystal $``$ associated with a root datum in §1.1 is a set together with maps $`\mathrm{wt}:P`$, $`\epsilon _k,\phi _k:\{\mathrm{}\}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k,\stackrel{~}{f}_k:\{0\}`$ ($`kI`$) satisfying the following properties

(1.4a) $`\phi _k(b)=\epsilon _k(b)+h_k,\mathrm{wt}(b),`$
(1.4b) $`\mathrm{wt}(\stackrel{~}{e}_kb)=\mathrm{wt}(b)+\alpha _k,\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{e}_kb)=\epsilon _k(b)1,\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{e}_kb)=\phi _k(b)+1,\text{if }\stackrel{~}{e}_kb,`$
(1.4c) $`\mathrm{wt}(\stackrel{~}{f}_kb)=\mathrm{wt}(b)\alpha _k,\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{f}_kb)=\epsilon _k(b)+1,\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{f}_kb)=\phi _k(b)1,\text{if }\stackrel{~}{f}_kb,`$
(1.4d) $`b^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}_kbb=\stackrel{~}{e}_kb^{}\text{for }b\text{}b^{},`$
(1.4e) if $`\phi _k(b)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`b`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{e}_kb=\stackrel{~}{f}_kb=0`$
We set $`\mathrm{wt}_k(b)=h_k,\mathrm{wt}(b)`$.

The crystal was introduced by abstracting the notion of crystal bases constructed by Kashiwara . Thus we have the following examples of crystals.

###### Notation 1.5.

(1) Let $`(\mathrm{})`$ denote the crystal associated with $`𝐔_q(𝔤)^{}`$.

(2) For $`\lambda P^+`$, let $`(\lambda )`$ denote the crystal associated with the simple $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$.

We also have the following examples.

###### Example 1.6.

(1) For all $`kI`$, we define the crystal $`_k`$ as follows:

$$_k=\{b_k(n)n\},$$

$$\mathrm{wt}(b_k(n))=n\alpha _k,\phi _k(b_k(n))=n,\epsilon _k(b_k(n))=n,$$

$$\phi _l(b_k(n))=\epsilon _l(b_k(n))=\mathrm{}(lk),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_k(n))=b_k(n+1),\stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_k(n))=b_k(n1),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_l(b_k(n))=\stackrel{~}{f}_l(b_k(n))=0(lk).$$

(2) For $`\lambda P^+`$, we define the crystal $`T_\lambda `$ by

$$T_\lambda =\{t_\lambda \},$$

$$\mathrm{wt}(t_\lambda )=\lambda ,\phi _k(t_\lambda )=\epsilon _k(t_\lambda )=\mathrm{},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_k(t_\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{f}_k(t_\lambda )=0.$$

A crystal $``$ is called normal if

$$\epsilon _k(b)=\mathrm{max}\{n\stackrel{~}{e}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}b0\},\phi _k(b)=\mathrm{max}\{n\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}b0\}.$$

It is known that $`(\lambda )`$ is normal.

For given two crystals $`_1`$, $`_2`$, a morphism $`\psi `$ of crystal from $`_1`$ to $`_2`$ is a map $`_1\{0\}_2\{0\}`$ satisfying $`\psi (0)=0`$ and the following conditions for all $`b_1`$, $`kI`$:

(1.7a) $`\mathrm{wt}(\psi (b))=\mathrm{wt}(b),\epsilon _k(\psi (b))=\epsilon _k(b),\phi _k(\psi (b))=\phi _k(b)\text{if }\psi (b)_2,`$
(1.7b) $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k\psi (b)=\psi (\stackrel{~}{e}_kb)\text{if }\psi (b)_2\text{}\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_1,`$
(1.7c) $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k\psi (b)=\psi (\stackrel{~}{f}_kb)\text{if }\psi (b)_2\text{}\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_1.`$
A morphism $`\psi `$ is called strict if $`\psi `$ commutes with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$ for all $`kI`$ without any restriction. A morphism $`\psi `$ is called an embedding if $`\psi `$ is an injective map from $`B_1\{0\}`$ to $`B_2\{0\}`$.

###### Definition 1.8.

The tensor product $`_1_2`$ of crystals $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ is defined to be the set $`_1\times _2`$ with maps defined by

(1.9a) $`\mathrm{wt}(b_1b_2)=\mathrm{wt}(b_1)+\mathrm{wt}(b_2),`$
(1.9b) $`\epsilon _k(b_1b_2)=\mathrm{max}(\epsilon _k(b_1),\epsilon _k(b_2)\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)),`$
(1.9c) $`\phi _k(b_1b_2)=\mathrm{max}(\phi _k(b_2),\phi _k(b_1)+\mathrm{wt}_k(b_2)),`$
(1.9d) $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_1b_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_1b_2\hfill & \text{if }\phi _k(b_1)\epsilon _k(b_2),\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_2\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$
(1.9e) $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_1b_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_1b_2\hfill & \text{if }\phi _k(b_1)>\epsilon _k(b_2),\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_2\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Here $`(b_1,b_2)`$ is denoted by $`b_1b_2`$ and $`0b_2`$, $`b_10`$ are identified with $`0`$.

It is easy to check that these satisfy the axioms in Definition 1.3. It is also easy to check that the tensor product of two normal crystals is again normal.

It is easy to check $`(B_1B_2)B_3=B_1(B_2B_3)`$. We denote it by $`B_1B_2B_3`$. Similarly we can define $`B_1\mathrm{}B_n`$. Then using $`B_1\mathrm{}B_n=(B_1\mathrm{}B_{n1})B_n`$, we can determine the tensor product of more than two crystals inductively as follows. For given $`b_1\mathrm{}b_n`$, we define

(1.10)
$$\epsilon _k^p\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\epsilon _k(b_p)\underset{q:q<p}{}\mathrm{wt}_k(b_q),\phi _k^p\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\phi _k(b_p)+\underset{q:q>p}{}\mathrm{wt}_k(b_q).$$

It is easy to show the following by induction:

(1.11a) $`\mathrm{wt}(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{wt}(b_p),`$
(1.11b) $`\epsilon _k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)=\underset{1pn}{\mathrm{max}}\epsilon _k^p,`$
(1.11c) $`\phi _k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)=\underset{1pn}{\mathrm{max}}\phi _k^p,`$
(1.11d) $`\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)=b_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_p\mathrm{}b_n\hfill \\ & \text{where }p=\mathrm{min}\{q\epsilon _k^q=\epsilon _k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)\},\hfill \end{array}`$
(1.11e) $`\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)=b_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_p\mathrm{}b_n\hfill \\ & \text{where }p=\mathrm{max}\{q\phi _k^q=\phi _k(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)\}.\hfill \end{array}`$
###### Definition 1.12.

A crystal $``$ is said to be of highest weight $`\lambda `$ if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. there exists $`b_\lambda `$ with $`\mathrm{wt}(b_\lambda )=\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_\lambda )=0`$ for all $`kI`$,
2. $``$ is generated by $`b_\lambda `$, i.e., any element in $``$ is obtained from $`b_\lambda `$ by applying $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$ successively.

Note that $`b_\lambda `$ is unique if it exists.

###### Definition 1.13.

Suppose that a family $`\{𝒟(\lambda )\lambda P^+\}`$ of highest weight normal crystals $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$ with $`b_\lambda 𝒟(\lambda )`$ satisfying the above properties is given. It is called closed if the crystal generated by $`b_\lambda b_\mu `$ in $`𝒟(\lambda )𝒟(\mu )`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒟(\lambda +\mu )`$.

We have the following characterization of $`(\lambda )`$ in 1.5.

###### Proposition 1.14 (\[11, 6.4.21\]).

If $`\{𝒟(\lambda )\lambda P^+\}`$ is a closed family of highest weight normal crystals, then $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to $`(\lambda )`$ as a crystal for any $`\lambda P^+`$.

### 1.3. Quantum loop algebra

We briefly recall the notion of quantum loop algebra. See  for detail.

Suppose that a root datum $`P`$, $`P^{}`$, etc as in §1.1 is given. Let $`𝐋𝔤`$ be the loop algebra $`𝔤_{}[z,z^1]`$ of the symmetrizable Kac-Moody Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. We define the quantum loop algebra $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ as a $`(q)`$-algebra generated by $`e_{k,r},f_{k,r}`$ ($`kI`$, $`r`$), $`q^h`$ ($`hP^{}`$), $`h_{k,m}`$ ($`kI`$, $`m\{0\}`$) with the following defining relations

(1.15a)
$$q^0=1,q^hq^h^{}=q^{h+h^{}},[q^h,h_{k,m}]=0,[h_{k,m},h_{l,n}]=0,$$

(1.15b)
$$q^he_{k,r}q^h=q^{h,\alpha _k}e_{k,r},q^hf_{k,r}q^h=q^{h,\alpha _k}f_{k,r},$$

(1.15c)
$$(zq^{\pm h_l,\alpha _k}w)\psi _k^s(z)x_l^\pm (w)=(q^{\pm h_l,\alpha _k}zw)x_l^\pm (w)\psi _k^s(z),$$

(1.15d)
$$[x_k^+(z),x_l^{}(w)]=\frac{\delta _{kl}}{q_kq_k^1}\left\{\delta \left(\frac{w}{z}\right)\psi _k^+(w)\delta \left(\frac{z}{w}\right)\psi _k^{}(z)\right\},$$

(1.15e)
$$(zq^{\pm 2}w)x_k^\pm (z)x_k^\pm (w)=(q^{\pm 2}zw)x_k^\pm (w)x_k^\pm (z),$$

(1.15f)
$$\underset{p=1}{\overset{\alpha _k,h_l}{}}(zq^{\pm (b^{}2p)}w)x_k^\pm (z)x_l^\pm (w)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\alpha _k,h_l}{}}(q^{\pm (b^{}2p)}zw)x_l^\pm (w)x_k^\pm (z),\text{if }kl,$$

(1.15g)
$$\underset{\sigma S_b}{}\underset{p=0}{\overset{b}{}}(1)^p\left[\begin{array}{c}b\\ p\end{array}\right]_{q_k}x_k^\pm (z_{\sigma (1)})\mathrm{}x_k^\pm (z_{\sigma (p)})x_l^\pm (w)x_k^\pm (z_{\sigma (p+1)})\mathrm{}x_k^\pm (z_{\sigma (b)})=0,\text{if }kl\text{,}$$

where $`s=\pm `$, $`b=1h_k,\alpha _l`$, $`b^{}=(\alpha _k,\alpha _l)`$, and $`S_b`$ is the symmetric group of $`b`$ letters. Here $`\delta (z)`$, $`x_k^+(z)`$, $`x_k^{}(z)`$, $`\psi _k^\pm (z)`$ are generating functions defined by

$$\delta (z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^r,x_k^+(z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_{k,r}z^r,x_k^{}(z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{k,r}z^r,$$

$$\psi _k^\pm (z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}t_k^\pm \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm (q_kq_k^1)\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_{k,\pm m}z^m\right).$$

We also need the following generating function

$$p_k^\pm (z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{h_{k,\pm m}}{[m]_{q_k}}z^m\right).$$

We have $`\psi _k^\pm (z)=t_k^\pm p_k^\pm (q_kz)/p_k^\pm (q_k^1z).`$

There is a homomorphism $`𝐔_q(𝔤)𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ defined by

$$q^hq^h,e_ke_{k,0},f_kf_{k,0}.$$

Let $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^+`$ (resp. $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^{}`$) be the $`(q)`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ generated by elements $`e_{k,r}`$’s (resp. $`f_{k,r}`$’s). Let $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^0`$ be the $`(q)`$-subalgebra generated by elements $`q^h`$, $`h_{k,m}`$. We have $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)=𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^+𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^0𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^{}`$.

Let $`e_{k,r}^{(n)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}e_{k,r}^n/[n]_{q_k}!`$, $`f_{k,r}^{(n)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}f_{k,r}^n/[n]_{q_k}!`$. Let $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)`$ be the $`[q,q^1]`$-subalgebra generated by $`e_{k,r}^{(n)}`$, $`f_{k,r}^{(n)}`$ and $`q^h`$ for $`kI`$, $`r`$, $`hP^{}`$. The specialization $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}`$ with respect to the homomorphism $`[q,q^1]q\epsilon ^{}`$ is denoted by $`𝐔_\epsilon (𝐋𝔤)`$ for $`\epsilon ^{}`$.

Let $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^+`$ (resp. $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^{}`$) be $`[q,q^1]`$-subalgebra generated by $`e_{k,r}^{(n)}`$ (resp. $`f_{k,r}^{(n)}`$) for $`kI`$, $`r`$, $`nZ_{>0}`$. Let $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^0`$ be the $`[q,q^1]`$-subalgebra generated by $`q^h`$, the coefficients of $`p_k^\pm (z)`$ and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}q^{h_k};n\\ r\end{array}\right]\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{t_kq_k^{ns+1}t_k^1q_k^{n+s1}}{q_k^sq_k^s}$$

for all $`hP`$, $`kI`$, $`n`$, $`r_{>0}`$. We have $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)=𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^+𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^0𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^{}`$ if $`𝔤`$ is of finite type (\[3, 6.1\]).

Suppose that a datum $`(\lambda ,\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)\right)_{kI})P\times (q)[[z^{}]]^I`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_k^+(\mathrm{})=(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)\lambda ,h_k/2,\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}(0)=(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)\lambda ,h_k/2$$

is given. We say a $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module $`M`$ is an l–highest weight module (‘l’ stands for the loop) with l–highest weight $`(\lambda ,\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)\right)_{kI})`$ if there exists a vector $`m_0M`$ such that

(1.16a) $`e_{k,r}m_0=0,𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^{}m_0=M,`$
(1.16b) $`q^hm_0=q^{h,\lambda }m_0\text{for }hP^{},\psi _k^\pm (z)m_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)m_0\text{for }kI.`$
A $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module $`M`$ is said to be l–integrable if the following two conditions are satisfied.

1. $`M`$ has a weight space decomposition as a $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$-module:

$$M=\underset{\mu P}{}M_\mu ,M_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{mq^hv=q^{h,\mu }m\text{ for any }hP^{}\}.$$

And $`dimM_\mu <\mathrm{}`$.
2. For any $`mM`$, there exists $`n_01`$ such that $`e_{k,r_1}\mathrm{}e_{k,r_n}m=f_{k,r_1}\mathrm{}f_{k,r_n}m=0`$ for all $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n`$, $`kI`$ and $`nn_0`$.

We say $`(\lambda ,\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)\right)_{kI})`$ is l–dominant, if $`\lambda P^+`$ and there exists a $`I`$-tuple of polynomials $`P(u)=(P_k(u))_k(q)[u]^I`$ with $`P_k(0)=1`$ satisfying

(1.17)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)=q_k^{\mathrm{deg}P_k}\left(\frac{P_k(q_k^1/z)}{P_k(q_k/z)}\right)^\pm ,$$

where $`\left(\right)^\pm (q)[[z^{}]]`$ denotes the expansion at $`z=\mathrm{}`$ and $`0`$ respectively.

The simple l–highest weight module $`M`$ is l–integrable if and only if its l–highest weight $`(\lambda ,\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)\right)_{kI})`$ is l–dominant, provided $`𝔤`$ is of finite type () or $`𝔤`$ is symmetric (). In this case, $`P(u)`$ is called a Drinfeld polynomial of $`M`$. Since the simple l–highest weight module is determined by $`\lambda `$ and $`P`$, we denote it by $`L(\lambda ,P)`$.

Let $`M`$ be a $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module with the weight space decomposition $`M=_{\mu P}M_\mu `$ as a $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$-module such that $`dimM_\mu <\mathrm{}`$. Since the commutative subalgebra $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^0`$ preserves each $`M_\mu `$, we can further decompose $`M`$ into a sum of generalized simultaneous eigenspaces for $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^0`$:

(1.18)
$$M=M_{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm (z)`$ is a pair $`(\mu ,(\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z))_k)`$ and

$$M_{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{mM\right|\begin{array}{cc}& q^hm=q^{h,\mu }m\text{ for }hP^{}\hfill \\ & (\psi _k^\pm (z)\mathrm{\Psi }_k^\pm (z)\mathrm{Id})^Nm=0\text{ for }kI\text{ and sufficiently large }N\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

If $`M_{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm }0`$, we call $`M_{\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm }`$ an l–weight space, and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm (z)`$ an l–weight of $`M`$. This is a refinement of the weight space decomposition.

Let $`\lambda P^+`$ and $`\lambda _k=h_k,\lambda _0`$. Let $`G_\lambda =_{kI}\mathrm{GL}(\lambda _k,)`$. Its representation ring $`R(G_\lambda )`$ is the invariant part of the Laurant polynomial ring:

$$R(G_\lambda )=[x_{1,1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{1,\lambda _1}^\pm ]^{𝔖_{\lambda _1}}[x_{2,1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{2,\lambda _2}^\pm ]^{𝔖_{\lambda _2}}\mathrm{}[x_{n,1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{n,\lambda _n}^\pm ]^{𝔖_{\lambda _n}},$$

where we put a numbering $`1,\mathrm{},n`$ to $`I`$. In , when $`𝔤`$ is symmetric, we constructed a $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{}R(G_\lambda )`$-module $`M(\lambda )`$ such that it is l–integrable and has a vector $`[0]_\lambda `$ satisfying

(1.19a)
$$e_{k,r}[0]_\lambda =0\text{for any }kI\text{}r,$$

(1.19b)
$$M(\lambda )=\left(𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^{}_{}R(G_\lambda )\right)[0]_\lambda ,$$

(1.19c)
$$q^h[0]_\lambda =q^{h,\lambda }[0]_\lambda ,$$

(1.19d)
$$\psi _k^\pm (z)[0]_\lambda =q^{w_k}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{w_k}{}}\frac{1q^1x_{k,i}/z}{1qx_{k,i}/z}\right)^\pm [0]_\lambda .$$

We call this a universal standard module. Its construction, via quiver varieties, will be explained briefly in §6.

If an $`I`$-tuple of monic polynomials $`P(u)=(P_k(u))_{kI}`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}P_k=h_k,\lambda `$ are given, then we define a standard module by the specialization

$$M(\lambda ,P)=M(\lambda )_{R(G_\lambda )[q,q^1]}(q),$$

where the algebra homomorphism $`R(G_\lambda )[q,q^1](q)`$ sends $`x_{k,1},\mathrm{},x_{k,w_k}`$ to roots of $`P_k`$. The simple module $`L(\lambda ,P)`$ is the simple quotient of $`M(\lambda ,P)`$.

It is known that $`M(\lambda )`$ is free as an $`R(G_\lambda )`$-module (\[32, 7.3.5\]). Thus $`M(\lambda ,P)`$ depends on $`P`$ continuously, while $`L(\lambda ,P)`$ depends discontinuously.

### 1.4. Drinfeld realization

Now we assume that $`𝔤`$ is of finite type, i.e., $`(,)`$ is positive definite. We take a root datum so that $`\mathrm{rank}P=\mathrm{rank}𝔤`$. It is well-known that the untwisted affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}=𝐋𝔤cd`$ is a Kac-Moody Lie algebra with a root datum

$$\widehat{P}^{}=P^{}cd,\widehat{I}=I\{0\},$$

and certain $`\alpha _0`$, $`h_0`$, $`(,)`$. The quantum affine algebra $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})`$ is the quantum enveloping algebra associated with this root datum. Let $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ be the subalgebra of $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})/(q^c1)`$ generated by $`e_k`$, $`f_k`$ ($`k\widehat{I}`$) and $`q^h`$ ($`hP`$). Then a comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined on $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ by the same formula (1.2). The integral form $`𝐔_q^{}(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ is defined in the same way.

In  Drinfeld observed that there exists an isomorphism $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ of $`(q)`$-algebras. Its explicit form was given by Beck :

$$e_{k,r}=o(k)^rT_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_k}^r(e_k),f_{k,r}=o(k)^rT_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_k}^r(f_k),$$

where $`o:I\{\pm 1\}`$ is an orientation of $`I`$ such that $`o(k)=o(l)`$ if $`a_{kl}0`$ for $`kl`$, and $`T_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_k}`$ is an automorphism of $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ defined by Lusztig (the braid group action). Since $`T_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_k}`$ preserves $`𝐔_q^{}(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$, the isomorphism induces an isomorphism $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)𝐔_q^{}(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$.

We shall identify $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})^{}`$ with $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ when $`𝔤`$ is of finite type hereafter. In particular, we have a comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$. We need the following asymptotic formula, which can be deduced from .

###### Lemma 1.20.

(1) On finite dimensional $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-modules, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(h_{k,\pm m})=h_{k,\pm m}1+1h_{k,\pm m}+\text{a nilpotent term}.$$

(2) Let $`V`$ and $`W`$ be finite dimensional $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-modules. Suppose that $`V`$ has a vector $`b`$ such that $`e_{k,r}b=0`$ for all $`kI`$, $`r`$. Then a subspace $`\{b\}WVW`$ is invariant under $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^+`$, and the map $`Wxbx\{b\}W`$ respects $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)^+`$-module structure.

###### Remark 1.21.

The property (2) depends on our choice of the comultiplication (1.2). If we take one in , then the property holds after we exchange $`V`$ and $`W`$.

Before we close this section, we give an algebraic characterization of the standard module. We assume $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$. For each fundamental weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$, the universal standard module $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)`$ is a $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(^{}\times ^{})𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)[x,x^1]`$-module. We set $`W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)=M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)/(x1)M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)`$. It is called an l–fundamental representation.

###### Theorem 1.22.

Put a numbering $`1,\mathrm{},n`$ on $`I`$. Let $`\lambda _k=h_k,\lambda `$. The universal standard module $`M(\lambda )`$ is the submodule of

$$W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)^{\lambda _n}[q,q^1,x_{1,1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{1,\lambda _1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{n,1}^\pm ,\mathrm{},x_{n,\lambda _n}^\pm ]^{𝔖_{\lambda _1}\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔖_{\lambda _n}}$$

(the tensor product is over $`[q,q^1]`$) generated by $`_{kI}[0]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}^{\lambda _k}`$. (The result holds for the tensor product of any order.)

This theorem was not explicitly stated in , but can be deduced by above properties as follows: First we make tensor products of both modules by the quotient field of $`R(G_\lambda )[q,q^1]`$. Then both modules are simple and have the same Drinfeld polynomial (cf. proof of Lemma 6.4). Thus there exists a unique isomorphism from $`M(\lambda )\text{(quotient field)}`$ to the tensor product, sending $`[0]_\lambda `$ to $`_{kI}[0]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}^{\lambda _k}`$. Now by the property (1.19b) and the freeness of $`M(\lambda )`$, we have the assertion.

###### Remark 1.23.

Varagnolo-Vasserot \[37, §7\] conjectured that $`M(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to a module studied by Kashiwara  ($`V(\lambda )`$ in his notation), after tensoring $``$ and forgetting the symmetric group invariance. When $`\lambda `$ is a fundamental weight, both modules are isomorphic, since they are simple and have the same Drinfeld polynomial. Kashiwara conjectures that his module $`V(\lambda )`$ has the property in Theorem 1.22 \[loc. cit., §13\]. Thus Varagnolo-Vasserot’s conjecture is equivalent to Kashiwara’s conjecture. On the other hand, Kashiwara shows that the submodule above has a global crystal base \[loc. cit., Theorem 8.5\]. ($`N_{}`$ in his notation.) Probably, this base coincides with the (conjectural) canonical base considered in  as analogue of .

## 2. Preliminaries (II) – geometric part

In this paper, all varieties are defined over $``$.

### 2.1. $`K`$-homology groups

Let $`X`$ be a quasi-projective variety. Its integral Borel-Moore homology group of degree $`k`$ is denoted by $`H_k(X,)`$. Set $`H_{}(X,)=_kH_k(X,)`$. When a linear algebraic group $`G`$ acts algebraically on $`X`$, we denote by $`K^G(X)`$ the Grothendieck group of the abelian category of $`G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $`X`$ (the $`K`$-homology group). It is a module over $`R(G)`$, the representation ring of $`G`$. We shall use several operations on $`H_{}(X,)`$ and $`K^G(X)`$ in this article, but we do not review them here. See \[32, §6\] and .

### 2.2. Quiver variety

We briefly review the notion of quiver varieties. The reference to results can be found in \[28, §2\], unless refered explictly.

Suppose a root datum is given. We assume that it is symmetric, i.e., $`(\alpha _k,\alpha _k)=2`$ for all $`kI`$. Then the generalized Cartan matrix $`𝐂`$ is equal to $`((\alpha _k,\alpha _l))_{k,lI}`$ and symmetric. To the root datum, we associate a finite graph $`(I,E)`$ as follows (the Dynkin diagram). The set of vertices is identified with $`I`$, and we drow $`(\alpha _k,\alpha _l)`$ edges between vertices $`k`$ and $`l`$ ($`kl`$). We give no edge loops, edge joining a vertex with itself. Conversely a finite graph without edge loops gives a symmetric generalized Cartan matrix.

Let $`H`$ be the set of pairs consisting of an edge together with its orientation. For $`hH`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{in}(h)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{out}(h)`$) the incoming (resp. outgoing) vertex of $`h`$. For $`hH`$ we denote by $`\overline{h}`$ the same edge as $`h`$ with the reverse orientation. Choose and fix a numbering $`1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ on $`I`$. We then define a subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }H`$ so that $`h\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\mathrm{out}(h)<\mathrm{in}(h)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an orientation of the graph, i.e., $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }=H`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{}`$. (The numbering and the orientation will not play a role until §8.) The pair $`(I,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is called a quiver.

If $`V^1=_kV_k^1`$ and $`V^2=_kV_k^2`$ are $`I`$-graded vector spaces, we define vector spaces by

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{kI}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_k^1,V_k^2),\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{hH}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1,V_{\mathrm{in}(h)}^2)$$

For $`B=(B_h)\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)`$ and $`C=(C_h)\mathrm{E}(V^2,V^3)`$, let us define a multiplication of $`B`$ and $`C`$ by

$$CB\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(\underset{\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}C_hB_{\overline{h}})_k\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^3).$$

Multiplications $`ba`$, $`Ba`$ of $`a\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^2)`$, $`b\mathrm{L}(V^2,V^3)`$, $`B\mathrm{E}(V^2,V^3)`$ are defined in obvious manner. If $`a\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^1)`$, its trace $`\mathrm{tr}(a)`$ is understood as $`_k\mathrm{tr}(a_k)`$.

If $`V`$ and $`W`$ are $`I`$-graded vector spaces, we consider the vector spaces

(2.2)
$$𝐌𝐌(V,W)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{E}(V,V)\mathrm{L}(W,V)\mathrm{L}(V,W),$$

where we use the notation $`𝐌`$ unless we want to specify $`V`$, $`W`$. The above three components for an element of $`𝐌`$ is denoted by $`B`$, $`i`$, $`j`$ respectively.

###### Convention 2.3.

When quiver varieties will be related the representation theory, we will choose $`V`$ and $`W`$ corresponding to a pair $`(𝐯,𝐰)Q^+\times P^+`$. The rule is $`dimV_k=v_k`$, $`dimW_k=h_k,𝐰`$, where $`𝐯=_kv_k\alpha _k`$. Conversely $`V`$ determines $`𝐯`$, while $`W`$ determines $`𝐰`$ modulo an element $``$ such that $`h_k,=0`$ for all $`h_k`$. But the action of $`𝔤`$ on simple highest weight modules $`V(𝐰)`$ and $`V(𝐰+)`$ differ only by scalars (see \[12, 9.10\]). So essentially there is no umbiguity.

For an $`I`$-graded subspace $`S=_kS_k`$ of subspaces $`V`$ and $`B\mathrm{E}(V,V)`$, we say $`S`$ is $`B`$-invariant if $`B_h(S_{\mathrm{out}(h)})S_{\mathrm{in}(h)}`$.

Fix a function $`\epsilon :H^{}`$ such that $`\epsilon (h)+\epsilon (\overline{h})=0`$ for all $`hH`$. For $`B\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)`$, let us denote by $`\epsilon B\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)`$ data given by $`(\epsilon B)_h=\epsilon (h)B_h`$ for $`hH`$.

Let us define a symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`𝐌`$ by

(2.4)
$$\omega ((B,i,j),(B^{},i^{},j^{}))\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{tr}(\epsilon BB^{})+\mathrm{tr}(ij^{}i^{}j).$$

Let $`G_V\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_k\mathrm{GL}(V_k).`$ It acts on $`𝐌`$ by

(2.5)
$$(B,i,j)g(B,i,j)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(gBg^1,gi,jg^1)$$

preserving the symplectic form $`\omega `$. The moment map $`\mu :𝐌\mathrm{L}(V,V)`$ vanishing at the origin is given by

(2.6)
$$\mu (B,i,j)=\epsilon BB+ij,$$

where the dual of the Lie algebra of $`G_V`$ is identified with the Lie algebra via the trace. Let $`\mu ^1(0)`$ be an affine algebraic variety (not necessarily irreducible) defined as the zero set of $`\mu `$.

###### Definition 2.7.

A point $`(B,i,j)\mu ^1(0)`$ is said to be stable if the following condition holds:

* if an $`I`$-graded subspace $`S=_kS_k`$ of $`V`$ is $`B`$-invariant and contained in $`\mathrm{Ker}j`$, then $`S=0`$.

Let us denote by $`\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}`$ the set of stable points.

Clearly, the stability condition is invariant under the action of $`G_V`$. Hence we may say an orbit is stable or not.

Let $`𝔐𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}/G_V.`$ We use the notation $`𝔐`$ unless we need to specify dimensions of $`V`$ and $`W`$. It is known that the $`G_V`$-action is free on $`\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`𝔐`$ is a nonsingular quasi-projective variety, having a symplectic form induced by $`\omega `$. A $`G_V`$-orbit though $`(B,i,j)`$, considered as a point of $`𝔐`$ is denoted by $`[B,i,j]`$. Since the action is free, $`V`$ and $`W`$ can be considered as $`I`$-graded vector bundles over $`𝔐`$. We denote them by the same notation. We consider $`\mathrm{E}(V,V)`$, $`\mathrm{L}(W,V)`$, $`\mathrm{L}(V,W)`$ as vector bundles defined by the same formula as in (2.1). By the definition, $`B`$, $`i`$, $`j`$ can be considered as sections of those bundles.

Let us consider three-term sequence of vector bundles over $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ given by

(2.8)
$$\mathrm{L}(V,V)\stackrel{𝜄}{}\mathrm{E}(V,V)\mathrm{L}(W,V)\mathrm{L}(V,W)\stackrel{d\mu }{}\mathrm{L}(V,V),$$

where $`d\mu `$ is the differential of $`\mu `$ at $`(B,i,j)`$, i.e.,

$$d\mu (C,I,J)=\epsilon BC+\epsilon CB+iJ+Ij,$$

and $`\iota `$ is given by

$$\iota (\xi )=(B\xi \xi B)(\xi i)j\xi .$$

Then $`\iota `$ is injective and $`d\mu `$ is surjective, and the tangent bundle of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is identified with $`\mathrm{Ker}d\mu /\mathrm{Im}\iota `$.

Let $`𝔐_0𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mu ^1(0)//G_V,`$ where $`//`$ is the affine algebro-geometric quotient, i.e., the coordinate ring of $`\mu ^1(0)//G_V`$ is $`G_V`$-invariant polynomials on $`\mu ^1(0)`$. It is an affine algebraic variety, and identified with the set of closed $`G_V`$-orbits in $`\mu ^1(0)`$ as a set.

There exists a projective morphism $`\pi :𝔐𝔐_0,`$ sending $`[B,i,j]`$ to the unique closed orbit contained in the closure of the orbit $`G_V(B,i,j)`$.

Let $`𝔏𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\pi ^1(0)`$. It is a lagrangian subvariety in $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$.

If $`𝐯^{}𝐯Q^+`$, then $`𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ can be identified with a closed subvariety of $`𝔐_0(𝐯^{},𝐰)`$. We consider the direct limit $`𝔐_0(\mathrm{},𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_𝐯𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$. If the graph is of finite type, $`𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ stabilizes at some $`𝐯`$. This is not true in general. However, it has no harm in this paper. We use $`𝔐_0(\mathrm{},𝐰)`$ to simplify the notation, and do not need any structures on it. We can always work on individual $`𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$, not on $`𝔐_0(\mathrm{},𝐰)`$.

We set $`𝔐(𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_𝐯𝔐(𝐯,𝐰),`$ $`𝔏(𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_𝐯𝔏(𝐯,𝐰).`$ They may have infinitely many components, but ho harm as above.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐯,𝐰)`$ denote the diagonal in $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$. It is a lagrangian subvariety, if we endow a symplectic form $`\omega \times (\omega )`$ on $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$.

For $`n_{>0}`$, we define $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ by

(2.9)
$$𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{(B,i,j,S)(B,i,j)𝐌(V,W)\text{}SV\text{ as below}\}/G_V,$$

1. $`(B,i,j)\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}`$,
2. $`S`$ is a $`B`$-invariant subspace containing the image of $`i`$ with $`dimS=𝐯n\alpha _k`$.

When $`n=1`$, we simply denote it by $`𝔓_k(𝐯,𝐰)`$. If we set $`𝐯^{}=𝐯n\alpha _k`$, we have a natural morphism $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ by

$`[B,i,j,S]([B^{},i^{},j^{}],[B,i,j]),`$
$`\text{where }(B^{},i^{},j^{})\text{ is the restriction of }(B,i,j)\text{ to }S.`$
Then $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is a nonsingular closed lagrangian subvariety in $`𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ (\[32, 11.2.3\]). The quotient $`V/V^{}`$ defines a rank $`n`$ vector bundle over $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$.

Let $`G_W=_{kI}\mathrm{GL}(W_k)`$. It acts naturally on $`𝐌`$, $`𝔐`$ and $`𝔐_0`$. We define $`^{}`$-actions on $`𝔐`$ and $`𝔐_0`$ by

$$B_ht^{m(h)+1}B_h,iti,jtj(t^{}),$$

where $`m:H`$ is a certain function determined by a numbering on edges joining common vertices (see \[32, 2.7\]). When the root datum is simply-laced, i.e., symmetric and $`(\alpha _k,\alpha _l)\{0,1\}`$ for $`kl`$, we have $`m0`$. We denote this action by $`(B,i,j)g(B,i,j)`$ or $`[B,i,j]g[B,i,j]`$ for $`gG_W\times ^{}`$. The vector bundles $`V`$, $`W`$, $`\mathrm{E}(V,V)`$, $`\mathrm{L}(W,V)`$, $`\mathrm{L}(V,W)`$ are $`G_W\times ^{}`$-equivariant bundles, and $`B`$, $`i`$, $`j`$ are equivariant sections.

Let $`L(m)`$ be the $`1`$-dimensional $`^{}`$-module defined by $`tt^m`$ for $`m`$. For a $`^{}`$-module $`V`$, $`L(m)V`$ is denoted by $`q^mV`$. That is $`L(1)`$ is identified with $`q`$.

We consider the following $`G_W\times ^{}`$-equivariant complex $`C_k^{}`$ over $`𝔐`$:

(2.10)
$$C_k^{}C_k^{}(𝐯,𝐰):\begin{array}{ccccc}q^1V_k& \stackrel{\sigma _k}{}& \underset{l:kl}{}[h_k,\alpha _l]_qV_lW_k& \stackrel{\tau _k}{}& qV_k,\end{array}$$

where

$$\sigma _k=\underset{\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}B_{\overline{h}}j_k,\tau _k=\underset{\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}\epsilon (h)B_h+i_k.$$

We assign degree $`0`$ to the middle term.

Let $`Q_k(𝐯,𝐰)`$ the degree $`0`$ cohomology of the complex (2.10), i.e.,

$$Q_k(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k.$$

We introduce the following subsets of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$:

(2.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\right|\mathrm{codim}_{V_k}\mathrm{Im}\tau _k=n\}\\ 𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{mn}{}𝔐_{k;m}(𝐯,𝐰),𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{mn}{}𝔐_{k;m}(𝐯,𝐰).\end{array}$$

Since $`𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is an open subset of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$, $`𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is a locally closed subvariety. The restriction of $`Q_k(𝐯,𝐰)`$ to $`𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is a $`G_W\times ^{}`$-equivariant vector bundle of rank $`h_k,𝐰𝐯+n`$.

Replacing $`V_k`$ by $`\mathrm{Im}\tau _k`$, we have a natural map

(2.12)
$$p:𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰).$$

Note that the projection $`\pi :𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ factors through $`p`$. In particular, the fiber of $`\pi `$ is preserved under $`p`$.

###### Proposition 2.13.

Let $`G(n,Q_k(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)|_{𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)})`$ be the Grassmann bundle of $`n`$-planes in the vector bundle obtained by restricting $`Q_k(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)`$ to $`𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)`$. Then we have the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(n,Q_k(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)|_{𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)})& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}& 𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\\ & & & & \\ 𝔐_{k;n}(𝐯,𝐰)& \stackrel{p}{}& 𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the natural projection. The kernel of the natural surjective homomorphism $`p^{}Q_k(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)Q_k(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is isomorphic to the tautological vector bundle of the Grassmann bundle of the first row.

The following formula will play an important role later.

(2.14)
$$dim\text{fiber of }p=n(h_k,𝐰𝐯+n)=\frac{1}{2}\left(dim𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)dim𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\right).$$

## 3. Varieties $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and their equivariant $`K`$-theories

The main body of this article starts from this section. For the sake of space, we only consider the case of tensor products of two modules. The arguments can be generalized to the case of $`N`$ modules in a straightforward way. We will mention in §7.

Let $`𝐰,𝐰^1,𝐰^2P^+`$ be dominant weights such that $`𝐰=𝐰^1+𝐰^2`$. These will be fixed until §7.

Let us fix a direct sum decomposition $`W=W^1W^2`$ of $`I`$-graded vector spaces with $`h_k,𝐰^1=dimW_k^1`$, $`h_k,𝐰^2=dimW_k^2`$. Set $`G_{W^1}=_k\mathrm{GL}(W_k^1)`$, $`G_{W^2}=_k\mathrm{GL}(W_k^2)`$.

We define a three-term sequence of vector bundles over $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ by

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^2)\stackrel{\alpha ^{21}}{}\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^2)q\mathrm{L}(V^1,W^2)\stackrel{\beta ^{21}}{}\mathrm{L}(V^1,V^2),$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha ^{21}(\xi )& =(B^2\xi \xi B^1)(\xi i^1)j^2\xi ,\hfill \\ \hfill \beta ^{21}(CIJ)& =\epsilon B^2C+\epsilon CB^1+i^2J+Ij^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is a complex, that is $`\beta ^{21}\alpha ^{21}=0`$, thanks to the equation $`\epsilon B^pB^p+i^pj^p=0`$ ($`p=1,2`$). It is $`^{}\times G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}`$-equivariant.

By the same argument as in \[30, 3.10\], $`\alpha ^{21}`$ is injective and $`\beta ^{21}`$ is surjective. Thus the quotient $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$ is a vector bundle over $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ with rank $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^2)+(𝐰^1,𝐯^2)(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)`$.

We define a one parameter subgroup $`\lambda :^{}G_W`$ by

$$\lambda (t)=\mathrm{id}_{W^1}t\mathrm{id}_{W^2}G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}G_W.$$

###### Lemma 3.2.

The fixed point set of $`\lambda (^{})`$ in $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is isomorphic to $`_{𝐯^1+𝐯^2=𝐯}𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$.

###### Proof.

A point $`[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is fixed by $`\lambda (^{})`$ if and only if there exists a one parameter subgroup $`\rho :^{}G_V`$ such that

$$\lambda (t)(B,i,j)=\rho (t)^1(B,i,j).$$

Let $`V^1`$ (resp. $`V^2`$) be the eigenspace of $`V`$ with eigenvalue $`1`$ (resp. $`t`$). Let $`V^{}`$ be the sum of other eigenspaces. The above equation implies that

1. $`B(V^1)V^1`$, $`B(V^2)V^2`$, $`B(V^{})V^{}`$,
2. $`i(W^1)V^1`$, $`i(W^2)V^2`$,
3. $`j(V^1)W^1`$, $`j(V^2)W^2`$, $`j(V^{})=0`$.

The stability condition implies that $`V^{}=0`$. Thus we have $`V=V^1V^2`$, and $`[B,i,j]`$ decomposes into a sum $`[B^1,i^1,j^1]𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)`$ and $`[B^2,i^2,j^2]𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$, where $`𝐯^1=dimV^1`$, $`𝐯^2=dimV^2`$.

Conversely $`([B^1,i^1,j^1],[B^2,i^2,j^2])𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ defines a fixed point. Thus we have a surjective morphism

$$\underset{𝐯^1+𝐯^2=𝐯}{}𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)^{\lambda (^{})}.$$

By the freeness of the $`G_V`$-action on $`\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}`$, this is injective.

Let us identify the tangent bundle of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ with $`\mathrm{Ker}d\mu /\mathrm{Im}\iota `$ in (2.8). Its restriction to the fixed point set $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ decomposes as

$$\left(\mathrm{Ker}d\mu ^1/\mathrm{Im}\iota ^1\right)\left(\mathrm{Ker}d\mu ^2/\mathrm{Im}\iota ^2\right)\left(\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}\right)\left(\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{12}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{12}\right),$$

where $`\iota ^p`$, $`d\mu ^p`$ are as in (2.8) with $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ replaced by $`𝔐(𝐯^p,𝐰^p)`$ ($`p=1,2`$), $`\alpha ^{21}`$, $`\beta ^{21}`$ are as above, and $`\alpha ^{12}`$, $`\beta ^{12}`$ are defined by exchanging the role of $`V^1`$, $`W^1`$ and $`V^2`$, $`W^2`$. We let $`\lambda (^{})`$ acts on $`V^1`$ (resp. $`V^2`$) with weight $`0`$ (resp. $`1`$). Then this identification respects the $`\lambda (^{})`$-action. Thus the tangent space of the fixed point component, which is the $`0`$-weight space of the whole tangent space, is identified with $`\left(\mathrm{Ker}d\mu ^1/\mathrm{Im}\iota ^1\right)\left(\mathrm{Ker}d\mu ^2/\mathrm{Im}\iota ^2\right)`$. It is isomorphic to the tangent space of $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. Therefore the map is isomorphism. ∎

We move all $`𝐯`$, $`𝐯^1`$, $`𝐯^2`$. We get

$$𝔐(𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐰^2)𝔐(𝐰)^{\lambda (^{})}.$$

There are a natural $`R(G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{})`$-homomorphism

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}:K^{G_{W^1}\times ^{}}(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1))_{R(^{})}K^{G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2))(E,F)\hfill \\ \hfill EFK^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2))\end{array}$$

and a similar homomorphisms for $`𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)`$ and $`𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. We call them Künneth homomorphisms.

###### Theorem 3.4.

The two Künneth homomorphisms are isomorphisms. If $`A`$ is an abelian reductive subgroup of $`G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}`$, the same holds for the fixed point set $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)^A\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)^A`$, $`𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)^A\times 𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)^A`$.

###### Proof.

In \[32, §7\], the following was shown: varieties $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$, $`𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)`$ and fixed point sets have $`\alpha `$-partitions (see \[loc. cit., 7.1\] for definition) such that each piece is an affine space bundle over a nonsingular projective manifold, which is a locally equivariant vector bundle. Moreover, each base manifold has a decomposable diagonal class as in \[loc. cit., 7.2.1\].

Note that Künneth homomorphisms are defined for arbitary varieties, and have obvious functorial properties. By the arguments in \[loc. cit., §7.1\], it is enough to show that the Künneth homomorphism is an isomorphism for each base manifold. By the proof of \[loc. cit., 7.2.1\], each base manifold has this property. ∎

Let us define subsets of $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ by

$$(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|lim_{t0}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]\text{ exists}\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]𝔏(𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐰^2)\}.$$

We use the symbol $`(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)`$ when we want to emphasize the dimensions. These subsets are invariant under the action of $`G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}`$.

Since $`\pi :𝔐(𝐰)𝔐_0(𝐰)`$ is a projective morphism, the following is clear.

###### Lemma 3.5.

We have

$$=\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|lim_{t0}\lambda (t)\pi ([B,i,j])\text{ exists}\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda (t)\pi ([B,i,j])=0\}.$$

In particular, $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are $`\pi `$-saturated, i.e., $`\pi ^1(\pi ())=`$, $`\pi ^1(\pi (\stackrel{~}{}))=\stackrel{~}{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.6.

$``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are closed subvarieties of $`𝔐(𝐰)`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that $`\pi ()`$ is a closed subvariety of $`𝔐_0(\mathrm{},𝐰)`$. By \[21, 1.3\] the coordinate ring $`𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ (the ring of $`G_V`$-invariant polynomials in $`\mu ^1(0)𝐌(V,W)`$) is generated by the following two types of functions:

1. $`\mathrm{tr}(B_{h_N}B_{h_{N1}}\mathrm{}B_{h_1}:V_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}V_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)})`$, where $`h_1`$, …, $`h_N`$ is a cycle in our graph, i.e., $`\mathrm{in}(h_1)=\mathrm{out}(h_2)`$, $`\mathrm{in}(h_2)=\mathrm{out}(h_3)`$, …, $`\mathrm{in}(h_{N1})=\mathrm{out}(h_N)`$, $`\mathrm{in}(h_N)=\mathrm{out}(h_1)`$.
2. $`\chi (j_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}B_{h_N}B_{h_{N1}}\mathrm{}B_{h_1}i_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)})`$, where $`h_1`$, …, $`h_N`$ is a path in our graph, i.e., $`\mathrm{in}(h_1)=\mathrm{out}(h_2)`$, $`\mathrm{in}(h_2)=\mathrm{out}(h_3)`$, …, $`\mathrm{in}(h_{N1})=\mathrm{out}(h_N)`$, and $`\chi `$ is a linear form on $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)},W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)})`$.

Functions of the first type are invariant under the $`\lambda (^{})`$-action. Functions of the second type are of weight $`1`$, $`1`$, $`0`$ if $`\chi `$ is the extension (by $`0`$) of a linear form of $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^1,W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^2)`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^2,W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^1)`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^1,W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^1)\mathrm{Hom}(W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^1,W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^2)`$ respectively.

Thus $`[B,i,j]𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is contained in $`\pi ()`$ if and only if $`j_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}B_{h_N}B_{h_{N1}}\mathrm{}B_{h_1}i_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}`$ maps $`W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^2`$ into $`W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^2`$ for any path $`h_1`$, …, $`h_N`$. Similarly $`[B,i,j]𝔐_0(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is contained in $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{})`$ if and only if functions of the first type vanishes, and $`j_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}B_{h_N}B_{h_{N1}}\mathrm{}B_{h_1}i_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}`$ maps $`W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^2`$ into $`0`$, and $`W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}^1`$ to $`W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}^2`$ for any path $`h_1`$, …, $`h_N`$. Now the assertions are clear from these descriptions. ∎

The limit $`lim_{t0}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]`$ must be contained in the fixed point set $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\lambda (^{})}`$ if it exists. Thus we have the decomposition

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (𝐰^1;𝐰^2)=\underset{𝐯^1,𝐯^2}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2),\hfill \\ & \text{where }(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly we have $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)=_{𝐯^1,𝐯^2}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ defined exactly in the same way. These are the Bialynicki-Birula decomposition of $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Thus we have

###### Proposition 3.7.

(1) $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ are nonsingular locally closed subvarieties of $`𝔐(𝐯^1+𝐯^2,𝐰^1+𝐰^2)`$.

(2) The map

$$(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)[B,i,j]\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)$$

identifies $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ with a fiber bundle over $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$, where the fiber over $`([B^1,i^1,j^1],[B^2,i^2,j^2])`$ is isomorphic to the affine space given by the direct sum of eigenspaces with positive weights in the tangent space $`T_{([B^1,i^1,j^1],[B^2,i^2,j^2])}𝔐(𝐯^1+𝐯^2,𝐰^1+𝐰^2)`$. Similarly the map $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ is a fiber bundle with the same fiber. Both fiber bundles are locally $`G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}`$-equivariant vector bundles.

(3) There exists an ordering $`<`$ on the set $`\{(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)𝐯^1+𝐯^2=𝐯\}`$ (the set of components of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)^{\lambda (^{})}`$) such that

$$\underset{(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2),\left(\text{resp. }\underset{(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)}{}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\right)$$

are closed subvarieties of $``$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) for any fixed $`(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)`$.

See \[32, 7.2.5\]. (The assumption on the properness of the moment map, which does not hold in the present case, was used to ensure that the whole space $`X`$ is a union of $`+`$-attracting sets.)

###### Remark 3.8.

In fact, the order $`<`$ in (3) can be described explicitly. If $`f`$ is the moment map, then

$$(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)<(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)f(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2))>f(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)).$$

With the Kähler metric in , we have

$$f(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2))=\underset{kI}{}\zeta _{}^{(k)}dimV_k^2,$$

where $`\zeta _{}^{(k)}_{>0}`$ ($`kI`$) are parameter for the Kähler metric. The ordering $`<`$ is independent of the metric, so we can move the parameters. Therefore we may assume $`(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)`$ if and only if $`dimV_k^2dimV_k^2`$ for all $`kI`$. In particular, $`(0,𝐯)`$ is a minimal element if $`𝔐(0,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ is nonempty. Thus $`(0,𝐰^1;𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}(0,𝐰^1;𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ are (nonsingular) closed subvarieties. These are analogue of $`_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ in \[23, 7.10\], and will play an important role later.

Proposition 3.7 has the following corollary.

###### Theorem 3.9.

(1) Both $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ satisfy the properties $`(S)`$ and $`(T_{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}})`$. (See \[32, §7.1\] for the definition.)

(2) We have an exact sequence

$$0K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(_{(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)})K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}()K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(_{(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)})0,$$

where $`_{(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_{(𝐯^1,𝐯^2)(𝐯_0^1,𝐯_0^2)}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. The same holds if we replace $``$ by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

(3) The direct image maps

$$K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(𝔏(𝐰))K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{})K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}()K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(𝔐(𝐰))$$

(induced by the the inclusions $`𝔏(𝐰)\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐰)`$) are injective. All four modules are free of the same rank.

###### Proof.

(Compare \[23, 6.17\].) (1)(2) The assertion follows from Proposition 3.7 and results in \[32, §7\].

(3) We replace the group $`G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}`$ by its maximal torus $`H_{𝐰^1}\times H_{𝐰^2}\times ^{}`$. If we tensor the fraction field of $`R(H_{𝐰^1}\times H_{𝐰^2}\times ^{})`$ to the above homorphisms, it becomes isomorphisms by  since the $`H_{𝐰^1}\times H_{𝐰^2}\times ^{}`$-fixed points are the same on all four varieties. Then the assertion for the torus follows from the freeness ((1) and \[32, 7.3.5\]) of modules. Taking the Weyl group invariant part, we get the assertion. ∎

Let $`(𝐰^2;𝐰^1)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^2;𝐰^1)`$ denote the varieties exactly as above except that the role of $`W^1`$ and $`W^2`$ are exchanged. By the description in the proof of Lemma 3.6, the intersection $`(𝐰^2;𝐰^1)\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)`$ is equal to $`𝔏(𝐰)`$. In particular, we can define a bilinear pairing by

(3.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}((𝐰^2;𝐰^1))\times K^{G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2))(F,F^{})\hfill \\ \hfill p_{}(F_{𝔐(𝐰)}^LF^{})R(G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times ^{}),\end{array}$$

where $`p:𝔏(𝐰)\text{point}`$ is the projection to the point. A pairing

(3.11)
$$H_{}((𝐰^2;𝐰^1),)\times H_{}(\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2),)$$

can be defined in a similar way.

###### Theorem 3.12.

Pairings (3.10), (3.11) are nondegenerate.

The proof is the same as that in \[32, §7\].

We need more precise description of the projection $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ later. By the description of the tangent bundle in the proof of Lemma 3.2, the fiber of the projection is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$, the cohomology of the complex (3.1).

Fix representatives $`(B^1,i^1,j^1)`$, $`(B^2,i^2,j^2)`$ of a point in $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. We take $`(C,I,J)\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}`$. We define a data $`(B,i,j)`$ in $`𝐌(V,W)`$ so that its components in $`𝐌(V^1,W^1)`$, $`𝐌(V^2,W^2)`$, $`\mathrm{E}(V^1,V^2)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^2)\mathrm{L}(V^1,W^2)`$ are given by $`(B^1,i^1,j^1)`$, $`(B^2,i^2,j^2)`$, $`(C,I,J)`$ respectively. Then it satisfies $`\epsilon BB+ij=0`$. We claim that $`(B,i,j)`$ is stable: Suppose that $`S`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{Ker}j`$ and invariant under $`B`$. Under the projection $`V^1V^2V^1`$, the subspace $`S`$ define a subspace $`S^1V^1`$ which is contained in $`\mathrm{Ker}j^1`$ and invariant under $`B^1`$. By the stability condition for $`(B^1,i^1,j^1)`$, we have $`S^1=0`$. Therefore $`SV^2`$. Now the stability condition for $`(B^2,i^2,j^2)`$ implies that $`S=0`$. Thus we have a morphism $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}\mu ^1(0)^\mathrm{s}`$. If $`(C,I,J)(C^{},I^{},J^{})\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$, corresponding two data are in the same $`G_V`$-orbit. Thus we have a morphism $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. (The left hand side is the total space of the vector bundle.)

###### Proposition 3.13.

The morphism

$$\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)$$

is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

The morphism is equivariant under the $`\lambda (^{})`$-action. Thus it is enough to check the assertion in a neighbourhood of $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. The tangent bundles of these varieties, restricted to $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$, are both given by

$$\left(\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}\right)T\left(𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\right),$$

and the differential of the morphism is the identity. Hence we have the assertion. ∎

We also have an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}|_{𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^2)\times 𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰)}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2),$$

where the left hand side is the total space of the restriction of the vector bundle.

###### Proposition 3.14.

(1) The set of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is naturally identified with the sets of irreducible components of $`𝔏(𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐰^2)`$.

(2) $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a lagrangian subvariety of $`𝔐(𝐰)`$. More precisely, $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is a lagrangian subvariety of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ for each $`𝐯`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is a finite union $`_{𝐯^1+𝐯^2=𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. Hence both assertions will follow if we show that $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ is a lagrangian subvariety.

Let $`\rho :\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ be the projection in Proposition 3.7(2). By Proposition 3.13, we have the following exact sequence of vector bundles over $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$:

$$0\rho ^{}\left(\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}\right)T\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\rho ^{}\left(T𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)T𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\right)0.$$

(More precisely, we must restrict to the inverse image of the nonsingular locus of $`𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$.) By the definition of $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$, we have

$$\omega (\rho ^{}\left(\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}\right),T\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2))=0,$$

and the induced bilinear form on $`\rho ^{}\left(T𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)T𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)\right)`$ coincides with one induced from the symplectic form on $`𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$. Since $`𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)`$, $`𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ are lagrangian, the latter vanishes.

It is also clear that the dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^2;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ is half of that of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$. Just note that $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$ and $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$ are dual to each other with respect to the symplectic form. ∎

###### Remark 3.15.

By , $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ can be identified with a framed moduli space of holomorphic vector bundles on an ALE space, when the graph of type $`ADE`$, where $`𝐯`$, $`𝐰`$ correspond to the Chern class and the framing. We have the following geometric description:

$$(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)=\{\text{an exact sequence }0E^2EE^10\},$$

where $`E^1`$ (resp. $`E^2`$) has the Chern class and the framing corresponding to $`𝐯^1`$, $`𝐰^1`$ (resp. $`𝐯^2`$, $`𝐰^2`$). Here the exact sequence is suppose to respect the framing. The inclusion $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is $`(0E^2EE^10)E`$, and the projection $`(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)𝔐(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ is $`(0E^2EE^10)(E^1,E^2)`$. The fiber over $`(E^1,E^2)`$ is the extension group $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(E^2,E^1)`$ (for the framed vector bundle). This is nothing but $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$. The duality between $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{21}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{21}`$ and $`\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{12}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{12}`$ is nothing but the Serre duality $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(E^2,E^1)^{}\mathrm{Ext}^1(E^1,E^2)`$, where the canonical bundle of the ALE space is trivial.

## 4. Crystal structure

Let $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ be the set of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. It is a disjoint union of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ for various $`𝐯`$.

We define $`\mathrm{wt}:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}P`$ by setting

$$\mathrm{wt}(X)=𝐰𝐯$$

if $`X`$ is an irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$.

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Taking a generic element $`[B,i,j]X`$, we define

$$\epsilon _k(X)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}dim\left(V_k/\mathrm{Im}\tau _k\right).$$

It defines a function $`\epsilon _k:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}_0`$. We define $`\phi _k:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}_0`$ by

$$\phi _k(X)=\epsilon _k(X)+h_k,\mathrm{wt}(X).$$

We set $`\mathrm{wt}_k(X)=h_k,\mathrm{wt}(X)`$ as before. We have

$$dim\left(\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k\right)=\phi _k(X).$$

Suppose $`\epsilon _k(X)>0`$ and $`\mathrm{wt}X=𝐰𝐯`$. Then we have Grassmann bundles

$$p:𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)}(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯\epsilon _k(X)\alpha _k,𝐰),$$

$$p^{}:𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)1}(𝐯\alpha _k,𝐰)𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯\epsilon _k(X)\alpha _k,𝐰).$$

We define an irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯\alpha _k,𝐰)`$ by

$$X^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\overline{p^1(p(X𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)}(𝐯,𝐰))}.$$

In fact,

1. Since $`\pi `$ factors through $`p`$, $`p^1(p(X𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)}(𝐯,𝐰))`$ is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ by Lemma 3.5.
2. We have $`dimp^1(p(X𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)}(𝐯,𝐰))=\frac{1}{2}dim𝔐(𝐯\alpha _k,𝐰)`$ by (2.14).

Thus $`X^{}`$ is an irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯\alpha _k,𝐰)`$. We define an operator $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}\{0\}`$ by

(4.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{e}_k(X)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}X^{}\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon _k(X)>0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly if $`\phi _k(X)>0`$, we consider a Grassmann bundle

$$p^{\prime \prime }:𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)+1}(𝐯+\alpha _k,𝐰)𝔐_{k;0}(𝐯\epsilon _k(X)\alpha _k,𝐰),$$

and define

$$X^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\overline{p^{\prime \prime 1}(p(X𝔐_{k;\epsilon _k(X)}(𝐯,𝐰))}.$$

(Note that $`Q_k(𝐯\epsilon _k(X)\alpha _k,𝐰)`$ is a vector bundle of rank $`\mathrm{wt}_k(X)+2\epsilon _k(X)=\epsilon _k(X)+\phi _k(X)`$. So the Grassmann bundle $`p^{\prime \prime }`$ is nonempty by the assumption $`\phi _k(X)>0`$.) We define an operator $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}\{0\}`$ by

(4.2)
$$\stackrel{~}{f}_k(X)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}X^{\prime \prime }\hfill & \text{if }\phi _k(X)>0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the following is clear.

###### Proposition 4.3.

$`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ together with $`\mathrm{wt}`$, $`\epsilon _k`$, $`\phi _k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$ is a normal crystal.

###### Lemma 4.4.

$`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is generated by the subset $`\{X\epsilon _k(X)=0\text{ for all }kI\}`$ as a crystal.

###### Proof.

If $`\epsilon _{k_1}(X)>0`$ for some $`k_1`$, then we have $`X=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_1}\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_1}(X)`$. If $`\epsilon _{k_2}(\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_1}(X))>0`$, then $`X=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_1}(\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_2}\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_1}X)`$. We continue this procedure successively. Since the total sum $`_kdimV_k`$ of dimensions decreases under this, it will eventually stop at $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_N}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_1}X`$ with $`\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_N}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{k_1}X)=0`$ for all $`kI`$. ∎

Let $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ be the set of irreducible components of $`𝔏(𝐰)`$. It is a disjoint union of the set of irreducible components of $`𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)`$ for various $`𝐯`$. Since $`𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ and both have dimension $`=\frac{1}{2}dim𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$, we have an inclusion

$$\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}.$$

We restrict the maps $`\mathrm{wt}`$, $`\epsilon _k`$, $`\phi _k`$ to $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$. Moreover, it is clear that if $`X\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k(X)0`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k(X)0`$), then $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k(X)\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k(X)\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$). Thus $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ inherits the structure of the crystal from that of $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$. In fact, this crystal structure on $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ was introduced in , and our definition here is a straightforward modification. The crystal structure in \[loc. cit.\] was motivated by a similar construction by Lusztig .

Note that $`𝔐(0,𝐰)`$ consists of a single point. So $`𝔏(0,𝐰)=\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2)𝔐(0,𝐰)=𝔐(0,𝐰)`$. Let $`[0]_𝐰`$ denote this point considered as an irreducible component of $`𝔏(𝐰)`$.

###### Proposition 4.5.

$`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ is a highest weight normal crystal, which is the strictly embedded crystal of $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ generated by $`[0]_𝐰`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.4 $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ is generated by $`\{X\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)\epsilon _k(X)=0\text{ for all }k\}`$. But this set consists of the single element $`[0]_𝐰`$ as shown in the proof of \[30, 7.2\]. ∎

By Proposition 3.14, we have a natural bijection between sets

$$\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\times \mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}.$$

Hereafter these two sets are identified and their element is denoted by $`X^1X^2`$ for $`X^1\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)`$, $`X^2\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)`$. We have

$$\mathrm{wt}(X^1X^2)=𝐰𝐯=𝐰^1𝐯^1+𝐰^2𝐯^2=\mathrm{wt}(X^1)+\mathrm{wt}(X^2),$$

if $`X^1`$ (resp. $`X^2`$) is an irreducible component of $`𝔏(𝐯^1,𝐰^1)`$ (resp. $`𝔏(𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$). Thus we have (1.9a).

The following is one of the main results in this article.

###### Theorem 4.6.

The crystal $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)`$ as a crystal.

Together with Proposition 4.5, this theorem implies that $`\{\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)𝐰P^+\}`$ is a closed family of highest weight normal crystals. By Proposition 1.14 we have

###### Corollary 4.7.

$`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)`$ is isomorphic to $`(𝐰)`$ as a crystal for any $`𝐰P^+`$.

The proof of Theorem 4.6 occupies the rest of this section. A completely different proof of Corollary 4.7 will be given in §8.

Let $`X^1X^2\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$. Take a generic element $`[B,i,j]`$ in $`X^1X^2`$. By Proposition 3.13 there exists a direct sum decomposition $`V=V^1V^2`$ such that

1. $`V^2`$ is invariant under $`B`$ and satisfies $`j(W^2)V^2`$, $`i(V^2)W^2`$.
2. The data obtained by the restriction of $`[B,i,j]`$ to $`V^2`$, $`W^2`$ (well-defined thanks to (a)) is contained in $`X^2`$.
3. The data induced on $`V^1=V/V^2`$, $`W^1=W/W^2`$ from $`[B,i,j]`$ (well-defined thanks to (a)) is contained in $`X^1`$.

In particular, the homomorphisms $`\sigma _k`$, $`\tau _k`$ decompose into the following three parts:

$`\sigma _k^1:V_k^1{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1W_k^1,`$ $`\tau _k^1:{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1W_k^1V_k^1,`$
$`\sigma _k^{21}:V_k^1{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^2W_k^2,`$ $`\tau _k^{21}:{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1W_k^1V_k^2,`$
$`\sigma _k^2:V_k^2{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^2W_k^2,`$ $`\tau _k^2:{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^2W_k^2V_k^2.`$
The equation $`\tau _k\sigma _k=0`$ is equivalent to $`\tau _k^1\sigma _k^1=0`$, $`\tau _k^2\sigma _k^2=0`$, $`\tau _k^{21}\sigma _k^1+\tau _k^2\sigma _k^{21}=0`$. In particular, $`\tau _k^{21}`$ induces a homomorphism $`_{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1W_k^1/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^1V_k^2/\mathrm{Im}\tau _k`$. Let $`\overline{\tau _k^{21}}:\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^1V_k^2/\mathrm{Im}\tau _k^2`$ be its restriction.

The inclusion $`V_k^2V_k^1V_k^2`$ induces a homomorphism

$$\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^2\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k.$$

The projection $`V_k^1V_k^2V_k^1`$ induces a homomorphism

$$\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}.$$

Combining these, we have a three-term sequence of vector bundles:

(4.8)
$$0\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^2\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}0.$$

###### Lemma 4.9.

(4.8) is an exact sequence. (This holds any $`[B,i,j]`$, not necessarily generic.)

###### Proof.

By the definition, it is clear that the composite of homomorphisms is $`0`$. The exactness at the middle and the right terms are clear. We now prove the exactness at the left term.

Suppose that $`x\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2`$, considered as an element of $`\left(_{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^1W_k^2\right)\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2`$, is equal to $`\sigma _k(y)`$ for some $`y=y^1y^2V_k^1V_k^2`$. Since we have $`\sigma _k^1(y^1)=0`$, the injectivity of $`\sigma _k^1`$ implies that $`y^1=0`$. Then $`\sigma _k(y)=x`$ implies that $`\sigma _k(y^2)=x`$. Thus we get the exactness. ∎

###### Lemma 4.10.

Suppose $`\epsilon _k(X^1X^2)=0`$. Then

(1) $`\epsilon _k(X^1)=0`$, $`dim\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}=\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)\epsilon _k(X^2)`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)\epsilon _k(X^2)`$.

(2) We have

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}(X^1X^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}X^1X^2\hfill & \text{if }r\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)\epsilon _k(X^2),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)\epsilon _k(X^2)}X^1\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)+\epsilon _k(X^2)}X^2\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

(1) By the assumption, $`\tau _k`$ is surjective. It is true if and only if the following two statements hold:

1. $`\tau _k^1`$ is surjective,
2. $`\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1{\displaystyle \underset{h:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^2W_k^2\stackrel{[\tau _k^{21}|_{\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1}\tau _k^2]}{}V_k^2`$ is surjective.

Then the second statement is equivalent to

* The homomorphism $`\overline{\tau _k^{21}}`$ is surjective.

By (a) we have $`\epsilon _k(X^1)=0`$. Therefore $`dim\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^1=\phi _k(X^1)=\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)`$. By (b’) we have $`dim\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}=\mathrm{wt}_k(X^1)\epsilon _k(X^2).`$

(2) A subspace $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k`$ defines subspaces $`S^1`$ of $`\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}`$ and $`S^2`$ of $`\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^2`$ with an exact sequence $`0S^2SS^10`$. For a generic $`S`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& dimS^1=\mathrm{min}(dimS,dim\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}),\hfill \\ & dimS^2=\mathrm{max}(0,dimSdim\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we have the assertion. ∎

Now Theorem 4.6 follows from the following elementary lemma.

###### Lemma 4.11.

Let $`_1`$, $`_2`$ be normal crystals. Suppose that $`_1\times _2`$ has a structure of a normal crystal such that

1. (1.9a) holds for any $`b_1b_2`$.
2. If $`\epsilon _k(b_1b_2)=0`$, then we have (1.9b),(1.9d) and

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}(b_1b_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}b_1b_2\hfill & \text{if }r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)\epsilon _k(b_2),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)\epsilon _k(b_2)}b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)+\epsilon _k(b_2)}b_2\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

(We denote $`(b_1,b_2)`$ by $`b_1b_2`$.) Then the crystal structure coincides with that of the tensor product.

###### Proof.

Take $`b_1b_2_1\times _2`$ with $`\epsilon _k(b_1b_2)=r`$. Then we have $`b_1b_2=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}(b_1^{}b_2^{})`$ for some $`b_1^{}b_2^{}_1\times _2`$. We have $`\epsilon _k(b_1^{}b_2^{})=0`$. Hence the condition (b) implies

$$\begin{array}{cc}& b_1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}b_1^{}\hfill & \text{if }r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{}),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})}b_1^{}\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & b_2=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_2^{}\hfill & \text{if }r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{}),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})+\epsilon _k(X^2)}b_2^{}\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

First consider the case $`r<\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})`$. Then we have

(4.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _k(b_1)=r,\epsilon _k(b_2)=\epsilon _k(b_2^{}),\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_1b_2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r1}(b_1^{}b_2^{})=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r1}b_1^{}b_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_1b_2,\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_1b_2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r+1}(b_1^{}b_2^{})=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r+1}b_1^{}b_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_1b_2.\end{array}$$

The first two inequalities give us

(4.13)
$$\epsilon _k(b_2)\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)=\epsilon _k(b_2^{})\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})+2r<r=\epsilon _k(b_1),$$

where we have used the assumption in the inequality. Thus we have checked (1.9b),(1.9d),(1.9e) in this case.

Next consider the case $`r=\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})`$. We have (4.12) except that the last line is replaced by

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_1b_2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r+1}(b_1^{}b_2^{})=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}b_1^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_2^{}=b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_2.$$

The inequality (4.13) is replaced by

$$\epsilon _k(b_2)\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)=\epsilon _k(b_1).$$

We also have (1.9b),(1.9d),(1.9e) in this case.

Finally consider the case $`r>\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _k(b_1)=\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{}),\epsilon _k(b_2)=r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})+2\epsilon _k(b_2^{}),\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_k(b_1b_2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r1}(b_1^{}b_2^{})=b_1\stackrel{~}{e}_kb_2,\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_k(b_1b_2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{r+1}(b_1^{}b_2^{})=b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_kb_2.\end{array}$$

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \epsilon _k(b_2)\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1)=r\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})+2\epsilon _k(b_2^{})\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})+2\left(\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& r>\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1^{})\epsilon _k(b_2^{})=\epsilon _k(b_1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used the assumption in the inequality. Thus we have (1.9b),(1.9d),(1.9e) in this case.

We have checked (1.9b),(1.9d),(1.9e) in all cases, and (1.9c) follows from $`\phi _k(b_1b_2)=\epsilon _k(b_1b_2)+\mathrm{wt}_k(b_1b_2)`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.14.

The rule (1.9b) is equivalent to that $`\overline{\tau _k^{21}}`$ is full rank, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{rank}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}=\mathrm{max}(dim(\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^1),dim(V_k^2/\mathrm{Im}\tau _k^2)).$$

###### Remark 4.15.

Saito  proved Corollary 4.7 using the main result of . On the other hand, one can show the main result of  from Corollary 4.7. The detail is left for the reader.

## 5. $`𝔤`$-module structure

Let $`Z(𝐰)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}𝔐(𝐰)\times _{𝔐_0(\mathrm{},𝐰)}𝔐(𝐰)`$. Let $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(Z(𝐰),)`$ be the top degree part of the Borel-Moore homology group of $`Z(𝐰)`$. More precisely, it is the subspace

$$\underset{𝐯,𝐯^{}}{\overset{}{}}H_{dim_{}𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)}(Z(𝐰)𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰),),$$

of the direct products consisting elements $`(F_{𝐯,𝐯^{}})`$ such that

1. for fixed $`𝐯`$, $`F_{𝐯,𝐯^{}}=0`$ for all but finitely many choices of $`𝐯^{}`$,
2. for fixed $`𝐯^{}`$, $`F_{𝐯,𝐯^{}}=0`$ for all but finitely many choices of $`𝐯`$.

By the convolution product (see \[32, §8\]), it is an associative algebra with $`1=_𝐯[\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐯,𝐰)]`$. Let $`\omega :𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)`$ be the flip of the components. By a main result of \[30, §9\], the assignment

$$P^{}h\underset{𝐯}{}h,𝐰𝐯[\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐯,𝐰)]$$

$$e_k\underset{𝐯}{}[𝔓_k(𝐯,𝐰)],f_k\underset{𝐯}{}\pm [\omega \left(𝔓_k(𝐯^{},𝐰)\right)]$$

defines an algebra homomorphism

$$𝐔(𝔤)H_{\mathrm{top}}(Z(𝐰),).$$

Here the sign $`\pm `$ can be explicitly given by $`𝐯`$, $`𝐰`$. But its explicit form is not important for our purpose. (In  the direct sum was used, and $`𝐔(𝔤)`$ was replaced by the modified enveloping algebra.)

Let $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)`$, $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ be the top degree part of the Borel-Moore homology group of $`𝔏(𝐰)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, where ‘the top degree part’ means, as above, the complex dimension of $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$. (The sum is the usual direct sum.) The fundamental classes of irreducible components of $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) give a basis of $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)`$ (resp. $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$). An irreducible component and its fundamental class is identified hereafter. Recall that the inclusion $`𝔏(𝐰)\stackrel{~}{}`$ induces an inclusion $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰)\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$. Hence we have an injection

(5.1)
$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},).$$

Since $`𝔏(𝐰)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are $`\pi `$-saturated (Lemma 3.5), the convolution makes $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ into $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(Z(𝐰),)`$-modules. Moreover, (5.1) is a morphism of $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(Z(𝐰),)`$-modules. Hence they can be considered as $`𝔤`$-modules. By \[30, 10.2\], $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰),)`$ is the simple $`𝔤`$-module with highest weight $`𝐰`$. The highest weight vector is the fundamental class $`[0]_𝐰`$ of $`𝔏(0,𝐰)=𝔐(0,𝐰)=\mathrm{point}`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

$`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ is isomorphic to $`V(𝐰^1)V(𝐰^2)`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module.

###### Proof.

By the argument in \[30, 9.3\], the module $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ is integrable. Since the category of integrable $`𝔤`$-modules is completely reducible, it is enough to show that characters of $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$, and $`V(𝐰^1)V(𝐰^2)`$ are equal. By the definition of $`h`$, we have

$$hX=h,\mathrm{wt}XX\text{for }X\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}.$$

Namely the weight of $`X`$ as crystal is the same as the weight defined by the $`𝔤`$-module structure. Thus Theorem 4.6 and Corollary 4.7 imply the equality of the character.

In fact, we do not need the full power of Theorem 4.6. We only need two things: (1) there exists an isomorphism of sets $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\times \mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{wt}(X^1X^2)=\mathrm{wt}(X^1)+\mathrm{wt}(X^2)`$, and (2) $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^p),)`$ is isomorphic to $`V(𝐰^p)`$ ($`p=1,2`$). Thus our proof follows from Proposition 3.14(1) and . ∎

This theorem is abstract. It is desirable to have a concrete construction of the isomorphism. For example, the isomorphism can be made so that the injective homorphism (5.1) is identified with a homomorphism $`V(𝐰^1+𝐰^2)V(𝐰^1)V(𝐰^2),`$ sending $`b_{𝐰^1+𝐰^2}`$ to $`b_{𝐰^1}b_{𝐰^2}`$, where $`b_\lambda `$ is the highest weight vector of $`V(\lambda )`$. However this condition does not characterize the isomorphism. In the rest of this section, we study $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ further for this desire.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{}(0,𝐰^1;𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ is a (possibly empty) closed subvariety of $`\stackrel{~}{}𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ (Remark 3.8). By Proposition 3.13, it is a vector bundle over $`𝔏(0,𝐰^1)\times 𝔏(𝐯,𝐰^2)𝔏(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}_1(𝐯)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\stackrel{~}{}(0,𝐰^1;𝐯,𝐰^2)`$, $`_1(𝐯)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}(0,𝐰^1;𝐯,𝐰^2)`$, $`_1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_𝐯_1(𝐯)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_𝐯\stackrel{~}{}_1(𝐯)`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`\widehat{𝔓}_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ denote the intersection of $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ and $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\times _1(𝐯)`$ (as submanifolds of $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$). Let $`p`$ (resp. $`p^{}`$) denote the projection $`_1(𝐯)𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ (resp. $`_1(𝐯n\alpha _k)𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)`$).

(1) $`\widehat{𝔓}_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is contained in $`_1(𝐯n\alpha _k)\times _1(𝐯)`$

(2) The restriction of $`\mathrm{id}\times p:_1(𝐯n\alpha _k)\times _1(𝐯)_1(𝐯n\alpha _k)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ to $`\widehat{𝔓}_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ gives an isomorphism

$$\widehat{𝔓}_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)\underset{}{\overset{\mathrm{id}\times p}{}}(p^{}\times \mathrm{id})^1(𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰^2))\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})|_{𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰^2)},$$

where $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ is the Hecke correspondence in $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰^2)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$, and $`V^{}`$ is the pull-back of the tautological vector bundle of the first factor of $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$.

(3) The intersection is transverse.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 3.13, $`_1(𝐯)`$ is the total space of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{L}(W^1,V)`$ over $`𝔐(0,𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)`$ (use $`V^1=0`$, $`V^2=V`$). Then

$$\widehat{𝔓}_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})|_{𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰^2)},$$

where the right hand side is the total space of the restriction of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})`$. Since $`_1(𝐯n\alpha _k)`$ is the total space of $`\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})`$, the statements (1) and (2) are clear.

Let us describe the tangent bundles of submanifolds on the intersection. From now, restrictions or pull-backs of vector bundles are denoted by the same notation as original bundles. The tangent bundle of $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ appears in an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{L}(V^{},W^1)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})\mathrm{L}(V,W^1)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V)\hfill \\ \hfill T𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)T𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)T𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰^2)T𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)0.\end{array}$$

The tangent bundle of $`𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)\times _1(𝐯)`$ appears as

$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{L}(V^{},W^1)\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})\mathrm{L}(W^1,V)\hfill \\ \hfill T𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰)T_1(𝐯)T𝔐(𝐯n\alpha _k,𝐰^2)T𝔐(𝐯,𝐰^2)0.\end{array}$$

The tangent bundle of $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)`$ appears as

$$0\mathrm{L}(W^1,V^{})\mathrm{L}(V,W^1)T𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰)T𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐯,𝐰^2)0.$$

Now the transversality is clear. ∎

Since $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is a vector bundle over $`𝔏(𝐰^2)`$, we have the Thom isomorphism

(5.4)
$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,).$$

Under this isomorphism $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)X`$ is mapped to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}X\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$.

###### Proposition 5.5.

(1) As a $`𝔤`$-module, $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ is generated by its subspace $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)`$.

(2) The subspace $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)`$ is invariant under the action of $`𝐔(𝔤)^+`$, and the Thom isomorphism (5.4) is compatible with the $`𝐔(𝔤)^+`$-module structures.

###### Proof.

(1) The proof of \[30, 10.2\] shows that $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ is generated by elements $`X^1X^2\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}`$ with $`\epsilon _k(X^1X^2)=0`$ for all $`kI`$. By Lemma 4.10(1), we have $`\epsilon _k(X^1)=0`$ for all $`kI`$. As we already used in the proof of Proposition 4.5, this implies that $`X^1`$ is the highest weight vector $`[0]_{𝐰^1}`$. Hence $`X^1X^2`$ is contained in $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)`$.

(2) The first statement follows from Lemma 5.3(1), i.e., $`𝔓_k(𝐰)\left(𝔐(𝐰)\times _1\right)=\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰)_1\times _1`$. The rest of proof is based on the arguement in \[32, §8\]. Let $`i:_1𝔐(𝐰)`$ be the inclusion. By the pull-back with support map with respect to $`\mathrm{id}\times i:𝔐(𝐰)\times _1𝔐(𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐰)`$ (\[32, 6.4\]), we have

$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰),)\stackrel{(\mathrm{id}\times i)^{}}{}H_{\mathrm{top}}(\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰),).$$

By \[32, 8.2.3\] this map is compatible with the convolution product, that is, the following is a commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔓_k(𝐰),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)& & H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)\\ \left(\mathrm{id}\times i\right)^{}\mathrm{id}& & & & \\ H_{\mathrm{top}}(\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)& & H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,),\end{array}$$

where the upper horizontal arrow is the convolution relative to $`𝔐(𝐰)`$, and the lower horizontal arrow is the convolution relative to $`_1`$. Furthermore, Lemma 5.3(3) implies that $`(\mathrm{id}\times i)^{}[𝔓_k(𝐰)]=[\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰)]`$.

By Lemma 5.3(2), we have an isomorphism

$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰),)\underset{}{\overset{\left((p^{}\times \mathrm{id})^{}\right)^1(\mathrm{id}\times p)_{}}{}}H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔓_k(𝐰^2),),$$

where $`(p^{}\times \mathrm{id})^{}`$ is the Thom isomorphism. By \[32, 8.3.5\], it is compatible with the convolution product, that is, the following is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{\mathrm{top}}(\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)& & H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)\\ \left(\left(p^{}\times \mathrm{id}\right)^{}\right)^1\left(\mathrm{id}\times p\right)_{}\left(p^{}\right)^1& & \left(p^{}\right)^1& & \\ H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔓_k(𝐰^2),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)& & H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),),\end{array}$$

where the horizotal arrows are the convolution product relative to $`_1`$ and $`𝔐(𝐰^2)`$, and $`p^{}`$ is the Thom isomorphism (5.4). Moreover we have $`\left((p^{}\times \mathrm{id})^{}\right)^1(\mathrm{id}\times p)_{}[\widehat{𝔓}_k(𝐰)]=[𝔓_k(𝐰^2)]`$ by Lemma 5.3(2). Combining two commutative diagrams, we get the assertion. ∎

###### Conjecture 5.6.

There exists a unique $`𝔤`$-module isomorphism

$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)$$

such that its restriction to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)`$ is (5.4), composed with the inclusion $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$. (The uniqueness is clear from Proposition 5.5(1).)

The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of the conjecture when $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$. When $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$, $`V(𝐰^2)`$ contains the lowest weight vector $`q_{𝐦^2}`$, where $`𝐦^2`$ is the weight of $`q_{𝐦^2}`$. We denote by $`{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ the corresponding element in $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)`$. For a later purpose, we denote by $`[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ the irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, corresponding to the tensor product of $`[0]_{𝐰^1}`$ and $`{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ under the identification $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}=\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)`$.

###### Lemma 5.7.

For each $`kI`$, we have

(5.8a) $`e_k^{h_k,𝐦^2+1}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])=0,`$
(5.8b) $`f_k^{h_k,𝐰^1+1}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])=0,`$
(5.8c) $`h([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])=h,𝐰^1+𝐦^2[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q].`$
###### Proof.

The first equation follows from Proposition 5.5(2) and $`e_k^{h_k,𝐦^2+1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=0`$ (a well-known property of the lowest weight vector). The last equation follows from Theorem 4.6 and the compatibility of weight structures for the crystal and the $`𝔤`$-module.

Let us show (5.8b). Assume that the left hand side is nonzero. Then $`𝔓_k^{(h_k,𝐰^1+1)}(𝐰)`$ intersects with $`p_2^1([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])`$, where $`p_2:𝔐(𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐰)𝔐(𝐰)`$ is the second projection. Take a point $`[B,i,j]`$ in the image under $`p_2`$ of a point in the intersection and consider the exact sequence (4.8). Then $`p_2^1([B,i,j])𝔓_k^{(h_k,𝐰^1+1)}(𝐰)`$ is identified with the Grassmann variety of subspaces $`S`$ in $`\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k`$ with $`dimS=h_k,𝐰^1+1`$ by \[30, 4.5\] or \[32, 5.4.3\].

Since $`𝐦^2`$ is the lowest weight, we have $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=0`$. Therefore,

$$0=\phi _k({}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])=dim(\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^2/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^2).$$

We must be careful with the second equality since it holds only for a generic $`[B,i,j]`$ in general. However, $`𝔐(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2)=𝔏(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2)={}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔐(0,𝐰^2)`$, which is a single point, as seen by the Weyl group symmetry . So the equality holds for our $`[B,i,j]`$. Thus we have $`\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}`$ by the exactness of (4.8). But

$$dim\mathrm{Ker}\overline{\tau _k^{21}}dim\left(\mathrm{Ker}\tau _k^1/\mathrm{Im}\sigma _k^1\right)=dimW_k^1=h_k,𝐰^1.$$

So the Grassmann variety is empty. This contradiction comes from our assumption. Hence we have (5.8b). ∎

###### Theorem 5.9.

There exists a unique $`𝔤`$-module isomorphism $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ sending $`[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$. Moreover, its restriction to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)`$ is (5.4), composed with the inclusion $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$.

###### Proof.

We identify $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)`$ with the tensor product $`V(𝐰^1)V(𝐰^2)`$.

By \[20, 23.3.6\] the assignment $`𝐔(𝔤)uu([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])`$ is a surjective homomorphism $`𝐔(𝔤)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)`$ with kernel

$$\underset{k}{}𝐔(𝔤)f_k^{w_k^1+1}+\underset{k}{}𝐔(𝔤)e_k^{m_k^2+1}.$$

Therefore Lemma 5.7 implies that $`𝐔(𝔤)uu([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])`$ factors through a $`𝔤`$-module homomorphism $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},)`$ sending $`[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$. The uniqueness is clear.

Since $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)=𝐔(𝔤)^+q_{𝐦^2}`$, Proposition 5.5(2) implies

$$H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1,)=𝐔(𝔤)^+([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]).$$

Together with Proposition 5.5(1), we have the surjectivity of the homomorphism.

Now we compare the dimensions of the domain and the target. We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& dimH_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^1),)H_{\mathrm{top}}(𝔏(𝐰^2),)=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^2)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}=dimH_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{},).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the surjective homomorphism must be an isomorphism.

The second statement follows from Proposition 5.5(2). ∎

## 6. $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structure

In this section, we assume $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$.

For $`p=1,2`$, let $`H_{W^p}`$ be a maximal torus of $`G_{W^p}`$. Let $`H=H_{W^1}\times H_{W^2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{W^p}=H_{H^p}\times ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H\times ^{}`$. The representation ring $`R(^{})`$ of $`^{}`$ is $`[q,q^1]`$, where $`q`$ is the class of the canonical $`1`$-dimensional representation of $`^{}`$. Considering $`H`$ as a subgroup of $`G_W`$, we make $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ act on $`𝔐(𝐰)`$. The action preserves $`𝔐(𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐰^2)`$, $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Let $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(Z(𝐰))`$ be the equivariant $`K`$-homology group of $`Z(𝐰)`$. It is an associative $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})R(H)[q,q^1]`$-algebra with unit under the convolution product. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the diagonal embedding $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$. Let $`\iota :𝔓_k(𝐯,𝐰)Z(𝐰)𝔐(𝐯^{},𝐰)\times 𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ denote the inclusion. By , the assignment

$$q^h\underset{𝐯}{}q^{h,𝐰𝐯}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_{𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)},$$

$$\psi _k^\pm (z)\underset{𝐯}{}q^{\mathrm{rank}C_k^{}(𝐯,𝐰)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\left(\frac{_{1/qz}(C_k^{}(𝐯,𝐰))}{_{q/z}(C_k^{}(𝐯,𝐰))}\right)^\pm ,$$

$$e_{k,r}\underset{𝐯}{}\pm \iota _{}\left(q^1V/V^{}\right)^{rs},$$

$$f_{k,r}\underset{𝐯}{}\pm ^{}\omega _{}\iota _{}\left(q^1V/V^{}\right)^{rs^{}}^{}$$

defines an algebra homomorphism

$$𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(Z(𝐰))/\mathrm{torsion}.$$

Here $`\pm `$, $`\pm ^{}\{1,1\}`$, $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ can be given in terms of $`𝐯`$, $`𝐰`$, $`k`$ as \[32, 9.3.2\], but their explicit forms are not important for our later discussion. Similarly $``$, $`^{}`$ are line bundles whose explicit forms are not important. Those terms are independent of $`r`$.

The convolution make $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))`$, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})`$, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}()`$, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(𝐰))`$ into $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(Z(𝐰))/\mathrm{torsion}`$-modules. (Note all these are free.) Moreover, the inclusions in Theorem 3.9(3) respect the module structure. Let $`[0]_𝐰`$ be the class represented by the structure sheaf of $`𝔐(0,𝐰)=𝔏(0,𝐰)=\text{point}`$. By \[32, 12.3.2, 13.3.1\], $`[0]_𝐰`$ is an l–highest weight vector with Drinfeld polynomial $`P_k(u)=_uq^1W_k`$, that is,

$$e_{k,r}[0]_𝐰=0\text{for any }kI\text{}r,$$

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))=\left(𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^{}_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})\right)[0]_𝐰,$$

$$\psi _k^\pm (z)[0]_𝐰=\left(_{1/qz}(q^1q)W_k\right)^\pm [0]_𝐰.$$

This $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))`$, more precisely, its Weyl group invariant part $`K^{G_W\times ^{}}(𝔏(𝐰))`$, is the universal standard module $`M(𝐰)`$ mentioned in the introduction and §1.3.

Let us take a closed subvariety $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ be as in §5. We have the Thom isomorphism in the $`K`$-theory:

(6.1)
$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1),$$

where $`H_{W^1}`$ acts trivially on $`𝔏(𝐰^2)`$. By Theorem 3.9(2) the inclusion $`\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{~}{}`$ induces an injective $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-homomorphism

(6.2)
$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1)K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}).$$

The following can be proved exactly as in Proposition 5.5. (For (1), we use \[32, 12.3.2\] instead of \[30, 10.2\]. And for (2), we must use $`𝔓_k^{(n)}(𝐰)`$ corresponding to divided powers.)

###### Proposition 6.3.

(1) As a $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})`$ is generated by $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1)`$.

(2) $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1)`$ is invariant under the action of $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^+`$, and the Thom isomorphism (6.1) is compatible with the $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^+`$-module structures (up to shift $`e_{k,r}e_{k,r+s}`$ and invertible elements in $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$).

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{H})`$ be the fraction field of the $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$. If $`M`$ is an $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module, $`M_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$ is denoted by $`M_{}`$. By the localization theorem , we have

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}()_{}\underset{}{\overset{i^{}}{}}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{},$$

where $`=Z(𝐰),𝔏(𝐰),\stackrel{~}{},`$, or $`𝔐(𝐰)`$, $`^{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ denotes the fixed point set, and $`i`$ denotes the inclusion $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}\times 𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}𝔐(𝐰)`$ (if $`=Z(𝐰)`$) or $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}𝔐(𝐰)`$ (if $`Z(𝐰)`$). For $`Z(𝐰)`$, we replace $`i^{}`$ by $`r=1(_1N^{})^1i^{}`$, where $`N`$ is the normal bundle of $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ in $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ as in \[4, 5.11\]. Then it is compatible with the convolution product, i.e., $`r`$ is an algebra homomorphism, and the following is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(Z(𝐰))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}()_{}& & K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}()_{}\\ ri^{}& & i^{}& & \\ K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(Z(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}& & K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{},\end{array}$$

where $`=𝔏(𝐰),\stackrel{~}{},`$, or $`𝔐(𝐰)`$, and the horizontal arrows are convolution relative to $`𝔐(𝐰)`$ and $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ respectively. Therefore $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}`$ has a structure of a $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module.

On the other hand, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}`$ can be considered as a $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module by the comultiplication (1.2). The following lemma first appeared in \[32, 14.1.2\].

###### Lemma 6.4.

There exists a unique $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}:K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_{},$$

sending $`[0]_{𝐰^1}[0]_{𝐰^2}`$ to $`[0]_𝐰`$.

###### Proof.

We have (cf. \[32, 4.2.2\])

(6.5)
$$𝔏(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=\stackrel{~}{}^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=𝔐(𝐰)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=𝔐(𝐰^1)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}\times 𝔐(𝐰^2)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=𝔏(𝐰^1)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}\times 𝔏(𝐰^2)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}.$$

By the argument in \[32, 14.1.2\], this implies that $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_{}`$ is a simple $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module. Its $`k`$th Drinfeld polynomial is given by

$$_uq^1W_k=_uq^1W_k^1_uq^1W_k^2.$$

(Here Drinfeld polynomials have values in $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$.) It is equal to the product of the Drinfeld polynomials of $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}`$ and $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}`$. Therefore, it is a subquotient of the tensor product module

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}.$$

(A well-known argument based on Lemma 1.20(1).) By the localization theorem, (6.5) and the Künneth isomorphism (Theorem 3.4), we know that the dimensions of the both hand sides are equal. (See also the remark below.) Hence we have the unique $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ sending $`[0]_{𝐰^1}[0]_{𝐰^2}`$ to $`[0]_𝐰`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.6.

The left hand side of (6.9) is isomorphic to $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1)^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2)^{\stackrel{~}{H}})_{}`$ by the localization theorem. Combining it with (6.5) and the Künneth isomorphism, we have an isomorphism (of $`(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-modules) between the left-hand side and the right-hand side. But it does not respect $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structures. In fact, a computation in \[37, 7.4\] implies that the isomorphism respects $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structures, if we endow the left hand side with a $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structure given by Drinfeld’s new comultiplication (after an explicit twist). Thus our map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ should be given explicitly by factors of the universal $`R`$-matrix as in . However, it will become difficult (at least for the author) to show the commutatibity of the diagram (6.9) below, in the formula in . This is the reason why we do not use the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$, unlike .

Let $`𝔏(𝐰^1)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=𝔐(𝐰^1)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=_\rho 𝔐(\rho ;𝐰^1)`$ and $`𝔏(𝐰^2)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=𝔐(𝐰^2)^{\stackrel{~}{H}}=_\rho ^{}𝔐(\rho ^{};𝐰^2)`$ be decomposition into connected components. Then we have direct sum decomposition

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}=\underset{\rho }{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(\rho ;𝐰^1))_{},K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}=\underset{\rho ^{}}{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(\rho ^{};𝐰^2))_{}.$$

By \[32, 13.4.5\], these are l–weight space decomposition. Here l–weights are elements in $`(\stackrel{~}{H})[[z^\pm ]]^I`$. Under $`(\stackrel{~}{H})=(\stackrel{~}{H}_{W^1})_{(q)}(\stackrel{~}{H}_{W^2})`$, they have forms of $`f1`$ and $`1g`$ respectively. Therefore, by Lemma 1.20(1),

(6.7)
$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}=\underset{\rho ,\rho ^{}}{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(\rho ;𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(\rho ^{};𝐰^2))_{}$$

is the l–weight space decomposition. The l–weight is the form of $`fg`$. Therefore each summand has distinct l–weights.

###### Lemma 6.8.

The following diagram is commutative:

(6.9)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))& \stackrel{(\text{6.1})}{}& K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1)\\ \mathrm{}& & (\text{6.2})& & \\ K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))& & K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})\\ _{\left(\stackrel{~}{H}\right)}& & _{\left(\stackrel{~}{H}\right)}& & \\ K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{}& \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}{\overset{}{}}& K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_{},\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the inclusion

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))E[0]_{𝐰^1}EK^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2)).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ be the class represented by the structure sheaf of $`𝔐(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2)=𝔏(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2)=\text{point}`$, as in the previous section (the lowest weight vector). We have $`f_{k,r}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=0`$ for any $`kI`$, $`r`$. Consider the element $`T_{w_0}`$ of the Braid group corresponding to the longest element $`w_0`$ of the Weyl group (of $`𝔤`$). It acts on $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))`$ by \[20, Part VI\]. Since $`w_0𝐰=𝐦^2`$, $`T_{w_0}`$ maps $`[0]_{𝐰^2}`$ to $`\alpha {}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$, where $`\alpha `$ is an invertible element in $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$. We have

$$\left(𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})\right){}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=\left(𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)^+_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})\right){}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2)).$$

Combining this with Proposition 6.3, we understand that it is enough to check the commutativity of the diagram for the element $`{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$. Let $`{}_{}{}^{}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])`$ be the image of $`{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]`$ under the composition of (6.2) and (6.1). We want to show

(6.10)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])={}_{}{}^{}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]).$$

In the l–weight space decomposition (6.7), both hand sides of (6.10) is contained in the summand

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(0,𝐰^1))_{}_{(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔐(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2))_{}.$$

Recall both $`𝔐(0,𝐰^1)`$ and $`𝔐(𝐰^2𝐦^2,𝐰^2)`$ are a single point. Therefore the l–weight space is $`1`$-dimensional. Thus (6.10) holds up to a nonzero constant in $`(\stackrel{~}{H})`$.

By \[20, 39.1.2\], we have

$$[0]_{𝐰^2}=\alpha T_{w_0}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q]=\alpha e_{k_1,0}^{(a_1)}e_{k_2,0}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}e_{k_N,0}^{(a_N)}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q],$$

where $`s_{k_1}s_{k_2}\mathrm{}s_{k_N}`$ is a reduced expression of $`w_0`$, and $`a_i_0`$ is an explicitly computable natural number. By Lemma 1.20(2) we have

$$[0]_{𝐰^1}[0]_{𝐰^2}=\alpha e_{k_1,0}^{(a_1)}e_{k_2,0}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}e_{k_N,0}^{(a_N)}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])$$

in $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))`$. Therefore,

$$\alpha e_{k_1,0}^{(a_1)}e_{k_2,0}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}e_{k_N,0}^{(a_N)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])\right)=[0]_𝐰.$$

On the other hand, by Proposition 6.3(2) we have

$$\alpha e_{k_1,0}^{(a_1)}e_{k_2,0}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}e_{k_N,0}^{(a_N)}{}_{}{}^{}([0]_{𝐰^1}{}_{𝐦^2}{}^{}[q])=[0]_𝐰.$$

We have used the commutativity of the diagram for the element $`[0]_{𝐰^2}`$, which is obvious from the definition. Therefore the constant must be $`1`$. ∎

###### Theorem 6.11.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ induces an $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))\stackrel{}{}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}).$$

###### Proof.

Since $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))`$ is generated by $`[0]_{𝐰^1}`$, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))`$ is generated by $`[0]_{𝐰^1}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))`$. Therefore, $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))`$ is mapped to $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}_1)`$ under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$. But it is equal to $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})`$ by Proposition 6.3(1). ∎

As an application, we have a new proof of \[37, 7.12\].

###### Corollary 6.12.

Let $`\epsilon ^{}`$. Suppose two $`I`$-tuple polynomials $`P^1=(P_k^1)_{kI}`$, $`P^2=(P_k^2)_{kI}`$ satisfy that

$$\alpha /\alpha ^{}\{\epsilon ^nn,n2\}\text{for any pair }(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})\text{ with }P_k^1(\alpha )=0\text{}P_k^{}^2(\alpha ^{})=0\text{ }\text{(}k,k^{}I\text{)}.$$

Then we have a unique $`𝐔_\epsilon (𝐋𝔤)`$-isomorphism

$$M(P^1P^2)M(P^1)_{}M(P^2),$$

sending $`[0]_𝐰`$ to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}[0]_{𝐰^2}`$.

###### Proof.

Take diagonal matices $`s^1H_{W^1}`$, $`s^2H_{W^2}`$ whose entries are roots of $`P^1`$, $`P^2`$ respectively. The evaluation at $`a=(s^1,s^2,\epsilon )H_{W^1}\times H_{W^2}\times ^{}=\stackrel{~}{H}`$ defines a homomorphism $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})=R(H)[q,q^1]`$. Then we set

$$\begin{array}{c}M(P^1P^2)=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})},\\ M(P^1)_{}M(P^2)=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^2))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}.\end{array}$$

The inclusion in Theorem 3.9(3) induces a $`𝐔_\epsilon (𝐋𝔤)`$-homomorphism $`M(P^1P^2)M(P^1)_{}M(P^2)`$, sending $`[0]_𝐰`$ to $`[0]_{𝐰^1}[0]_{𝐰^2}`$. If we denote by $`X_a`$ the localization of an $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module $`X`$ at the maximal ideal corresponding to $`a`$, the above equalities factor through as

$$M(P^1P^2)=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))_a_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})_a},M(P^1)M(P^2)=K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_a_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})_a}.$$

By the localization theorem , we have

$$K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰))_aK^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰)^a)_a,K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{})_aK^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}^a)_a$$

where $`^a`$ denotes the set of points fixed by $`a`$. So the result follows from the following.

###### Claim.

$`𝔏(𝐰)^a=\stackrel{~}{}^a`$.

Let $`W(\alpha )=W^1(\alpha )W^2(\alpha )`$ be the eigenspace of $`s_1s_2`$ with eigenvalue $`\alpha `$. Let $`[B,i,j]\stackrel{~}{}^a`$ and

$$f\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}j_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}B_{h_N}B_{h_{N1}}\mathrm{}B_{h_1}i_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}:W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)},$$

where $`h_1`$, …, $`h_N`$ is a path in our graph. Since $`[B,i,j]`$ is fixed by $`a`$, $`f`$ maps $`W_{\mathrm{out}(h_1)}(\alpha )`$ to $`W_{\mathrm{in}(h_N)}(\epsilon ^{2N}\alpha )`$. On the other hand, the condition $`[B,i,j]\stackrel{~}{}`$ implies that $`f`$ maps $`W^2`$ to $`0`$ and $`W^1`$ to $`W^2`$ as in the proof of Lemma 3.6. Therefore, $`f`$ must be $`0`$ by the assumption. Since the path is arbitrary, it means that $`\pi ([B,i,j])=0`$, i.e., $`[B,i,j]𝔏(𝐰)`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.13.

In our proof of Theorem 6.11, the assumption that $`𝔤`$ is of type ADE is used for the existence of the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If one can prove the existence of it such that Lemma 1.20 still holds, then our proof goes well for a general Kac-Moody Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Or, if one can give a different proof of the existence of the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Theorem 6.11 as merely $`R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-modules, without using $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)`$-module structures, then it means that one can consider $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a ‘definition’ of the tensor product module.

## 7. General case

Almost all results in previous sections can be generalized to the case of a tensor product of more than two modules.

Let us suppose a direct sum decomposition $`W=W^1W^2\mathrm{}W^N`$ of $`I`$-graded vector spaces is given. Let $`H_{W^p}G_{W^p}`$ be the maximal torus of diagonal matrices, and let $`H\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}H_{W^1}\times H_{W^2}\times \mathrm{}\times H_{W^N}`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}H\times ^{}`$. We choose a one-parameter subgroup $`\lambda :^{}G_{W^1}\times G_{W^2}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{W^N}`$ given by

$$\lambda (t)=t^{m_1}\mathrm{id}_{W^1}t^{m_2}\mathrm{id}_{W^2}\mathrm{}t^{m_N}\mathrm{id}_{W^N},$$

with $`m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_N`$. Moreover we take generic $`m_i`$’s and assume that the fixed point set $`𝔐(𝐰)^{\lambda (^{})}`$ is $`𝔐(𝐰^1)\times 𝔐(𝐰^2)\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔐(𝐰^N)`$. We define

$$(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|lim_{t0}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]\text{ exists}\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda (t)[B,i,j]𝔏(𝐰^1)\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔏(𝐰^N)\}.$$

Equivalently, we can define inductively

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)\hfill \\ & =\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda ^{}(t)[B,i,j](𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^{N1})\times 𝔐(𝐰^N)\},\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)\hfill \\ & =\left\{[B,i,j]𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t0}{lim}\lambda ^{}(t)[B,i,j]\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^{N1})\times 𝔏(𝐰^N)\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\lambda ^{}(t)=\mathrm{id}_{W^1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{id}_{W^{N1}}t\mathrm{id}_{W^N}.$$

These are closed subvarieties and $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)`$ is lagrangian. We have

1. $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)`$ has a structure of a crystal isomorphic to $`(𝐰^1)\mathrm{}(𝐰^N)`$. (Theorem 4.6)
2. $`H_{\mathrm{top}}(\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N),)`$ is isomorphic to $`V(𝐰^1)\mathrm{}V(𝐰^N)`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module. (Theorem 5.2)
3. (When $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$) $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;𝐰^2;\mathrm{};𝐰^N))`$ is isomorphic to $`K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^1))_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}\mathrm{}_{R(\stackrel{~}{H})}K^{\stackrel{~}{H}}(𝔏(𝐰^N))`$ as a $`𝐔_q^{}(𝐋𝔤)_{[q,q^1]}R(\stackrel{~}{H})`$-module. (Theorem 6.11)

Theorem 5.9 depends on \[20, 23.3.6\], which seems difficult to generalize. This is the only reason why the author does not know the generalization of Theorem 5.9.

## 8. Combinatorial description of the crystal

In this section, we give a combinatorial description of the cristal $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)`$.

Since $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}(𝐰^1;\mathrm{};𝐰^N)=\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^N)`$, it is enough to give a description of $`\mathrm{Irr}𝔏(𝐰^p)`$. However, we study a slightly general situation.

For a given one-parameter subgroup $`\rho _0:^{}G_W`$, we define a $`^{}`$-action on $`𝐌`$ and $`𝔐`$ by

$$B_h\{\begin{array}{cc}B_h\hfill & \text{if }h\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ tB_h\hfill & \text{if }h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},\hfill \end{array}i\rho _0(t)i,j\rho _0(t)(tj).$$

We denote this $`^{}`$-action by $`(B,i,j)t(B,i,j)`$ and $`[B,i,j]t[B,i,j]`$. If $`\rho _0(t)=\mathrm{id}_W`$, this is the $`^{}`$-action considered in \[28, §5\]. Its crucial property is that the symplectic form $`\omega `$ is transformed as $`t\omega `$. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{x𝔐(𝐰)\right|lim_t\mathrm{}tx\text{ exists}\}.$$

Note that we consider the limit for $`t\mathrm{}`$ while we have studied the limit $`t0`$ in previous sections. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains no cycle and $`\rho _0(t)=\mathrm{id}_W`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}=𝔏(𝐰)`$ \[28, 5.3(2)\].

It is easy to show that the set $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ has a structure of a normal crystal as in §4.

Take a fixed point $`x`$ of the $`^{}`$-action and its representative $`(B,i,j)`$. Then there exists a unique homomorphism $`\rho :^{}G_V`$ such that

(8.1)
$$t(B,i,j)=\rho (t)^1(B,i,j).$$

(The uniqueness follows from the freeness of the action of $`G_V`$ on the set of stable points.) Moreover, the conjugacy class of $`\rho `$ is independent of the choice of the representative $`(B,i,j)`$ of $`x`$. Thus we have a decomposition

(8.2)
$$𝔐(𝐰)^{^{}}=\underset{\rho }{}𝔉^{}(\rho ),$$

where $`𝔉^{}(\rho )`$ is the set of $`[B,i,j]`$ satisfying (8.1) up to conjugacy. It is clear that the conjugacy class of $`\rho `$ is constant on each connected component. Furthremore, by the argument in \[32, 5.5.6\], we can show that each summand $`𝔉^{}(\rho )`$ is the connected component of $`𝔐(𝐰)^{^{}}`$ (if it is nonempty). (The $`^{}`$-action used in \[loc. cit.\] is different from the above one. But the argument still works. Moreover the assumption $`(\alpha _k,\alpha _l)1`$ there becomes unnecessary for the above $`^{}`$-action.)

Combining with the argument in \[28, 5.8\], we get the following.

###### Proposition 8.3.

We have a decomposition

$$\stackrel{~}{}^{}=\underset{\rho }{}\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho );\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\left\{x𝔐(𝐰)\right|\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}tx𝔉^{}(\rho )\}.$$

The irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ is the closure of each summand $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )`$, and they are all lagrangian subvarieties.

Here the property $`t^{}\omega =t\omega `$ played the crusial role.

The conjugacy class of $`\rho `$ corresponds bijectively to the dimensions of its weight space in $`V_k`$. Thus we have an injective map

$$\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}^{}^{I\times };\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )\left(dimV_k^p\right)_{kI,p},$$

where $`V^p=\{vV\rho (t)v=t^pv\}`$.

We set $`W^p=\{wW\rho _0(t)w=t^pw\}`$. Then (8.1) is equivalent to

$$B_h(V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^p)\{\begin{array}{cc}V_{\mathrm{in}(h)}^p\hfill & \text{if }h\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ V_{\mathrm{in}(h)}^{p1}\hfill & \text{if }h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},\hfill \end{array}i_k(W_k^p)V_k^p,j_k(V_k^p)W_k^{p1}.$$

By the same formula in (3.1), we define an analogous complex of vector bundles over $`𝔉^{}(\rho )`$ for each $`p,q`$:

$$\mathrm{L}(V^p,V^q)\stackrel{\alpha ^{qp}}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{\Omega }(V^p,V^q)\\ \\ \mathrm{E}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(V^p,V^{q1})\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{L}(W^p,V^q)\\ \\ \mathrm{L}(V^p,W^{q1})\end{array}\stackrel{\beta ^{qp}}{}\mathrm{L}(V^p,V^{q1}),$$

where

$$\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{\Omega }(V^p,V^q)=\underset{h\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^p,V_{\mathrm{in}(h)}^q),\mathrm{E}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(V^p,V^{q1})=\underset{h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^p,V_{\mathrm{in}(h)}^{q1})$$

The restriction of the tangent bundle $`T𝔐`$ to $`𝔉^{}(\rho )`$ decomposes as $`_{p,q}\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{qp}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{qp}`$. Since the tangent space to the fixed point set is the $`0`$-weight space,

$$T^{}(\rho )\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{pp}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{pp}.$$

Moreover, as in Proposition 3.13 we have

$$\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )\underset{q<p}{}\mathrm{Ker}\beta ^{qp}/\mathrm{Im}\alpha ^{qp},$$

where the right hand side is the total space of the vector bundle. The natural map $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )𝔉^{}(\rho )`$ is identified with the projection map of the vector bundle.

Take a point $`[B,i,j]\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )`$ and consider the complex $`C_k^{}`$ (2.10). The homomorphisms $`\sigma _k`$, $`\tau _k`$ have the matrix expression $`\sigma _k=(\sigma _k^{qp})_{p,q}`$, $`\tau _k=(\tau _k^{qp})_{p,q}`$, where

$$\sigma _k^{qp}:V_k^p\underset{h\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^{q1}\underset{h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^qW_k^{q1},$$

$$\tau _k^{qp}:\underset{h\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^{p1}\underset{h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^pW_k^{p1}V_k^{q1}.$$

Components $`\sigma _k^{qp}`$, $`\tau _k^{qp}`$ vanish if $`q>p`$. From the equation $`\tau _k\sigma _k=0`$, we have $`_{r:prq}\tau _k^{qr}\sigma _k^{rp}=0`$. In particular, we have the complex

$$C_k^p:V_k^p\stackrel{\sigma _k^{pp}}{}\underset{h\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^{p1}\underset{h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}:\mathrm{in}(h)=k}{}V_{\mathrm{out}(h)}^pW_k^{p1}\stackrel{\tau _k^{pp}}{}V_k^{p1}.$$

###### Lemma 8.4.

Let

$$\overline{\epsilon }_k^p\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{q:q>p}{}\mathrm{rank}C_k^q,\overline{\phi }_k^p\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{q:qp}{}\mathrm{rank}C_k^q.$$

We have

$$\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\overline{\epsilon }_k^p,\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\overline{\phi }_k^p.$$

Let $`\rho ^{}`$ (resp. $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$) is the one parameter subgroup, obtained from $`\rho `$, with $`dimV_k^p`$ decreased (resp. increased) by $`1`$, and other components unchanged, where

$$p=\mathrm{min}\left\{q|\overline{\epsilon }_k^q=\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))\right\}$$

$$\left(\text{resp. }p=\mathrm{max}\left\{q|\overline{\phi }_k^q=\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))\right\}\right).$$

Then

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ^{})\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{~}{f}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ^{\prime \prime })\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The situation is almost the same as that studied in §4. So $`\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))`$ is given by the same formula as in the tensor product crystal, if we know the codimension of $`\mathrm{Im}\tau _k^{pp}`$ in $`V_k^{p1}`$. In fact, it was given in \[32, 5.5.5\]. We have

$$dimV_k^{p1}/\mathrm{Im}\tau _k^{pp}=\mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{rank}C_k^p)\text{on a generic point }[B,i,j]𝔉^{}(\rho ).$$

(Although the $`^{}`$-action in  is different from our $`^{}`$-action, the argument works.)

Now we repeat the argument in §4, where $`\mathrm{wt}_k(b_p)`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _k(b_p)`$) is replaced by $`\mathrm{rank}C_k^p`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{rank}C_k^p)`$), and the order of the tensor product is reversed. Therefore, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))& =\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\left(\mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{rank}C_k^p)\underset{q:q>p}{}\mathrm{rank}C_k^q\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\left(\underset{q:qp}{}\mathrm{rank}C_k^q\right)=\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\overline{\epsilon }_k^p,\hfill \end{array}$$

and other formulas. ∎

Let $`𝐰^p=_kdimW_k^p\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$, $`𝐯^p=_kdimV_k^p\alpha _k`$. We define a crystal $`\stackrel{~}{T}_p`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_p\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}T_{𝐰^p}\underset{kI}{}_k,$$

where $`_k`$ is the crystal in Example 1.6(1), and we have used the numbering of $`I`$ to determine the order of the tensor product. Let $`S_0`$ be the crystal consisting of a single element $`s_0`$ with $`\mathrm{wt}s_0=0`$, $`\epsilon _k(s_0)=\phi _k(s_0)=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_ks_0=\stackrel{~}{f}_ks_0=0`$. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_{p+1}\stackrel{~}{C}_p\stackrel{~}{C}_{p1}\mathrm{}.$$

###### Theorem 8.5.

We have a strict embedding of crystal

$`\psi :`$ $`\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`S_0\stackrel{~}{C}S_0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )`$ $``$ $`s_0(\mathrm{}(t_{𝐰^p}_kb_k(dimV_k^p))\mathrm{})s_0.`$
###### Proof.

It is clear that $`\psi `$ commutes with $`\mathrm{wt}`$.

Let $`\psi ^{}:\mathrm{Irr}\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the map defined by omitting the first and last $`s_0`$ from the above formula. Let $`b=\mathrm{}b_{p+1}b_pb_{p1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}.`$ We define $`\epsilon _k^p`$, $`\phi _k^p`$ as in (1.10). If $`b=\psi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))`$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon _k^p=& dimV_k^p\underset{qp}{}dimW_k^q+\underset{\begin{array}{c}lI:l<k\\ qp\end{array}}{}h_k,\alpha _ldimV_l^q\hfill \\ & +\underset{\begin{array}{c}lI:l>k\\ q>p\end{array}}{}h_k,\alpha _ldimV_l^q+2\underset{q>p}{}dimV_k^q\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{q>p}{}\mathrm{rank}C_k^q=\overline{\epsilon }_k^p,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used that the property $`h\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{out}(h)<\mathrm{in}(h)`$, $`h\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{out}(h)>\mathrm{in}(h)`$.

Thus $`\psi ^{}`$ commutes with $`\epsilon _k`$. From the formula $`\phi _k^p=\epsilon _k^p+\mathrm{wt}_k(\mathrm{}b_p\mathrm{})`$, it also commutes with $`\phi _k`$. Now we get (1.7b, c) for $`\psi ^{}`$ by (1.11) and the preceding lemma.

Then we get

$$\epsilon _k(\psi (\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )))=\mathrm{max}(0,\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )),\mathrm{wt}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )))=\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )),$$

$$\phi _k(\psi (\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )))=\mathrm{max}(0,\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )),\mathrm{wt}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )))=\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )),$$

where we have used $`\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))`$, $`\phi _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))0`$, which is clear from the definition. We have

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_k(\psi (\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho )))=\{\begin{array}{cc}s_0\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))s_0\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\epsilon _k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=0\stackrel{~}{e}_k(\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\rho ))=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k`$ commutes with $`\psi `$. Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$ commutes with $`\psi `$. ∎

Let us take $`\rho _0(t)=\mathrm{id}_W`$ and hence $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}=𝔏(𝐰)`$. Then the strictly embedded crystal generated by $`s_0\mathrm{}(t_{𝐰^p}_kb_k(0))\mathrm{}s_0`$ in the right hand side is the same as a combinatorial description of the crystal $`(𝐰)`$ in . Thus we obtain a different proof of Corollary 4.7.

## 9. Examples

In this section, we give examples of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

### 9.1.

Suppose the graph is of type $`A_n`$. We number the vertices as

$$1\mathit{\bullet –}2\mathit{\bullet –}3\mathrm{}\mathit{–\cdots –}n2\mathit{\bullet –}n1\mathit{\bullet –}n\mathrm{}$$

We take $`𝐰=r\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`𝐯=_{k=1}^nv_k\alpha _k`$ with $`rv_1v_2\mathrm{}v_n0`$. By \[28, 7.3\] $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is isomorphic to the cotangent bundle $`T^{}`$ of the partial flag variety $``$ consisting of all sequences $`\varphi =(^r=V_0V_1\mathrm{}V_nV_{n+1}=0)`$ with $`dimV_k=v_k`$. The correspondence is given by

$$[B,i,j](\varphi ,\xi )=((W_1\mathrm{Im}j_1\mathrm{Im}(j_1B_{1,2})\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(j_1B_{1,2}\mathrm{}B_{n1,n})0),j_1i_1),$$

where $`\xi `$ is a cotangent vector, i.e., an endomorphism of $`^r`$ with $`\xi (V_k)V_{k+1}`$ ($`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$).

Let $`W=W^1\mathrm{}W^N`$ be a direct sum decomposition. We have the associated flag

$$W=\stackrel{˘}{W}^0\stackrel{˘}{W}^1=\underset{p>1}{}W^p\stackrel{˘}{W}^2=\underset{p>2}{}W^p\mathrm{}\stackrel{˘}{W}^{N1}=W^N\stackrel{˘}{W}^N=\{0\}.$$

Then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{}& =\{(\varphi ,\xi )T^{}\xi (\stackrel{˘}{W}^p)\stackrel{˘}{W}^{p+1}\}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;\mathrm{};𝐯^N,𝐰^N)& =\left\{(\varphi ,\xi )\stackrel{~}{}\right|dim\left(V_k\stackrel{˘}{W}^p\right)=\underset{q:q>p}{}v_k^q\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v_k^q=h_k,𝐯^q`$. Therefore each stratum of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the conormal bundle of a Schubert cell.

### 9.2.

Again suppose the graph is of type $`A_n`$. We take $`𝐰=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, $`𝐯=_{k=1}^n\alpha _k`$. By a work of Kronheimer, $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is the minimal resolution of the simple singularity $`^2/_{n+1}`$ (see \[31, Chapter 4\]). The lagrangian subvariety $`𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)`$ is the exceptional set. It is a union of $`n`$ projective lines. The intersectection graph is of type $`A_n`$.

Take coordinates $`(x,y)`$ of $`^2`$ and suppose the action of $`_{n+1}`$ is given by $`(x,y)(\zeta x,\zeta ^1y)`$ where $`\zeta `$ is a primitive $`(n+1)`$th root of unity. We have a $`^{}`$-action given by $`(x,y)(t^1x,ty)`$ commuting with the $`_{n+1}`$-action. This action lifts to an action on $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ and coincides with the action considered in §3 with $`𝐰^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`𝐰^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ (after composed with $`tt^{n+1}`$). Then we have

$$=\stackrel{~}{}=(\text{the exceptional set})(\text{the strict transform of the }y\text{-axis}).$$

Each stratum $`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐯^1,𝐰^1;𝐯^2,𝐰^2)`$ is isomorphic to the affine line $``$. The intersectection graph of closures of stratum is of type $`A_{n+1}`$, where the strict transform of $`y`$-axis is the last vertex.