text:
# Equivariant vector bundles on group completions

## Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a connected reductive algebraic group over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero. Then we have a $`G\times G`$-action on $`G`$ defined as $`(g_1,g_2).x=g_1.x.g_2^1`$. Let $`X`$ be a $`G\times G`$-equivariant smooth partial compactification of $`G`$ with normally crossing boundary divisors. (Here, a nonsingular toric variety (cf. Oda ) and the wonderful compactification of an adjoint semisimple group in the sense of De Concini-Procesi  satisfy the condition.) By the general theory (Theorem 1.2), such a partial compactification is described by a fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

A ($`G\times G`$-) equivariant vector bundle is a vector bundle $``$ on $`X`$ with an action of $`G\times G`$ which is linear on each fiber and makes the following diagram commutative:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}V\left(\right)& \stackrel{g^{}}{}& V\left(\right)& \\ & & & g=(g_1,g_2)G\times G.\\ X& \stackrel{g^{}}{}& X& \end{array}$$

Here, $`V\left(\right)`$ denotes the total space of $``$.

Let $`EV\left(X\right)`$ be the category of $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles and morphisms of $`G\times G`$-equivariant coherent $`𝒪_X`$-modules. (Our actual setting is to handle a finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of $`G`$ instead of $`G`$. Here we restrict the situation for simplicity.) Our goal (cf. Theorem F) is to describe this category explicitly via linear algebra data.

Let $`e`$ be the point of $`X`$ corresponding to the identity element of $`G`$. Choose a maximal torus $`T`$ of $`G`$. An equivariant vector bundle $``$ is completely determined by the following data:

* $`k(e)`$: the fiber at $`e`$;
* A family of subspaces

$$F^\tau (n,):=\{vk(e);\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^n(1\times \tau (t))vV\left(\right)\}k(e)$$

for every one-parameter subgroup $`\tau :𝔾_mT`$ and every $`n`$. In other words, the asymptotic behavior of elements of $`k(e)`$ with respect to all one-parameter subgroups.

Thus, the problem is to find a sufficient condition for the existence of an equivariant vector bundle which corresponds to a given asymptotic datum.

Klyachko  described the category of equivariant vector bundles on toric varieties by using the above asymptotic data $`(k(e),\{F^\tau (n,)\}_\tau )`$. His description is based on the fact that there are no “local” obstruction for the existence of an equivariant vector bundle with a given asymptotic behavior. (For another description in this case, see Kaneyama .)

In this paper, we extend such a description to the compactification of an arbitrary reductive algebraic group by introducing a new constraint which we call the transversality condition.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ be the set of one-skeletons of the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is identified with a set of one-parameter subgroups of $`T`$. We put $`P^\tau :=\{gG;lim_{t0}\tau (t)g\tau (t)^1G\}`$. Put $`𝔤:=\mathrm{Lie}G`$. For each root $`\alpha `$, let us denote the $`\alpha `$-root space of $`𝔤`$ by $`𝔤_\alpha `$.

###### Definition A.

We define the category $`\left(X\right)^+`$ by the following:

* $`(\mathrm{𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬})`$ Pairs $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})`$ consisting of a $`G`$-module $`V`$ and exhausting $``$-indexed decreasing $`P^\tau `$-filtrations $`F^\tau ()`$ of $`V`$ such that:

+ For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, there exists a basis $`B^\sigma `$ of $`V`$ which spans every $`F^\tau (n)`$ when $`\tau \sigma (1)`$.
* $`(\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬})`$ Let $`(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}_\tau ),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\}_\tau )\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)^+`$. Then, we define

$`\text{Hom}_{\left(X\right)^+}((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}))`$
$`:=\{f\text{Hom}_G(V_1,V_2);f\left(F_1^\tau (n)\right)F_2^\tau (n)\text{ for every }n\text{ and every }\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\}.`$

We also define a full-subcategory $`\left(X\right)`$ of $`\left(X\right)^+`$ by the following:

* $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)^+`$ is in $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)`$ if, and only if, $`F^\tau ()`$ satisfies the following ($`\tau `$-) transversality condition for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

(Transversality Condition) For every $`n`$ and each root $`\alpha `$ of $`𝔤`$ such that $`\tau ,\alpha <0`$, we have $`𝔤_\alpha F^\tau \left(n\right)F^\tau \left(n+\tau ,\alpha \right)`$.

###### Examples B.

1. If $`X=G`$, then $`\left(X\right)=\left(X\right)^+=\mathrm{Rep}G`$.
2. (Case $`G=PGL_2`$ and $`X=^3`$) Fix a triangular decomposition $`𝔰𝔩_2=𝔫^{}𝔟`$. Then, an object of $`\left(X\right)^+`$ is a pair consisting of a $`PGL_2`$-module $`V`$ and its $`𝔟`$-stable decreasing filtration $`F()`$. Transversality condition says $`𝔫^{}F(n)F(n1)`$ for every $`n`$.

###### Proposition C (cf. Proposition 2.35 \+ 3.10).

The map

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(X\right)(k(e),\{F^\tau (n,)\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)^+$$

is injective. Moreover, it gives a faithful covariant functor $`EV\left(X\right)\left(X\right)^+`$ which we denote by the same letter $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

###### Remark D.

Let $`D_\tau `$ be the $`G\times G`$-equivariant divisor corresponding to $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Then, tensoring $`𝒪_X(nD_\tau )`$ at the LHS corresponds to shifting the degree of $`F^\tau `$ by $`n`$ at the RHS.

The idea in the proof of Proposition C is to measure the asymptotic behavior of an equivariant vector bundle by bounding it with a certain family of “standard” vector bundles instead of using the asymptotic behavior of elements on the identity fiber.

Next, our key result is as follows:

###### Proposition E (cf. Proposition 3.12).

The image of the map

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(X\right)\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)^+$$

is contained in $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(X\right)`$.

In the above, there are two choices of families of “standard” vector bundles. It turns out that each of them yields different constraints about filtrations. Proposition E follows from the comparison of these constraints by means of the theory of Tannakian categories (cf. ).

Now we state our main result.

###### Theorem F (cf. Theorem 4.1).

We have a category equivalence

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:EV\left(X\right)\stackrel{}{}\left(X\right).$$

For the proof of Theorem F, we construct the inverse functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. The construction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends on the fact that the boundary behavior of equivariant vector bundles is completely controlled by their restriction to certain toric varieties. Thus, we devote ourselves to check that the reconstruction process prescribed by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is compatible with the action of the “unipotent part”.

If $`G`$ is commutative, the left and the right multiplications are essentially the same. In this case, the transversality condition is a void condition. However, we cannot identify the left and the right multiplications if $`G`$ is non-commutative. To establish Theorem F in this setting, we need to control the $`G\times G`$-action via a single group $`G`$, which is the stabilizer of the $`G\times G`$-action on $`G`$ at the identity element of $`G`$. This is why the transversality condition appears. Moreover, it imposes a strong restriction on the existence of equivariant vector bundles. A typical example of this kind of phenomena is the following.

###### Example G.

In the same setting as in Examples B 2), simple objects are classified as follows: Let $`V_n`$ be an irreducible $`PGL_2`$-module of dimension $`2n+1`$. Then, every irreducible equivariant vector bundle of rank $`2n+1`$ has $`V_n`$ as its identity fiber. From this fact, one can prove that irreducible equivariant vector bundles are classified by Dynkin quivers of type $`A_{2n+1}`$ up to line bundle twist. In particular, there are only finitely many (namely $`2^{2n}`$) possibilities.

For more details, see Example 4.3. In general, a simple equivariant vector bundle may have nontrivial equivariant deformations even in the case of the wonderful compactification.

Kostant has raised the question of the existence of a canonical extension of an equivariant vector bundle on a symmetric space to its wonderful compactification in order to deduce representation theoretic data from asymptotic expansions of matrix coefficients (see §5.2). Our description gives the following answer to his problem in the case of complex groups.

###### Theorem H (= Theorem 5.8).

Let $`G`$ be a semisimple adjoint group, and let $`X`$ be its wonderful compactification. For every $`G`$-module $`V`$, there exists a unique $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $`_V`$ on $`X`$ which satisfies the following properties:

1. $`_Vk(e)V`$ as a $`G`$-module;
2. For every $`v_Vk(e)`$ and every one-parameter subgroup $`\tau :𝔾_mG`$, there exist a limit value $`lim_{t0}(\tau (t)\times \tau (t)^1)v`$ in $`V\left(_V\right)`$;
3. Every $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ with the above two properties can be $`G\times G`$-equivariantly embedded into $`_V`$.

Though the above Kostant problem is known by some experts, there is no existing literature. Thus, we also present the whole picture of his problem in §5.2. (The author learned about this problem from Prof. Brion, Prof. Kostant, and Prof. Uzawa. He wants to express gratitude to them.)

As a bonus of our description, we have the following result.

###### Theorem I (= Corollary 5.5).

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint simple group and let $`X`$ be its wonderful compactification. Then, every $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle of rank less than or equal to $`r=\mathrm{rk}G`$ splits into a direct sum of line bundles.

This kind of material is treated in §5.1. For a classical (simple) group, the wonderful compactification is obtained by successive blowing-ups of a partial flag variety of an overgroup of $`G`$ (cf. Brion ). On projective spaces or Grassmannians, we have a splitting criterion of vector bundles in terms of the vanishing of intermediate cohomologies (see Horrocks , Ottaviani , or Arrondo and Graña ). Thus, if we have an analogous result of  1.2.1 (a vector bundle is equivariant if its infinitesimal deformation is zero), we may find a splitting criterion of vector bundles using our result. There are plenty of vector bundles with nontrivial infinitesimal deformations, but a direct sum of line bundles on the wonderful compactification has no nontrivial infinitesimal deformation (cf. Tchoudjem , ,  and K ). However, there exists a line bundle with non-vanishing intermediate cohomologies in this case. Hence, a naive reformulation of the splitting criterion of vector bundles in terms of cohomology vanishing has a counter-example in this case.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In §1, we fix our notation and introduce objects which we concern. In particular, we assume the notation and terminology introduced in §1 in the whole paper unless stated otherwise. In §2, we present some fundamental results which is needed to formulate our main theorem. More precisely, in §2.1, we devote ourselves to the preparation of the working ground. In §2.2, we construct a functor $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in its full generality (Proposition 2.35). In §3, we develop a technique to discuss the boundary behavior of equivariant vector bundles and prove that the “image” of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is contained in $`\left(X\right)`$ (Proposition 3.12). In §4, we state and prove Theorem 4.1, which is our main result. Finally, we deal with some consequences of Theorem 4.1 in §5.

This paper is the main body of the author’s Doctoral Dissertation at University of Tokyo.

## 1 Notation and Terminology

### 1.1 Notation on algebraic groups

The general reference for the material in this subsection is Springer’s book .

Let $`G`$ be a connected reductive group of rank $`r`$ over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero. There exists a connected finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of $`G`$ which is isomorphic to the direct product of a torus $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$ and a simply connected semisimple algebraic group $`\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$. We put $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right):=\mathrm{ker}[\stackrel{~}{G}G]`$. For a group $`H`$, we denote its center by $`Z(H)`$. We have $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)Z(\stackrel{~}{G})`$. We put $`G_{ad}:=G/Z(G)`$, $`T_{ad}:=T/Z(G)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_s:=\stackrel{~}{G}_s\stackrel{~}{T}`$.

Let $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ be (mutually opposite) Borel subgroups of $`G`$, with a unique common maximal torus $`T`$; let $`N_G\left(T\right)`$ be its normalizer, and put $`W=N_G\left(T\right)/T`$ the corresponding Weyl group. Let $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ be the unipotent radicals of $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$, respectively. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$… the preimages of $`B`$, $`T`$… in $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

For a torus $`S`$, we denote the weight lattice $`\text{Hom}(S,𝔾_m)`$ of $`S`$ by $`X^{}\left(S\right)`$ and the coweight lattice $`\text{Hom}(𝔾_m,S)`$ of $`S`$ by $`X_{}\left(S\right)`$. We put $`X^{}(S)_{}:=X^{}(S)_{}`$. We regard $`X^{}\left(T\right)`$ as a subset of $`X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. We have a natural $``$-bilinear pairing

$$,:X_{}\left(T\right)\times X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T}).$$

Let $`\mathrm{}X^{}\left(T\right)`$ be the root system of $`(G,T)`$ and let $`\mathrm{}^+`$ be its subset of positive roots defined by $`B`$. Let $`𝔤`$, $`𝔟`$, $`𝔱`$… be the Lie algebras of $`G`$, $`B`$, $`T`$… For each $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, we fix a root vector $`e_\alpha 𝔤`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\}\mathrm{}^+`$ be the set of simple roots. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\{\alpha _1^{},\mathrm{},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}\}X_{}(\stackrel{~}{T}_s)`$ the set of simple coroots, which we consider as a subset of $`X_{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ via natural inclusion $`X_{}(\stackrel{~}{T}_s)X_{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. The set of fundamental coweights $`\{\omega _1^{},\omega _2^{},\mathrm{},\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{}\}`$ is defined as the set of $``$-linear forms on $`X^{}\left(T\right)`$ such that $`\omega _i^{}\left(\alpha _j\right)=\delta _{i,j}`$ ($`1i,j\mathrm{}`$). Every $`\omega _i^{}`$ defines an element of $`X_{}\left(T_{ad}\right)`$, which we also denote by $`\omega _i^{}`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$ be the character group of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$ and let $`h`$ be its order. Since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$ is contained in $`Z(\stackrel{~}{G})`$, we have natural surjection $`X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$. For each $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$, we denote its image in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$ by $`\overline{\lambda }`$. $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is called a dominant weight if, and only if, $`\alpha _i^{},\lambda 0`$ for every $`1i\mathrm{}`$. For a dominant weight $`\lambda `$, we denote by $`V_\lambda `$ the irreducible rational representation of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$. Let $`v_{w_0\lambda }`$ be a lowest weight vector of $`V_\lambda `$, where $`w_0`$ is the longest element of $`W`$.

For every $`\tau X_{}\left(T\right)`$, we define the following three Lie subalgebras of $`𝔤`$:

$$𝔩^\tau :=𝔱\underset{\alpha \mathrm{};\tau ,\alpha =0}{}ke_\alpha ,𝔲_+^\tau :=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{};\tau ,\alpha >0}{}ke_\alpha ,\text{ and }𝔭^\tau :=𝔩^\tau 𝔲_+^\tau .$$

We also put $`𝔲_{}^\tau :=𝔲_+^\tau `$. We denote by $`L^\tau ,U_+^\tau \mathrm{}`$ the corresponding subgroups of $`G`$. $`P^\tau `$ is a parabolic subgroup of $`G`$. $`P^\tau =L^\tau U_+^\tau `$ is the Levi decomposition of $`P^\tau `$ such that $`TL^\tau `$.

For a group $`H`$, we denote the diagonal embedding $`HH\times H`$ by $`\mathrm{}^d`$. Also, we denote by $`V^H`$ the space of $`H`$-fixed vectors of $`V`$ for a $`H`$-module $`V`$.

### 1.2 Notation on partial compactifications

Here we assume that readers are familiar with the standard material in the theory of toric varieties (cf. Oda  Chapter 1). The contents in this subsection are found in the papers by De Concini-Procesi , Uzawa , and Knop’s survey .

For every fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`X_{}(T)_{}`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(n)`$ the set of $`n`$-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By abuse of notation, we denote the fan consisting of a cone $`\sigma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and its faces by the same letter $`\sigma `$. Moreover, we denote the integral generator of a one-dimensional cone $`\tau `$ by the same letter. (Thus, $`\tau `$ defines a one-parameter subgroup of $`T`$ when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a fan of $`X_{}\left(T\right)_{}`$.)

We define a fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ of $`X_{}\left(T_{ad}\right)_{}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0:=\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{iS}_0\omega _i^{};S\{1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}\right\}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the fan consisting of the dominant Weyl co-chamber and its faces.

Let $`X_0`$ be the wonderful compactification of $`\left(G_{ad}\times G_{ad}\right)/\mathrm{}^d\left(G_{ad}\right)`$ in the sense of De Concini-Procesi . We consider $`X_0`$ as a $`G\times G`$-equivariant compactification of $`G_{ad}`$ via the quotient map $`G\times GG_{ad}\times G_{ad}`$.

###### Definition 1.1 (Regular embeddings).

A regular embedding $`X`$ of $`G`$ is a $`G\times G`$-equivariant smooth partial compactification of $`X`$ with the following conditions:

* $`X\backslash G`$ is a union of normal crossing divisors $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_p`$;
* Each $`D_i`$ is smooth and is the closure of a single $`G\times G`$-orbit;
* Every $`G`$-orbit closure in $`X`$ is a certain intersection of $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_p`$;
* For each $`xX`$, the total space of the normal bundle of $`\overline{(G\times G)x}`$ in $`X`$ contains a dense $`G\times G`$-orbit.

###### Theorem 1.2 (Uzawa  3.5. See also ).

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a fan of $`X_{}\left(T\right)_{}`$ such that the following two conditions hold:

1. The natural quotient map $`q:X_{}\left(T\right)X_{}\left(T_{ad}\right)`$ yields a morphism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ of fans;
2. The toric variety $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is nonsingular.

Then, there exists a unique regular embedding $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ of $`G`$ such that:

1. We have an embedding $`T(\mathrm{\Sigma })X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$;
2. Each $`G\times G`$-orbit in $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ intersects with a unique $`T`$-orbit in $`T(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$;
3. There exists a dominant $`G\times G`$-equivariant morphism $`\pi :X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X_0`$.

Its converse is also true. We denote by $`\overline{𝐎}_\sigma `$ the closure of a $`G\times G`$-orbit $`𝐎_\sigma `$ corresponding to $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, we also denote $`\overline{𝐎}_\tau `$ by $`D_\tau `$. (We regard it as a prime divisor.)

Theorem 1.2 is more or less a consequence of the results in the references we list above and known by experts. However, since the author does not know an appropriate reference, we provide a proof. In the proof, we need the following modification of a theorem of Strickland, Theorem 1.3 which is obtained by pulling back the original version ($`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)=X_0`$ case) via $`\pi `$.

###### Theorem 1.3 (Local structure theorem  cf.  1.1 or ).

Under the same settings as in Theorem 1.2, the map

$$U^{}\times T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\times UX\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right),(g,x,h)(g,h).x,$$

is an open embedding.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.2.

We write the images of $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ in $`G_{ad}`$ by $`B_{ad}`$ and $`B_{ad}^{}`$, respectively. Then $`B_{ad}B_{ad}^{}G_{ad}`$ is an open dense subset. Hence, $`G_{ad}G_{ad}\times G_{ad}/\mathrm{}^d(G_{ad})`$ and its compactification is a spherical variety. For a reductive group $`K`$ and its (mutually opposite) Borel subgroups $`B_K`$ and $`B_K^{}`$ with a common torus $`T_K`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_K:=\left(k\left((K\times K)/\mathrm{}^d(K)\right)^{(B_K\times B_K^{})}\{0\}\right)/k^{}.$$

Here superscript $`(B_K\times B_K^{})`$ means the eigenpart with respect to the $`B_K\times B_K^{}`$-action. Then, we have $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_K,)X_{}\left(T_K\right)`$. As is described in Brion  (2.2 Remarques i)), the wonderful compactification corresponds to the colored fan $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\mathrm{})`$ (= usual fan in $`X_{}\left(T_{ad}\right)`$). Then, by Knop  3.3 and 4.1, we have a $`G\times G`$-equivariant (partial) compactification $`X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ of $`(G\times G)/\mathrm{}^d(G)`$ with a $`G\times G`$-equivariant dominant map

$$X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X_0$$

for each fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfying 1). Here each cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponds to a unique $`G\times G`$-orbit of $`X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ by  3.2 and 3.3. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$, the closure of $`TX^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ contains $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ by  4.1. Since the smoothness is an open condition, Theorem 1.3 and the equality $`(G\times G).T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)=X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ asserts that $`X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is smooth if, and only if, $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is smooth. Therefore, setting $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right):=X^{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ completes the proof of Theorem 1.2. ∎

From now on, we always assume the assumptions of Theorem 1.2. For simplicity, we may write $`X`$ instead of $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

Let $`\iota _\sigma `$ be the inclusion $`\overline{𝐎}_\sigma X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ corresponding to $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We define $`𝔲_+^\sigma :=_{\tau \sigma (1)}𝔲_+^\tau 𝔤`$. Similarly, we write $`𝔩^\sigma `$ for $`_{\tau \sigma (1)}𝔩^\tau `$. Let $`U_+^\sigma ,U_{}^\sigma `$, and $`L^\sigma `$ be the algebraic subgroups of $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝔲_+^\sigma `$, $`𝔲_+^\sigma `$, and $`𝔩^\sigma `$, respectively. Denote $`L^\sigma U_+^\sigma `$ by $`P^\sigma `$ (this is a parabolic subgroup of $`G`$).

Since $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ dominates $`X_0`$, the same arguments as in  §5.2 assert the existence of a $`G\times G`$-equivariant fibration $`\pi _\sigma :\overline{𝐎}_\sigma G/P^\sigma \times G/P^\sigma `$. We denote the point of $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ corresponding to the identity element of $`G`$ by $`e`$. We have $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\overline{T.e}X`$. Hence, $`x_\sigma :=lim_t\mathrm{}(1\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{\tau \sigma (1)}\tau (t))e`$ exists in $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ for each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ be the image of $`𝔾_m`$ via $`(1\times \tau ^1):𝔾_mT\times T`$ for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. We denote by $`G^\sigma `$ the stabilizer of the $`G\times G`$-action at $`x_\sigma `$. Then we have

$$G^\sigma =\mathrm{}^d(L^\sigma )(\underset{\tau \sigma (1)}{}𝔾_m^\tau )(U_+^\sigma \times U_{}^\sigma )=\mathrm{}^d(L^\sigma )(\underset{\tau \sigma (1)}{}\mathrm{Im}\tau \times 1)(U_+^\sigma \times U_{}^\sigma ).$$

This is another consequence of the fact that $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ dominates $`X_0`$.

For simplicity, we denote $`_{𝒪_X}`$ by $`_X`$, or even by $``$ when there is no risk of confusion.

### 1.3 The category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$

In order to formulate our main theorem, we introduce some notation and a category $`𝒞\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ which contains the category $`𝒞\left(X\right)=𝒞\left(X(\mathrm{\Sigma })\right)`$ in the introduction as a fullsubcategory. This enhancement is necessary in order to handle all line bundles on $`X`$ in the main theorem (cf. Theorem 2.7).

We denote the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra $`𝔞`$ by $`U\left(𝔞\right)`$. For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and every $`n`$, we define

$$U\left(𝔤\right)_n^\tau :=\{XU\left(𝔤\right);\tau (t)X\tau (t)^1=t^nX\text{ for every }t𝔾_m(k)k^\times \}.$$

We have $`U\left(𝔤\right)=_nU\left(𝔤\right)_n^\tau `$. For each $`\tau `$-stable subalgebra $`𝔣`$ of $`𝔤`$, we put $`U\left(𝔣\right)_n^\tau :=U\left(𝔣\right)U\left(𝔤\right)_n^\tau `$. Since the $`\tau `$-action on $`𝔤`$ is semi-simple, we have $`U\left(𝔣\right)=_nU\left(𝔣\right)_n^\tau `$. Every Lie algebra defined in §1.1 satisfies this property.

###### Remark 1.4.

We have $`U\left(\text{l}^\tau \right)=U\left(\text{p}^\tau \right)_0^\tau `$ and $`U\left(\text{u}_+^\tau \right)_n^\tau =U\left(\text{u}_{}^\tau \right)_n^\tau =0`$ for all $`n>0`$.

Now we introduce our linear algebra data, the category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. The most remarkable property of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is the ($`\tau `$-) transversality condition.

###### Definition 1.5.

Let $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Let $`V`$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-module. A $`\tau `$-standard filtration $`F()`$ is a decreasing filtration of $`V`$ indexed by $``$ such that:

1. For each $`n`$, $`F\left(n\right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau \times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-module via restriction $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$;
2. $`F\left(n\right)=V`$ and $`F\left(n\right)=\{0\}`$ for $`n>>0`$.

A $`\tau `$-standard filtration $`F()`$ is called an $`\tau `$-transversal filtration if, and only if, the following condition holds:

* (Transversality condition) For every $`n,m`$, we have

$$U(𝔲_{}^\tau )_m^\tau F\left(n\right)F\left(n+m\right).$$

###### Definition 1.6.

Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional vector space. A family of linear subspaces $`\{U_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ forms a distributive lattice if, and only if, there exists a basis $`B`$ of $`V`$ such that $`BU_\lambda `$ is a basis of $`U_\lambda `$ for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

For a category $`𝒵`$, we denote the class of objects of $`𝒵`$ by $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝒵`$. Also, for every $`𝒳,𝒴\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝒵`$, we denote the set of morphisms of $`𝒳`$ to $`𝒴`$ by $`\text{Hom}_𝒵(𝒳,𝒴)`$.

###### Definition 1.7 (Category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

Let $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$ be categories defined as follows:
(Objects) We define $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$ as pairs $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})`$ such that the following three conditions hold:

1. $`V`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-module;
2. For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, $`F^\tau ()`$ is an $`\tau `$-standard filtration of $`V`$;
3. For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a family of subspaces $`\{F^\tau \left(n\right)\}_{\tau \sigma (1),n}`$ of $`V`$ forms a distributive lattice.

Let $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ be the full-subcategory of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$ obtained by replacing condition 2. by the following stronger condition:

* For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, $`F^\tau ()`$ is an $`\tau `$-transversal filtration of $`V`$.

(Morphisms) For $`(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$, we define

Hom $`{}_{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l}{}^{}((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}))`$
$`:=\{f`$ $`\text{Hom}_{\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)}(V_1,V_2);f\left(F_1^\tau \left(n\right)\right)F_2^\tau \left(n\right)\text{ for every }n\text{ and every }\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\}`$
For simplicity, we may write $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\})`$ instead of $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})`$.

###### Remark 1.8.

Replacing $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-modules in Definition 1.7 by $`G\times 1`$-modules, we obtain the two fullsubcategories $`𝒞(X)^+𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c^l`$ and $`𝒞(X)𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c`$ defined in the introduction.

###### Definition 1.9 (Category $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$).

We define subcategories $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })^l(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c^l`$ as follows:
(Objects) $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma }):=\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma })^l:=\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c^l`$.
(Morphisms) For $`(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^l`$, we define

Hom $`{}_{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^l}{}^{}((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}))`$
$`:=`$ $`\{f\text{Hom}_{\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)}(V_1,V_2);f\text{ satisfies the conditions (L) and (R), where}`$
$`(L)`$ $`f\left(F_1^\tau \left(n\right)\right)=f\left(V_1\right)F_2^\tau \left(n\right)\text{ for every }n\text{ and every }\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1);`$
$`(R)`$ $`\{f\left(V_1\right),\{F_2^\tau \left(n\right)\}_{\tau \sigma (1),n}\}\text{ forms a distributive lattice for every }\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }.\}`$
We regard $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ as a fullsubcategory of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^l`$.

### 1.4 The category $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ and the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$

For a $`G`$-variety $`Y`$, we denote the category of $`G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $`Y`$ by $`𝔬𝔥^GY`$.

###### Definition 1.10 (Category of equivariant bundles).

We define two subcategories $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ and $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ of $`𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ as follows:

* $`(\mathrm{𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬})`$ We define $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ as

$$\{\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}\text{-equivariant vector bundles on }X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\}.$$
* $`(\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬})`$ We define the morphisms of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ as the morphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent $`𝒪_{X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}`$-modules. We define the morphisms of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ as morphisms in $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ such that both their kernel and cokernel exist in $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. We call a morphism of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ a ($`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant) vector bundle morphism.

###### Remark 1.11.

The category $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ introduced above contains the category $`EV\left(X\right)=EV\left(X(\mathrm{\Sigma })\right)`$ in the introduction as a fullsubcategory.

We denote the total space of a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ by $`V\left(\right)`$.

###### Definition 1.12.

For each $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$, we define a pair $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right)`$ as follows.

$$\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right):=(B(),\{F^\tau \left(n\right)\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1),n})$$

Here $`B()`$ and $`F^\tau \left(n\right)`$ are vector spaces such that:

* $`B():=_Xk(e)`$ is the identity fiber of $``$;
* $`F^\tau \left(n\right):=\{vB();lim_t\mathrm{}t^n\left(1\times \tau (t)\right)vV\left(\right)\}`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and every $`n`$.

In particular, $`F^\tau ()`$ is a decreasing filtration of $`V`$ for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

A refinement of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ gives an equivalence of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c`$ to $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })_c`$ in §4.

## 2 Foundational results

### 2.1 Preliminaries

#### 2.1.1 Isotypical decompositions

Let $`X=X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ be the $`G\times G`$-equivariant partial compactification of $`G`$ associated with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then, the natural projection $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}G\times G`$ induces a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-action on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. Thus, by the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$, the $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-action on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is trivial. Let $``$ be a $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ (e.g. a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle). Then, $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$ operates on $`_Xk(x)`$ for every $`xX\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. For each $`\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}`$, we define a sheaf of abelian groups $`_\chi `$ on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ as follows:

$$_\chi \left(𝒰\right):=\text{Hom}_{1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)}(k\chi ,\left(𝒰\right))\text{ for every Zariski open subset }𝒰X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right).$$

Then, $`_\chi `$ is an $`𝒪_X`$-submodule of $``$. The following lemmas easily follow from standard representation theory.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $``$ and $``$ be $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-equivariant vector bundles. Choose $`\chi ,\xi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}`$. If $`\chi \xi `$, then we have $`\text{Hom}_{(𝒪_X,1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right))}(_\chi ,_\xi )=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ admits the following isotypical decomposition:

$$_{\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}}_\chi .$$

Moreover, each $`_\chi `$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 2.3 (Isotypical components of the category $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

For each $`\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}`$, we define two categories $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$ and $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$ as follows:

* $`(\mathrm{𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬})`$ We define $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$ by

$$\{\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c;_\chi \}.$$
* $`(\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬})`$ We regard $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$ and $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$ as full-subcategories of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ and $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$, respectively.

Notice that an object of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$ can be identified with a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`X`$.

###### Corollary 2.4 (Isotypical decomposition of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

We have a direct sum decomposition

$$EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c_{\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c$$

as categories.

###### Proof.

This is a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2. ∎

###### Definition 2.5 (Isotypical components of the category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

For each $`\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}`$, we define three categories $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c^l`$ as follows:

* $`(\mathrm{𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬})`$ We define $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$ by

$$\{(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c;\text{Hom}_{1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)}(k\chi ,V)V\}.$$

We also define $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c^l`$ by

$$\{(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l;\text{Hom}_{1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)}(k\chi ,V)V\}.$$
* $`(\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬})`$ We consider $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c^l`$ as full-subcategories of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$, $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$, and $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$, respectively.

We have an analogous decomposition to that of Corollary 2.4 for $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$.

###### Corollary 2.6 (Isotypical decomposition of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

We have a direct sum decomposition

$$\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c_{\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c$$

as categories.

###### Proof.

The assertion follows directly from the complete reducibility of a $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-module. ∎

#### 2.1.2 Some lemmas about equivariant structures

For equivariant structures on line bundles, we have the following celebrated result of Steinberg.

###### Theorem 2.7 (Steinberg  and GIT  1.4-1.6).

Assume that a connected, simply connected semisimple linear algebraic group $`K`$ acts on a normal projective algebraic variety $`Y`$. Then, every line bundle on $`Y`$ admits a unique $`K`$-linearization. $`\mathrm{}`$

Until Lemma 2.8, we assume that $`X`$ is complete. In vector bundle case, a naive extension of Theorem 2.7 is false. For an arbitrary irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$ of dimension $`2`$, $`V\times X`$ has at least three $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle structures. One is given by

$$(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G})\times (V\times X)(g_1,g_2,v,x)(v,(g_1,g_2).x)V\times X,$$

that is $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariantly isomorphic to a direct sum $`𝒪_X^{dimV}`$ of trivial line bundles. The others are given by

$`(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G})\times (V\times X)(g_1,g_2,v,x)(g_1.v,(g_1,g_2).x)V\times X,`$ (2.1.1)
$`(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G})\times (V\times X)(g_1,g_2,v,x)(g_2.v,(g_1,g_2).x)V\times X.`$ (2.1.2)
We denote the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundles (2.1.1) and (2.1.2) by $`V𝒪_X`$ and $`𝒪_XV`$, respectively. Moreover, we also write $`V`$ and $`V`$ for their twist by a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $``$.

Hence, to obtain a proper analogue of Steinberg’s theorem for vector bundles, we must impose some auxiliary condition.

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $``$ be an inclusion of vector bundles on $`X`$ as coherent $`𝒪_X`$-modules. Assume that both $``$ and $``$ have $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant structures such that $`_G_G`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant $`𝒪_G`$-modules. Then, the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant structure of $``$ is given by the restriction of that of $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.9.

Let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$. If we fix a compatible $`(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G},k[G])`$-module structure on $`\left(G\right)(=\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,))`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle structure on $``$ is unique if it exists. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\{0\}`$ be the fan consisting of a unique cone $`\{0\}X_{}\left(T\right)_{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.10.

We have an equivalence of categories $`\text{Ind}:\left(\{0\}\right)\stackrel{}{}EV\left(\{0\}\right)`$. Its inverse functor is given by the restriction to the fiber at $`e`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`X\left(\{0\}\right)=G`$. In particular, $`X\left(\{0\}\right)`$ is a homogeneous space under $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-action. Its isotropy group at $`e`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)(g,h)(g,gh)\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$. By definition, the set of one-dimensional cones of $`\{0\}`$ is an empty set. Hence, we have $`\left(\{0\}\right)\text{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$. Thus, the desired equivalence is standard (cf. Chriss and Ginzburg  5.2.16). ∎

###### Lemma 2.11.

Assume that $`X=G`$ $`(`$i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{0\})`$. Let Ind be as in Lemma 2.10. Then, we have

$$\text{Ind}\left(V_\lambda k\right)V_\lambda 𝒪_G\text{Ind}\left(k\overline{\lambda }^1\right)V_\lambda $$

for every $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. Here $`\overline{\lambda }`$ is the image of $`\lambda `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$ as in §1.2.

###### Proof.

As a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$-module, we have $`V_\lambda 𝒪_X_Xk\left(e\right)V_\lambda k`$. Hence, we have the first isomorphism. Next, we prove $`\text{Ind}\left(V_\lambda k\right)\text{Ind}\left(k\overline{\lambda }^1\right)V_\lambda `$ to complete the proof. $`k\overline{\lambda }^1`$ is trivial as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times 1(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right))`$-module. Thus, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times 1`$-module isomorphism $`\left(\text{Ind}\left(k\overline{\lambda }^1\right)V_\lambda \right)_Xk\left(e\right)V_\lambda `$. Here the action of $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$ is the right action. This action is trivial since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)`$ acts by $`\overline{\lambda }+\overline{\lambda }=0`$. As a result, we have $`\text{Ind}\left(V_\lambda k\right)\text{Ind}\left(k\overline{\lambda }^1\right)V_\lambda `$. ∎

#### 2.1.3 Equivariant divisors

In this section, we introduce and explain the notion of equivariant divisors. First, we present their definition. Recall that $`\overline{𝐎}_\sigma `$ is the closure of the $`G\times G`$-orbit of $`X`$ corresponding to $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Definition 2.12 (Equivariant Divisors).

An equivariant divisor is a $``$-linear formal sum of $`D_\tau `$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. For two equivariant divisors $`D_1=n_1^\tau D_\tau `$ and $`D_2=n_2^\tau D_\tau `$, we say $`D_1D_2`$ if, and only if, we have $`n_1^\tau n_2^\tau `$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Moreover, $`D_1`$ is said to be sufficiently large if, and only if, $`n_1^\tau >>0`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

Before we exploit some properties of equivariant divisors, we need a result.

###### Lemma 2.13.

There exists a fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ such that $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+)`$ is a complete regular embedding of $`G`$ which (equivariantly) contains $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

###### Proof.

By the theory of spherical embeddings, we have a $`G\times G`$-equivariant complete embedding $`Y`$ of $`G`$ which contains $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (cf. ). Then, we successively blow-up along the singular locus (which is $`G\times G`$-stable) to obtain a regular embedding. Now Theorem 1.2 gives the result. ∎

We fix one $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ of Lemma 2.13 hereafter.

###### Theorem 2.14 (See  2.2,  2.4, and  2.1-2.2).

We have the following:

1. For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$, the restriction map

$$\iota _\sigma ^{}:\underset{\tau \sigma (1)}{}D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}\overline{𝐎}_\sigma $$

is an injection.
2. We have the following short exact sequence.

$$0\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}{}D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\stackrel{\kappa }{}\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}0$$
3. For each equivariant divisor $`D=_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}n_\tau D_\tau `$, $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`𝒪_X\left(D\right)_Xk(x_\tau )`$ by weight $`n_\tau `$. $`(𝔾_m^\tau `$ is the image of $`𝔾_m`$ under $`1\times \tau ^1`$. See §1.2.$`)`$

Here $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$ is the $`1\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant Picard group. Moreover, the image of $`\kappa `$ determines the right $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G))`$-module structure of the identity fiber.

###### Remark 2.15.

The origin of Theorem 2.14 is somewhat complicated. If $`G`$ is an adjoint semisimple group and $`X`$ is complete, the above formulation is essentially due to Bifet . For another extreme of our scope, namely toric varieties, the description of the equivariant Picard group is a corollary of Klyachko’s theorem . In the meantime, Brion  established a general description of Picard groups using $`B\times B^{}`$-orbits. Hence, Theorem 2.14 is essentially a corollary of his result (but not a direct consequence). Anyway, since the author could not find a proper reference to this form of the theorem, we provide a proof.

For the proof of Theorem 2.14, we need some preparation.

The following is a modification of Strickland’s Theorem  2.4 to our setting. It is easily deduced from  2.4 by twisting a character of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0\times \stackrel{~}{T}_0`$.

###### Theorem 2.16 (Strickland’s theorem cf.  2.4).

Let $`p_0`$ be the unique $`B\times B^{}`$-fixed point in $`X_0`$. For each $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$, there exists a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $`\overline{}_\lambda `$ on $`X_0`$ such that $`\overline{}_\lambda _{𝒪_{X_0}}k(p_0)\lambda ^1\lambda `$ as $`\stackrel{~}{T}\times \stackrel{~}{T}`$-modules. Moreover, $`\overline{}_\lambda `$ is unique up to isomorphism.

Recall the morphism $`\pi :X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X_0`$ introduced in Theorem 1.2.

###### Corollary 2.17.

For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$, the map

$$ȷ_\sigma :\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_Xk(x_\sigma )X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})\text{Rep}(1\times \stackrel{~}{T})$$

is a surjection.

###### Proof.

$`𝐎_\sigma `$ is a closed $`G\times G`$-orbit of $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ with dimension $`dimGr`$. Thus, $`\pi \left(𝐎_\sigma \right)`$ is the closed $`G\times G`$-orbit of $`X_0`$. As a result, $`\pi (x_\sigma )`$ is the unique $`B\times B^{}`$-fixed point of $`X_0`$. Hence, for each $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$, we have $`ȷ_\sigma \left([\pi ^{}\overline{}_\lambda ]\right)=\lambda `$. ∎

Next, we review the Key Proposition of .

###### Theorem 2.18 (Klyachko  2.1.1).

For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have the following:

1. Every $`1\times T`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ on $`T\left(\sigma \right)`$ is uniquely written as $`E\times T\left(\sigma \right)`$ by a $`T`$-module $`E`$. $`(`$Here $`T`$ acts on both $`E`$ and $`T\left(\sigma \right)`$.$`)`$
2. Let $`E,F`$ be $`T`$-modules. Then, two $`1\times T`$-equivariant vector bundles $`E\times T\left(\sigma \right)`$ and $`F\times T\left(\sigma \right)`$ are isomorphic if, and only if, $`EF`$ as $`T`$-modules.
3. Let $`E`$ be a $`T`$-module. Let $`E=_{\lambda X^{}\left(T\right)}E^\lambda `$ be its $`T`$-isotypical decomposition. Choose $`vE^\lambda Ek(e)`$ and $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Then,

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^n(1\times \tau (t))v$$

exists in $`E\times T\left(\sigma \right)`$ if, and only if, $`\tau ,\lambda n`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.14.

First, we prove 1). We restrict our attention to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. Let $`\{\tau _1,\tau _2,\mathrm{}\tau _r\}`$ be the $``$-basis of $`X_{}\left(T\right)`$ which spans $`\sigma `$. Let $`\{\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{}\mu _r\}`$ be its dual basis (i.e. $`\tau _i,\mu _j=\delta _{i,j}`$). By Theorem 1.3, $`T\left(\sigma \right)D_\tau `$ is a $`1\times T`$-stable divisor if $`\tau \sigma (1)`$. Moreover, by the definition of the coordinate ring of toric varieties  1.2, we have $`𝒪_X\left(D_{\tau _i}\right)_Xk(x_\sigma )=\mu _i`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$-module for each $`1ir`$. As a result, the image of $`D_{\tau _i}`$ under the composition map $`_{i=1}^rD_{\tau _i}\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is $`\mu _i(X^{}(T))`$ for each $`i`$. In particular, 1) follows. Combined with Theorem 2.18 1), we have 3) if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$. Thus, 3) follows from Lemma 2.13 by restriction.

Now we prove 2). If we have $`_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}a_\tau D_\tau 0`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)`$, then there exist $`fk[G]^\times `$ such that $`_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_+(1)}a_\tau D_\tau =\mathrm{div}(f)`$. By a theorem of Rosenlicht, we have $`k[G]^\times =k^\times X^{}\left(G\right)`$. Hence, 1) yields $`a_\tau =0`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Therefore, we have a short exact sequence

$$0\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_+(1)}{}D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}G0.$$

We have $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}G\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$. By restricting the above short exact sequence to $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we obtain 2) and the assertion about $`\kappa `$. ∎

By Theorem 2.14, the pullback of the line bundle $`\overline{}_\lambda `$ defined in Theorem 2.16 corresponds to an element $`D^\lambda `$ of $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. We denote the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $`\pi ^{}\overline{}_\lambda `$ by $`_\lambda `$ (when we want to stress characters) or $`𝒪_X\left(D^\lambda \right)`$ (when we want to stress divisors).

###### Lemma 2.19.

Let $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. We have $`D^\lambda =_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}\tau ,\lambda D_\tau `$ in $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_{}`$. In particular, the RHS is an element of $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

###### Proof.

First, we consider the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$. We use the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 2.14 1). Let $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$. From the last step of the proof of Theorem 2.14 1), we have $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\sigma \right)_{i=1}^r\mu _iX^{}(T)X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. By Corollary 2.17, $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\sigma \right)X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is a surjection. By Theorem 2.14 2) (applied to the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=\sigma `$), we conclude $`\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\sigma \right)X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ since we have $`|\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}|=|X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})/X^{}(T)|`$. Thus, we have $`D^\lambda _{X(\sigma )}=_{\tau \sigma (1)}\tau ,\lambda D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\sigma \right)`$. We have the following exact sequence of free $``$-modules:

$$0\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_+(1)\backslash \sigma (1)}{}D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\sigma \right)$$

Hence, $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_+(r)}ȷ_\sigma :\text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }+(r)}X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is injective by Theorem 2.14 1) and the above arguments. As a result, we conclude $`D^\lambda =_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_+(1)}\tau ,\lambda D_\tau \text{Pic}^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)`$. Therefore, we have the result if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$. Since $`\pi :X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X_0`$ factors through $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\right)`$, the general case follows. ∎

For each $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $``$, $`_X`$ yields the following category (auto-) equivalence.

$`_X`$ $`:\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c_X\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$
$`_X`$ $`:\text{Hom}_{EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(,)\stackrel{}{}\text{Hom}_{EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(_X,_X)\text{ for every },\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c.`$
Thus, we have the following.

###### Corollary 2.20.

We have a category equivalence $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_cEV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\xi )_c`$ for every $`\chi ,\xi \stackrel{~}{Z}\left(G\right)^{}`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.14 2), we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $``$ such that $`\kappa \left(\right)=\xi \chi `$. Hence, the result follows from the fact that $`_X`$ yields an auto-equivalence of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ and the definition of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi )_c`$. ∎

### 2.2 Redefinition of the functor $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$

In this subsection, we rewrite the definition of the functor $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in order to handle subtle behaviors at the boundaries. Main ingredients in this subsection are the introduction of another functor $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ (Definition 2.26 and Definition 2.28), the proof of $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ (Proposition 2.30), and a description of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (Proposition 2.35).

#### 2.2.1 Bounding an equivariant bundle by standard ones

###### Lemma 2.21.

Let $``$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle. Assume that we have $`Vk\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$ $`(`$as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-modules$`)`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$. Then we have a unique $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion $`V𝒪_X`$ such that its image is generated by $`Vk`$.

###### Proof.

There exists a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`Z`$ such that we have $`Zk_1_Xk(e)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-modules (cf. Lemma 2.10). Then, we have $`Z𝒪_G_1_G`$ by Lemma 2.11. By looking at $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-action, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,_1)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$. (Here superscript $`1\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$ means the fixed part as in §1.1.) Hence, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}Zk`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-modules. As a consequence, we have an induced inclusion $`VkZk`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-submodules of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$. Thus, the induced $`𝒪_X`$-module morphism $`\varphi :V𝒪_X`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion when restricted to $`G`$ from Lemma 2.11 and Lemma 2.10. Hence, Lemma 2.8 yields the result. ∎

For a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ and an equivariant divisor $`D`$, we often write $`(D)`$ instead of $`_X𝒪_X(D)`$.

###### Corollary 2.22.

Let $``$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle. Let $`W`$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module. Assume that we have $`Vk=\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$. Then, for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant morphism $`W𝒪_X(D)`$ factors through $`V𝒪_X(D)`$. In particular, we have a natural isomorphism

$$\text{Hom}_{EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c}(W𝒪_X\left(D\right),)\text{Hom}_{\stackrel{~}{G}}(W,V).$$

###### Proof.

Let us choose a (sufficiently large) equivariant divisor $`D_0`$ such that $`Vk\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,\left(D_0\right))`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-submodule. We have $`Vk\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,\left(D\right))`$ for all $`DD_0`$. Thus, we have $`Vk=\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,\left(D\right))^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$. By Lemma 2.21, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion $`V𝒪_X\left(D\right)`$. A $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant morphism $`W𝒪_X\left(D\right)`$ defines a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-module morphism between their sections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,W𝒪_X)=WkVk=\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,\left(D\right))^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$. Since $`W𝒪_X`$ is generated by its global sections, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant morphism $`W𝒪_X\left(D\right)`$ factors through $`V𝒪_X`$. Therefore, twisting by $`𝒪_X\left(D\right)`$ completes the proof. ∎

From now on, we sometimes deal with $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles ($`=`$ objects in $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$). This strange restriction comes from two rather technical reasons. On one hand, the representation categories of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`G`$ are essentially different. Hence, we cannot forget the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-action completely. On the other hand, we use equivariant divisors which correspond only to $`G\times G`$-equivariant line bundles.

For each $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ and an equivariant divisor $`D`$, we denote the sheaf $`B()_X𝒪_X(D)`$ by $`()^D`$.

###### Corollary 2.23.

For every $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, there exists a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D_0`$ such that:

* $`()^D()^D`$ are inclusions of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent sheaves for every $`DD_0`$;
* The composition map $`()^D()^D`$ is the tensor product of the identity map of $`B()`$ and a unique $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion $`𝒪_X(D)𝒪_X(D)`$.

Moreover, such a series of inclusions is unique up to automorphism of $`B()`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module.

###### Proof.

We have $`B()kB()k[G]\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-modules by the algebraic Peter-Weyl theorem and Lemma 2.11. Hence, there exists a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D_0`$ such that we have $`(B()k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,(D))`$ for every $`DD_0`$. Thus, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant embedding $`()^D`$ by Lemma 2.21. Moreover, such an embedding is uniquely determined up to an automorphism of $`B()`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module. Next, we apply the same argument to $`^{}`$. Then, enlarge $`D_0`$ if necessary, we obtain $`B()^{}𝒪_X(D)^{}`$ for every $`DD_0`$. Hence, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion $`()^D`$ since the both vector bundles have the same rank. By Corollary 2.22, we can use an automorphism of $`B()`$ (as $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-modules) to obtain the desired series of inclusions. ∎

###### Lemma 2.24 (Main observation of this subsection).

Consider two objects $``$ and $``$ of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ such that $`B()B()`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-modules. Then, we can take the intersection $`_{D_0}`$ of $``$ and $``$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent subsheaves of $`()^{D_0}`$ for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D_0`$. Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent sheaves:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}()^{D_0}& & ()^D& \\ & & & \text{ for every }DD_0.\\ _{D_0}& & _D& \end{array}`$ (2.2.1)
###### Proof.

We have an embedding $`()^{D_0}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent sheaves by Corollary 2.23. By the isomorphism $`B()B()`$, we also have an embedding $`()^{D_0}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent sheaves. Hence, we can take their intersection. Here, $`_{D_0}`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent subsheaf of $`()^{D_0}`$ because the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant structure of $`()^{D_0}`$ preserves both $``$ and $``$ by Lemma 2.8. By Corollary 2.22, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant embedding $`B()^{}𝒪_X(D)^{}`$(resp. $`^{}`$) factors through $`B()^{}𝒪_X(D_0)^{}`$(resp. $`^{}`$). By taking their dual, we obtain the second assertion. ∎

###### Remark 2.25.

From now on, we freely use the notion of the intersection of two $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundles in the sense of Lemma 2.24. Notice that such an intersection is defined if, and only if, we specify an isomorphism between identity fibers (as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-modules) and a sufficiently large equivariant divisor.

#### 2.2.2 Redefinition of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$

Now we redefine the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ introduced in §1.4. We first introduce another map $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and prove $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ at Proposition 2.30. At the same time, we extend the definition of the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to the whole of $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$.

###### Definition 2.26 ($`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ for $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$).

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we define a pair

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\left(\right):=(B\left(\right),\{{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(,)\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})$$

by the following rules:

* $`B\left(\right):=_Xk(e)`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module. $`(`$By assumption, the $`1\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-action is trivial.$`)`$
* For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, let $`\varphi _\tau :B\left(\right)𝒪_XB\left(\right)k(x_\tau )`$ be the residual map at $`x_\tau `$. Then we define

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,):=\varphi _\tau \left((nD_\tau )_DB\left(\right)𝒪_X\right)$$

for every $`n`$ and a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$.

We call this map $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. Here the existence (and the stability) of intersections with respect to $`D`$ is guaranteed by Lemma 2.24. By fixing an isomorphism $`k(e)k(x_\tau )`$, we have an inclusion $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)B\left(\right)`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and every $`n`$.

###### Remark 2.27.

The isomorphism $`k(e)k(x_\tau )`$ in Definition 2.26 looks like quite artificial. However, since we deal with only vector spaces, we cannot detect the diagonal $`𝔾_m`$-action for each vector space. If $`X`$ is complete, we can use the space of the global sections of $`B\left(\right)𝒪_X`$ to canonicalize $`k(e)k(x_\tau )`$.

For a rational number $`x`$, $`x`$ denotes the maximal integer which does not exceed $`x`$.

###### Definition 2.28 ($`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ for $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$).

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _h\}`$ be a set of complete representative of $`X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$. For each $`1ih`$, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundle $`_{\lambda _i}`$ defined before Lemma 2.19. By Lemma 2.2, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ is uniquely written as $`_{i=1}^h_i_X_{\lambda _i}`$ for some $`_1,_2,\mathrm{},_h\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. Using the above decomposition, we define a pair $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\right)`$ as the direct sum

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\right)=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}B\left(_i_X_{\lambda _i}\right),\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(,_i_X_{\lambda _i})\right\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})$$

of pairs $`(B\left(_i_X_{\lambda _i}\right),\{{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(,_i_X_{\lambda _i})\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})`$ determined by the following rules:

* $`B\left(_i_X_{\lambda _i}\right):=B\left(_i\right)(k\overline{\lambda }_i)`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module;
* For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, let $`\varphi _\tau ^i:B\left(_i\right)𝒪_XB\left(_i\right)k(x_\tau )`$ be the residual map at $`x_\tau `$. Then, we define

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n+\tau (\lambda _i),_i_{\lambda _i}):=\varphi _\tau ^i\left(_i(nD_\tau )_DB\left(_i\right)𝒪_X\right)(k\overline{\lambda }_i)$$

for every $`n`$ and a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$.

We have an inclusion

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,_i_X_{\lambda _i})\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}B\left(_i_X_{\lambda _i}\right)=B\left(\right)$$

for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and every $`n`$.

###### Lemma 2.29.

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\{\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{},\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{}\}`$ be two choices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. By changing the numbers of the elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, we can assume $`\lambda _i\lambda _i^{}X^{}(T)`$ for every $`1ih`$. We put $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i:=\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1}^{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Then, it suffices to check the assertion $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^i}^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i+1}}^{}`$ for an arbitrary $`0ih`$. For each $`\lambda X^{}\left(T\right)`$, we have $`\tau ,\lambda `$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Hence, $`D^{\lambda _i^{}}D^{\lambda _i}=_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}\tau ,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _iD_\tau `$ is an equivariant divisor by Lemma 2.19. As a consequence, we have

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n+\tau ,\lambda _i,(D^{\lambda _i}))`$
$`={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n+\tau ,\lambda _i+\tau ,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _i,(D^{\lambda _i}+\tau ,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _iD_\tau ))`$
$`={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n+\tau ,\lambda _i+\tau ,\lambda _i^{}\lambda _i,(D^{\lambda _i}+D^{\lambda _i^{}\lambda _i}))`$
$`={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n+\tau ,\lambda _i^{},(D^{\lambda _i^{}}))`$
for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ by the construction of Definition 2.28. Therefore, Definition 2.28 does not depend on the choice of $`\lambda _i`$. ∎

Now we come to one of the main result of this subsection.

###### Proposition 2.30.

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\left(\right)\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right)`$ as vector spaces equipped with families of filtrations.

###### Proof.

Let $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. The definition of $`F^\tau (,)`$1.4) makes sense if we restrict ourselves to $`T\left(\tau \right)`$. Thus, we restrict our attention to $`T\left(\tau \right)`$. $`_{T\left(\tau \right)}`$ is isomorphic to $`E\times T\left(\tau \right)`$ for some $`T`$-module $`E`$ by Theorem 2.18 1). Let $`E=_{\lambda X^{}(T)}E^\lambda `$ be the isotypical decomposition of $`E`$.

Let $`E_0`$ be a trivial $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-representation such that $`dimE=dimE_0`$. By Theorem 2.18 3), we have $`F^\tau (n,)=_{\tau ,\lambda +n0}E^\lambda `$. We write $`T\left(\tau \right)=\text{Spec}R`$, where $`R`$ is the $`(1\times T)`$-algebra $`_{\mu X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu 0}\mu `$. Then, Definition 2.26 turns into the following: Let $`\varphi _\tau ^{}:Rk(x_\tau )`$ and $`\varphi _e^{}:Rk(e)`$ be the residual maps at $`x_\tau `$ and $`e`$, respectively. We define $`\varphi _\tau :=\text{id}\varphi _\tau ^{}:E_0RE_0k(x_\tau )`$ and $`\varphi _e:=\text{id}\varphi _e^{}:E_0RE_0k(x_e)`$. We have an isomorphism $`Ek(x_\tau )Ek(e)`$ induced from the constant section $`E_0kE_0_{\mu X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu 0}\mu =E_0R`$. For a sufficiently large integer $`N`$, we have $`ERE_0_{\mu X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu N}\mu `$ as compatible $`(1\times T,R)`$-modules. (For any one-dimensional $`T`$-module $`\mu _0`$ such that $`\tau ,\mu _0=N`$, the RHS is isomorphic to $`E_0\mu _0R`$.) Thus, we have

$`ER\left(E_0{\displaystyle \underset{\mu X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu N}{}}\mu \right)E_0R`$ (2.2.2)
as compatible $`(1\times T,R)`$-modules. Since the image of $`\mu `$ under $`\varphi _e^{}`$ is $`1`$ for every $`\mu X^{}(T)`$, (2.2.2) induces isomorphisms

$$ER_Rk(e)\left(E_0\underset{\mu X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu N}{}\mu \right)_Rk(e)E_0R_Rk(e)E_0k(e).$$

Hence, we have $`F^\tau (n,)ER_Rk(e)E_0R_Rk(e)`$ for every $`n`$. In this setting, we have

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _\tau \left(E_0R{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\rho X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu n}{}}E^\rho \mu \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\rho X^{}(T);\tau ,\mu n}{}}\left(E_0kE^\rho \mu \right)E_0k(x_\tau )E_0k(e).`$
By comparing term by term, we conclude $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)=F^\tau (n,)`$ as subspaces of the identity fiber $`E_0k(e)`$ for each $`\tau `$. ∎

Thanks to Proposition 2.30, we do not need to distinguish $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. Thus, we consider $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ in Definition 2.28 to be the primary definition of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hereafter because it prolongs the original $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in §1.4 and is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by Lemma 2.29.

#### 2.2.3 Making $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ into a functor

In the definition of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in §1.4, we only need the closure of $`(1\times T)e`$ (inside $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) to define $`F^\tau `$. As a consequence, our definition of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ coincides with the composition of the restriction to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ and Klyachko’s functor  0.1. Therefore, we obtain the following from Klyachko’s description  2.3 by using Definition 2.28 and Proposition 2.30.

###### Corollary 2.31.

Let $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, $`F^\tau (,)`$ is a decreasing filtration of $`B()`$. Moreover, we have $`F^\tau (n,)=B()`$ and $`F^\tau (n,)=0`$ for $`n>>0`$.

###### Corollary 2.32.

Let $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\{F^\tau (n,)\}_{\tau \sigma (1),n}`$ forms a distributive lattice.

###### Lemma 2.33.

Let $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. For each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and $`n`$, $`F^\tau (n,)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau \times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-submodule of $`B()`$.

###### Proof.

By Definition 2.28, it suffices to prove the assertion for $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. By Lemma 2.24, $`\left(nH_\tau \right)_DB()𝒪_X`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant $`𝒪_X`$-module for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`H`$. Thus, its fiber at $`x_\tau `$ admits an action of the stabilizer at $`x_\tau `$. Hence, $`F^\tau (n,)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\tau `$-submodule of $`B\left(\right)`$. By the definition of $`\mathrm{}^d`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau =\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau U_+^\tau \mathrm{}^d\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau (U_+^\tau \times 1)\stackrel{~}{G}^\tau `$. By Lemma 2.11, the $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau =\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau U_+^\tau `$-action on $`B\left(\right)(B()𝒪_X_Xk(x_\tau ))`$ coincides with the action of stabilizer $`\mathrm{}^d\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau `$ on $`B\left(\right)(B()𝒪_X_Xk(e))`$ (notice that we have fixed an isomorphism $`k(e)k(x_\tau )`$ in Definition 2.26). ∎

###### Lemma 2.34.

Let $`_1,_2\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ and let $`f:_1_2`$ be a morphism of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. Then, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau \times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module morphism $`f^{}:F^\tau (n,_1)F^\tau (n,_2)`$ such that the morphism of their ambient spaces $`f^{}:B(_1)B(_2)`$ is obtained by the specialization of $`f`$ at $`e`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and every $`n`$.

###### Proof.

By Definition 2.28 and Corollary 2.4, it suffices to prove the assertion for $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. We have a natural morphism $`f^{}:B(_1)B(_2)`$ induced by $`f`$. We have $`B(_i)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,\left(_i\right)_1)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Let $`D`$ be a sufficiently large divisor. By Lemma 2.21 and Corollary 2.22, we have a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant inclusion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,_1)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}𝒪_X\left(D\right)_1`$ such that $`f`$ induces a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,_1)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}𝒪_X\left(D\right)\stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{id}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,_2)^{1\times \stackrel{~}{G}}𝒪_X\left(D\right)_2`$. Enlarging $`D`$ if necessary, we have the following commutative diagram of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent sheaves by Corollary 2.23.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}_1\left(nD_\tau \right)& \stackrel{f\mathrm{id}}{}& _2\left(nD_\tau \right)\\ & & \\ (_1)^D& \stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{id}}{}& (_1)^D\\ & & \\ B(_1)𝒪_X& \stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{id}}{}& B(_1)𝒪_X\end{array}`$
Here we can take the intersection of $`_1\left(nD_\tau \right)\stackrel{f\mathrm{id}}{}_2\left(nD_\tau \right)`$ and $`B(_1)𝒪_X\stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{id}}{}B(_2)𝒪_X`$ in $`(_1)^D\stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{id}}{}(_2)^D`$ termwise to define a morphism

$$_1\left(nD_\tau \right)_DB(_1)𝒪_X_2\left(nD_\tau \right)_DB(_2)𝒪_X.$$

Applying $`\varphi _\tau `$ (in Definition 2.26) to both sides, we obtain a $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\tau `$-module morphism $`F^\tau (n,_1)F^\tau (n,_2)`$ because all sheaves and morphisms in the above diagram are $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant. Hence, we obtain the result from the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.33. ∎

###### Proposition 2.35.

$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ defines a faithful covariant functor $`\mathrm{\Xi }:EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$.

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2.31, Corollary 2.32 and Lemma 2.33, the range of the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$. By Lemma 2.34, we have a morphism (of sets)

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:\text{Hom}_{EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(,)\text{Hom}_{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l}(\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right),\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right))$$

for every $`,\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. By the similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.34, we can deduce that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(f\right)\mathrm{\Xi }\left(g\right)=\mathrm{\Xi }\left(fg\right)`$ for two morphisms $`f,g`$ in $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ becomes a covariant functor from $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ to $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$. For each nonzero morphism of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$, its restriction to $`G`$ is nontrivial since a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-module cannot contain torsion submodule. Then, it induces a nontrivial morphism between the identity fibers by Lemma 2.10. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ must be faithful. ∎

## 3 Actions and toric slice

### 3.1 Toric decomposition

Here we develop a method to study of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles via the study of equivariant vector bundles of a certain one-dimensional toric variety.

#### 3.1.1 Reduction to $`𝔸^1`$

First, we fix an arbitrary one-dimensional cone $`\tau `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We define $`𝔸_\tau :=\overline{𝔾_m^\tau e}T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\backslash \{x_\tau \}`$. We have $`𝔸_\tau =𝔾_m^\tau \{x_\tau \}`$ (as sets) and $`𝔸_\tau 𝔸^1`$ (as $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-toric varieties). By Theorem 1.3, we have an open embedding $`B^{}.𝔸_\tau .BX(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Hence, we have the following composition of faithful functors

$$\mathrm{Res}^\tau :𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{G}\times G}X(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{B}^{}\times B}(B^{}.𝔸_\tau .B)𝔬𝔥^{𝔾_m^\tau }𝔸_\tau ,$$

where the second functor is the composition of the restriction (cf.  5.2.16) and restriction of the group. Since all of the previous constructions use faithful functors, we can restrict the bounding sheaves of Corollary 2.23 to $`𝔸_\tau `$ by $`\mathrm{Res}^\tau `$. In particular, the definition of $`F^\tau (,)`$ (see Definition 1.12) factors through $`\mathrm{Res}^\tau `$. Let $`t`$ be a local uniformizer of $`x_\tau `$ on $`𝔸_\tau `$ which is an eigenfunction with respect to $`𝔾_m^\tau `$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ and a sufficiently large integer $`N`$, we have the following inclusions of $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-modules:

$$B()t^Nk[t]\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })B()t^Nk[t]=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,\left(\right)^{ND_\tau }_{𝔸_\tau }).$$

Here $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )`$ acts on $`B()`$ as a subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$ and acts on $`t`$ trivially. $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`B()`$ trivially and acts on $`t`$ by weight one.

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2.23, all we have to do is to check the compatibility with respect to the group actions. Since $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )`$ fixes $`𝔸_\tau `$ pointwise, it acts on $`t`$ trivially (cf. §1.2). By the definition of $`B()𝒪_X`$2.1.2), $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )`$ acts on $`B()`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`B()`$ trivially. Since $`x_\tau `$ is a limit of $`t.e`$ with $`t0`$ in $`𝔾_m^\tau `$, $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`t`$ by degree one. ∎

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. Let $`N`$ be an integer. Then, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,(\left(\right)^{ND_\tau }_D)_{𝔸_\tau })=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}F^\tau (n,)kt^n.$$

as $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau `$-submodules of $`B\left(\right)t^Nk[t]`$ for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$. In particular, the RHS is the $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-isotypical decomposition.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.1, $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`B()kt^nB()t^Nk[t]=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,\left(\right)^{ND_\tau }_{𝔸_\tau })`$ by degree $`n`$. Thus, we have the $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-isotypical decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,()^{ND_\tau })\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}B\left(\right)kt^n.$$

By Corollary 2.23, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,\left(\right)^{MD_\tau }_{𝔸_\tau })$$

as a compatible $`(𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-submodule for $`M>>0`$. Hence, we have the $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-isotypical decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)kt^n.$$

Since the latter is $`k[t]`$-free, $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(,)`$ is a decreasing filtration of $`B()`$. If $`\tau \xi \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, then twisting by $`D_\xi `$ has no effect on coherent shaves on $`𝔸_\tau `$. Moreover, twisting $`D_\tau `$ is equivalent to multiplying $`t^1`$. Thus, we have

$`F^\tau (n,)`$ $`=\varphi _\tau \left(\left(nD_\tau \right)_D()\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,(nD_\tau )_{𝔸_\tau })B()kt^0={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\tau }(n,)`$
as vector subspaces of $`B()`$ by Definition 2.26. (Here we put $`D_{𝔸_\tau }=MD_\tau _{𝔸_\tau }`$.) Therefore, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,(\left(\right)^{ND_\tau }_D)_{𝔸_\tau })=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}F^\tau (n,)kt^nB()t^Nk[t]$$

as compatible $`(𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-modules. By Lemma 2.33, each inclusion $`F^\tau (n,)B()`$ is a $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )`$-module inclusion. ∎

For a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$, we define the formal loop space $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ of $`V`$ with respect to $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ as follows:

$`V_{[t]}^\tau :=\underset{N}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,V𝒪_X(ND_\tau )_{𝔸_\tau })=V\underset{N}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}t^Nk[t]Vk[t,t^1]`$ (3.1.1)
Here $`t,t^1`$, and $`Vk`$ generates $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$.

###### Definition 3.3.

We define the category $`𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$ as follows:

* $`(\mathrm{𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬})`$ Triples $`(R,V,\iota )`$ such that:

+ $`R`$ is a compatible $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-module;
    + $`V`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module;
    + $`\iota :RV_{[t]}^\tau `$ is an injective morphism of compatible $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-modules.

For simplicity, we may also denote it by $`(RV_{[t]}^\tau )`$.
* $`(\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬})`$ We define the morphism by the following commutative diagram of compatible $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t])`$-modules:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}(R_1& & (V_1)_{[t]}^\tau )& & \mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau \\ & & & & \\ (R_2& & (V_2)_{[t]}^\tau )& & \mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau \end{array}$$

Here $`(V_1)_{[t]}^\tau (V_2)_{[t]}^\tau `$ is the morphism induced by a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module map $`V_1V_2`$.

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we define an object $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$ as follows:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right):=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })=\underset{N}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,(_D\left(\right)^{ND_\tau })_{𝔸_\tau })B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau \right)$$

Here $`D`$ is a sufficiently large equivariant divisor which depends on $``$ (cf. Lemma 2.24).

###### Remark 3.4.

It is important NOT to forget the ambient space $`B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau `$.

###### Corollary 3.5.

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we have

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)\left(\left(\underset{n}{}F^\tau (n,)kt^n\right)B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau \right)$$

as $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_m^\tau `$-modules. In particular, the above direct sum decomposition is the $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-isotypical decomposition.

###### Proof.

The assertion follows from the definition of $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau `$ and Corollary 3.2. ∎

###### Corollary 3.6.

$`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau `$ defines a functor $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$.

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from Proposition 2.35 and Corollary 3.5. ∎

#### 3.1.2 Basic computation

We work under the same settings as in §3.1.1. In particular, $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Here, we compute $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau `$ for two kinds of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles. The description of the first series of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles is a direct consequence of the definition.

###### Corollary 3.7.

For a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$, we have $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(V𝒪_X\right)=\left(Vk[t]V_{[t]}^\tau \right)`$.

###### Proof.

It is a direct consequence of Corollary 3.5. ∎

To describe our second series of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles, we need a preparation.

###### Definition 3.8.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant weight. Let $`v_{w_0\lambda }^{}`$ be a highest weight vector of $`V_{w_0\lambda }`$ (cf. §1.1). We define

$$V_\lambda ^\tau \left(n\right):=\{vV_\lambda ;\tau (t)(vv_{w_0\lambda }^{})=t^nvv_{w_0\lambda }^{}\text{ for all }t𝔾_m(k)k\}$$

for every $`n`$. We have a direct sum decomposition $`V_\lambda =_{n0}V_\lambda ^\tau \left(n\right)`$. Moreover, we define

$$F_{max}^\tau (m,V_\lambda ):=\underset{nm}{}V_\lambda ^\tau \left(n\right)\text{ for all }m.$$

We call this filtration the maximal filtration of the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module $`V_\lambda k`$.

Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional rational $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module. We denote its ($`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-) irreducible decomposition by $`_\mu V_\mu ^{n_\mu }`$. Then, we define

$$F_{max}^\tau (m,V):=\underset{\mu }{}F_{max}^\tau (m,V_\mu )^{n_\mu }\text{ for all }m.$$

We call this filtration the maximal filtration of the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module $`Vk`$. It is independent of the choice of an irreducible decomposition of $`V`$.

Taking account the weight decomposition of $`V`$ and Definition 1.6, we see that $`F_{max}^\tau (,V)`$ is an $`\tau `$-transversal filtration.

Now we can state and prove the description of our second series of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles.

###### Proposition 3.9.

We have $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda \right)=(V_\lambda ,\{F_{max}^\tau (,V_\lambda )\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})`$ for every dominant weight $`\lambda `$. $`(`$Here $`_\lambda `$ is defined before Lemma 2.19.$`)`$

###### Proof.

We have $`_{w_0\lambda }\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },w_0\overline{\lambda })_c`$ by Theorem 2.16 and the definition. Thus, we have $`_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda \mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. We compute the boundary behavior as in §1.4 via Proposition 2.30 for each direction. We choose an arbitrary $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. By the remarks at the beginning of §3.1.1, we restrict ourselves to $`(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda )_{𝔸_\tau }`$. By Theorem 2.18 1), we have

$$(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda )_{𝔸_\tau }𝔸_\tau \times \left((w_0\lambda )^1V_\lambda \right)$$

as $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-equivariant vector bundles on $`𝔸_\tau `$. Therefore, we have

$$F^\tau (m,𝔸_\tau \times \left((w_0\lambda )^1V_\lambda \right))=\underset{nm}{}V_\lambda ^\tau \left(n\right)=F_{max}^\tau (m,V_\lambda )$$

for every $`m`$ by Theorem 2.18 3). ∎

#### 3.1.3 Injectivity of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$

The rest of this subsection is devoted to the proof of Proposition 3.10.

###### Proposition 3.10.

$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ induces an injective map $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c^l`$.

First, we prove a simple special case.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Let $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Let $`_1,_2\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\tau ,1)_c`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_1\right)\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_2\right)`$. For a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$, we fix inclusions $`\left(_1\right)^D_1,_2\left(_1\right)^D`$ which gives rise to an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_1\right)\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_2\right)`$ $`(`$see Corollary 2.23$`)`$. Then, we have $`_1=_2`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent subsheaves of $`\left(_1\right)^D`$.

###### Proof.

We prove by induction on $`p`$. We have $`_1_H\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }=_2_H\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }`$ for every sufficiently small integer $`p`$. By assumption, we have $`\overline{𝐎}_\tau =𝐎_\tau `$. Hence, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant $`𝒪_{X(\tau )}`$-module annihilated by $`𝒪_{X(\tau )}\left(D_\tau \right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`𝐎_\tau `$. In particular, it is determined by its fiber at $`x_\tau `$. Suppose

$$_1_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }=_2_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }$$

and $`F^\tau (p+1,_1)=F^\tau (p+1,_2)`$ as a subspace of $`B\left(_1\right)`$ for some integer $`p`$. Let $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)\stackrel{~}{}`$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant $`𝒪_{𝐎_\tau }`$-submodule of $`B(_1)𝒪_{𝐎_\tau }`$ such that $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)\stackrel{~}{}_Xk(x_\tau )F^\tau (p+1,_1)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\tau `$-modules. We put $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right):=𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)\stackrel{~}{}_X𝒪_X\left((p+1)D_\tau \right)`$. Then, we have the following commutative diagrams

$`\begin{array}{cccccccccc}0& & \left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }& & \left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }& \stackrel{\phi _i^p}{}& \left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }_{D_\tau }& & 0& \text{(exact)}\\ & & s^p& & & & u& \\ 0& & _i_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }& & _i_D\left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }& & 𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)& & 0& \text{(exact)}\end{array}`$ (3.1.2)
for $`i=1,2`$.

###### Claim 1.

In the diagram $`(\text{3.1.2})`$, the extension $`_i_D\left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }`$ of $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)`$ by $`_i_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }`$ $`(`$as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent $`𝒪_X`$-modules$`)`$ is uniquely determined by the inclusions $`s^p`$ and $`u`$.

###### Proof of Claim.

The preimage of $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)`$ under $`\phi _i^p`$ is uniquely determined in $`\left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }`$. By standard homological algebra (cf. Rotman  Theorem 7.19 and Ex. 7.20-7.22), the ambiguity of extension is given by a morphism

$$h:𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }/(_i_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau })$$

as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent $`𝒪_{X(\tau )}`$-modules. $`\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau }/(_i_D\left(_1\right)^{pD_\tau })`$ is a successive extension of elements in $`\{\left(_1\right)^{qD_\tau }/(\phi _i^{q1})^1\left(𝒬_q\left(_1\right)\right);qp\}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent $`𝒪_{X(\tau )}`$-modules by construction. For each $`qp`$, $`\left(_1\right)^{qD_\tau }/(\phi _i^{q1})^1\left(𝒬_q\left(_1\right)\right)`$ is an $`𝒪_{D_\tau }`$-module. Moreover, $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on its fiber at $`x_\tau `$ by weight $`q`$ (cf. Theorem 2.14 3)). Similarly, $`𝔾_m^\tau `$ acts on $`𝒬(_1,p+1)_Xk(x_\tau )`$ by weight $`(p+1)`$. Therefore, we have

$$\text{Hom}_{(\stackrel{~}{G}\times G,𝒪_{𝐎_\tau })}(𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right),\left(_1\right)^{qD_\tau }/(\phi _i^{q1})^1\left(𝒬_q\left(_1\right)\right))=0.$$

Every $`𝒪_{X(\tau )}`$-morphism from $`𝒬_{p+1}\left(_1\right)`$ descends to a $`𝒪_{𝐎_\tau }`$-morphism. Hence, we have $`h=0`$ by induction on $`q`$. ∎

By the above claim, we have $`_1_D\left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }=_2_D\left(_1\right)^{(p+1)D_\tau }`$. Thus, the induction on $`p`$ proceeds. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 3.10.

Let $`_1,_2\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_1\right)\mathrm{\Xi }\left(_2\right)`$. By Corollary 2.4 and Corollary 2.20, we need only to prove the case $`_1,_2\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. By Lemma 3.11, we have $`_1_{X\left(\tau \right)}=_2_{X\left(\tau \right)}`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant coherent subsheaf of $`\left(_1\right)^D_{X\left(\tau \right)}`$ for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$. Collecting these isomorphisms (as coherent $`𝒪_{X\left(\tau \right)}`$-submodules of $`\left(_1\right)^D_{X\left(\tau \right)}`$) for all $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, we have $`_1=_2`$ on $`_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}X\left(\tau \right)`$. Thus, we have $`_1=_2`$ as vector bundles because a vector bundle on a normal variety is uniquely determined by its restriction to a complement of a codimension two locus. Hence, we have $`_1=_2`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector subbundles of $`\left(_1\right)^D`$ by Corollary 2.9. ∎

### 3.2 Proof of Transversality

This subsection is devoted to prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.12.

For each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right)\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$.

Since the transversality condition (Definition 1.5) is closed under direct sums, we can reduce the problem to $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ by Corollary 2.4 and Corollary 2.20.

We fix an arbitrary $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

#### 3.2.1 Left actions

###### Definition 3.13.

For each $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$, we introduce a left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action $`L_\tau `$ on $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ as follows:

$$L_\tau (X):V_{[t]}^\tau \underset{n}{}v_nt^n\underset{n}{}(Xv_n)t^nV_{[t]}^\tau $$

for every $`X𝔲_+^\tau `$. We extend it to a left $`𝔤`$-action $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau `$ on $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau (X):V_{[t]}^\tau \underset{n}{}v_nt^n\underset{n}{}(Xv_n)t^nV_{[t]}^\tau $$

for every $`X𝔤`$.

###### Lemma 3.14.

For every $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, the $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-isotypical decomposition

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau ()=\left(\left(\underset{n}{}F^\tau (n,)kt^n\right)B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau \right)$$

identifies the differential of the unipotent radical of the $`P^\tau `$-action on $`F^\tau ()`$ (coming from Proposition 2.33) with the induced action of the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action. In particular, $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau ()`$ is preserved by the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action.

###### Proof.

Since the construction of $`F^\tau ()`$ factors through $`𝔸_\tau `$, this is a rephrasement of Lemma 2.33 and Corollary 3.5. ∎

#### 3.2.2 Right action

Here we introduce a $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action on $`B()_{[t]}^\tau `$ which is compatible with the natural $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action on the fiber of $`𝒪_XB()`$ at $`x_\tau `$. What we do here is only to switch from left to right in the definition of $`L_\tau `$. However, this is little complicated because our description heavily relies on Definition 2.26, where we choose $`B()𝒪_X`$ as the standard $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle (its alternative was $`𝒪_XB()`$).

We define $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }𝔾_{m}^{}`$ to be the image of $`\left(\tau \times 1\right):𝔾_mT\times T`$. Let $`V`$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module. Then, $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$ acts on a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $`V𝒪_X`$. We have $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_m^\tau `$. In particular, $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$ acts on $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$. Fix a set of representative $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _h\}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$ in $`X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. Then, we define $`\left(\right)`$ for each $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ as follows:

$$\left(\right):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}\underset{\lambda \lambda _iX^{}(T)}{}_{\lambda _i}V_\lambda ^{n_\lambda }.$$

Here $`_{\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})}V_\lambda ^{n_\lambda }`$ is the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-isotypical decomposition of $`B()`$. For an equivariant divisor $`D`$, let $`\left(\right)^D`$ denote $`()_X𝒪_X(D)`$. By Lemma 2.11, we have $`B()𝒪_G()_G`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-modules. Then, by using Corollary 2.23 repeatedly, we have

$$\mathrm{}()^D\left(\right)()^D\left(\right)^{2D}\mathrm{}$$

for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`H`$. As a result, we have the following isomorphism of $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,k[t,t^1])`$-modules.

$$B()_{[t]}^\tau =\underset{N}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,()^{ND_\tau }_{𝔸_\tau })\underset{N}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,()^{ND_\tau }_{𝔸_\tau })$$

###### Lemma 3.15.

For every $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, there exist a section $`s:()_{x_\tau }B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau `$ which yields the following $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-isotypical decomposition:

$$B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau =\underset{n}{}t^n.s(()_{x_\tau }).$$

###### Proof.

We have the residual map $`\psi _\tau ^R(\lambda ):(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda )_{𝔸_\tau }(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda )_{x_\tau }`$. By Proposition 3.9, we have an inclusion (of $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-modules)

$$(_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda )_{x_\tau }\stackrel{s_\lambda }{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\tau ,\lambda w_0\lambda }{}}V_\lambda ^\tau (n)kt^n\underset{n=0}{\overset{\tau ,\lambda w_0\lambda }{}}\underset{mn}{}V_\lambda ^\tau (n)kt^m(V_\lambda )_{[t]}^\tau $$

induced from a $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-module section of $`\psi _\tau ^R(\lambda )`$. Here the image of $`s_\lambda `$ is contained in a $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-isotypical component since $`(_{\lambda _i}V_\lambda )_{x_\tau }`$ is of the form $`\lambda _i^{dimV_\lambda }`$ regarded as a representation of $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$. Moreover, the image of $`s_\lambda `$ generates $`(V_\lambda )_{[t]}^\tau `$ as a $`k[t,t^1]`$-module.

Let $`\varphi _\tau ^R:()()_{x_\tau }`$ be the residual map. It factors through $`\psi _\tau ^R:()_{𝔸_\tau }()_{x_\tau }`$. We define a $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-module inclusion $`()_{x_\tau }\stackrel{s}{}V_{[t]}^\tau `$ as

$$s:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}\underset{\lambda \lambda _iX^{}(T)}{}t^{\tau ,w_0\lambda \lambda _i}.s_\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}s_i.$$

Since we have $`\tau ,w_0\lambda \lambda _i`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, the above construction is well-defined. $`s`$ is a sum of the inclusions of the form $`s_\lambda `$ with $`t`$-twist. Hence, the image of $`s`$ generates $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ as a $`k[t,t^1]`$-module. By the above construction, the image of $`s_i`$ is contained in a $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-isotypical component. Therefore, the image of $`s_i`$ form a $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_{m}^{}`$-isotypical component since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(G)\times 1`$ acts on the various $`\mathrm{Im}s_i`$ by distinct characters. ∎

Since $`()_{x_\tau }`$ has a natural $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action induced from $`(1\times U_{}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{G}^\tau `$, we can introduce a $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action on the image of $`s`$.

###### Definition 3.16.

We define a right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action $`R_\tau `$ on $`B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau `$ by

$$R_\tau (X):B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau _nt^n.v_n_nt^n.(Xv_n)B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau $$

for every $`X𝔲_{}^\tau `$.

###### Corollary 3.17.

$`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau ()`$ is stable under the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action for every $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$.

###### Proof.

By using $`()^D()^D`$ instead of $`()^D()^D`$ in Definition 2.26, we define

$${}_{}{}^{R}F_{}^{\tau }(n,):=\varphi _\tau ^R\left((nD_\tau )_D\left(\right)\right)()_{x_\tau }$$

for every $`n`$. This is a $`\stackrel{~}{P}^\tau `$-submodule of $`B()`$ by a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.33 via the same isomorphism $`k(e)k(x_\tau )`$ as in Definition 2.26. Then, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })=\underset{m}{}F^\tau (n,)kt^n=\underset{m}{}t^n.{}_{}{}^{R}F_{}^{\tau }(n,).$$

as compatible $`(k[t],{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau ))`$-submodules of $`B()_{[t]}^\tau `$. Here the latter direct sum gives the $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{~}{𝔾}`$-isotypical decomposition. Hence, the result follows from the definition of $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau ()`$. ∎

#### 3.2.3 Compatibility

We work under the same assumptions as in §3.2.1. The main technical result of this subsection is the following.

###### Theorem 3.18.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a root of $`𝔤`$ such that $`e_\alpha 𝔲_{}^\tau `$ $`(`$i.e. $`\tau ,\alpha <0)`$. Then, the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action $`R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$ of $`e_\alpha `$ is written as

$$R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)=c\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha },$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau `$ is the left $`𝔤`$-action and $`c`$ is a non-zero constant.

We first prove our main result (Proposition 3.12) by assuming Theorem 3.18.

###### Final step of the proof of Proposition 3.12.

By Corollary 3.5, we have

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)\left(\left(\underset{n}{}F^\tau (n,)kt^n\right)B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau \right).$$

Let $`\alpha `$ be a root such that $`e_\alpha 𝔲_{}^\tau `$. By Corollary 3.17, $`R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$ must preserve $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)`$ in $`B\left(\right)_{[t]}^\tau `$. By Theorem 3.18, it suffices to check whether the composition of the $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$-action and multiplying $`t^{\tau ,\alpha }`$ preserves $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)`$ or not. Then, to preserve $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)`$, we must have

$$(1t^{\tau ,\alpha }).e_\alpha F^\tau (n,)kt^nF^\tau (n+\tau ,\alpha ,)kt^{n\tau ,\alpha }.$$

Hence, we have

$$U\left(𝔲_{}^\tau \right)_m^\tau F^\tau (n,)F^\tau (n+m,)$$

This is the $`\tau `$-transversality condition. Hence, we have proved the result for $`\tau `$. Since $`\tau `$ is an arbitrary one-dimensional cone, we obtain the result. ∎

Before the proof of Theorem 3.18, we need some preparations. We define two full-subcategories $`𝔏`$ and $``$ of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ as follows:

* $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝔏:=\{V𝒪_X;V\mathrm{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}\}`$;
* $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}:=\{_{\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})}_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda ^{n_\lambda };n_\lambda _0\}`$.

We put $`𝒱_\lambda ^R:=_{w_0\lambda }V_\lambda `$ for each $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$. $`𝔏`$ is a rigid tensor category (cf. Deligne-Milne ) by the usual tensor product over $`𝒪_X`$.

###### Lemma 3.19.

There exists a tensor structure $`^{}`$ on $``$ which makes $``$ a rigid tensor category which is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $``$ is semisimple as an abelian category, it suffices to construct tensor products for each pair of irreducible objects. For each dominant weights $`\lambda ,\gamma `$, we write an irreducible decomposition of $`V_\lambda V_\gamma `$ by

$$V_\lambda V_\gamma =\underset{ϵ\text{ : dominant}}{}V_ϵ^{m_{\lambda ,\gamma }^ϵ}.$$

Again by semisimplicity, we can twist the above direct sum decomposition isotypical componentwise. We have

$$𝒱_\lambda ^R_X𝒱_\gamma ^R=_{w_0(\lambda +\gamma )}^{}\underset{ϵ\text{ : dominant}}{}V_ϵ^{m_{\lambda ,\gamma }^ϵ}.$$

We twist the component $`_{w_0(\lambda +\gamma )}^{}V_ϵ^{m_{\lambda ,\gamma }^ϵ}`$ by $`_{w_0(ϵ\lambda \gamma )}^{}`$. Notice that we have $`\tau ,w_0(ϵ\lambda \gamma )`$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. In particular, $`D_{w_0(ϵ\lambda \gamma )}`$ is an equivariant divisor. Hence, defining the twisted tensor product $`^{}`$ by

$$𝒱_\lambda ^R^{}𝒱_\gamma ^R:=\underset{ϵ\text{ : dominant}}{}\left(𝒱_ϵ^R\right)^{m_{\lambda ,\gamma }^ϵ}$$

yields the result. ∎

Hence, we obtain two different rigid tensor categories $`𝔏`$ and $``$ which are equivalent to $`\mathrm{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. We denote their images under $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau `$ by $`\widehat{𝔏}^\tau `$ and $`\widehat{}^\tau `$, respectively. Then, we have the following:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(_X\right)\left(\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })_{k[t]}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,)_{𝔸_\tau }\right)\left(B\left(\right)_kB\left(\right)\right)_{[t]}^\tau \right)$$

for every $`,\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, and

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(𝒱_\lambda ^R^{}𝒱_\gamma ^R\right)\underset{ϵ\text{ : dominant}}{}t^{\tau ,w_0(ϵ\lambda \gamma )}\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(_{w_0(\lambda +\gamma )}^{}V_ϵ^{m_{\lambda ,\gamma }^ϵ}\right).$$

By the above formulas, we equip $`\widehat{𝔏}^\tau `$ and $`\widehat{}^\tau `$ with tensor products $`_0`$ and $`_0^{}`$ that arise from $`_X`$ and $`^{}`$, respectively. We also define a tensor product $`_0`$ of $`𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$ by

$$\left(A_1(V_1)_{[t]}^\tau \right)_0\left(A_2(V_2)_{[t]}^\tau \right):=\left(\left(A_1_{k[t]}A_2\right)(V_1V_2)_{[t]}^\tau \right)$$

for each $`(A_1(V_1)^\tau ),(A_2(V_2)_{[t]}^\tau )\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$. This tensor product coincides with the tensor product of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ via $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau `$. Therefore, it is an extension of $`_0`$ in $`\widehat{𝔏}`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.18.

Exponential $`\mathrm{exp}R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$ of $`R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$ acts on any object of $`\widehat{}^\tau `$ and commutes with the tensor product $`_0`$ of two elements of $`\widehat{}`$ (in $`𝔅\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^\tau `$). By construction, the right $`𝔲_{}`$-action commutes with $`t`$-twists. Hence, $`\mathrm{exp}R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$-action commutes with the tensor product $`_0^{}`$ of $`\widehat{𝔏}`$. We define a twisted right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action on formal loop spaces by the following:

$$R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }:V_{[t]}^\tau vR\left(e_\alpha \right)v\left(R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }\right)vV_{[t]}^\tau $$

for each $`V\text{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Here, the weight of this endomorphism of $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ with respect to $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-action is zero. Thus, $`R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }`$ preserves $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(V𝒪_X\right)`$. Hence, it operates on objects of $`\widehat{𝔏}`$ compatibly with $`_0`$. Moreover, its image under the residual map $`\psi _\tau :V𝒪_{𝔸_\tau }Vk(x_\tau )`$ is non-zero if $`R_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$ operates $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$ nontrivially. $`\psi _\tau `$ commutes with the decomposition rule of the tensor category $`\text{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Hence, $`\psi _\tau `$ is a fiber functor of $`\widehat{𝔏}`$. Here $`\mathrm{exp}\left(sR\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }\right)`$ commutes with $`\psi _\tau `$ for every $`sk`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{exp}\left(sR\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }\right)`$ defines some element of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ (as an automorphism of $`Vk(x_\tau )`$ for every $`V\text{Rep}\stackrel{~}{G}`$) by  II Prop. 2.8. Hence, its derivative $`R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }`$ defines some element of $`𝔤`$. The weight of $`R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }`$ is $`\alpha `$ by $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{T})`$-action. Moreover, every root space of a reductive Lie algebra is one-dimensional. Therefore, $`R\left(e_\alpha \right)t^{\tau ,\alpha }`$ must operate as a nonzero constant multiple of $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau \left(e_\alpha \right)`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.20.

The term ”tensor category” in  (and this paper) is the same as ”symmetric tensor category” in the standard notation after the invention of quantum groups (cf. Bakalov and Kirillov ).

## 4 Main theorem

Now we can state our main result as follows:

###### Theorem 4.1.

We have an equivalence of categories

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c\stackrel{}{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c.$$

Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ induces a category equivalence $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

###### Example 4.2 (Tangent bundles).

Let $`G`$ be a semisimple adjoint group. Let $`X=X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$ be its wonderful compactification. Then, the set of one-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is represented by the set of fundamental co-weights $`\omega _1^{},\mathrm{},\omega _r^{}`$ (cf. §1.2). In this setting, we have

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(TX)(𝔤,\{F^{\omega _i^{}}()\}),$$

where

$$F^{\omega _i^{}}\left(n\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{\omega _i^{},\alpha n}ke_\alpha \hfill & (n2)\hfill \\ kH_i_{\omega _i^{},\alpha n}ke_\alpha \hfill & (n=1)\hfill \\ 𝔤\hfill & (n0)\hfill \end{array}.$$

Here $`e_\alpha `$ is a root vector of $`𝔤`$ and we put $`H_i:=[e_{\alpha _i},e_{\alpha _i}]𝔱`$. If we replace $`F^{\omega _i^{}}\left(1\right)`$ by $`_{\omega _i^{},\alpha 1}ke_\alpha `$, then the corresponding vector bundle is the “logarithmic” tangent bundle of $`X`$ along the reduced union of boundary divisors. (cf. Bien-Brion .)

###### Example 4.3 (Case $`G=PGL_2`$).

In this case, the only nontrivial (partial) compactification of $`PGL_2`$ is the projecfication $`\left(M_2\right)`$ of the set of two by two matrices $`M_2`$, which is the wonderful compactification. Here, we have $`\stackrel{~}{G}=SL_2`$. Moreover, $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-action on $`\left(M_2\right)`$ factors through the following action:

$$SL_2\times SL_2\times M_2(g_1,g_2,A)g_1Ag_2^1M_2.$$

We have a unique boundary divisor $`D`$ of $`\left(M_2\right)`$ described as the zeros of the determinant. Let $`\alpha `$ be a unique positive root of $`PGL_2`$ and let $`\varpi `$ be the unique fundamental coweight of $`PGL_2`$.

For a $`SL_2`$-module $`V`$, we have the $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$-isotypical decomposition $`V=_{\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})}V^\lambda `$. In this case, we define the character $`\mathrm{ch}V`$ of $`V`$ as $`\mathrm{ch}V:=_{\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})}(dimV^\lambda )e^\lambda `$.

Let $``$ be a $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`X`$ such that $`_Xk(e)𝔰𝔩_2k`$ as $`SL_2\times /2`$-modules. By Theorem 4.1, we can classify such $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector bundles in $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$. We have $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right)(𝔰𝔩_2k,F^\varpi ())`$. Then, we have the following classification by the transversality condition of Definition 1.5.

Every object in $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$ with the form $`(𝔰𝔩_2k,F^\varpi ())`$ is given by one of the following four objects up to degree shift:

$`chF^\varpi (n,𝔰𝔩_2𝒪_X)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & (n1)\hfill \\ e^\alpha +e^0+e^\alpha \hfill & (n0)\hfill \end{array}`$
$`chF^\varpi (n,𝒪_X𝔰𝔩_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & (n2)\hfill & & \\ e^\alpha \hfill & (n=1)\hfill & & \\ e^\alpha +e^0\hfill & (n=0)\hfill & & \\ e^\alpha +e^0+e^\alpha \hfill & (n1)\hfill & & \end{array}`$
$`chF^\varpi (n,TX)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & (n2)\hfill & \\ e^\alpha +e^0\hfill & (n=1)\hfill & \\ e^\alpha +e^0+e^\alpha \hfill & (n0)\hfill & \end{array}`$
$`chF^\varpi (n,T^{}X)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & (n1)\hfill & \\ e^\alpha \hfill & (n=0)\hfill & \\ e^\alpha +e^0+e^\alpha \hfill & (n1)\hfill & \end{array}`$
We say a $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ on $`\left(M_2\right)`$ irreducible, if there exists no proper $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector subbundle in $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$. Applying the inverse functor of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, we obtain:

Every irreducible rank three $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`^3`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔰𝔩_2𝒪_X`$, $`𝒪_X𝔰𝔩_2`$, $`TX`$, or $`T^{}X`$ up to line bundle twist.

Similarly, we can prove that the number of isomorphism classes of irreducible $`SL_2\times SL_2`$-equivariant vector bundles of rank $`n`$ on $`^3`$ is just $`2^{n1}`$ up to line bundle twist.

###### Remark 4.4 (Tensor structures).

All categories in Theorem 4.1 have natural tensor products. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a tensor functor when we restrict to $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ or $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$. However, due to our presentation of the category $``$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ does not preserve natural tensor products in general.

We postpone the proof of our main theorem until §4.2 since we need the inverse functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_cEV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ in order to prove Theorem 4.1.

### 4.1 Construction of the inverse functor

In this subsection, we construct an inverse functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. To achieve this, we construct some $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle from a given object $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\})`$ of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$.

#### 4.1.1 The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

Here we devote ourselves to construct a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by assuming the following Proposition 4.5. This Proposition is proved in §4.1.2.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`𝒜:=(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ and choose an arbitrary $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. Assume that the following condition holds:

* $`F^\xi \left(0\right)=V`$ and $`F^\xi \left(1\right)=\{0\}`$ for every $`\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\backslash \{\tau \}`$.

Then, there exist a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜)`$ with the following properties:

1. $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜)\right)=(V,\{F^\tau ()\})`$;
2. There exist $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant inclusions $`V𝒪_X\left(ND_\tau \right)\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜)V𝒪_X\left(ND_\tau \right)`$ for a sufficiently large integer $`N`$.

Moreover, for each $`:=(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ which satisfies $``$, we have a natural inclusion

$$\text{Hom}_{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(𝒜,)\text{Hom}_{EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(𝒜\right),\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(\right)).$$

For a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module $`V`$, we define a filtration $`F_{null}(,V)`$ of $`V`$ indexed by $``$ as follows:

$$F_{null}(n,V)=0\text{ if }n1\text{ and }V\text{ if }n0.$$

This is clearly an $`\tau `$-transversal filtration for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

For every $`𝒜=(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ and every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, we define

$$𝒜_\tau :=(V,\{F_{null}(,V)\}_{\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\backslash \{\tau \}}\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c.$$

$`𝒜_\tau `$ satisfies the assumption of Proposition 4.5. We put $`D_0:=_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}D_\tau `$ and $`D_\eta ^c:=_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\backslash \eta }D_\tau `$ for each $`\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. For each $`𝒜\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(𝒜\right):=\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(𝒜_\tau \right)_X𝒪_X(MD_\tau ^c)V𝒪_X(MD_0)$$

Here we assume that $`M`$ is a sufficiently large integer and drop the sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$ needed to define the intersection (Lemma 2.24) by letting $`D=MD_0`$. We use this convention throughout this subsection. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(𝒜\right)`$ does not depend on the choice of $`M`$. We have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝒜)_{X\left(\tau \right)}\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜_\tau )_{X\left(\tau \right)}`$ for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

For every $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})\right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle.

###### Proof.

What we need to show is that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})\right)`$ is a vector bundle. We restrict our construction from $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ to obtain the corresponding object in Klyachko’s category. We fix an inclusion $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})\right)_X𝒪_X\left(MD_\tau ^c\right)V𝒪_X\left(MD_0\right)`$. It induces the corresponding inclusion between the identity fibers. For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the family of filtrations $`F_{null}(,V)`$ and $`\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \sigma (1)}`$ forms a distributive lattice. Hence, they satisfies the condition of Klyachko’s category  1.1. As a result,

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})_\tau \right)_X𝒪_X(MD_\tau ^c)_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}\right)V𝒪_X(MD_0)_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}$$

is a vector bundle for a sufficiently large integer $`M`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})\right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent sheaf, the local structure theorem (Theorem 1.3) asserts that its restriction to the open subset

$$T(\mathrm{\Sigma })\times 𝔸^{2dimU}U^{}.T(\mathrm{\Sigma }).UX(\mathrm{\Sigma })$$

is still a vector bundle. Further, this open subset meets all $`(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G})`$-orbits, which yields the result. ∎

It follows that the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1:\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\text{id}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$.

###### Lemma 4.7.

For every $`𝒜,\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we have a natural inclusion

$$\text{Hom}_{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(𝒜,)\text{Hom}_{EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(𝒜\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(\right))$$

###### Proof.

Put $`𝒜:=(V,\{F^\tau ()\})`$ and $`:=(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})`$. For each morphism $`f:(V,\{F^\tau ()\})(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, we have a base morphism $`VV_1`$. Hence, we have a corresponding morphism $`f_\tau :(V,\{F^\tau ()\})_\tau (V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})_\tau `$ for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$. By Proposition 4.5, we have a corresponding morphism $`f_\tau ^{}:\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})_\tau \right)\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})_\tau \right)`$. Then, by taking the intersection of the both sides compatibly with $`f\text{id}:V𝒪_X(MD_0)V_1𝒪_X(MD_0)`$, we have a corresponding morphism

$`f^{\prime \prime }:\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left((V,\{F^\tau ()\})_\tau \right)_X𝒪_X(MD_\tau ^c)\right)`$
$`\stackrel{f_\tau ^{}\mathrm{id}}{}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})_\tau \right)_X𝒪_X(MD_\tau ^c)\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})\right).`$
If $`f`$ is nontrivial, then its base morphism $`VV_1`$ is also nontrivial. Hence, $`f^{\prime \prime }`$ induces nontrivial morphism. ∎

For each $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$, we have a category equivalence $`\lambda :(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\lambda })_c`$ induced from

$$\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c(Vk,\{F^\tau ()\})(V\overline{\lambda },\{F^\tau (\tau ,\lambda )\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\lambda })_c.$$

For $`\lambda X^{}\left(T\right)`$, $`\lambda `$ yields a category auto-equivalence which corresponds to $`_X𝒪_X\left(D^\lambda \right)`$ via $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (from Lemma 2.19 and Definition 2.28). Hence, we have the following commutative diagram.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c& \stackrel{\lambda }{}& (\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c& \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_1& & \mathrm{\Phi }_1& \text{for every }\lambda X^{}\left(T\right)\\ EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c& \stackrel{_X𝒪_X\left(D^\lambda \right)}{}& EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c& \end{array}$$

Similarly, we have a category auto-equivalence $`\lambda `$ on $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ for every $`\lambda X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ as the direct sum of the composition of the inverse of $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda +\mu `$ in

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\mu })_c\stackrel{\mu }{}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c\stackrel{\lambda +\mu }{}(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\lambda }+\overline{\mu })_c\text{ for }\mu X^{}(\stackrel{~}{T}).$$

Notice that the above construction is independent of the representative $`\mu `$ of $`\overline{\mu }`$. By the category auto-equivalence $`\lambda `$ on $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$, define the category equivalence $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\lambda }}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\lambda }}:=(_X_\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\lambda )^1:(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\lambda })_cEV(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\lambda })_c.$$

Now, we extend the category equivalence from $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_cEV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ to $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_cEV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ by setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }:=_{\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\chi `$.

Summarizing the above, we have the following result.

###### Proposition 4.8.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }:\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_cEV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$ is a faithful covariant functor. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the identity on $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c`$.

#### 4.1.2 Simple case

Here we prove Proposition 4.5. We fix $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ which is the same as in the statement of Proposition 4.5. First, we recall some notation and prove a preliminary result.

By the description of §1.2, we have $`𝐎_\tau (G\times G)/G^\tau `$. Moreover, the base point $`1\times 1modG^\tau `$ corresponds to $`x_\tau `$. We denote the Lie algebra of $`G^\tau `$ by $`𝔤^\tau `$.

###### Lemma 4.9.

For every $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$, combining $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_m^\tau `$-action, the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action, and the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action, we can introduce a $`𝔤^\tau `$-module structure on

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })/t\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })(_Xk(x_\tau )\text{ as }𝒪_{X,x_\tau }\text{-modules})$$

which coincides with the natural $`𝔤^\tau `$-module structure on $`_Xk(x_\tau )`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`𝔤^\tau =\mathrm{Lie}(\mathrm{}^d(L^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau )+(𝔲_+^\tau 𝔲_{}^\tau )𝔤𝔤`$ (see §1.2). By construction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })`$ inherits a natural $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_m^\tau `$-action from $``$. Hence, the only nontrivial part is about the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action and the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action. We show that the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action and the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action defined in §3.2 indeed satisfies the above property. For each $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}`$ such that $`e_\alpha 𝔲_+^\tau `$ and $`e_\beta 𝔲_{}^\tau `$, we have $`[L_\tau (e_\alpha ),R_\tau (e_\beta )]=[L_\tau (e_\alpha ),\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau (e_\beta )]t^{\tau ,\beta }`$. $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \left(\right)`$ is preserved by both the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action and the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action. Hence, for each $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })`$, we have

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{L}_\tau ([e_\alpha ,e_\beta ])t^{\tau ,\alpha +\beta }\right)v\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau }).$$

We have $`\tau ,\alpha +\beta >\tau ,\beta `$. As a result, the left $`𝔲_+^\tau `$-action and the right $`𝔲_{}^\tau `$-action commute on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })/t\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_\tau ,_{𝔸_\tau })`$. Therefore, we can restrict ourselves to $`\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝔾}_m^\tau (U_+^\tau \times 1)`$. In this case, the assertion is a consequence of Lemma 2.33 and the isotypical decomposition of Corollary 3.5. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 4.5.

Let $`N`$ be an integer such that $`F^\tau \left(N1\right)=\{0\}`$ and $`F^\tau \left(N\right)=V`$. By induction on $`n`$, we construct a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)`$ with the following properties (which we call $`(\mathrm{})_n`$):

1. $`V𝒪_X\left(ND_\tau \right)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)V𝒪_X\left(nD_\tau \right)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves;
2. $`F^\tau (m,\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right))=F^\tau \left(m+Nn\right)`$ for $`m>N`$;
3. $`F^\tau (m,\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right))=V`$ for $`mN`$.

Here we put $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(𝒜\right):=\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\tau \left(𝒜\right)`$. Since $`(\mathrm{})_N`$ is the same as the conditions of Proposition 4.5, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(𝒜\right)`$ has the desired property if such an induction proceeds. We have $`F^\tau (m,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\tau \left(𝒜\right))=F^\tau \left(m+2N\right)=0`$ for $`m>N`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\tau \left(𝒜\right):=V𝒪_X\left(ND_\tau \right)`$ satisfies the property $`(\mathrm{})_N`$.

Then, assuming $`(\mathrm{})_n`$, we construct $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^\tau \left(𝒜\right)`$ with the property $`(\mathrm{})_{n+1}`$.

We denote $`\mathrm{coker}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)\right]`$ by $`𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$. Consider the following short exact sequence of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves:

$`0\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)0`$ (4.1.1)
Since $`𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)`$ annihilates $`𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$, we can regard $`𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`D_\tau `$. To proceed the proof, we need a lemma.

###### Lemma 4.10.

We have a natural inclusion of $`𝔤^\tau `$-modules

$$\frac{Vt^Nk[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^{m1}}{Vt^Nk[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^m}𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)_Xk(x_\tau ).$$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 3.5, we have

$$\frac{Vt^{N1}k[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^{m1}}{Vt^Nk[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^m}𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)_Xk(x_\tau ).$$

Since each term is $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,L_\tau ,R_\tau ,k[t])`$-stable by the induced action from $`V_{[t]}^\tau `$, we have the result by Lemma 4.9. ∎

Continuation of the proof of Proposition 4.5.

We denote by $`𝒮_{n+1}^0\left(𝒜\right)`$ the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`𝐎_\tau `$ whose fiber at $`x_\tau `$ is isomorphic to the LHS of the Lemma 4.10 as a $`𝔤^\tau `$-module. Hence, we have an inclusion of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles $`𝒮_{n+1}^0\left(𝒜\right)𝒬_{n+1}(𝒜)_{𝐎_\tau }`$. We define a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent subsheaf $`𝒮_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$ of $`𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$ as follows:

$`𝒮_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)\left(𝒰\right):=\{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒰,𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right));s_{𝐎_\tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒰𝐎_\tau ,𝒮_{n+1}^0\left(𝒜\right))\}`$ (4.1.2)
$`\text{for every Zariski open set }𝒰D_\tau .`$
The preimage $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ of $`𝒮_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant $`𝒪_X`$-module by the assumption (on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)`$) and the construction (of $`𝒬_n\left(𝒜\right)`$ and (4.1.1)).

Since we have $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right){}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X(D_\tau )`$, it follows that $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ satisfies the condition 1) of $`(\mathrm{})_{n+1}`$.

We show that $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ is a vector bundle in order to check $`(\mathrm{})_{n+1}`$. We have a composition

$$\mathrm{Res}:𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{G}\times G}X(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{B}\times B}U^{}.T(\mathrm{\Sigma }).U\stackrel{}{}𝔬𝔥^{\stackrel{~}{T}\times T}T(\mathrm{\Sigma })$$

of restriction functors. Here the second equivalence is a consequence of the local structure theorem (Theorem 1.3). This also implies that a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant coherent sheaf on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is a vector bundle if, and only if, its restriction to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is a vector bundle. Hence, what has to be proved is:

###### Lemma 4.11.

For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\tau \sigma (1)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }(𝒜)_{T\left(\sigma \right)}`$ is a vector bundle.

###### Proof.

$`𝒮_{n+1}(𝒜)_{T(\sigma )}`$ is isomorphic to the sheaf obtained by replacing $`𝒰`$ by $`𝒰T(\sigma )`$ and taking tensor products with $`𝒪_{T(\sigma )}`$ at the RHS of (4.1.2). Since $`T(\sigma )`$ is smooth, we can write $`T\left(\sigma \right):=\text{Spec}R`$, where $`R=k[t,t_2,\mathrm{},t_m,t_{m+1}^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_r^{\pm 1}]`$. Here we assume that $`D_\tau T\left(\sigma \right)`$ is defined by $`t=0`$ and each of $`t,t_2,\mathrm{},t_m`$ spans a extremal ray of the dual cone $`\sigma ^{}`$. By Theorem 2.18 1), $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n}^{\tau }(𝒜)_{T\left(\sigma \right)}`$ is written as $`V_0R`$ by some $`1\times T`$-module $`V_0`$. We have

$$({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X(D_\tau ))_{T\left(\sigma \right)}_{𝒪_{T\left(\sigma \right)}}k(x_\tau )𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)_Xk(x_\tau ).$$

Hence, we have

$$𝒬_{n+1}(𝒜)_{T\left(\sigma \right)}V_0t^1k[t_2,\mathrm{},t_m,t_{m+1}^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_r^{\pm 1}]$$

as a $`R/tR`$-module. For a vector subspace $`V_1:=𝒮_{n+1}^0\left(𝒜\right)_Xk(x_\tau )`$ of $`V_0`$, we have

$$𝒮_{n+1}^0_{T(\sigma )}V_0t^1k[t_2,\mathrm{},t_m,t_{m+1}^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_r^{\pm 1}]V_1t^1k[t_2^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_r^{\pm 1}]=V_1t^1R/R$$

Thus, we have

$${}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }(𝒜)_{T\left(\sigma \right)}V_0R+V_1t^1RV_0t^1R.$$

Since this module is $`R`$-free, we obtain the result. ∎

Continuation of the proof of Proposition 4.5.

The definition of $`F^\tau (,{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right))`$ makes sense since $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle. We have

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}^\tau ({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right))=(Vt^Nk[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^{m1}V_{[t]}^\tau )$$

by the comparison with the corresponding extension over $`T(\tau )`$ via $`\mathrm{Res}`$.

In other words, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ satisfies 2) and 3) of $`(\mathrm{})_{n+1}`$. Hence, putting $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^\tau \left(𝒜\right):={}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right)`$ proceeds the induction on $`n`$.

Now we construct a morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (f):\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(𝒜\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau \left(\right)`$ from $`f:𝒜`$. Enlarge $`N`$ if necessary to assume $`F_1^\tau \left(N1\right)=\{0\}`$ and $`F_1^\tau \left(N\right)=V_1`$. We construct a morphism $`f_n^{}:\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(\right)`$ by induction on $`n`$. For $`n=N`$, we put $`f_N^{}:=f\mathrm{id}:V𝒪_X(ND_\tau )V_1𝒪_X(ND_\tau )`$. Assume that we have $`f_n^{}`$. For each morphism $`f:𝒜`$, we have the following associated commutative diagram of compatible $`(\mathrm{}^d(\stackrel{~}{L}^\tau )𝔾_m^\tau ,L_\tau ,R_\tau ,k[t])`$-modules for all $`n`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Vt^Nk[t]+_mF^\tau (m+Nn)kt^{m1}& & V_{[t]}^\tau \\ & & \\ V_1t^Nk[t]+_mF_1^\tau (m+Nn)kt^{m1}& & (V_1)_{[t]}^\tau \end{array}$$

Hence, we have the following commutative diagram arising from the $`𝔤^\tau `$-module homomorphism of Lemma 4.9.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒮_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)& & 𝒬_{n+1}\left(𝒜\right)& & \mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(𝒜\right)_X𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)\\ & & & & f_n^\tau \text{id}\\ 𝒮_{n+1}\left(\right)& & 𝒬_{n+1}\left(\right)& & \mathrm{\Phi }_n^\tau \left(\right)_X𝒪_X\left(D_\tau \right)\end{array}$$

Hence, taking preimages yield a morphism $`f_{n+1}^\tau :{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(𝒜\right){}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{\tau }\left(\right)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times G`$-equivariant $`𝒪_X`$-modules. Therefore, the induction on $`n`$ proceeds. Thus, setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (f):=f_N^\tau `$ yields a morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{hom}^\tau :\text{Hom}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c}(𝒜,)\text{Hom}_{EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c}(\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜),\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau ())`$. Since $`f:VV_1`$ yields a morphism between the identity fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau (𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\tau ()`$, the injectivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{hom}^\tau `$ is clear. ∎

### 4.2 Proof of Theorem 4.1

By Proposition 3.10 and Proposition 4.8, both $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ define one-to-one correspondences. By Proposition 2.35 and Proposition 4.8, both $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are faithful. Hence, we have the following category equivalence:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c\stackrel{}{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c.$$

Next, we want to check what happens if we restrict our attention to $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

###### Lemma 4.12.

Let $`,\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$ and let $`f:`$ be a morphism in $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$. Then, for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(f)\left(F^\tau (n,)\right)=\mathrm{\Xi }(f)\left(B()\right)F^\tau (n,)\text{ for all }n\text{ and}$$

$$\{\mathrm{\Xi }(f)(B\left(\right)),\{F^\tau (n,)\}_n\}\text{ forms a distributive lattice.}$$

###### Proof.

Consider the restriction to $`𝔸_\tau `$ as in §3.1.1. Since a $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-equivariant vector bundle on $`𝔸_\tau `$ splits, we have

$$_{𝔸_\tau }\mathrm{Im}f_{𝔸_\tau }\mathrm{coker}f_{𝔸_\tau }$$

as $`𝔾_m^\tau `$-equivariant vector bundles. Hence, we have a splitting

$$F(n,)=\left(F(n,)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Xi }(f)\right)\left(F(n,)\mathrm{coker}\mathrm{\Xi }(f)\right)$$

for every $`n`$. ∎

Let $`,\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_c(=\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right))`$ and let $`f:`$ be a morphism of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(f\right)`$ satisfies the condition (L) of Definition 1.7 by Lemma 4.12. By definition, $`\mathrm{coker}f`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(f\right)`$ also satisfies the condition (R) of Definition 1.7 by Lemma 2.34. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(f)`$ is a morphism of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

We prove its converse. Suppose $`(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}),(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$ and let $`f^{}:(V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\})(V_2,\{F_2^\tau ()\})`$ be a morphism in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$. Then, we have a morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})`$ of $`EV(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)_c`$. By the definition of morphisms of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },1)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{Coker}f^{}:=(\mathrm{coker}f^{},\{F_2^\tau ()/f^{}\left(F_1^\tau ()\right)\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}(\mathrm{\Sigma },1).$$

Our construction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coincides with that of Klyachko’s when restricted to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. Therefore, the condition (R) of Definition 1.7 yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }((V_1,\{F_1^\tau ()\}))_{T\left(\sigma \right)}\mathrm{\Phi }((f^{}(V_1),\{f^{}(F_1^\tau ())\}))_{T\left(\sigma \right)}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{Coker}f^{})_{T\left(\sigma \right)}$$

for each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus, both $`\mathrm{coker}\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}`$ are vector bundles. Hence, $`(G\times G)T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)=X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ asserts that both $`\mathrm{coker}\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})`$ are vector bundles. By the similar argument, $`\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(f^{})`$ is also a vector bundle. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(f^{}\right)`$ is a morphism of $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. By the arguments before Proposition 4.8, we obtain the category equivalence

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)$$

from the equivalence of the ambient categories.

## 5 Consequences of the main theorem

### 5.1 Comparison with Klyachko’s category

In this subsection, we compare our category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ to that of Klyachko’s.

We have a natural $`\stackrel{~}{T}\times \stackrel{~}{T}`$-equivariant embedding $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$. We denote the category of $`\stackrel{~}{T}\times \stackrel{~}{T}`$-equivariant vector bundles on $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ by $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T`$ (to distinguish it from $`EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$, the category of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundles on $`X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$). Then, pullback defines a functor

$$\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }:EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)EV\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T.$$

Let $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T`$ be the category $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ in §1.3 which is obtained by replacing $`G`$ with $`T`$. We define a functor restricting the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-action to the $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$-action by

$$\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T.$$

Then, we have $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ since the construction of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in §1.4 is in terms of $`T`$-orbits of $`e`$. Define a full-subcategory $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T^{}`$ of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T^{}:=\{(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T;V\text{ is trivial as a }\stackrel{~}{T}_s\text{-module}\}.$$

Here we regard $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$ as a subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{T}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(T)`$.

In this case, we can naturally regard $`V`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$-module with trivial $`\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$-action. Since the transversality condition of Definition 1.5 is a void condition for a direct sum of trivial $`\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$-modules, we have the following section of $`\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

$$\mathrm{sect}_\mathrm{\Sigma }:\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)_T^{}(V,\{F^\tau ()\})(V,\{F^\tau ()\})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right).$$

$`\mathrm{sect}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ naturally gives rise to a functor which we denote by the same letter. Its inverse functor is $`\mathrm{rest}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

We review the affine local description of Klyachko. Notice that the left $`T`$-action and (the inverse of) the right $`T`$-action on $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ are the same since $`T`$ is commutative. As a result, a $`T\times T`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ is a vector bundle on $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ with two commutative $`T`$-equivariant structures.

###### Corollary 5.1 (cf. Klyachko  6.1.5 2)).

For each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$, every $`T\times T`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`T\left(\sigma \right)`$ splits into a direct sum of $`T\times T`$-equivariant line bundles. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we state an analogous statement of Corollary 5.1 in the wonderful setting, which the author does not know any non-equivariant counterpart.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint semisimple group and let $`X=X_0=X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$ be its wonderful compactification as defined in . Then, a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ on $`X`$ splits into a direct sum of $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant line bundles if, and only if, $`_Xk(e)`$ is trivial as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-module.

###### Proof.

We have $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}):=\mathrm{\Xi }\left(\right)\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)_T^{}`$. By assumption, we have $`\stackrel{~}{G}_s\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Hence, $`V`$ is a direct sum of trivial $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times 1`$-modules for each $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)_T^{}`$. Let $`V=_{\chi Z(G)^{}}V_\chi `$ be the isotypical decomposition of $`V`$ with respect to the $`1\times Z(G)`$-action. By Corollary 2.6, we have

$$(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)})=\underset{\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}}{}(V_\chi ,\{F^\tau ()_\chi \}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)}).$$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ consists of a unique $`r`$-dimensional cone $`\sigma `$ and its faces. For each $`\chi \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)^{}`$, we have a basis $`B_\chi ^\sigma `$ of $`V_\chi `$ such that $`F^\tau \left(n\right)_\chi `$ is spanned by a subset of $`B_\chi ^\sigma `$ for every $`\tau \sigma (1)`$ and every $`n`$. Thus, $`(V,\{F^\tau ()\}_{\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)})\mathrm{𝐎𝐛}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)_T^{}`$ splits into a direct sum of one-dimensional objects. Sending by $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{sect}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$, we obtain the result. ∎

We formulate corollaries of the above result by using the following well-known result.

###### Lemma 5.3 (Minimal dimension of modules cf. ).

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint simple group. Then, the minimal dimension $`d_G`$ of a nontrivial representation of a simply connected cover $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of $`G`$ is the following: 1) $`d_{A_r}=r+1`$, 2) $`d_{B_r}=2r+1`$, 3) $`d_{C_r}=2r`$, 4) $`d_{D_r}=2r`$, 5) $`d_{E_6}=27`$, 6) $`d_{E_7}=56`$, 7) $`d_{E_8}=248`$, 8) $`d_{F_4}=26`$, 9) $`d_{G_2}=7`$.

Together with Theorem 5.2, we obtain the following

###### Corollary 5.4.

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint simple group and let $`X=X_0`$ be its wonderful compactification. Then, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle of rank less than $`d_G`$ splits into a direct sum of line bundles.

Since $`d_G`$ is always greater than the rank $`r=\mathrm{rk}G`$ of a simple group $`G`$, we have the following.

###### Corollary 5.5.

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint simple group and let $`X=X_0`$ be its wonderful compactification. Then, every $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant vector bundle of rank less than or equals to $`\mathrm{rk}G`$ splits into a direct sum of line bundles.

### 5.2 Kostant’s Problem

The first part of this subsection is independent of the other parts of this paper. A general reference for the material in this subsection is the book of Borel-Wallach .

Kostant  raised the question of existence of a canonical extension of an equivariant vector bundle on a (complexified) symmetric space to its wonderful compactification. His question is connected to the existence of a vector bundle corresponding to the asymptotic behavior of the minimal $`K`$-type of a given unitary representation. More precisely, he seeks an algebraic framework to handle the celebrated Casselman theorem (cf.  Chapter X Theorem 2.4) about the $`𝔫_0`$-coinvariants of an unitary representation using the boundary behavior of equivariant vector bundles. In our setting, his general conjecture is as follows.

###### Conjecture 1 (Kostant’s Problem).

Let $`G_0`$ be a real reductive linear Lie group, and $`K_0`$ its maximal compact subgroup. We fix an Iwasawa decomposition $`G_0=K_0A_0N_0`$ of $`G_0`$. Here $`A_0`$ is an abelian group which normalizes $`N_0`$. We define $`G`$, $`K`$,… to be the complexification of $`G_0`$, $`K_0`$,… respectively. Let $`eG/K`$ be the point corresponding to $`[K]G/K`$. Then, for each irreducible $`K`$-module $`V`$ which appears as the minimal $`K_0`$-type of an unitary representation of $`G_0`$, we have a $`G`$-equivariant vector bundle $`_V`$ on the wonderful compactification $`Y`$ of $`G/K`$ with the following properties:

1. There exists an isomorphism $`_V_{G/K}G\times _KV`$ of $`G`$-equivariant vector bundles;
2. For every $`vV_V_{𝒪_Y}k(e)`$, and every one-parameter subgroup $`\tau :𝔾_mA`$, the limit value $`lim_t\mathrm{}\tau (t)v`$ exists in the total space $`V\left(_V\right)`$ of $`_V`$;
3. For every $`G`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ on $`Y`$ with the above two properties, we have a $`G`$-equivariant embedding $`_V`$.

###### Remark 5.6.

The wonderful compactification of a symmetric space is an algebraic analogue of the Oshima compactification  in the real-analytic setting. Sato  described the analogous complex-analytic compactification in the case of adjoint semisimple groups, which coincides with the wonderful compactification in the sense of De Concini-Procesi .

In the rest of this subsection, we assume that $`X(=X_0=X\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right))`$ is the wonderful compactification of an adjoint semisimple group over $`𝐂`$ and use the notation and terminology introduced in §1.1 and §1.2.

We define the canonical extension of a $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle corresponding to $`G`$-module $`V`$ on $`G(G\times G)/\mathrm{}^d(G)`$ as follows. By Lemma 2.10, $`V𝒪_G`$ is the only $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`G`$ whose identity fiber is isomorphic to $`V`$ (as a $`G`$-module). Let $`V=_{\lambda X^{}\left(T\right)}V^\lambda `$ be the $`T`$-isotypical decomposition of $`V`$.

Then, we define the canonical filtration of $`V`$ with respect to $`\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)`$ as follows:

$$F_{can}^\varpi (n,V):=\underset{\varpi ,\lambda 2n}{}V^\lambda V\text{ for each }n.$$

We regard $`V`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times \stackrel{~}{Z}(G)`$-module via natural surjection.

###### Lemma 5.7.

For each $`G`$-module $`V`$, $`(V,\{F_{can}^\varpi (,V)\}_{\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)})`$ is an object of $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`F_{can}^\varpi (n,V)`$ is a direct sum of $`T`$-isotypical components for every $`\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)`$, $`\{F^\varpi \left(n\right)\}_{\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1),n}`$ clearly forms a distributive lattice. Moreover, it is a $`𝔭^\varpi `$-stable decreasing filtration since $`𝔭^\varpi V^\lambda _{\varpi ,\mu 0}V^{\lambda +\mu }`$. Similarly, we have

$$e_\alpha :\underset{\varpi ,\lambda 2n}{}V^\lambda \underset{\varpi ,\lambda 2n}{}V^{\lambda +\alpha }\underset{\varpi ,\lambda 2n+\varpi ,\alpha }{}V^\lambda \underset{\varpi ,\lambda 2n+2\varpi ,\alpha }{}V^\lambda $$

for every negative root $`\alpha `$. Hence, $`F_{can}^\varpi (,V)`$ is a $`\varpi `$-transversal filtration. ∎

Now we define the canonical extension $`_V`$ of a $`G`$-module $`V`$ by

$$_V:=\mathrm{\Phi }\left((V,\{F_{can}^\varpi (,V)\}_{\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)})\right).$$

This is a $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`X`$ which is isomorphic to $`V𝒪_G`$ when restricted to $`G`$. Since $`G\times G`$ is the complexification of a complex group $`G`$ regarded as a real group, $`G`$(=$`\left(G\times G\right)/\mathrm{}^d\left(G\right)`$) is a symmetric space. Here the group is $`G\times G`$ and its (complexified) Cartan involution $`\vartheta `$ swaps its first and second factor. Iwasawa’s abelian subgroup is defined as the exponential of the maximal abelian subalgebra in the set of semisimple elements of $`1`$-eigenpart of the induced $`\vartheta `$-action on $`𝔤𝔤`$. Thus, in our case, it is the anti-diagonal embedding of the torus $`T`$ into $`G\times G`$ defined by $`t(t,t^1)`$. Let $`a:TX`$ be the action coming from $`T\times G(t,g)t.g.tG`$. By the above arguments, this is the (complexified) action of Iwasawa’s abelian subgroup.

Now we present an answer to Kostant’s problem in this case.

###### Theorem 5.8.

For every $`G`$-module $`V`$, $`_V`$ satisfies the following properties:

1. $`_V_Xk(e)Vk`$ as a $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times Z\left(G\right)`$-module;
2. For every $`v_V_Xk(e)`$, there exist a limit value $`lim_{t0}a(t)v`$ in $`V\left(_V\right)`$, the total space of $`_V`$;
3. Let $``$ be another $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle with the above two properties. Then, we have a $`G\times G`$-equivariant inclusion $`_V`$. In other word, $`_V`$ is maximal among the $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundles with the above two properties.

###### Proof.

1) follows from the definition of $`_V`$. Since the $`a`$-action preserves $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$, we restrict our attention to $`T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)`$. Let $`\varpi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)`$. $`𝔾_m`$ acts on $`𝒪_X\left(D_\varpi \right)_Xk(x_\varpi )`$ via $`a\varpi `$-action by degree $`2`$. For each weight $`\lambda `$ of $`V`$, $`V^\lambda 𝒪_X_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}`$ is a $`T\times T`$-equivariant vector subbundle of $`V𝒪_X_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}`$. $`𝔾_m`$ acts on $`V^\lambda 𝒪_X_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}_{𝒪_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}}k(x_\varpi )`$ via $`a\varpi `$-action by degree $`\varpi ,\lambda `$. Hence, the condition of the convergence with respect to the $`\varpi `$-direction ($`s0`$ in $`s𝔸^1𝔾_m`$) is given as

$`V^\lambda F^\varpi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\varpi ,\lambda }{2}}+1\right)=\{0\}`$ (5.2.1)
by Corollary 3.5 and Theorem 2.18. Hence, if the filtration $`F^\varpi ()`$ of $`V`$ satisfies

$`V^\lambda F^\varpi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\varpi ,\lambda }{2}}\right)`$ (5.2.2)
and (5.2.1) for every $`\lambda X^{}(T)`$, then the corresponding vector bundle $`_{T(\varpi )}`$ is a maximal $`T\times T`$-equivariant vector bundle on $`T(\varpi )`$ such that:

* $`_{T(\varpi )}`$ is contained in $`V𝒪_X(D)_{T(\varpi )}`$ for a sufficiently large equivariant divisor $`D`$ (see Corollary 2.23);
* Limit value $`lim_{t0}(\varpi \times (\varpi )^1)(t)v`$ exists in $`V\left(_{T(\varpi )}\right)`$ for every $`v_{T(\varpi )}_{𝒪_{T(\varpi )}}k(e)`$.

We can check (5.2.1) and (5.2.2) $`T`$-isotypical componentwise because $`F^\varpi (n)`$ is $`T`$-stable for each $`n`$. $`F_{can}^\xi (,V)`$ satisfies (5.2.1) and (5.2.2) for every fundamental coweight $`\xi `$. Therefore, $`_V_{T(\varpi )}`$ is maximal as a $`T`$-equivariant vector subbundle of $`V𝒪_X(D)_{T(\varpi )}`$ which satisfies the conditions a) and b). Thus, every element of $`_V_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}_{𝒪_{T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\right)}}k(e)`$ converges when $`tT`$ approaches to zero in an arbitrary way. This yields 2). For every $`G\times G`$-equivariant vector bundle $``$ such that $`_{T\left(\varpi \right)}`$ satisfies the conditions a) and b), we have a $`T\times T`$-equivariant embedding $`_{T\left(\varpi \right)}_V_{T\left(\varpi \right)}`$. By Theorem 4.1, we can recover $``$ from the condition a) and a family of filtrations $`\{F^\xi (,)\}_{\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_0(1)}`$ as vector subspaces of $`V`$. As a result, we have a $`G\times G`$-equivariant embedding $`_V`$. ∎

Acknowledgement The original version of this paper was written under the supervision of Professor Hisayosi Matumoto. Professor Michel Brion gave me valuable comments and suggestions on many versions of this paper. It is no doubt that this paper does not exist without them. The author wants to express deep and sincere gratitude to both of them. The author also wants to express his thanks to Professors Valery Alexeev, Toshiyuki Katsura, Bertram Kostant, Friedrich Knop, Takayuki Oda, Toshio Oshima, Jiro Sekiguchi, Tonny A. Springer, Toshiyuki Tanisaki, Tôhru Uzawa, Drs. Shuusi Harasita, Satoshi Mochizuki, Takao Nishikawa, Kenei Suzuki, Alexis Tchoudjem, and Mr. Yugi Kato.