text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

While single particle momentum distributions give only indirect insight to the space-time evolution of the system created in high energy heavy ion collisions, the lifetime and the spatial extent of the pion source as well as the existence of collective velocity fields at the time of thermal freezeout can be probed by the study of Bose-Einstein momentum correlations of identical pions via HBT interferometry . The width of the correlation peak at vanishing relative momenta reflects the so-called length of homogeneity of the pion emitting source. Only in static sources can the length of homogeneity, in the following also called ’source radius’, be interpreted as the true geometrical size of the system. In a dynamic system, the occurence of space-momentum correlations of the emitted particles due to collective expansion generally leads to a reduction of the observed source radii, depending on the strength of the expansion and the thermal velocity of the pions $`\sqrt{T_f/m_t}`$ at thermal freeze-out . A differential analysis of the HBT correlations in bins of the pair transverse momentum $`k_t`$=$`\frac{1}{2}|\stackrel{}{p_{t,1}}+\stackrel{}{p_{t,2}}|`$ thus provides valuable information about the properties of the collective expansion of the system .

To obtain most detailed information about the space-time evolution the three-momentum difference vector $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ of two like-sign pions is decomposed into components, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$=$`(q_{\mathrm{long}},q_{\mathrm{side}},q_{\mathrm{out}})`$. Following Bertsch and Pratt , $`q_{\mathrm{long}}`$ is the momentum difference along the beam direction, calculated in the longitudinal rest frame (LCMS) of the pair, $`q_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is parallel to the pair transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{k_t}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ is perpendicular to $`q_{\mathrm{long}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{out}}`$.

The correlation function is defined as the ratio $`C_2(\stackrel{}{q})`$=$`A_2(\stackrel{}{q})/B_2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ where the ’signal’ $`A_2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the probability to find a pair with momentum difference $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in a given event and the ’background’ $`B_2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the corresponding mixed-event distribution.

The normalized correlation functions are fit by a Gaussian:

$`C_2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}(R_{\mathrm{long}}^2q_{\mathrm{long}}^2R_{\mathrm{side}}^2q_{\mathrm{side}}^2`$ (1)
$`R_{\mathrm{out}}^2q_{\mathrm{out}}^22R_{\mathrm{outlong}}^2q_{\mathrm{out}}q_{\mathrm{long}}),`$
with $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ being the Gaussian source radii and $`\lambda `$ the correlation strength. The cross-term $`R_{\mathrm{outlong}}^2`$ appears as a consequence of space-time correlations in non-boost-invariant systems.

## 2 Results from SPS

Pion HBT interferometry analyses have been performed by a number of experiments at SPS . A systematic study of the centrality dependence of HBT radii around midrapidity from Pb+Au collisions at all three presently available SPS energies, 40, 80, and 158 AGeV, was recently presented by the CERES collaboration . Details of their analysis can be found in .

Fig. 1: $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ vs. $`k_t`$ . The lines represent fits to the data (see text).

The $`k_t`$-dependence of the longitudinal source parameter $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ is shown in Fig. 1 for the three different beam energies and as function of the centrality of the collision. Similar to previous studies, a strong decrease of $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ with $`k_t`$ is observed, characteristic for a strong collective longitudinal expansion, where the length of homogeneity is entirely saturated by the thermal length scale $`\sqrt{T_f/m_t}`$. For the case of longitudinal boost-invariance, $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ can be connected to the lifetime $`\tau _s`$ of the system, the time elapsed between the onset of expansion and kinetic freeze-out by $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$=$`\tau _s(T_f/m_t)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ .

The slight but systematic overall increase of $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ with centrality and beam energie is reflected in a correspondingly longer lifetime when applying the above expression to the data and assuming $`T_f`$=120 MeV (see fits in Fig. 1). The observed lifetimes at the SPS are 6-8 fm/c.

Fig. 2: $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ vs. $`k_t`$ .

Fig. 3: $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ vs. $`k_t`$ .

The transverse source parameter $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ is closely related to the true geometrical transverse extension of the system at freeze-out. Consequently, a weaker $`k_t`$-dependence is observed for $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ (Fig. 2), indicating the presence of radial flow. A slight but systematic increase of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ with centrality is measured at all beam energies, as expected from simple collision geometry. The beam energy dependence is surprising: largest $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and the strongest $`k_t`$-dependence are observed at the lowest energy. This led previously to the conclusion that radial flow may reach a maximum at the lower SPS energies . We will discuss below that the extraction of the radial flow velocity from the $`k_t`$-dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ at the lower SPS energies might be questionable. At 158 AGeV, a radial flow velocity of about 0.5$`c`$ was obtained from the analysis of single particle $`m_t`$-spectra and $`R_{\mathrm{side}}(k_t)`$ .

Many authors have discussed that a strong first order phase transition with a large latent heat can lead to a retardation of hadronization during the mixed phase and consequently to a long duration of pion emission . This should be observable via a strong increase of the outward source parameter $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ with respect to $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$. However, no long-lived source has been observed so far. At SPS, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ (Fig. 3) is similar to $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$, indicating a short pion emission duration and a sudden freeze-out.

## 3 Beam energy dependence

A large amount of pion interferometry data have been published by experiments at AGS, SPS, and RHIC. This allows for a systematic study of the source parameters over a wide range of beam energies. It has been argued that the HBT null effect , the absence of any beam energy dependence, in particular when going to RHIC, is the actual surprising result from HBT interferometry.

In Fig. 4 are shown the $`k_t`$-dependences of $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$,$`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$, and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ in central Pb(Aa)+Pb(Au) collisions at different beam energies . Indeed, no dramatic variation of any of the source parameters can be observed. However, a closer inspection reveals some interesting features. $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ is approximately constant from AGS to the lower SPS energies, but develops a significant increase within the SPS regime and towards RHIC, indicating a smooth increase of the lifetime.

Most interesting is the behaviour of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$: It is gradually decreasing at small $`k_t`$ up to top SPS energy, connected with a continuous flattening of the $`k_t`$-dependence. At RHIC, $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ is again larger than at SPS while the shape is not yet well measured, at least the $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ sample looks rather flat. Naivly, the flattening indicates a decrease of the radial flow velocity as function of beam energy, in contradiction to the present understanding .

$`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ shows a rather weak energy dependence, possibly indicating a shallow minimum at the lower SPS energy.

Fig. 4: $`k_t`$-dependence of HBT radii around midrapidity in central Pb(Au)+Pb(Au) collisions at different beam energies. The data are from .

A straight-forward investigation of the freeze-out properties can be performed by relating the measured source parameters to an effective freeze-out volume, $`V_f`$=$`2\pi R_{\mathrm{long}}R_{\mathrm{side}}^2`$. Assuming freeze-out at constant density , we expect $`V_f`$ to scale linearly with the charged particle multiplicity. Fig. 5 shows $`V_f`$ as function of the number of participants at 40, 80, and 158 AGeV. A linear scaling with $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ is indeed observed at all three energies, consistent with the assumption of a constant freeze-out density, since the number of charged particles was found to scale close to linear with $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ at SPS .

Fig. 5: $`V_f`$ as function of $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ at different SPS energies .

Fig. 6: $`V_f`$ in central Pb(Au)+Pb(Au) collisions as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ (see text). E895 points are at $`<k_t>`$=0.15 GeV/c , STAR is at $`<k_t>`$=0.17 GeV/c , CERES points are the average of their bins at $`<k_t>`$=0.12 and $`<k_t>`$=0.2 GeV/c .

But the beam energy dependence is surprising: There is no clear hierarchy visible in Fig. 5 as expected from the increase of multiplicity by about 50% between 40 AGeV and 158 AGeV; the smallest $`V_f`$ are observed at 80 AGeV. Obviously, the freeze-out volume scales with multiplicity as long as multiplicity is controlled via centrality, but it does not scale accordingly as multiplicity changes with beam energy.

The comparison of $`V_f`$ at different beam energies from AGS to RHIC sheds some light on this: The freeze-out volume $`V_f`$ is gradually decreasing within the AGS energy range, reaches a minimum at SPS and then increases towards RHIC, as demonstrated in Fig. 6.

Clearly, a simple relation between multiplicity and freeze-out volume cannot hold. On the other hand, it is plausible to assume that at low energies pions interact mainly with nucleons, while at high energies pion-pion scattering dominates. Is the transition from nucleon to pion dominated freeze-out characterized by a minimum in $`V_f`$ at SPS?

Fig. 7: Left: Midrapidity yields of different particles vs. $`\sqrt{s}`$. Upper right: cross section weighted sum of particle yields (see text). Lower right: ratio $`V_f/N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ vs. $`\sqrt{s}`$.

In Fig. 7 (left) the midrapidity density of pions  and protons  in central Pb(Au)+Pb(Au) collisions is shown as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The pion yield increases monotonically with beam energy. The total proton (p+$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) yield at midrapidity drops from AGS to SPS and stays approximately constant between SPS and RHIC because the decreasing number of net protons is compensated by p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ production. The sum of pions and protons, however, is still a monotonic function of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

At this point, the different cross sections $`\sigma _{\pi \pi }`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ have to be considered. In Fig. 7 (upper right) the cross section weighted sum of pions and protons $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=$`2N_{\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}}\sigma _{\pi N}`$\+ $`3N_\pi ^{}\sigma _{\pi \pi }`$ is shown 111Note that there are a few simplifications: the protons are multiplied by 2 to account for the neutrons, which is not completely correct for the lowest beam energies. Also the role of light nuclei and other produced particles is neglected.. For the cross sections $`\sigma _{\pi \pi }`$=10 mb and $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$=65 mb are assumed. Indeed, the cross section weighted sum of pions and nucleons at midrapidity is non-monotonic and exhibits a minimum at SPS. As a consequence, the ratio $`V_f/N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which has the dimension of a length, is approximately constant (Fig. 7, lower right). This result suggests $`V_f/N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$1 fm as a universal freeze-out condition.

In this picture, the relatively weak beam energy dependence of HBT source parameters can be understood as an interplay between the decreasing (and eventually levelling off) (p+$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) yield and the increasing pion multiplicity at midrapidity, if their different cross sections with pions are taken into account. It is interesting to obtain a detailed understanding of the role of protons for pion freeze-out at low energies. The strong momentum dependence of the $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ cross section may affect the $`k_t`$-dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ at low beam energies and cause the flattening of the $`k_t`$-dependence with increasing beam energy, as the importance of protons ceases. At the lower SPS energies, where protons are still important, the interpretation of the $`k_t`$-dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ in terms of radial flow may be questionable, and possibly breaks down at AGS.

## 4 Discussion

Single particle spectra and azimuthal anisotropies at SPS and RHIC have been well reproduced by state-of-the-art hydro+cascade calculations . However, they fail to reproduce the measured HBT parameters, in particular the lifetime of the system is grossly overestimated.

In these models, the early plasma phase is described by hydrodynamics assuming an ideal plasma EOS with a first order phase transition and a mixed phase with an adjustable latent heat. At the end of the mixed phase, hadrons are created assuming a thermal phase space population superimposed by the collective velocity field created by the plasma pressure. After hadronization, hadrons are rescattered using a hadronic cascade code.

In  the response of the hydro+cascade calculation to different choices of the latent heat is well documented. From this investigation, it becomes obvious that the choice of a relatively large latent heat of 0.8 GeV/fm3, needed to describe the SPS single particle data, is mainly driven by the observed mass dependence of the inverse slope parameters. Smaller latent heat produces larger flow velocities before hadronization and therefore too hard spectra, in particular for the multi-strange baryons which do not follow the linear scaling behaviour observed for $`\pi `$, K, p . On the other hand, a small latent heat would lead to an early acceleration of the matter and therefore to a faster dilution and shorter lifetime, in particular of the hadronic phase, which is suggested by the HBT measurements.

This leads to a closer inspection of the data as represented in Fig. 8 (left). For some of the particle species, the observed inverse slope parameter scales linearly with the particle mass, consistent with the assumption of a common flow velocity. There are, however, a number of exceptions which do not follow this rule ($`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). This was explained by their small cross sections with the surrounding matter, hence they are expected to participate less in the collective motion.

Fig. 8: Left: Inverse slope parameter vs. mass of hadrons at SPS. Right: Inverse slope parameter vs. number of constituent quarks.

On the other hand, it is evident that the data separate into two groups: All mesons have similar slopes, and the same is true for baryons. One may therefore as well correlate the inverse slope with the number of constituent quarks inside the hadron, rather than with the hadron mass (Fig. 8, right). Also here a scaling behaviour can be observed, and almost all particles are consistent with this trend. Note that the large inverse slope of the $`\varphi `$ observed by NA49  is experimentally still under debate, since there is also a measurement by NA50 , giving a much smaller number.

The physical picture which arises from this representation is different from the common interpretation: collective motion has completely developed before hadronization, with constituent quarks being the flowing objects. Hadrons are formed by coalescence of constituent quarks, preferentially if they are close in phase space, thereby adding their momenta. When hadrons acquire mass, momentum is conserved which leaves the momentum spectra unchanged. In this picture, the data are consistent with a kinetic freeze-out temperature of 0.12 GeV, a collective quark flow velocity of $`\sqrt{1/3}`$ and an effective quark mass of 0.33 GeV: $`T`$=$`0.12+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{3}0.33n_{\mathrm{quarks}}`$ (dashed line in Fig. 8, right). Most of the explosive power of the system would be assigned to the early, pre-hadronic phase of the collision, thereby qualitatively explaining the short lifetimes observed by HBT. It also suggests that the hadronic mass scale is no more relevant in the early phase of the collision, as naively expected for a deconfined partonic system.


format: text

text:
# Component groups of unipotent centralizers in good characteristic

## 1. Reductive algebraic groups

Fix $`TBG`$, where $`T`$ is a maximal torus and $`B`$ a Borel subgroup. Let $`(X,R,Y,R^{})`$ denote the root datum of the reductive group $`G`$ with respect to $`T`$; thus $`X=X^{}(T)`$ is the character group, and $`RX`$ is the set of weights of $`T`$ on $`𝔤`$. Fix $`SR`$ a system of simple roots.

When $`R`$ is irreducible, the root with maximal height (with respect to $`S`$) will be denoted $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Write

(2)
$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\underset{\beta S}{}a_\beta \beta $$

for positive integers $`a_\beta `$. The characteristic $`p`$ of $`k`$ is said to be good for $`G`$ (or for $`R`$) if $`p`$ does not divide any $`a_\beta `$. So $`p=0`$ is good, and we may simply list the bad (i.e. not good) primes: $`p=2`$ is bad unless $`R=A_r`$, $`p=3`$ is bad if $`R=G_2,F_4,E_r`$, and $`p=5`$ is bad if $`R=E_8`$.

The prime $`p`$ is good for a general $`R`$ just in case it is good for each irreducible component of $`R`$.

For a root $`\alpha R`$, let $`𝐆_a𝒳_\alpha G`$ be the corresponding root subgroup.

## 2. Springer’s isomorphism

Let $`𝒰G`$ and $`𝒩𝔤`$ denote respectively the unipotent and nilpotent varieties. In characteristic 0, the exponential is a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`𝒩𝒰`$; in good characteristic, one has the following substitute for the exponential:

###### Proposition 5.

There is a $`G`$-equivariant homeomorphism $`\epsilon :𝒩𝒰`$. Moreover, if $`R`$ has no component of type $`A_r`$ for which $`r1(modp)`$, there is such an $`\epsilon `$ which is an isomorphism of varieties.

###### Proof.

There is an isogeny $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{G}=_iG_i\times T`$ with $`T`$ a torus and each $`G_i`$ a simply connected, quasisimple group; see e.g. \[Spr98, Theorem 9.6.5\]. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ denote the corresponding varieties for $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Since the characteristic is good, it has been proved by Springer \[Spr69\] that there is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$-equivariant isomorphism of varieties $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }:\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$; for another proof, see \[BR85\].

It follows from \[McN, Lemma 24\] that $`\pi `$ restricts to a homeomorphism $`\pi _{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}}:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝒰`$, and that $`d\pi `$ restricts to a homeomorphism $`d\pi _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}:\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒩`$. Since the characteristic is good, $`d\pi `$ is bijective provided that $`RA_r`$ when $`r1(modp)`$; see the summary in \[Hum95, 0.13\]. It follows from the remaining assertion in \[McN, Lemma 24\] that $`\pi _{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}}`$ and $`d\pi _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}`$ are isomorphisms of varieties when $`d\pi `$ is bijective, whence the proposition. ∎

In what follows, *we fix an equivariant homeomorphism $`\epsilon :𝒩𝒰`$, to which we will refer without further comment.*

## 3. Associated co-characters

Recall that a unipotent $`uG`$ is said to be *distinguished* if the connected center $`Z^o(G)`$ of $`G`$ is a maximal torus of $`C_G(u)`$. A nilpotent element $`X𝔤`$ is then distinguished if $`\epsilon (X)`$ has that property.

Let $`X𝔤`$ be nilpotent. If $`X`$ is not distinguished, there is a Levi subgroup $`L`$ of $`G`$ for which $`X\mathrm{Lie}(L)`$ is distinguished.

A co-character $`\varphi :k^\times G`$ is said to be associated to $`X`$ if

$$\mathrm{Ad}\varphi (t)X=t^2X\text{for each}tk^\times ,$$

and if the image of $`\varphi `$ lies in the derived group of some Levi subgroup $`L`$ for which $`X\mathrm{Lie}(L)`$ is distinguished.

A co-character $`\varphi `$ is associated to a unipotent $`uG`$ if it is associated to $`X=\epsilon ^1(u)`$.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`uG`$ be unipotent. Then there exist co-characters associated to $`u`$, and any two such are conjugate by an element of $`C_G^o(u)`$.

###### Proof.

This is proved in \[Jan, Lemma 5.3\]. ∎

###### Remark 7.

The existence of associated co-characters asserted in the the previous proposition relies in an essential way on Pommerening’s proof \[Pom\] of the Bala-Carter theorem in good characteristic.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a co-character associated to the unipotent $`uG`$, and let $`𝔤(i)`$ be the $`i`$-weight space for $`\mathrm{Ad}\varphi (k^\times )`$, $`i𝐙`$. Let $`𝔭=_{i0}𝔤(i)`$. Then $`𝔭=\mathrm{Lie}(P)`$ for a parabolic subgroup $`P`$ of $`G`$; $`P`$ is known as the canonical parabolic associated with $`u`$.

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`uG`$ be unipotent. The parabolic subgroup $`P`$ is independent of the choice of associated co-character $`\varphi `$ for $`u`$. Moreover, $`C_G(u)P`$.

###### Proof.

\[Jan, Prop. 5.9\]

###### Remark 9.

The proof that $`C_G(u)P`$ is somewhat subtle in positive characteristic. Let $`X=\epsilon ^1(u)`$. In characteristic 0, the assertion $`C_G^o(u)P`$ is a consequence of the Lie algebra analogue $`𝔠_𝔤(X)𝔭`$ which follows from the Jacobson-Morozov theorem. (The fact that the full centralizer lies in $`P`$ is then a consequence of the unicity of the canonical parabolic $`P`$). In good characteristic, the required assertion for the Lie algebra was proved by Spaltenstein, and independently by Premet; see the references in \[Jan, §5\]. In the positive characteristic case, the transition to the group is more subtle; again see *loc. cit.*

## 4. The Levi decomposition of a unipotent centralizer

In characteristic $`p>0`$, a linear algebraic group can fail to have a Levi decomposition. Moreover, even when they exist, two Levi factors need not in general be conjugate. If $`uG`$ is unipotent and the characteristic is good for $`G`$, the connected centralizer $`C_G^o(u)`$ does have a Levi decomposition, thanks to work of Premet. More precisely:

###### Proposition 10.

Let $`uG`$ be unipotent, let $`P`$ be the canonical parabolic associated with $`u`$ (see Proposition 8), and let $`U_P`$ be the unipotent radical of $`P`$.

1. $`R(u)=C_G(u)U_P`$ is the unipotent radical of $`C_G(u)`$.
2. For any co-character $`\varphi `$ associated with $`u`$, the centralizer $`C_\varphi `$ of $`\varphi `$ in $`C_G(u)`$ is a Levi factor of $`C_G(u)`$; i.e. $`C_\varphi `$ is reductive and $`C_G(u)=C_\varphi R(u)`$.
3. If $`\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$ are two co-characters associated to $`u`$, then $`C_\varphi `$ and $`C_\varphi ^{}`$ are conjugate by an element in $`C_G^o(u)`$.

###### Proof.

\[Jan, §5.10, 5.11\]. ∎

###### Remark 11.

The proof that $`R(u)`$ is a connected (normal, unipotent) group is elementary, as is the fact that $`C_G(u)=C_\varphi R(u)`$. The proof that $`C_\varphi `$ is reductive depends on work of Premet, and ultimately involves case-checking in small characteristics for exceptional groups.

## 5. Semisimple representatives

If $`H`$ is a linear algebraic group, in characteristic 0 one may always represent a coset $`tH^oH/H^o`$ by a semisimple element $`tH`$. In characteristic $`p>0`$ this is no longer true in general (e.g. if $`[H:H^o]0(modp)`$).

Let now $`G`$ be connected, reductive in good characteristic and suppose $`uG`$ is unipotent. Despite the above difficulty, we may always choose semisimple representatives for the elements in the component group $`A(u)`$.

###### Proposition 12.

Let $`uG`$ be unipotent, and suppose $`vC_G(u)`$ is also unipotent. Then $`vC_G^o(u)`$.

###### Proof.

The proposition follows from \[SS70, III.3.15\]. Note that in *loc. cit.* $`G`$ is assumed semisimple, but the argument works for all reductive $`G`$ in view of Proposition 5. ∎

###### Corollary 13.

Let $`uG`$ be unipotent. Then each element of the component group $`A(u)`$ may be represented by a semisimple element $`sC_G(u)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`gC_G(u)`$, and let $`g=g_sg_u`$ be its Jordan decomposition where $`g_s`$ is semisimple and $`g_u`$ is unipotent. Proposition 12 implies that $`g_uC_G^o(u)`$, whence the corollary. ∎

## 6. Pseudo-Levi subgroups

We collect here a few results on pseudo-Levi subgroups which will be needed in the proof of Theorem 1. Recall that by a pseudo-Levi subgroup, we mean the connected centralizer of a semisimple element of $`G`$.

###### Lemma 14.

Let $`ST`$ be a subset. Then $`C_G^o(S)`$ is a reductive subgroup of $`G`$, and is generated by $`T`$ together with the root subgroups $`𝒳_\alpha `$ for which $`\alpha (S)=1`$.

###### Proof.

\[SS70, II §4.1\]. ∎

###### Proposition 15.

Let $`L=C_G^o(t)`$ with $`tG`$ semisimple. Write $`Z`$ for the center of $`L`$.

1. $`L=C_G^o(tZ^o)`$.
2. Let $`S`$ be a torus in $`C_G^o(t)`$, and let $`M=C_G^o(tS)`$. There is a non-empty open subset $`UtS`$ such that $`M=C_G^o(x)`$ for each $`xU`$. In particular, $`M`$ is again a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$. If $`Z_1`$ denotes the center of $`M`$, then $`M=C_G^o(tZ_1^o)`$.
3. There is a non-empty open subset $`UtZ^o`$ such that $`L=C_G^o(x)`$ for each $`xU`$.

###### Proof.

(1) is straightforward to verify.

For (2), we may suppose that $`t`$ and $`S`$ are in $`T`$. Let $`R^{}=\{\alpha R\alpha (tS)=1\}`$. Then $`R^{}R_x=\{\alpha R\alpha (x)=1\}`$ for any $`xtS`$. Since $`tS`$ is an irreducible variety, the intersection of non-empty open subsets

$$U=\underset{\alpha RR^{}}{}\{xtS\alpha (x)1\}$$

is itself open and non-empty; moreover, it is clear that $`R_x=R^{}`$ whenever $`xU`$, so the first assertion of (2) follows from Lemma 14.

For the final assertion of (2), first note that $`M=C_G^o(t,S)=C_L^o(S)`$ is a Levi subgroup of $`L`$. By \[DM91, Prop. 1.21\] we have $`M=C_L^o(Z_1^o)`$; since $`t`$ is central in $`M`$, we have also $`M=C_L^o(tZ_1^o)`$. Since certainly $`C_G^o(tZ_1^o)C_G^o(t)=L`$, we deduce that $`M=C_G^o(tZ_1^o)`$ as desired.

(3) follows from (1) and (2) with $`S=Z^o`$. ∎

###### Proposition 16.

Let $`G`$ be connected and reductive. If the characteristic $`p`$ of $`k`$ is good for $`G`$, and if $`L`$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$, then $`p`$ is good for $`L`$ as well.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Proposition 5, let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ be an isogeny where $`\stackrel{~}{G}=_iG_i\times S`$ with $`S`$ a torus and each $`G_i`$ a simply connected quasisimple group. Let $`L=C_G^o(t)`$. If $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{t})=t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}=C_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^o(\stackrel{~}{t})`$, then Lemma 14 shows that $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{L})=L`$. Since $`p`$ is good for $`L`$ if and only if it is good for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, we may replace $`G`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Since $`L=_i(LG_i)\times S`$, it suffices to suppose that $`G`$ is quasisimple.

According to \[SS70, §4.1,4.3\] $`p`$ is good for $`G`$ if and only if $`𝐙R/𝐙R_1`$ has no $`p`$-torsion for any (integrally) closed subsystem $`R_1`$ of $`R`$. Since the root system $`R_L`$ of $`L`$ is one such subsystem, it readily follows that $`p`$ is good for any irreducible component of $`R_L`$. ∎

###### Lemma 17.

Let $`L`$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$. Then $`L=C_G^o(s)`$ for a semisimple element $`sG`$ of finite order.

###### Proof.

Let $`Z`$ denote the (full) center of $`L`$. By \[Spr98, Exerc. 3.2.10 5(b)\], the elements of $`Z`$ which have finite order are dense in the diagonalizable group $`Z`$. Now choose $`tZ`$ such that $`L=C_G^o(t)`$, and let $`UtZ^o`$ be an open set as in Proposition 15(3). Then $`U`$ is also open in $`Z`$ and hence contains an element $`s`$ of finite order. ∎

## 7. Semisimple automorphisms of reductive groups

If $`H`$ is any linear algebraic group, an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`H`$ is semisimple if there is a linear algebraic group $`H^{}`$ with $`HH^{}`$ such that $`\sigma =\mathrm{Int}(x)_H`$ for some semisimple $`xH^{}`$ (where $`\mathrm{Int}(x)`$ denotes the inner automorphism determined by $`x`$).

###### Proposition 18.

Let $`H`$ be a connected linear algebraic group, and let $`\sigma `$ be a semisimple automorphism of $`H`$. Then $`\sigma `$ fixes a Borel subgroup $`B`$ of $`H`$, and a maximal torus $`TB`$.

###### Proof.

\[Ste68, Theorem 7.5\]. ∎

###### Lemma 19.

Let $`A`$ be a connected commutative linear algebraic group, let $`\sigma `$ be a semisimple automorphism of $`A`$, and let $`A^\sigma `$ be the fixed points of $`\sigma `$ on $`A`$. Then each element $`aA`$ can be written

$$a=x\sigma (y)y^1$$

for $`xA^\sigma `$ and $`yA`$.

###### Proof.

The homomorphism $`\varphi :A^\sigma \times AA`$ given by $`\varphi (x,y)=x\sigma (y)y^1`$ has surjective differential by \[Spr98, Corollary 5.4.5(ii)\], so $`\varphi `$ is surjective. ∎

###### Proposition 20.

Let $`H`$ be a reductive algebraic group, and suppose the images of the semisimple elements $`t,t^{}H`$ lie in the same conjugacy class in $`H/H^o`$. Then there is $`gH`$ and a semisimple $`sC_H^o(t)`$ such that $`gt^{}g^1=ts.`$

###### Proof.

Replacing $`t^{}`$ by $`ht^{}h^1`$ for suitable $`hH`$, we can suppose that $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ have the same image in $`H/H^o`$.

Applying Proposition 18 we can find $`TB`$ where $`T`$ and $`B`$ are respectively an $`\mathrm{Int}(t)`$-stable maximal torus and Borel group. Similarly, we can find an $`\mathrm{Int}(t^{})`$ stable $`T^{}B^{}`$.

Choose $`gH`$ with $`B=g^1B^{}g`$. Then $`g^1T^{}g`$ is a sub-torus of $`B`$. Replacing $`g`$ by $`bg`$ for some $`bB`$, we can arrange that $`g^1T^{}g=T`$; replacing $`t^{}`$ by $`gt^{}g^1`$, we see that $`TB`$ is both $`\mathrm{Int}(t)`$-stable and $`\mathrm{Int}(t^{})`$-stable.

Thus $`n=t^1t^{}`$ is in the normalizer of $`T`$ in $`H^o`$. Since $`\mathrm{Int}(n)`$ fixes $`B`$, and since the Weyl group $`N_{H^o}(T)/T`$ acts simply transitively on the set of Borel subgroups containing $`T`$, we deduce that $`nT`$. We can therefore write $`t^{}=ta`$ for $`aT`$. By Lemma 19 we can write $`a=xt^1yty^1`$ for some $`xC_T(t)`$ and $`yT`$. Let $`g=ty^1`$. Then one readily checks that

$$gt^{}g^1=tx$$

and the proof is complete. ∎

###### Corollary 21.

Let $`H`$ be a linear algebraic group. Suppose that $``$ is a collection of Levi factors of $`H`$ which are all conjugate under $`H`$. If the semisimple elements $`t,t^{}H`$ lie in the same conjugacy class in $`H/H^o`$, and if $`t,t^{}_MM`$, then there is $`gH`$ and a semisimple element $`sC_H^o(t)`$ such that $`gt^{}g^1=ts`$.

###### Proof.

Choose $`M,M^{}`$ with $`tM`$ and $`t^{}M^{}`$. Since $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are $`H`$-conjugate, replacing $`t^{}`$ by an $`H`$-conjugate permits us to suppose that $`t,t^{}M`$. Since $`M`$ is reductive, we deduce the result from Proposition 20. ∎

We require one further property of pseudo-Levi subgroups, whose proof depends on Proposition 18 and on the following version of a result of Mostow recently obtained by Jantzen \[Jan, 11.24\]:

###### Proposition 22.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an algebraic group which is a semidirect product of a (not necessarily connected) reductive group $`M`$ and a normal unipotent group $`R`$. Let $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a linearly reductive closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then there exists $`rR`$ with $`rHr^1M`$.

###### Proposition 23.

Let $`L`$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$ and $`uL`$ a distinguished unipotent element. If a cocharacter of L is associated to $`u`$ in $`L`$, then that cocharacter is associated to $`u`$ in $`G`$ as well.

###### Proof.

Since all cocharacters associated to $`u`$ in $`L`$ are conjugate by $`C_L^o(u)`$ (Proposition 6), it suffices to find some cocharacter of $`L`$ which is associated to $`u`$ in both $`L`$ and $`G`$.

According to Lemma 17, $`L=C_G^o(s)`$ for some semisimple element $`s`$ of finite order. The order of $`s`$ is then invertible in $`k`$, so the cyclic subgroup $`H`$ generated by $`s`$ is linearly reductive (all of its linear $`k`$-representations are completely reducible).

Let $`\varphi `$ be any cocharacter of $`G`$ associated to $`u`$, and consider the subgroup $`N=\varphi (k^\times )C_G(u)`$ (i.e. the group generated by the centralizer, and by the image of $`\varphi `$; this is the group $`N(\epsilon ^1(u))`$ defined in \[Jan, 2.10(2)\]).

According to Proposition 10, the centralizer $`C_\varphi `$ of $`\varphi `$ in $`C_G(u)`$ is a Levi factor of $`C_G(u)`$. Now $`C_\varphi ^{}=\varphi (k^\times )C_\varphi `$ is a Levi factor of $`N`$. Moreover, the image of $`\varphi `$ is central in $`C_\varphi ^{}`$.

Now take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=N`$ in Proposition 22. Then $`H=s`$ is a linearly reductive subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. So there is an element $`r`$ in the unipotent radical of $`C_G(u)`$ such that $`rsr^1`$ is in $`C_\varphi ^{}`$. But then $`rsr^1`$ centralizes the image of $`\varphi `$, so that $`s`$ centralizes the image of $`\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{Int}(r^1)\varphi `$. Thus, $`\varphi ^{}`$ is a cocharacter of $`L`$.

We claim that $`\varphi ^{}`$ is associated to $`u`$ in $`L`$. Since the map $`\epsilon :𝒩𝒰`$ is $`G`$-equivariant and thus restricts to a homeomorphism $`𝒩(L)𝒰(L)`$, we must see that $`\varphi ^{}`$ is associated to $`\epsilon ^1(u)`$. Thus, we only must verify that $`\varphi ^{}`$ takes values in the derived group of $`L`$.

For each maximal torus $`S`$ of $`C_\varphi ^{}`$, $`u`$ is distinguished in $`M=C_G(S)`$ and the image of $`\varphi ^{}`$ lies in the derived group $`(M,M)`$ (to see this last assertion, note that it holds for *some* such $`S`$ since $`\varphi ^{}`$ is associated to $`u`$ in $`G`$, and hence for all such $`S`$ by conjugacy of maximal tori in $`C_\varphi ^{}`$).

We may choose a maximal torus $`SC_\varphi ^{}`$ containing the connected center of $`L`$. Since $`C_\varphi ^{}`$ is normalized by $`s`$, we may also suppose by Proposition 18 that $`S`$ is normalized by $`s`$. Then $`C_S^o(s)`$ is a torus in $`C_L(u)`$; since $`u`$ is distinguished in $`L`$, we see that $`C_S^o(s)`$ is contained in (and hence coincides with) the connected center of $`L`$.

The subgroup $`M`$ is normalized by $`s`$, and the proposition will follow if we can show that $`\varphi ^{}`$ takes values in the derived group of $`C_M^o(s)`$ (since $`C_M^o(s)L`$).

We first claim that $`C_S^o(s)`$ is the maximal central torus of $`C_M^o(s)`$. Indeed, if $`C_S^o(s)S^{}`$ with $`S^{}`$ a central torus of $`C_M^o(s)`$, then $`S^{}`$ centralizes $`s`$ and $`u`$ so that $`S^{}C_L(u)`$; since $`C_S^o(s)`$ is the unique maximal torus of $`C_L(u)`$, $`S^{}=C_S^o(s)`$ as claimed.

The proposition is now a consequence of the lemma which follows. ∎

###### Lemma 24.

Let $`M`$ be a connected, reductive group, and suppose that $`\sigma `$ is a semisimple automorphism of $`M`$. If $`S`$ is a $`\sigma `$-stable central torus in $`M`$ and $`C_S^o(\sigma )`$ is the maximal central torus of $`C_M^o(\sigma )`$, then

(3)
$$(C_M^o(\sigma ),C_M^o(\sigma ))=C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma ).$$

###### Proof.

The inclusion

$$(C_M^o(\sigma ),C_M^o(\sigma ))C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma )$$

is immediate (by \[Spr98, 2.2.8\] the group on the left is connected; it is also evidently a $`\sigma `$-stable subgroup generated by commutators in $`M`$).

On the other hand, according to \[Ste68, 9.4\], $`N=C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma )`$ is reductive. We claim that $`N`$ is semisimple; if that is so then $`N=(N,N)`$; since $`NC_M^o(\sigma )`$, equality in (3) will follow.

Write $`Z`$ for the connected center of $`M`$. Then $`Z(M,M)`$ is finite; see e.g. \[Spr98, 8.1.6\]. Since $`SZ`$, we see that $`C_S^o(\sigma )N`$ is finite as well.

Now let $`T`$ be any $`\sigma `$-stable maximal torus of $`M`$. We know that $`\mathrm{Lie}(M)`$ is the sum of $`\mathrm{Lie}((M,M))`$ and $`\mathrm{Lie}(T)`$, since $`\mathrm{Lie}((M,M))`$ contains each non-zero $`T`$-weight space of $`\mathrm{Lie}(M)`$. It follows from \[Spr98, Lemma 4.4.12\] that the differential at $`(1,1)`$ of the product map $`\mu :T\times (M,M)M`$ is surjective. Since $`d\sigma `$ is diagonalizable, $`d\mu _{(1,1)}`$ restricts to a surjective map on $`d\sigma `$-eigenspaces (for each eigenvalue); especially, it restricts to a surjective map on the fixed points of $`d\sigma `$. Reinterpreting the $`d\sigma `$-fixed points via \[Spr98, 5.4.4\], we see that the restriction of $`d\mu _{(1,1)}`$ to $`\mathrm{Lie}(C_T(\sigma ))\mathrm{Lie}(C_{(M,M)}(\sigma ))`$ surjects onto $`\mathrm{Lie}(C_M(\sigma ))`$. It follows that $`\mu `$ restricts to a dominant morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }:C_T^o(\sigma )\times NC_M^o(\sigma )`$; cf. \[Spr98, 4.3.6\]. Since $`C_T^o(\sigma )`$ normalizes $`N`$, the image is a subgroup. As $`C_M^o(\sigma )`$ is connected, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is surjective.

Let $`R`$ denote the radical of $`N`$ ($`R`$ is the maximal central torus of $`N`$). By Proposition 18, $`R`$ is contained in $`C_T(\sigma )`$ for some $`\sigma `$-stable maximal torus $`T`$ of $`M`$. Applying the considerations of the previous paragraph to this $`T`$, we get that $`C_M^o(\sigma )=C_T^o(\sigma )N`$. It follows that $`R`$ is a central torus in $`C_M^o(\sigma )`$. Since $`C_S^o(\sigma )`$ is by assumption the maximal central torus of $`C_M^o(\sigma )`$, we have that $`RC_S^o(\sigma )N`$ is finite, so $`R=1`$ and $`N`$ is indeed semisimple. ∎

###### Remark 25.

Though we shall not have occasion to use it here, the conclusion of Proposition 23 is true more generally: $`()`$ if $`L`$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup, and if $`\varphi `$ is a cocharacter of $`L`$ associated to a unipotent $`uL`$, then $`\varphi `$ is associated to $`u`$ in $`G`$. This follows from Proposition 23 together with the observation that a Levi subgroup of $`L`$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$ (Proposition 15(2)), and that $`()`$ holds when $`L`$ is a Levi subgroup.

## 8. Establishing the main result

Let $`𝒜`$ be the set of triples $`𝐚=(L,tZ^o,u)`$ where $`L`$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$ with center $`Z`$, $`tZ^oZ/Z^o`$ satisfies $`C_G^o(tZ^o)=L`$, and $`uL`$ is a distinguished unipotent element. The action of $`G`$ on itself by inner automorphisms determines an action of $`G`$ on $`𝒜`$.

For $`𝐚=(L,tZ^o,u)𝒜`$, we set $`u(𝐚)=u`$, and we write $`c(𝐚)A(u)`$ for the element $`c(𝐚)=tC_G^o(u)`$.

Let $``$ be the set of all pairs $`(u,x)`$ where $`uG`$ is unipotent and $`xA(u)`$. The action of $`G`$ on itself by inner automorphisms yields an action of $`G`$ on $``$.

To $`𝐚𝒜`$ we associate the pair $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐚)=(u(𝐚),c(𝐚))`$.

###### Lemma 26.

Let $`(u,c)`$. Then there is $`𝐚𝒜`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐚)=(u,c)`$.

###### Proof.

Choose a semisimple $`tC_G(u)`$ whose image in $`A(u)`$ represents $`c`$ (Corollary 13). Let $`S`$ be a maximal torus of $`C_G^o(u,t)`$. Then $`L=C_G^o(t,S)=C_G^o(tS)`$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $`G`$ containing $`u`$, and $`L=C_G^o(tZ^o)`$ where $`Z`$ denotes the center of $`L`$ (Proposition 15(2)).

It remains to show that $`𝐚=(L,tZ^o,u)`$ is in $`𝒜`$, i.e. that $`u`$ is distinguished in $`L`$. Let $`A`$ be a maximal torus of $`C_L(u)`$; we must show that $`A`$ is in the center of $`L`$. Note that $`A`$ is a subtorus of $`B=C_G^o(u,t)`$ and that $`A`$ centralizes $`S`$. In particular, $`A`$ is contained in the Cartan subgroup $`H=C_B(S)`$; by \[Spr98, Prop 6.4.2\] $`H`$ is nilpotent and $`S`$ is its unique maximal torus. Thus $`A`$ is contained in $`S`$, hence $`A`$ is central in $`L`$.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐚)=(u,c)`$; this completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 27.

Let $`𝐚,𝐛𝒜`$, and suppose that $`u=u(𝐚)=u(𝐛)`$. If $`c(𝐚)`$ and $`c(𝐛)`$ are conjugate in $`A(u)`$, then there is $`gC_G(u)`$ with $`𝐚=g𝐛`$.

###### Proof.

Write $`𝐚=(L,tZ^o,u)`$ and $`𝐛=(L^{},t^{}Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{o},u)`$. By Proposition 15(3), we may choose the representatives $`t,t^{}`$ such that $`L=C_G^o(t)`$ and $`L^{}=C_G^o(t^{})`$.

Let $`\varphi :k^\times L`$ be a co-character associated to $`u`$ for the pseudo-Levi subgroup $`L`$; see Propositions 16 and 6. Then $`\varphi `$ is associated to $`u`$ in $`G`$ as well; see Proposition 23. Evidently, $`tC_\varphi `$, where $`C_\varphi `$ is the Levi factor of $`C_G(u)`$ of Proposition 10. Similarly, $`t^{}`$ lies in a Levi factor $`C_\varphi ^{}`$ of $`C_G(u)`$.

Consider the collection $`=\{C_\varphi \varphi `$ is associated to $`u\}`$ of Levi factors of $`C_G(u)`$. Then any two Levi factors in $``$ are conjugate under $`C_G^o(u)`$ by Proposition 10. The previous paragraph shows that $`t,t^{}_MM`$, hence we may apply Corollary 21. That corollary yields $`gC_G(u)`$ and a semisimple $`sC_G^o(u,t)`$, such that $`gt^{}g^1=ts`$.

Choose a maximal torus $`S`$ of $`C_G^o(u,t)`$ containing $`s`$. Then $`SL`$ and $`S`$ centralizes $`u`$; since $`u`$ is distinguished in $`L`$, it follows that $`sSZ^o`$. We have

$$gL^{}g^1=C_G^o(gt^{}g^1)=C_G^o(ts).$$

Since $`sZ^o`$, we find that $`LC_G^o(ts)`$. Thus $`dimL^{}dimL`$. A symmetric argument shows that $`dimL^{}dimL`$, hence equality holds. We deduce that $`gL^{}g^1=C_G^o(ts)=L`$, and so $`g𝐛=𝐚`$ as desired. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

In the notation introduced in this section, Theorem 1 is equivalent to: $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a bijection from the set $`𝒜/G`$ of $`G`$-orbits on $`𝒜`$ to the set $`/G`$ of $`G`$-orbits on $``$.

First note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g𝐚)=g\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐚)`$ for each $`𝐚𝒜`$, so that indeed $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a well-defined map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}:𝒜/G/G`$. Lemma 26 implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ itself is surjective, hence also $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is surjective. Finally, Lemma 27 shows that that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is injective; this proves the theorem. ∎

## 9. Centralizers of semisimple elements in quasisimple groups

In this section, we characterize the pseudo-Levi subgroups of $`G`$ when the root system is irreducible (i.e. when $`G`$ is quasisimple); the results are applied in the next section. The characterization we give is well-known (certainly in characteristic 0), but as we have not located an adequate reference (see Remark 31 below), and since the arguments are not too lengthy, we include most details.

Let $`T`$ be any torus over $`k`$ with co-character group $`Y`$ (in the application, we take $`T`$ to be a maximal torus of $`G`$). We denote by $`V=Y𝐑`$ the extension of $`Y`$ to a real vector space, and by $`𝐓=V/Y`$ the resulting compact (topological) torus. If $`X`$ is the character group of $`T`$, then $`X`$ identifies naturally with the Pontrjagin dual $`\widehat{𝐓}=\mathrm{Hom}(𝐓,𝐑/𝐙)`$ of $`𝐓`$ \[note that we regard $`𝐑/𝐙`$ as a *multiplicative* group\]. The following lemma due to T. A. Springer may be found in \[Ste68, §5.1\]

###### Lemma 28.

1. For each $`tT`$, there is $`t^{}𝐓`$ with the following property:

$$()\text{for each }\lambda X\text{}\lambda (t)=1\text{ if and only if }\lambda (t^{})=1\text{.}$$
2. Conversely, if $`t^{}𝐓`$ has finite order, relatively prime to $`p`$ if $`p>0`$, there is $`tT`$ for which $`()`$ holds.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, *we suppose in this section that $`R`$ is irreducible, so that $`G`$ is quasisimple.*

Let $`\stackrel{~}{S}=S\{\alpha _0\}`$ where $`\alpha _0=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$; thus $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ labels the vertices of the extended Dynkin diagram of the root system $`R`$. For any subset $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$, let $`R_J=𝐙JR`$. Note that we do not require the characteristic to be good for $`G`$ in this section.

###### Lemma 29.

Let $`T`$ be our fixed maximal torus of $`G`$, and let $`𝐓`$ be the corresponding compact topological torus. For $`t𝐓`$, put $`R_t=\{\alpha R\alpha (t)=1\}`$. Then there is $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$ such that $`R_t`$ is conjugate to $`R_J`$ by an element of $`W`$, the Weyl group of $`R`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{t}V`$ represent $`t𝐓`$. For some element $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ of the affine Weyl group $`W_a=W𝐙Y`$, $`\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ lies in the fundamental alcove $`A_o`$ in $`V`$ (whose walls are labeled by $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$). The image of $`\stackrel{~}{w}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ in $`V`$ is then $`wt`$, where $`w`$ is the image of $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ in the finite Weyl group $`W`$, and $`R_{wt}=w^1R_t`$. Thus, we suppose that $`t`$ can be represented by a vector in $`A_o`$. In that case, let $`J=\{\alpha \stackrel{~}{S}\alpha (t)=1\}`$. Then the equality of $`R_t`$ and $`R_J`$ is proved in \[Lus95, Lemma 5.4\] (in *loc. cit.*, Lusztig works instead with the complex torus $`Y𝐂/Y`$, but his argument is readily adapted to the current situation). ∎

For a subset $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$, we consider the subgroup

$$L_J=T,𝒳_\alpha \alpha R_J.$$

###### Proposition 30.

Let $`tG`$ be semisimple. Then $`C_G^o(t)`$ is conjugate to a subgroup $`L_J`$ for some $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$.

###### Proof.

We may suppose that $`tT`$. Set $`R_t=\{\alpha R\alpha (t)=1\}`$. According to Lemma 14, $`C_G^o(t)`$ is generated by $`T`$ and the $`𝒳_\alpha `$ with $`\alpha R_t`$. With notations as before, choose $`t^{}𝐓`$ with the property $`()`$ of Lemma 28 for $`t`$. Thus $`R_t=R_t^{}`$. Lemma 29 implies that $`R_t`$ and $`R_J`$ are $`W`$-conjugate for some $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$; thus $`C_G^o(t)`$ is conjugate in $`G`$ to $`L_J`$ as desired. ∎

###### Remark 31.

When $`k`$ is an algebraic closure of a finite field, Proposition 30 was proved by D. I. Deriziotis, and is stated in \[Hum95, 2.15\]. See the last paragraph of *loc. cit.* §2.15 for a discussion.

In good characteristic, the converse of the previous proposition is true as well:

###### Proposition 32.

Suppose that the characteristic of $`k`$ is good for $`G`$. Let $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$, and let $`Z`$ be the center of $`L_J`$. There is $`tZ`$ with $`L_J=C_G^o(t)`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to suppose that $`G`$ is adjoint. In that case, there are vectors $`\varpi _\alpha ^{}Y`$, $`\alpha S`$, dual to the basis $`S`$ of $`X`$. We suppose that $`\alpha _0J`$, since otherwise $`L_J`$ is a Levi subgroup and the result holds (in all characteristics) e.g. by \[Spr98, 6.4.3\].

Denote by $`\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r\}S`$ the simple roots which are not in $`J`$. Since $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$, we have $`r1`$. Write $`\varpi _i^{}=\varpi _{\alpha _i}^{}`$. Choose $`\mathrm{}`$ a prime number different from $`p`$, and let $`s𝐓`$ be the image of

$$\stackrel{~}{s}=\frac{\mathrm{}(a_2+\mathrm{}+a_r)}{a_1\mathrm{}}\varpi _1^{}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=2}{\overset{r}{}}\varpi _i^{}V.$$

We have written $`a_i`$ for the coefficient $`a_{\alpha _i}`$; see eq. (2). If $`r>1`$, the order of $`s`$ is divisible by $`\mathrm{}`$ and divides $`a_1\mathrm{}`$; if $`J=\stackrel{~}{S}\{\alpha _1\}`$, $`s`$ has order $`a_1`$. Since $`p`$ is good, the order of $`s`$ is thus relatively prime to $`p`$. If $`\mathrm{}`$ is chosen sufficiently large, we have $`J=\{\beta \stackrel{~}{S}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{s}𝐙\}.`$ Since $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ lies in the fundamental alcove $`A_o`$, (the proof of) Lemma 29 implies that $`R_s=R_J`$. Choose an element $`tT`$ corresponding to $`s𝐓`$ as in Lemma 28(b). By Lemma 14, $`C_G^o(t)`$ is generated by $`T`$ and the $`𝒳_\alpha `$ with $`\alpha R_s`$; thus $`C_G^o(t)=L_J`$ as desired. ∎

## 10. Explicit descriptions for simple and adjoint $`G`$

In this section, we consider $`G`$ simple of adjoint type. Thus the roots $`R`$ span the weight lattice $`X`$ over $`𝐙`$ and the root system is irreducible. The characteristic of $`k`$ is assumed to be good for $`G`$ throughout.

The results of the previous section show that in good characteristic, a pseudo-Levi subgroup in the sense of this paper (connected centralizer of a semisimple element) is the same as a pseudo-Levi subgroup in the sense of \[Som98\] (subgroup conjugate to some $`L_J`$).

###### Lemma 33.

Let $`L_J`$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup with center $`Z`$.

1. Put $`d_J=\mathrm{gcd}(a_\alpha \alpha \stackrel{~}{S}J)`$. Then $`Z/Z^o`$ is cyclic of order $`d_J`$.
2. Every element of the character group of $`Z/Z^o`$ can be represented by a root in $`R`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`p`$ is good, $`𝐙R/𝐙J`$ has no $`p`$-torsion. Thus the character group $`X(Z/Z^o)`$ is isomorphic to the torsion subgroup of $`𝐙R/𝐙J`$ as in \[Som98, §2\], so the proof of (1) in *loc. cit.* remains valid over $`k`$.

It is also true that $`X(Z/Z^o)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`𝐙\overline{R}_J/𝐙J`$ where $`\overline{R}_J`$ denotes the rational closure of $`R_J`$ in $`R`$. We will show that the set $`\overline{R}_J`$ surjects onto the latter cyclic group. Now $`\overline{R}_J`$ is the root system of a Levi subgroup of $`G`$, and so it contains at most one irreducible component of type different than type $`A`$. Since the rank of $`𝐙R_J`$ equals the rank of $`𝐙\overline{R}_J`$, the type $`A`$ components of $`\overline{R}_J`$ play no role (every root sub-system is rationally closed in type $`A`$), and so we may assume that $`\overline{R}_J`$ is irreducible. Then $`R_J`$ is a root system with Dynkin diagram obtained by removing one simple root $`\alpha `$ from the extended Dynkin diagram of $`\overline{R}_J`$. Since there exists a positive root in $`\overline{R}_J`$ whose coefficient on $`\alpha `$ is any number between $`1`$ and $`d_J`$ (note that $`d_J`$ is necessarily the coefficient of the highest root of $`\overline{R}_J`$ on $`\alpha `$), (2) follows. ∎

###### Lemma 34.

Let $`L`$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup with center $`Z`$.

1. For $`tZ`$, we have $`L=C_G^o(tZ^o)`$ if and only if $`tZ^o`$ generates $`Z/Z^o`$.
2. If $`uL`$ is a distinguished unipotent element, then the group $`N_G(L)C_G(u)`$ acts transitively on the generators of the cyclic group $`Z/Z^o`$.

###### Proof.

We always have $`L=C_G^o(Z)C_G^o(tZ^o)C_G^o(Z^o)`$. Hence if $`tZ^o`$ generates $`Z/Z^o`$, then clearly $`L=C_G^o(tZ^o)`$. For the converse, we may assume that $`L=C_G^o(t)`$ by Proposition 15. If $`tZ^o`$ fails to generate $`Z/Z^o`$, then by the previous lemma there exists a root $`\beta R`$ such that $`\beta (t)=1`$, but $`\beta `$ is non-trivial on $`Z`$. By Lemma 14 this contradicts the fact that $`C_G^o(Z)=C_G^o(t)`$, and (1) follows.

Assertion (2) follows from \[Som98, Prop. 8\]. ∎

###### Proposition 35.

\[Som98\] To a pair $`(L,u)`$ of a pseudo-Levi subgroup $`L`$ with center $`Z`$ and distinguished unipotent element $`uL`$, assign the pair $`(u,c)`$ where $`cA(u)`$ is the image of any generator of $`Z/Z^o`$. Then this map defines a bijection between the $`G`$-orbits on the pairs $`(L,u)`$ and the $`G`$-orbits on the pairs $`(u,c)`$.

###### Proof.

In view of Lemma 34, this follows from Theorem 1. ∎

To determine the isomorphism type of the groups $`A(u)`$ we need to argue that the calculations in \[Som98\] remain valid over $`k`$.

Let $`\widehat{G}`$ be the group over $`𝐂`$ with the same root datum as $`G`$. Since the characteristic is good, the Bala-Carter-Pommerening theorem shows that unipotent classes of $`G`$ and of $`\widehat{G}`$ are parametrized by their labeled diagram; cf. \[Jan, 4.7 and 4.13\]. It follows immediately that the $`G`$-orbits of pairs $`(L,u)`$ as in the previous proposition are parametrized by the same combinatorial data as for $`\widehat{G}`$; namely, $`(L,u)`$ corresponds to the pair $`(J,D_J)`$ where $`J`$ is a proper subset of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`L`$ is conjugate to $`L_J`$ (see Proposition 30), and where $`D_J`$ is the labeled Dynkin diagram of the class of $`u`$ in $`L`$. As in the remarks preceding \[Som98, Remark 6\], the $`G`$-orbit of $`(L,u)`$ identifies with the $`W`$-orbit of $`(J,D_J)`$.

Now given a unipotent class in $`G`$ with labeled diagram $`D`$, we are left with the task of determining which pairs $`(L,u)`$ (up to $`G`$-conjugacy) as in the previous proposition are such that $`u`$ has diagram $`D`$ in $`G`$. Since an associated cocharacter of $`u`$ in $`L`$ is associated to $`u`$ in $`G`$ by Proposition 23, we may begin with the labeled diagram of $`u`$ for $`L`$ and produce by $`W`$-conjugation the labeled diagram of $`u`$ for $`G`$; see \[Som98, §3.3\]. It is now clear that our task is combinatorial: for a fixed $`J\stackrel{~}{S}`$, we must find all “distinguished” labeled diagrams for $`L_J`$ which have $`D`$ as a $`W`$-conjugate. The calculations are carried out in \[Som98, §3.3, 3.4, 3.5\], and they remain valid for $`k`$. Thanks to Proposition 35, this gives a bijection between the conjugacy classes of $`A(u)`$ and those of $`A(\widehat{u})`$.

According to Lemma 33(1), the order of a representative element in $`A(u)`$ for the class determined by the pair $`(L,u)`$ is independent of the ground field. According to \[Som98, §3.4,§3.5\], knowledge of the conjugacy classes and the orders of representing elements in $`A(\widehat{u})`$ are sufficient to determine the group structure. The same then holds for $`A(u)`$, and we have proved:

###### Theorem 36.

For each unipotent element $`uG`$, let $`\widehat{u}\widehat{G}`$ be a unipotent element with the same labeled diagram as $`u`$. Then $`A(u)A(\widehat{u})`$.