text:
# Categorification of some level two representations of 𝔰𝔩_𝑛

## 1 Introduction

Let $`W`$ be the fundamental $`n`$-dimensional representation of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩_n.`$ Let $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _{n1}`$ be the fundamental dominant weights of $`𝔰𝔩_n,`$ the highest weights of the exterior powers $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kW`$ of $`W.`$ For the rest of this paper fix $`k`$ between $`1`$ and $`n1`$ and denote by $`V`$ the irreducible representation with the highest weight $`2\omega _k.`$ This representation is a direct summand of $`S^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^kW).`$

Decompose $`V`$ into weight spaces, $`V=\underset{\lambda }{}V_\lambda .`$ We call $`\lambda `$ *admissible* if $`V_\lambda 0.`$ Admissible weights are enumerated by sequences

$$\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n),0\lambda _i2,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i=2k.$$

For an admissible $`\lambda `$ let $`m=m(\lambda )`$ be one-half of the number of 1s in the sequence $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{2n}).`$ $`m(\lambda )`$ is an integer between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{min}(k,nk).`$ The dimension of $`V_\lambda `$ depends only on $`m`$ and is the $`m`$-th Catalan number $`c_m=\frac{1}{m+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}2m\\ m\end{array}\right).`$

$`E_i𝔰𝔩_n`$ maps the weight space $`V_\lambda `$ to $`V_{\lambda +ϵ_i}`$ where $`ϵ_i=(0,\mathrm{},0,1,1,0,\mathrm{},0),`$ and $`1,1`$ are the $`i`$-th and $`(i+1)`$-th entries. $`E_iV_\lambda =0`$ if $`\lambda +ϵ_i`$ is not admissible. $`F_i𝔰𝔩_n`$ maps $`V_\lambda `$ to $`V_{\lambda ϵ_i}.`$

A level two representation is an irreducible representation with the highest weight $`\omega _i+\omega _j.`$ In particular, $`V`$ is a level two representation. Green \[G\] found a graphical interpretation of Lusztig-Kashiwara canonical basis \[L1\], \[Ka\], \[L2\] in level two representations of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_n)`$ via a calculus of planar diagrams similar to the one of Temperley-Lieb.

In this paper we categorify $`V`$ and Green’s construction of the canonical basis in $`V`$ with the help of rings $`H^m`$ introduced in \[K\]. Let $`𝒞`$ be the direct sum of categories of $`H^{m(\lambda )}`$-modules, over admissible $`\lambda .`$ The Grothendieck group of $`H^{m(\lambda )}`$-mod is naturally isomorphic to the weight space $`V_\lambda `$ (more precisely, to a $``$-lattice in the latter), and the rank of the Grothendieck group is the $`m`$-th Catalan number (the dimension of $`V_\lambda ).`$ We construct exact functors $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ in the category $`𝒞`$ that in the Grothendieck group descend to $`E_i`$ and $`F_i`$ acting on $`V.`$ Various structures in $`V`$ lift to fancier structures in $`𝒞.`$ The symmetric group action on $`V`$ lifts to a braid group action in the derived category of $`𝒞.`$ The contravariant symmetric bilinear form on $`V`$ is given by dimensions of Hom spaces between projective modules in $`𝒞.`$ Contravariance, meaning $`(E_iv,w)=(v,F_iw)`$ for $`v,wV,`$ turns into the property that the functor $`_i`$ is both left and right adjoint to $`_i`$.

Rings $`H^m`$ are naturally graded and throughout the paper we work with the categories of graded $`H^m`$-modules. The Grothendieck groups are then $`[q,q^1]`$-modules (the grading shift functor descends to the multiplication by a formal variable $`q`$ in the Grothendieck group), and assemble into a representation (also denoted $`V`$) of the quantum enveloping algebra $`U=U_q(𝔰𝔩_n).`$ Indecomposable projective modules in $`𝒞`$ descend to the canonical basis in $`V.`$

All of our results specialize easily to the $`q=1`$ case, by working with the category of ungraded modules. This specialization was sketched two paragraphs above, the details are left out. Some results become simpler when the grading is ignored. The Hom form on the Grothendieck group is semilinear with the grading, and bilinear without it. Functors $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ are left and right adjoint in the category of ungraded modules, while in the category of graded modules $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ are left and right adjoint only up to shifts in the grading that depend on $`\lambda `$ (see proposition 9).

The category $`H^m`$-mod is a bicategorification of the $`m`$-th Catalan number $`c_m=\frac{1}{m+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}2m\\ m\end{array}\right).`$ Informally, to categorify is to upgrade a number to a vector space, or to upgrade a vector space to a category. The number becomes the dimension of the vector space; the vector space becomes the Grothendieck group of the category (we should tensor the Grothendieck group with a field to get a vector space). To bicategorify is to upgrade a number to a category, so that the number becomes the rank of the Grothendieck group of the category.

Number $`\underset{\text{dimension}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}`$ Vector space $`\underset{\text{Grothendieck group}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}`$ Category

Any nonnegative integer is, of course, a dimension of some vector space, but just picking a vector space is not a categorification. What we want is a vector space that appears naturally and comes with a bonus: an algebra structure, a group action, etc. Some examples:

I) Categorifications of $`n!`$

* Cohomology ring of the flag variety of $`^n.`$ Benefits include grading, commutative multiplication, the basis of Schubert cells, action of the symmetric group.
* Group algebra of the symmetric group $`S_n.`$
* Other categorifications: the Hecke algebra, nilCoxeter and nilHecke algebras, quantum cohomology ring of the flag variety.

An example of a bicategorification of $`n!`$ is a regular block $`𝒪_{reg}`$ of the highest weight category of $`𝔰𝔩_n`$-modules:

$`n!\underset{\text{dimension}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}\begin{array}{c}\text{Regular representation}\\ \text{of the symmetric group}\end{array}\underset{\text{Grothendieck group}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}𝒪_{reg}`$

The action of the symmetric group on the regular representation lifts to a braid group action in the derived category of $`𝒪_{reg}.`$ The braid group action extends to a representation of the braid cobordism category (objects are braids with $`n`$ strands and morphisms are cobordisms in $`^4`$ between braids) in $`D^b(𝒪_{reg}),`$ by assigning certain natural transformations to braid cobordisms (see Rouquier \[R\]).

II) Categorifications of the $`m`$-th Catalan number

* $`\text{Inv}_{𝔰𝔩_2}(L^{2m}),`$ the space of $`𝔰𝔩_2`$-invariants in the $`2m`$-th tensor power of the two-dimensional ”defining” representation $`L`$ of $`𝔰𝔩_2.`$
* Irreducible representation of $`S_{2m}`$ associated to the partition $`(m,m).`$ This categorification is equivalent to the previous one.
* $`\text{Inv}_{U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)}(L^{2m}),`$ the space of invariants in the $`2m`$-th tensor power of the two-dimensional ”defining” representation of the quantum group $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2),`$ for generic $`q.`$
* The Temperley-Lieb algebra (this categorification is equivalent to the previous one).
* The weight space $`V_\lambda `$ with $`m=m(\lambda ).`$
* The quotient of $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_m]`$ by the ideal generated by all quasisymmetric functions in the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ with $`0`$ constant term \[ABB\].
* the subspace of $`S_n`$-alternating elements in the space of diagonal harmonics \[H\].

The Grothendieck group of the category of $`H^m`$-modules (without grading) is naturally isomorphic (after tensoring with $``$) to the space of $`𝔰𝔩_2`$-invariants in the $`2m`$-th tensor power of the fundamental representation $`L`$ of $`𝔰𝔩_2:`$

$$K(H^m\mathrm{mod})_{}\mathrm{Inv}_{𝔰𝔩_2}(L^{2m})$$

The category of $`H^m`$-modules can be viewed as a bicategorification of the $`m`$-th Catalan number:

$`\frac{1}{m+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}2m\\ m\end{array}\right)\underset{\text{dimension}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}\text{Inv}_{𝔰𝔩_2}(L^{2m})\underset{\text{Grothendieck group}}{\overset{\text{Categorification}}{}}H^m\mathrm{mod}`$

## 2 Flat tangles, rings $`H^m,`$ and bimodules

We recall some definitions from \[K\]. Denote by $`𝒜`$ the cohomology ring $`\mathrm{H}^{}(S^2,)`$ of the 2-sphere. $`𝒜[X]/(X^2),`$ where $`X`$ is a generator of $`\mathrm{H}^2(S^2,).`$

$`𝒜`$ is a commutative Frobenius ring, with the nondegenerate trace form

$$\mathrm{tr}:𝒜,\mathrm{tr}(1)=0,\mathrm{tr}(X)=1,$$

We make $`𝒜`$ into a graded ring, by placing $`1𝒜`$ in degree $`1`$ and $`X`$ in degree $`1.`$ The multiplication map $`𝒜^2𝒜`$ has degree one.

We assign to $`𝒜`$ a 2-dimensional topological quantum field theory $`,`$ a functor from the category of oriented (1+1)-cobordisms to the category of abelian groups. $``$ associates

* $`𝒜^i`$ to a dijoint union of $`i`$ circles,
* the multiplication map $`𝒜^2𝒜`$ to the three-holed sphere viewed as a cobordism from two circles to one circle.
* the comultiplication

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒜𝒜^2,\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=1X+X1,\mathrm{\Delta }(X)=XX$$

to the three-holed sphere viewed as a cobordism from one circle to two circles.
* either trace or the unit map to the disk (depending on whether we consider the disk as a cobordism from one circle to the empty manifold or vice versa).

Let $`B^m`$ be the set of matchings of integers from $`1`$ to $`2m`$ without any quadruple $`i<j<l<p`$ such that $`i`$ is matched with $`l`$ and $`j`$ with $`p.`$ $`B^m`$ has a geometric interpretation as the set of crossingless matchings of $`2m`$ points. Figure 1 shows elements of $`B^2.`$

For $`a,bB^m`$ denote by $`W(b)`$ the reflection of $`b`$ about the horizontal axis and by $`W(b)a`$ the closed 1-manifold obtained by gluing $`W(b)`$ and $`a`$ along their boundaries, see figure 2.

$`(W(b)a)`$ is a graded abelian group, isomorphic to $`𝒜^I,`$ where $`I`$ is the set of connected components (circles) of $`W(b)a.`$ For $`a,b,cB^m`$ there is a canonical cobordism from $`W(c)bW(b)a`$ to $`W(c)a`$ given by ”contracting” $`b`$ with $`W(b),`$ see figure 3 for an example.

This cobordism induces a homomorphism of abelian groups

$$(W(c)b)(W(b)a)(W(c)a).$$
(1)
If $`M`$ is a graded abelian group, denote by $`M\{i\}`$ the graded abelian group obtained by shifting the grading of $`M`$ up by $`i.`$ Let

$$H^m\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{a,bB^m}{}{}_{b}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{},{}_{b}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}(W(b)a)\{m\}.$$

Homomorphisms (1), over all $`a,b,c,`$ define an associative multiplication in $`H^m`$ (the product $`{}_{d}{}^{}(H^m)_{c}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{}{}_{d}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{}`$ is set to zero if $`bc`$). The grading shift $`\{m\}`$ the multiplication grading-preserving.

$`{}_{a}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{}`$ is a subring of $`H^m,`$ isomorphic to $`𝒜^m.`$ Its element $`1_a\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}1^n𝒜^n`$ is an idempotent in $`H^m.`$ The sum $`_a1_a`$ is the unit element of $`H^m.`$ Notice that $`{}_{b}{}^{}(H^m)_{a}^{}=1_bH^m1_a.`$

Suppose we are given a diagram of a system of disjoint arcs and circles in a horizontal plane strip, see figure 4.

We only consider diagrams with even number of bottom endpoints, and will refer to such a digram with $`2m`$ bottom and $`2l`$ top endpoints as a flat $`(l,m)`$-tangle. To a flat $`(l,m)`$-tangle $`T`$ we associate an $`(H^l,H^m)`$-bimodule $`(T)`$:

$$(T)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{bB^l,aB^m}{}(W(b)Ta)\{m\}.$$

Since the diagram $`W(b)Ta`$ is a closed 1-manifold, we can apply $``$ to it. $`(W(b)Ta)𝒜^r,`$ where $`r`$ is the number of circles in $`W(b)Ta.`$ Notice that $`r`$ depends on the choice of $`a`$ and $`b.`$ The ring $`H^l`$ acts on $`T`$ on the left via maps

$$(W(c)b)(W(b)Ta)(W(c)Ta)$$

where $`c,bB^l`$ and $`aB^m,`$ and the map is induced by the cobordism from $`W(c)bW(b)Ta`$ to $`W(c)Ta`$ which contracts $`b`$ with $`W(b)`$ (see \[K, Section 2.7\] for more details).

A flat $`(r,l)`$-tangle $`T_1`$ can be composed with a flat $`(l,m)`$-tangle $`T_2`$ by identifying the bottom endpoints of $`T_1`$ with the top endpoints of $`T_2`$ to produce a flat $`(r,m)`$-tangle $`T_1T_2.`$ We recall the following result \[K, Theorem 1\].

###### Proposition 1

There is a canonical isomorphism of $`(H^r,H^m)`$-bimodules

$$(T_1T_2)(T_1)_{H^l}(T_2).$$

When defining the set $`B^m`$ we did not specify the positions of the arc’s endpoints on the horizontal line. We do so now. For each sequence $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2m}),s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_{2m}`$ of $`2m`$ points on the real line we can consider crossingless matchings of $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2m}.`$ The set of such matchings is canonically isomorphic to $`B^m,`$ and we can repeat our definition of $`H^m`$ and get a ring, $`H(s),`$ canonically isomorphic to $`H^m.`$

$`(T),`$ associated to a flat tangle $`T`$ with a bottom endpoints sequence $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2m})`$ and a top endpoints sequence $`t=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{2l}),`$ is naturally an $`(H(t),H(s))`$-bimodule. $`(T)`$ is also, of course, an $`(H^l,H^m)`$-bimodule. Working with sequences $`s`$ and $`t`$ is simply a way to keep track of the real coordinates of the endpoints.

Consider an admissible weight $`\lambda .`$ Let $`\lambda _{s_1}=\lambda _{s_2}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{s_{2m}}=1,`$ that is, $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2m}`$ are the indices of those coefficients of $`\lambda `$ that are equal to $`1.`$ Let $`s(\lambda )=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2m}).`$ We denote the ring $`H(s(\lambda ))`$ simply by $`H_\lambda .`$ Notice that $`H_\lambda H^{m(\lambda )}.`$

*Example:* If $`\lambda =(0,2,1,1,1,0,1)`$ then $`s(\lambda )=(3,4,5,7)`$ and $`H_\lambda H^2.`$

Suppose that $`\lambda _i=1`$ and $`\lambda _{i+1}1`$ (so that $`\lambda _{i+1}`$ is either $`0`$ or $`2`$). Let $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{2m})`$ be the transposition of the $`i`$-th and $`i+1`$-th coefficients of $`\lambda `$ (so that $`\mu _j=\lambda _j`$ if $`ji,i+1,`$ $`\mu _{i+1}=\lambda _i,`$ and $`\mu _i=\lambda _{i+1}`$). Note that $`s(\mu )`$ is obtained from $`s(\lambda )`$ by changing $`is(\lambda ),i=s_j`$ for some $`j,`$ to $`i+1.`$

To such $`\lambda `$ and $`i`$ we assign an $`(H_\mu ,H_\lambda )`$ bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1})`$ where $`\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1}`$ is the flat tangle depicted on the left of figure 5. The bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1})`$ defines the obvious isomorphism of rings $`H_\lambda `$ and $`H_\mu .`$

For $`\lambda `$ and $`i`$ such that $`\lambda _{i+1}=1`$ and $`\lambda _i1`$ we similarly construct an $`(H_\mu ,H_\lambda )`$-bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_{i+1}^i),`$ where $`\mu =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i,\mathrm{},\lambda _n).`$

For $`\lambda `$ and $`i`$ such that $`\lambda _i=\lambda _{i+1}=1`$ we have an $`(H_\mu ,H_\lambda )`$-bimodule $`(_{i,i+1})`$ where $`_{i,i+1}`$ is the diagram on the right of figure 6 and $`\mu =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{i1},0,2,\lambda _{i+2},\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ or $`\mu =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{i1},2,0,\lambda _{i+2},\mathrm{},\lambda _n).`$ Bimodules $`^{i,i+1}`$ are defined likewise.

## 3 Category $`𝒞`$ and functors $`_i,_i`$

For an admissible weight $`\lambda `$ let $`𝒞(\lambda )`$ be the category $`H_\lambda `$-mod of graded finitely-generated $`H_\lambda `$-modules. $`𝒞(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to the category of (graded finitely-generated) $`H^{m(\lambda )}`$-modules where, recall, $`2m(\lambda )`$ is the number of 1’s in $`\lambda .`$ For instance, if $`\lambda `$ consists entirely of 0’s and 2’s, then $`H_\lambda `$ and $`𝒞(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to the category of finitely-generated graded abelian groups.

Let the category $`𝒞`$ be the direct sum of $`𝒞(\lambda ),`$ over all admissible $`\lambda `$:

$$𝒞\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{\lambda }{}𝒞(\lambda ).$$

Define the functor $`_i:𝒞𝒞`$ as the sum, over all admissible $`\lambda ,`$ of the following functors $`𝒞(\lambda )𝒞(\lambda +ϵ_i)`$:

* the zero functor if $`\lambda +ϵ_i`$ is not admissible,
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,2),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_{i+1}^i)`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(0,1),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(^{i,i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(0,2),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(_{i,i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,1).`$

For instance, the flat tangle $`\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1}`$ shifts a bottom endpoint with coordinate $`i`$ to the top endpoint with coordinate $`i+1,`$ so that $`(\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1})`$ is an $`(H_{\lambda +ϵ_i},H_\lambda )`$-bimodule for any admissible $`\lambda `$ with $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,2).`$

Define the functor $`_i:𝒞𝒞`$ as the sum, over all admissible $`\lambda ,`$ of the following functors $`𝒞(\lambda )𝒞(\lambda ϵ_i)`$:

* the zero functor if $`\lambda ϵ_i`$ is not admissible,
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_i^{i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,0),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(\mathrm{Id}_{i+1}^i)`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(2,1),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(^{i,i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(2,0),`$
* tensoring with the bimodule $`(_{i,i+1})`$ if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,1).`$

*Warning:* Although the notations $``$ and $`_i`$ are similar, the two are no more related than $``$ and $`_i.`$ The similarity is the negative side effect of making our notations compatible with those of both \[K\] and \[KH\].

Let $`𝒦_i:𝒞𝒞`$ be the functor that shifts the grading of $`M𝒞(\lambda )`$ up by $`\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}`$:

$$𝒦_i(M)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}M\{\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}\}.$$

###### Proposition 2

There are functor isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒦_i𝒦_i^1\mathrm{Id}𝒦_i^1𝒦_i,\hfill \\ 𝒦_i𝒦_j𝒦_j𝒦_i,\hfill \\ 𝒦_i_j_j𝒦_i\{c_{i,j}\},\hfill \\ 𝒦_i_j_j𝒦_i\{c_{i,j}\},\hfill \\ _i_j_j_i\text{ if }ij,\hfill \\ _i_j_j_i\text{ if }|ij|>1,\hfill \\ _i_j_j_i\text{ if }|ij|>1,\hfill \\ _i^2_j_j_i^2_i_j_i\{1\}_i_j_i\{1\}\text{ if }j=i\pm 1\hfill \\ _i^2_j_j_i^2_i_j_i\{1\}_i_j_i\{1\}\text{ if }j=i\pm 1\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where

$`c_{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \mathrm{if}j=i,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{if}j=i\pm 1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{if}|ji|>1.\hfill \end{array}`$

###### Proposition 3

For any admissible $`\lambda `$ there is an isomorphism of functors in the category $`𝒞(\lambda )`$

$$\begin{array}{c}_i_i_i_i\mathrm{Id}\{1\}\mathrm{Id}\{1\}\text{ if }(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(2,0),\hfill \\ _i_i_i_i\mathrm{Id}\text{ if }\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}=1,\hfill \\ _i_i_i_i\text{ if }\lambda _i=\lambda _{i+1},\hfill \\ _i_i\mathrm{Id}_i_i\text{ if }\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}=1,\hfill \\ _i_i\mathrm{Id}\{1\}\mathrm{Id}\{1\}_i_i\text{ if }(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(0,2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
*Proof of Proposition 2:* The top four isomorphisms in (2) are obvious. The next three isomorphisms are clear if $`|ij|>1,`$ since functors $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ (respectively $`_j`$ and $`_j`$) come from bimodules assigned to flat tangles that are nontrivial only in the area with the $`x`$-coordinate between $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ (respectively $`j`$ and $`j+1`$). Composition of such flat tangles is commutative (see example in figures 7 and 8).

To check commutativity $`_i_{i+1}_{i\pm 1}_i`$ (and its variations) one considers all possible triples $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _{i+2})`$ and draws flat tangles that define functors $`_i_{i+1}`$ and $`_{i\pm 1}_i`$ in each case. Unless $`\lambda _i<2,\lambda _{i+1}=2,`$ and $`\lambda _{i+2}>0`$ the sequence $`\lambda +ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}`$ is not admissible, so that there are only four nontrivial cases. The case $`(0,2,1)`$ is depicted in figure 9, other cases are similar and left to the reader.

The last two isomorphisms in (2) are also checked case by case. To illustrate, we verity the isomorphism

$$_i^2_{i+1}_{i+1}_i^2_i_{i+1}_i\{1\}_i_{i+1}_i\{1\}$$

when $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _{i+2})=(0,1,2).`$ The functor $`_{i+1}_i^2`$ is zero since $`\lambda +2ϵ_i`$ is not admissible. Functors $`_i^2_{i+1}`$ and $`_i_{i+1}_i`$ are assigned to diagrams in figure 10.

If flat tangle $`T_2`$ is obtained from a flat tangle $`T_1`$ by adding an extra circle, then there is an isomorphism of bimodules

$$(T_2)(T_1)𝒜(T_1)\{1\}(T_1)\{1\}.$$

The right diagram in figure 10 after the circle is removed is isotopic to the left diagram. Hence,

$$_i^2_{i+1}_i_{i+1}_i\{1\}_i_{i+1}_i\{1\}$$

when $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _{i+2})=(0,1,2).`$ Other cases, as well as proof of proposition 3, are left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

Functor isomorphisms of proposition 3 categorify the quantum group relation $`E_iF_iF_iE_i=\frac{K_iK_i^1}{qq^1},`$ while those of proposition 2 category all other defining relations in $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_{2n}).`$ We recall the defining relations of $`U=U_q(𝔰𝔩_{2n}):`$

$$\begin{array}{c}K_iK_i^1=1=K_i^1K_i,\hfill \\ K_iK_j=K_jK_i,\hfill \\ K_iE_j=q^{c_{i,j}}E_jK_i,\hfill \\ K_iF_j=q^{c_{i,j}}F_jK_i,\hfill \\ E_iF_jF_jE_i=\delta _{i,j}\frac{K_iK_i^1}{qq^1},\hfill \\ E_iE_j=E_jE_i\mathrm{if}|ij|>1,\hfill \\ F_iF_j=F_jF_i\mathrm{if}|ij|>1,\hfill \\ E_i^2E_{i\pm 1}(q+q^1)E_iE_{i\pm 1}E_i+E_{i\pm 1}E_i^2=0,\hfill \\ F_i^2F_{i\pm 1}(q+q^1)F_iF_{i\pm 1}F_i+F_{i\pm 1}F_i^2=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The quantum divided powers are defined by

$$E_i^{(j)}=\frac{E_i^j}{[j]!}\mathrm{and}F_i^{(j)}=\frac{F_i^j}{[j]!},$$

where $`[j]!=[1][2]\mathrm{}[j]`$ and $`[j]=\frac{q^jq^j}{qq^1}.`$ In the representation $`V`$ operators $`E_i^j,F_i^j`$ are zero for $`j>2.`$

Quantum divided powers $`E_i^{(2)}`$ and $`F_i^{(2)}`$ admit the following categorification. Note that $`E_i^2:V_\lambda V_{\lambda +2ϵ_i}`$ is nonzero only if $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(0,2).`$ In the latter case rings $`H_\lambda `$ and $`H_{\lambda +2ϵ_i}`$ are canonically isomorphic and we define

$$_i^{(2)}:𝒞(\lambda )𝒞(\lambda +2ϵ_i),_i^{(2)}:𝒞(\lambda +2ϵ_i)𝒞(\lambda )$$

as the mutually inverse equivalences of categories induced by this isomorphism. For other $`\lambda `$’s we set the functors to zero.

###### Proposition 4

There are functor isomorphisms

$`_i^2`$ $``$ $`_i^{(2)}\{1\}_i^{(2)}\{1\},`$ (5)
$`_i^2`$ $``$ $`_i^{(2)}\{1\}_i^{(2)}\{1\},`$ (6)
$`_i_j_i`$ $``$ $`_i^{(2)}_j_j_i^{(2)}\mathrm{if}j=i\pm 1,`$ (7)
$`_i_j_i`$ $``$ $`_i^{(2)}_j_j_i^{(2)}\mathrm{if}j=i\pm 1.`$ (8)
Proof is straightforward. Isomorphisms (7) and (8) simplify the last two isomorphisms in (2).

## 4 The structure of $`𝒞`$

Grothendieck group

The Grothendieck group of $`𝒞`$ is $`[q,q^1]`$-module, with multiplication by $`q`$ corresponding to the grading shift, $`[M\{1\}]=q[M],`$ where we denote by $`[M]`$ the image of the module $`M`$ in the Grothendieck group $`K(𝒞).`$

Functors $`_i,_i`$ and $`𝒦_i`$ are exact and commute with $`\{1\}.`$ Therefore, they descend to $`[q,q^1]`$-linear endomorphisms $`[_i],[_i]`$ and $`[𝒦_i]`$ of $`K(𝒞).`$ Functor isomorphisms 2 and 3 descend to quantum group relations (4) between $`[_i],[_i]`$ and $`[𝒦_i]`$ in the Grothendieck group $`K(𝒞).`$ Therefore, the Grothendieck group is naturally a $`U`$-module. For accuracy, let’s view $`U`$ as an algebra over $`(q),`$ the field of rational functions in an indeterminate $`q`$ with rational coefficients. To make $`K(𝒞)`$ into a $`U`$-module we tensor it with $`(q)`$ over $`[q,q^1].`$ Recall that $`V`$ denotes the irreducible representation of $`U`$ with the highest weight $`2\omega _k.`$ Choose a highest weight vector $`\eta V`$ (its weight is $`2\omega _k=(2^k0^{nk}).`$)

###### Proposition 5

The Grothendieck group of $`𝒞`$ is isomorphic to the irreducible representation $`V`$ of $`U`$ with highest weight $`2\omega _k`$:

$$K(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)V.$$
(9)
Clearly, $`K(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)`$ is a representation of $`U.`$ Why is it irreducible and isomorphic to $`V`$? For instance, because dimensions of its weight spaces equal dimensions of weight spaces of $`V`$ (equal Catalan numbers). Dimensions of weight spaces of $`V`$ can be computed via the Weyl character formula, or extracted from \[G\] which explicitly describes all level 2 representations of $`𝔰𝔩_n,`$ including $`V.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

$`𝒞(2\omega _k)`$ is isomorphic to the category of graded finitely-generated abelian groups. Let $`Q_{2\omega _k}`$ be the object of $`𝒞(2\omega )`$ which is $``$ is degree $`0.`$

We fix isomorphism (9) such that $`[Q_{2\omega _k}]`$ is taken to $`\eta V.`$

For $`aB^m`$ denote by $`(a)`$ the graded $`H^m`$-module isomorphic as a graded abelian group to $``$ (placed in degree 0), with the idempotent $`1_aH^m`$ acting as identity and $`1_b(a)=0`$ for $`ba.`$ These modules are analogous to simple modules for finite-dimensional algebras over a field, in the sense that after tensoring $`H^m`$ and $`(a)`$ with a field these modules become simple. Images of $`(a)`$’s make a basis in $`K(H^m\mathrm{mod}),`$ see \[K, Proposition 20\].

For an admissible $`\lambda `$ and $`aB^{m(\lambda )}`$ denote by $`(\lambda ,a)`$ the $`H_\lambda `$ module isomorphic to $`(a)`$ under the canonical isomorphism $`H_\lambda H^{m(\lambda )}.`$ Proposition 20 in \[K\] implies

###### Proposition 6

The Grothendick group of $`𝒞`$ is a free $`[q,q^1]`$-module with a basis $`\{[(\lambda ,a)]\}_{\lambda ,a}`$ over all admissible $`\lambda `$ and $`aB^{m(\lambda )}.`$

Projective Grothendieck group

For $`aB^m`$ we denote by $`P_a`$ the left $`H^m`$-module $`H^m1_a,`$ see \[K, Section 2.5\]. Let $`Q_a=P_a\{m\}`$ be the indecomposable projective graded $`H^m`$-module given by shifting the grading of $`P_a`$ down by $`m,`$

$$Q_a=\underset{bH^m}{}(W(b)a).$$

The grading of $`Q_a`$ is balanced, in the sense that its nontrivial graded components are in degrees $`m,m+2,\mathrm{},m.`$ We will refer to $`Q_a`$’s as *balanced indecomposable projectives.*

Similarly, for any admissible $`\lambda `$ and $`aB^{m(\lambda )}`$ we define projective $`H_\lambda `$-module $`Q_{\lambda ,a}`$ as the image of $`Q_a`$ under the canonical ring isomorphism $`H_\lambda H^{m(\lambda )}.`$

###### Proposition 7

Any indecomposable projective in $`𝒞`$ is isomorphic to $`Q_{\lambda ,a}\{i\}`$ for some (and unique) admissible $`\lambda ,aB^{m(\lambda )}`$ and $`i.`$

Let $`K_P(𝒞)`$ be the projective Grothendieck group of $`𝒞,`$ the subgroup of $`K(𝒞)`$ generated by images of projective modules. $`K_P(𝒞)`$ is a free $`[q,q^1]`$-module with the basis $`[Q_{\lambda ,a}]`$ over all $`\lambda ,a`$ as above. The inclusion $`K_P(𝒞)K(𝒞)`$ is proper but turns into an isomorphism when tensored with the field $`(q)`$:

$$K(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)K_P(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q).$$
(10)
$`K_P(𝒞)`$ is stable under the action of $`[_i],[_i],`$ and $`[𝒦_i],`$ since functors $`_i,_i,`$ and $`𝒦_i`$ take projectives to projectives.

$`Q_{2\omega _k}`$ is the unique (up to isomorphism) balanced indecomposable projective in $`𝒞(2\omega _k).`$

###### Proposition 8

Any balanced indecomposable projective in $`𝒞`$ is isomorphic to $`_{i_r}^{(j_r)}\mathrm{}_{i_2}^{(j_2)}_{i_1}^{(j_1)}Q_{2\omega _k}`$ for some sequences $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ and $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_r)`$ where $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_r\{1,2\}.`$

The following example makes it clear. Let $`n=6,k=3,\lambda =(1,1,1,0,2,1)`$ and $`Q`$ be the balanced indecomposable projective given by the flat tangle in figure 11. You can check using figure 12 that

$$Q_2_4^{(2)}_3^{(2)}_5_1_4_2_3Q_{2\omega _3}$$

Proposition 8 implies that $`K_P(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)`$ is a cyclic $`U_{}`$-module generated by $`[Q_{2\omega _k}].`$ Therefore, $`K_P(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)`$ is an irreducible $`U`$-module with highest weight $`2\omega _k.`$ This and (10) gives another proof of Proposition 5.

Biadjoint functors

Let $`\overline{}`$ be the $``$-linear involution of $`(q)`$ which changes $`q`$ into $`q^1.`$

$`U`$ has an antiautomorphism $`\tau :UU^{\mathrm{op}}`$ described by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \tau (E_\alpha )=qF_\alpha K_\alpha ^1,\tau (F_\alpha )=qE_\alpha K_\alpha ,\tau (K_\alpha )=K_\alpha ^1,\hfill \\ & \tau (fx)=\overline{f}\tau (x),\text{ for }f(q)\text{ and }xU,\hfill \\ & \tau (xy)=\tau (y)\tau (x),\text{ for }x,yU.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
###### Proposition 9

The functor $`_i`$ is left adjoint to $`_i𝒦_i^1\{1\},`$ the functor $`_i`$ is left adjoint to $`_i𝒦_i\{1\}`$ and $`𝒦_i`$ is left adjoint to $`𝒦_i^1.`$

*Proof:* case by case verification for each pair $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1}).`$ Suppose $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})=(1,1).`$ Then $`_i_i`$ is given by the left diagram in figure 13, while the identity functor in $`𝒞(\lambda )`$ is given by the right diagram.

There are standard cobordisms (embedded surfaces in $`^3`$) between these two flat tangles that give rise to natural transformations of functors $`_i_i\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\mathrm{id}_i_i.`$ Similar cobordisms provide natural transformations $`_i_i\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\mathrm{id}_i_i`$ for functors in $`𝒞(\lambda +ϵ_i).`$ Isotopies of surfaces translate into relations between these four natural transformations which imply that, up to grading shifts, $`_i`$ is left and right adjoint to $`_i`$ (the natural transformations come from bimodule maps that change grading, thus grading shifts appear). Shifts are taking care of by composing with $`𝒦_i^{\pm 1}\{1\}.`$ Details and other cases are left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

The moral: our categorification lifts the automorphism $`\tau `$ of $`U`$ to the operation of taking the right adjoint functor.

Semilinear form

We say that a form $`V\times V(q)`$ is semilinear if it is $`q`$-antilinear in the first variable and $`q`$-linear in the second:

$$fv,w=\overline{f}v,w,v,fw=fv,w.$$

$`V`$ has a unique semilinear form subject to conditions

$`\eta ,\eta =1,`$ (12)
$`xv,w=v,\tau (x)wxU,v,wV.`$ (13)
On the other hand we have a semilinear form $`,`$

$$K_P(𝒞)\times K(𝒞)[q,q^1]$$

which measures the graded rank of Hom:

$$[P],[M]\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\mathrm{rkHom}_𝒞(P,M),$$

where $`P`$ is a projective module in $`𝒞,`$ while $`M`$ is any module, and the rank of a finitely-generated graded abelian group is a Laurent polynomial in $`q`$ with coefficients given by ranks of graded components of the group. After tensoring with $`(q)`$ we obtain a semilinear form $`,`$ on $`K(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q)`$ with values in $`(q).`$ Under the isomorphism (9) this form coincides with the form $`,`$ on $`V.`$

Relation (13) comes from interpreting $`\tau `$ via the right adjoint functor, for instance

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(_iP,M)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(P,_i𝒦_i^1M\{1\})$$

descends to $`E_iv,w=v,\tau (E_i)w.`$

Symmetric bilinear form

A left $`H^m`$-module $`M`$ can be made into a right $`H^m`$-module $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M`$ by twisting the action of $`H^m`$ by the antiinvolution $`\chi .`$ For $`H^m`$-modules $`M,N`$ we can form $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M_{H^m}N,`$ which is a graded abelian group. We similarly define $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M`$ for $`M\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)`$ and graded abelian group $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M_HN`$ (or simply $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}MN`$) for $`M,N\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞).`$ Notice that $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}MN=0`$ if $`M\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞(\lambda )),N\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞(\mu ))`$ and $`\lambda \mu .`$

###### Proposition 10

There are natural isomorphisms

$`{}_{\psi }{}^{}(_iM)N`$ $``$ $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M(𝒦_i_iN)\{1\},`$
$`{}_{\psi }{}^{}(_iM)N`$ $``$ $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M(𝒦_i^1_iN)\{1\},`$
$`{}_{\psi }{}^{}(𝒦_iM)N`$ $``$ $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}M(𝒦_iN).`$
Introduce a bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`K_P(𝒞)`$ with values in $`[q,q^1]`$ by

$$([P],[Q])\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\mathrm{rk}(_\psi PQ)[q,q^1]$$

where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are projectives in $`𝒞`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}`$ is the graded rank. Form $`(,)`$ is $`[q,q^1]`$-linear in each variable, since

$${}_{\psi }{}^{}P\{1\}Q(_\psi PQ)\{1\}_\psi PQ\{1\}.$$

Since $`\psi ^2=1,`$ graded abelian groups $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}PQ`$ and $`{}_{\psi }{}^{}QP`$ are isomorphic and the form is symmetric.

We have

$`{}_{\psi }{}^{}Q_{\lambda ,a}^{}Q_{\mu ,b}`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{if}\lambda \mu ,`$
$`{}_{\psi }{}^{}Q_{\lambda ,a}^{}Q_{\lambda ,b}`$ $``$ $`(W(a)b)\{m\}.`$
Therefore,

$$([Q_{\lambda ,a}],[Q_{\lambda ,b}])=(q+q^1)^rq^m=(1+q^2)^rq^{rm},$$

where $`r`$ is the number of connected components of $`W(a)b.`$ Notice that $`r<m`$ unless $`a=b.`$

###### Corollary 1

$`([Q_{\lambda ,a}],[Q_{\mu ,b}])`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{if}\lambda \mu ,`$
$`([Q_{\lambda ,a}],[Q_{\lambda ,b}])`$ $``$ $`q^1[q^1]\mathrm{if}ab,`$
$`([Q_{\lambda ,a}],[Q_{\lambda ,a}])`$ $``$ $`1+q^1[q^1]\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}aB^m.`$
Bilinear form $`(,)`$ extends to $`(q)`$-bilinear form on $`K_P(𝒞)_{[q,q^1]}(q).`$ We turn it into a bilinear form on $`V`$ via isomorphisms (9) and (10). This form is the unique bilinear form on $`V`$ such that

$`(\eta ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`(xv,w)`$ $`=`$ $`(v,\rho (x)w)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}v,wV\mathrm{and}xU,`$
where $`\rho `$ is a $`(q)`$-linear antiinvolution of $`U`$ defined on generators by

$$\rho (E_i)=qK_iF_i,\rho (F_i)=qK_i^1E_i,\rho (K_i)=K_i.$$

Canonical basis

Let $`\psi `$ be the following $``$-algebra involution of $`U`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \psi (E_\alpha )=E_\alpha ,\psi (F_\alpha )=F_\alpha ,\psi (K_\alpha )=K_\alpha ^1,\hfill \\ & \psi (fx)=\overline{f}x\text{ for }f(q)\text{ and }xU.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
There is a unique $``$-linear involution $`\psi _V`$ of $`V`$ such that

$$\psi _V(\eta )=\eta ,\psi _V(xv)=\psi (x)\psi _V(v)\text{ for }xU,vV.$$
(15)
Involutions $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _V`$ are denoted by $`\overline{}`$ in \[L2\].

For $`a,bB^m`$ the diagram $`W(b)a`$ is the mirror image of $`W(a)b.`$ Consequently, there is a natural isomorphism of graded abelian groups $`(W(b)a)(W(a)b).`$ Summing over all $`a,bB^m`$ we obtains an antiinvolution $`\chi `$ of the ring $`H^m.`$ Notice that $`\chi `$ preserves all minimal idempotents of $`H^m,`$ $`\chi (1_a)=1_a.`$ For each admissible $`\lambda `$ we similarly have an antiinvolution of $`H_\lambda ,`$ also denoted $`\chi .`$

For what follows in this subsection we need to switch either from the base ring $``$ to a field, or from $`𝒞`$ to its full subcategory which consists of modules that are free as abelian groups. Denote the latter category by $`𝒞_f.`$

To $`M\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞_f)`$ we assign $`M^{}=\text{Hom}_{}(M,),`$ which is a right graded module over $`\underset{\lambda }{}H_\lambda .`$ Using antiinvolution $`\chi `$ we turn $`M^{}`$ into a left graded $`\underset{\lambda }{}H_\lambda `$-module, denoted $`\mathrm{\Psi }M.`$ Note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }M\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞_f)`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a contravariant duality functor in $`𝒞_f.`$

###### Proposition 11

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ preserves indecomposable balanced projectives:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }Q_{\lambda ,a}Q_{\lambda ,a}.$$

There are equivalences of functors

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i_i\mathrm{\Psi },`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i_i\mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒦_i𝒦_i^1\mathrm{\Psi },`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\{1\}\{1\}\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is exact and descends to a $`q`$-antilinear automorphism of the Grothendieck group $`K(𝒞)`$ and projective Grothendieck group $`K_P(𝒞).`$ Under the isomorphism of proposition 5 involution $`[\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ corresponds to the involution $`\psi _V`$ of $`V,`$ that is, the diagram below commutes (horizontal arrows are inclusions)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K(𝒞)& & V\\ \left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right]& & \psi _V& & \\ K(𝒞)& & V\end{array}$$

We omit the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 12

The basis $`\{[Q_{\lambda ,a}]\}_{\lambda ,a}`$ of balanced indecomposable projective modules in $`K_P(𝒞)`$ is the canonical basis in $`V.`$

*Proof:* From the previous proposition we see that $`[Q_{\lambda ,a}]`$ is invariant under $`\psi _V=[\mathrm{\Psi }].`$ This and proposition 8 imply that $`[Q_{\lambda ,a}]`$ is a canonical basis vector, using \[L2, Theorem 19.3.5\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

In particular, any canonical basis vector in $`V`$ can be presented as a monomial in divided powers of $`_i`$’s applied to the highest weight vector. This is a rather special property, characteristic of representations with small or degenerate highest weight.

Braid group action

The $`n`$-stranded braid group $`\mathrm{Br}_n`$ acts in any finite-dimensional representation of $`U`$ via

$$\sigma _i(v)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}a,b,c0\\ a+bc=r\end{array}}{}(1)^bq^{bac}E^{(a)}F^{(b)}E^{(c)}v$$
(16)
where $`v`$ has weight $`\lambda `$ and $`r=\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}.`$ To categorify this action we look for a way to change the sum into a complex of functors $`^{(a)}^{(b)}^{(c)}\{bac\}.`$ In representation $`V`$ the sums simplify and we expect similar simplifications in the categorification.

Let $`𝒟`$ be either the bounded derived category of $`𝒞`$ or the category of bounded complexes of objects of $`𝒞`$ up to chain homotopies. Categories $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ are defined similarly.

We define functors $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i:𝒟𝒟`$ that take $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ to $`𝒟(\pi _i\lambda )`$ (where $`\pi _i`$ transposes $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\lambda _{i+1}`$) for all admissible $`\lambda .`$ Rings $`H_\lambda `$ and $`H_{\pi _i\lambda }`$ are naturally isomorphic, and we denote by $`𝒴_\lambda `$ the equivalence $`𝒟(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}𝒟(\pi _i\lambda )`$ induced by this isomorphism.

The restriction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ to $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ is the following functor:

* If $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1})(1,1)`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=𝒴_\lambda [x]\{x\}`$ where $`x=\mathrm{max}(0,\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}).`$
* If $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1}=(1,1)`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ is the complex of functors

$$0_i_i\{1\}\mathrm{id}0$$

where $`\mathrm{id}`$ is in cohomological degree $`0`$ and the natural transformation comes from the simplest cobordism between flat tangles that describe $`_i_i`$ and $`\mathrm{id},`$ see figure 13.

The Grothendieck groups of $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒞`$ are isomorphic, and the functor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ descends to the operator $`\sigma _i`$ in the Grothendieck group $`K(𝒞).`$

###### Proposition 13

The functors $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ are invertible and satisfy functor isomorphisms

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i+1},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,|ij|>1.`$
Follows from results of \[K\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 References

\[ABB\] J.-C.Aval, F.Bergeron, and N.Bergeron, Ideals of quasi-symmetric functions and super-covariant polynomials for $`S_n,`$ arXiv:math.CO/0202071.

\[G\] R.M.Green, A diagram calculus for certain canonical bases, *Communications in Mathematical Physics* 183 (1997), no. 3, 521–532

\[H\] M.Haiman, $`t,q`$-Catalan numbers and the Hilbert scheme, Selected papers in honor of Adriano Garsia (Taormina, 1994). *Discrete Mathematics* 193 (1998), no. 1-3, 201–224.

\[K\] M.Khovanov, A functor-valued invariant of tangles, arXiv:math.QA/0103190, to appear in *Algebraic and geometric topology.*

\[KH\] R.S.Huerfano and M.Khovanov, A category for the adjoint representation, *Journal of Algebra* 246, 514–542, (2001), arXiv:math.QA/0002060.

\[Ka\] M.Kashiwara, On crystal bases of the $`Q`$-analogue of universal enveloping algebras. *Duke Mathematical Journal* 63 (1991), no. 2, 465–516.

\[L1\] G.Lusztig, Canonical bases arising from quantized enveloping algebras. *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* 3 (1990), no. 2, 447–498.

\[L2\] G.Lusztig, Introduction to quantum groups. Progress in Mathematics, 110. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1993.

\[R\] R.Rouquier, Categorification of the braid groups, in preparation.

Ruth Stella Huerfano

Departamento de Matemáticas

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia

huerfano@matematicas.unal.edu.co

Mikhail Khovanov

Department of Mathematics

University of California

Davis, CA 95616

mikhail@math.ucdavis.edu


format: text

text:
# Is power-law inflation really attractive?

## I Preliminaries

The idea about the energy density in the very early universe being dominated by the potential energy of a single real scalar field, commonly called inflaton, is strongly supported by the analysis of recent cosmological observations inflation ; CMBdata . In this scenario density and metrics quantum fluctuations were stretched beyond the causal horizon due to the accelerated expansion produced by a negative pressure. Much after the inflationary period is ended these fluctuations reentered the causal horizon giving rise to perturbations in the gravitational potential with an almost scale-invariant spectrum. Depending on the exact time of reentering the causal universe these perturbations became the seeds for anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation or for the large scale structure formation. Therefore, measuring the spectra of CMB anisotropies and density distribution in the observable universe, the corresponding spectrum of primordial perturbations can be determined. Each inflaton potential characterizes different physics and, consequently, different spectra of fluctuations. This way, determining the primordial spectra can give us important hints about the physics in the very early universe.

Density (scalar) and metrics (tensorial) perturbations can be described by means of the spectral indices inflation ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_S1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}A_S}{d\mathrm{ln}k}},`$ (1)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}A_T}{d\mathrm{ln}k}},`$ (2)
where the subscripts $`S`$ and $`T`$ stand for scalar and tensor modes respectively, $`A_{S,T}`$ denotes the corresponding normalized spectral amplitudes and $`k=aH`$ is the comoving wavenumber when the mode crosses the Hubble radius, $`d_HH^1a/\dot{a}`$, during inflation. Here $`a`$ is the scale factor of the universe spatial volume and dot refers to derivatives with respect to cosmic time, $`t`$.

One of the very few models where closed analytic expressions of the perturbation spectra are available is power-law inflation, $`a(t)t^p`$ where $`p>1`$ is a constant PLinfl . For this model the Hubble parameter, $`H`$, and the potential, $`V`$, as functions of the inflaton field, $`\varphi `$, are given by, $`H\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\kappa /2p}\varphi )`$ and $`V\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2\kappa /p}\varphi )`$, where $`\kappa =8\pi /m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ is the Einstein constant and $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass. This model has several attractive features concerning theory and observations. First of all, the exponential function is the limit of a Taylor series similar to the tree expansion often used for scalar field potentials arising in quantum field theory inflation . Second, the exponential potential is the only inflationary model yielding exact power-law spectra abbott , $`A_Sk^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`A_Tk^\delta `$. The deviation of these spectra amplitudes from scale-invariance (also known as the tilt of the spectra) is given by the constant spectral indices $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }=(1/p+1/p^2+1/p^3+\mathrm{})0`$. Since the spectra scale-dependence is predicted to be very weak, the power-law parametrization of the primordial spectra is used very often while analyzing the CMB data CMBdata .

For more general potentials the spectra must be calculated numerically or by means of approximations based on the smallness of the horizon flow functions inflation ; Schwarz:2001vv ,

$$ϵ_{m+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}|ϵ_m|}{\mathrm{d}N},m0,$$
(3)
and,

$$ϵ_0\frac{d_\mathrm{H}(N)}{d_{\mathrm{Hi}}},$$
(4)
where $`N\mathrm{ln}(a/a_\mathrm{i})`$ is the number of e-folds since some initial time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$, and $`d_{\mathrm{Hi}}d_\mathrm{H}(t_\mathrm{i})`$. According to (3),

$$ϵ_1\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}d_\mathrm{H}}{\mathrm{d}N}.$$
(5)
Inflation happens for $`ϵ_1<1`$ (equivalent to $`\ddot{a}>0`$) and $`ϵ_1>0`$ from the weak energy condition (for a spatially flat universe). For $`m>1`$, $`ϵ_m`$ may take any real value. Expressions (3) define a flow in the space $`\{ϵ_m\}`$. This flow is described by the equations of motion

$$ϵ_0\dot{ϵ_m}=\frac{1}{d_{\mathrm{Hi}}}ϵ_mϵ_{m+1}.$$
(6)
According with Eqs. (6), for power-law inflation we have $`ϵ_1=1/p=`$ constant and $`ϵ_m=0`$ for $`m>1`$.

So far, in the case of a slowly rolling inflaton, the more precise expressions for the spectral amplitudes were derived in Ref. SG . (Rigourously speaking, the scalar amplitudes were derived by Stewart and Gong SG . Using the same procedure the tensorial ones were derived later by Leach et al. Leach:2002ar ). From these next-to-next-to-leading order expressions for the amplitudes and using definitions (1) and (2), the spectral indices are obtained,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ $``$ $`ϵ_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_2ϵ_1^2(C+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})ϵ_1ϵ_2{\displaystyle \frac{C}{2}}ϵ_2ϵ_3`$ (7)
$``$ $`ϵ_1^3(3C{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}})ϵ_1^2ϵ_2`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}C+{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{2}}7{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})ϵ_1ϵ_2^2`$
$``$ $`(2C+{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{2}}7{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3`$
$``$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}})ϵ_2^2ϵ_3({\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{48}})ϵ_2ϵ_3^2`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{48}})ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4,`$
$`\delta =`$ $``$ $`ϵ_1ϵ_1^2(C+1)ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ (8)
$``$ $`ϵ_1^3(3C{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}+8)ϵ_1^2ϵ_2`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{2}}+C{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}+1)ϵ_1ϵ_2^2`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{2}}+C{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}+1)ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3.`$
It is easy to check that the limit of a very slowly rolling inflaton ($`ϵ_m0`$) coincides with power-law inflation. Since the current precision of the CMB data does not allow to discern any scale dependence for the spectral indices, it is commonly assumed that the underlying inflationary scenario must belong to the class of extreme slow-roll inflation. In this contribution it is shown how the qualitative analysis of the inflationary dynamics as described by the expressions used to calculate the primordial spectra strongly depends on the order of these expressions.

## II Discussion

The leading order is recovered from Eqs. (7) and (8) by neglecting terms with order higher than the linear one,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ $``$ $`ϵ_1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2}{2}},`$ (9)
$`\delta =`$ $``$ $`ϵ_1.`$ (10)
First of all, let us note that strictly speaking and according with Eqs.(6), neglecting terms like $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ implies $`ϵ_1=`$ constant and $`ϵ_m=0`$, leading to power-law inflation. However, in our approximation we will allow quadratic terms being neglected without necessarily neglecting any linear term. In other words, the horizon flow functions are assumed to be very weakly time-dependent. Using definitions (3) we can rewrite system (9) and (10) as,

$$\widehat{\delta }=\delta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
(11)
where a circumflex accent denotes differentiation with respect to the variable $`\tau `$, defined such that $`d\tau d\mathrm{ln}H^2`$ and $`d\tau /dN=2ϵ_1`$. As can be noted, power-law inflation is a trivial solution to this equation and, in fact, it is a fixed point of the dynamics described by this equation. Since this is a first order differential equation this fixed point can only be an attractor or a repellor. We have two observables we would like to trace for in order to make generic predictions for inflation, namely, $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Because the differentiation only involves the tensorial index, we are forced to make assumptions on the behavior of the scalar index or, at least, on the difference between the scalar and tensorial indices, taking into account that this difference is generally a function of time. Conditions upon $`(\delta \mathrm{\Delta })`$ can be translated into conditions upon $`ϵ_2`$ which in terms of the inflaton potential and its derivatives with respect to $`\varphi `$ (denoted with prime) reads Leach:2002ar ,

$$ϵ_2\frac{2}{\kappa }\left[\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}\right].$$
(12)
Hence, power-law inflation will be an attractor of the dynamics described by Eq. (11) only if $`ϵ_2>0`$, i.e., if $`V^2>VV^{\prime \prime }`$ (note that $`d\tau /dt<0`$). This will be the case for any potential with $`V^{\prime \prime }<0`$ (in this paper we are considering the inflaton potential to be nonnegative). Examples of models with this kind of potential are the inverted quadratic model, the cosinus model, models with $`V\varphi ^{\frac{n}{m}}`$ where $`n<m`$ are some integers, etc. On the other hand, there are models with $`V^{\prime \prime }>0`$ and satisfying $`V^2>VV^{\prime \prime }`$. For instance, we have all the monomial models with $`V\varphi ^p`$ and $`p>1`$ a real number. Indeed, the above listed models are amongst the most popular inflationary scenarios inflation , however, it is possible to find some other interesting models with $`V^{\prime \prime }>0`$ but such that $`V^2<VV^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e., scenarios where power-law inflation will be a repellor rather than an attractor. One of these models is, for instance, the hyperbolic cosinus having Taylor series quite close to the scalar field potential tree expansion with only even order terms inflation . This model provides a counterexample to the leading order analysis by Hoffmann and Turner HT  which yields power-law inflation as a generic attractor of the inflationary dynamics. The point here is that $`x^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`xV^{}/V`$, assumed in Ref. HT  to be constant, for the hyperbolic cosinus model is equal to $`2a^3sinh(ax)/cosh^3(ax)`$, and will not be approximately constant unless $`a1`$.

For the next-to-leading order analysis we must keep only up to second order terms in Eqs. (7) and (8). After converting to differential equations in terms of $`\tau `$ Ayon-Beato:2000xx ,

$`2Cϵ_1\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}(2C+3)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}\widehat{ϵ_1}+ϵ_1^2+ϵ_1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
$`2(C+1)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}ϵ_1^2ϵ_1\delta `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
where $`C=0.7296`$. Let us note here that this system of differential equations it is not a closed system. Even if we differentiate Eq. (14) with respect to $`\tau `$ and substitute the result and Eq. (14) itself in Eq. (13), we still have three independent variables to deal with. Information on the functional forms of one of the observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\delta `$ is needed again to describe the dynamics of $`ϵ_1`$ Ayon-Beato:2000xx ; Ayon-Beato:2000ga ; Terrero-Escalante:2001ni .

The dynamical analysis of Ref. Ayon-Beato:2000xx  indicates that in the reduced phase spaces ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ constant) for the evolution of $`ϵ_1`$ as described by Eq. (13), there exists a saddle point in the region where $`ϵ_1`$ has interesting values and $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$. Thus, with respect to cosmic time, attractor–like behavior will be characteristic only of those trajectories that are very close to the unstable separatrices. Likewise, the saddle point acts as a repellor for those trajectories that are closer to the stable separatrices. For blue tilted spectra, $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, there is not fixed point of any kind in the physically interesting range of $`ϵ_1`$ Ayon-Beato:2000xx . The first order constrain given by Eq. (14) seems to force the dynamics of $`ϵ_1`$ to do not differ too much from power-law inflation if the spectral indices are to be weakly scale-dependent Terrero-Escalante:2001ni ; Terrero-Escalante:2001rt . Inflationary dynamics that, to next-to-leading order, do not correspond to a power law attractor were found in Refs. Terrero-Escalante:2001rt ; Terrero-Escalante:2001du , though a transient regime of power-law behavior exists in both cases. These models provide further counterexamples to the leading order results in Ref. HT .

To next-to-next-to-leading order the system of differential equations corresponding to Eqs. (7) and (8) is,

$``$ $`(2C^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}})ϵ_1\widehat{\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}}`$ (15)
$``$ $`(2C^2{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^2}{12}}+8)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}+(2C^2+8C{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^2}{6}}+14)ϵ_1^2\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}`$
$`+`$ $`(2C^2+6C{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^2}{6}}+14)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}^2(6C\pi ^2+17)ϵ_1^2\widehat{ϵ_1}`$
$`+`$ $`2Cϵ_1\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}(2C+3)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}\widehat{ϵ_1}+ϵ_1^3+ϵ_1^2+ϵ_1+\mathrm{\Delta }=0,`$
and,

$`(2C^24C+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}4)ϵ_1^2\widehat{\widehat{ϵ_1}}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`(2C^24C+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}4)ϵ_1^2\widehat{ϵ_1}\widehat{ϵ_1}^2(6C+\pi ^216)ϵ_1^2\widehat{ϵ_1}`$
$`+`$ $`2(C+1)ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ_1}ϵ_1^3ϵ_1^2ϵ_1\delta =0,`$
The complete qualitative analysis of this dynamical system will be carried out in a forthcoming publication, let us, however, note that now, the dynamics described by the reduced ($`\delta =`$ constant) second order equation (16) is very similar to that described by the reduced ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ constant) equation (13) which was fully analyzed in Ref. Ayon-Beato:2000xx . In particular, the eigenvalues of the corresponding Jacobian matrix have the form $`\lambda _\pm =(g_2\pm \sqrt{g_2^2+4g_1})/2`$, where $`g_{1,2}`$ are functions of the roots of equation $`ϵ_1^3+ϵ_1^2+ϵ_1+\delta =0`$. It can be shown that for $`\delta <0`$ the eigenvalues will have opposite sign indicating the existence in the reduced phase space of a saddle point corresponding to $`ϵ_1=`$ constant. Thus, to next-to-next-to-leading order there is not more a constrain forcing the dynamics to be close to power-law inflation and this scenario becomes less attractive than to lower orders.

## III  Conclusions

It was argued that, even if the power-law inflationary model has very attractive features from the theoretical and observational points of view, and it is the limit of scenarios with extremely slow rolling inflaton fields, it cannot be claimed that such a scenario must be expected to be an attractor of the inflationary dynamics driven by general potentials, particularly those that do not belong to the class describing a very slow rolling regime. In general, any claim about generic predictions for the inflationary observables dynamics must take into account the order of the expressions involved unless a non-dependence on the order is granted. This point concerns also the reliability of programmes for the inflaton potential reconstruction. The order to be used to calculate the primordial spectra will be fixed by the quality of the forthcoming cosmological observations, in particular by the capability of detecting any scale dependence of these spectra.

###### Acknowledgements.

Supported in part by the CONACyT grant 38495–E.