text:
# Quenched Chiral Log and Light Quark Mass from Overlap Fermions Talk presented by T. Draper at Lattice 2002. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant numbers DE-FG05-84ER40154 and DE-FG02-02ER45967.

## 1 Simulation Details

Using a $`\beta =2.264`$ renormalization-group-improved Iwasaki  gauge action, we study the chiral properties of hadrons on a $`16^3\times 28`$ lattice with the overlap fermion  and massive overlap operator

$`D(m_0)`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{m_0a}{2}})+(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{m_0a}{2}})\gamma _5ϵ(H)`$
where $`ϵ(H)=H/\sqrt{H^2}`$, $`H=\gamma _5D_w`$, and $`D_w`$ is the usual Wilson fermion operator, except with a negative mass parameter $`\rho =1/2\kappa 4`$ in which $`\kappa _c<\kappa <0.25`$; we take $`\kappa =0.19`$ in our calculation which corresponds to $`\rho =1.368`$.

We use the optimal partial fraction expansion with a 14th-order Zolotarev approximation of the matrix sign function ; the sign function approximated to better than $`3`$ parts in $`10^{10}`$. As the conjugate-gradient inverter accommodates multi-mass  we obtain the quark propagator at $`26`$ masses including $`18`$ masses at or below the strange quark mass with less than 10% overhead.

## 2 Pion Decay Constant and $`Z_A`$

The renormalized pion decay constant is

$`f_\pi ^{(R)}\sqrt{2}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_Af_\pi ^{(U)}\sqrt{2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_P^{(U)}}{(m_\pi ^2/2m_0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m_\pi A_{PP}}}{(m_\pi ^2/2m_0)}}`$
where $`m_0`$ is the unrenormalized quark mass, $`f_P^{(U)}=\sqrt{2m_\pi A_{PP}}`$ is the unrenormalized pseudoscalar decay constant, and $`A_{PP}`$ is the amplitude of the two-point local-local correlator, $`G_{PP}(t)A_{PP}(e^{m_\pi t}+e^{m_\pi (Tt)})`$. Since $`f_\pi ^{(R)}`$ is free of quenched chiral logs, and since we determine it quite precisely, we use $`f_\pi ^{(R)}`$ to set the scale and obtain $`a^1=0.978(5)\mathrm{GeV}`$.

As a bonus, we obtain the axial-vector renormalization constant, $`Z_A`$, via the axial Ward identity $`Z_A_\mu A_\mu =2Z_mm_0Z_PP`$ and the relations $`Z_m^1=Z_P=Z_S`$ protected by the chiral symmetry of the overlap fermion. Thus $`Z_A=\frac{2m_0}{m_\pi }\sqrt{\frac{A_{PP}}{A_{A_4P}}}`$ which is plotted in Fig. 1.

A covariant polynomial fit yields

$`Z_A`$ $`=`$ $`1.85(1)0.60(12)m_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}a^2`$
$`+0.59(4)m_0^2a^2;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}a=0.25`$
so $`𝒪(m_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}a^2)`$ and $`𝒪(m_0^2a^2)`$ terms are small.

## 3 Pion Mass and Chiral Logs

Our plot of $`(m_\pi a)^2/m_0a`$ in Fig. 2, with $`18`$ data points at or below the strange quark mass, dramatically reveals the presence of the quenched chiral log. We fit $`m_\pi ^2a^2`$ to the form

$`m_\pi ^2a^2`$ $`=`$ $`Am_0a\left\{1\delta \left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Am_0a}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2a^2}}\right)+1\right]\right\}`$
using a single multi-parameter (weakly) constrained fit (the constraint lifts the degeneracy of the three-parameter fit). We obtain simultaneously (the preliminary results) $`\delta =0.26(3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi a=1.1(1)`$, which are quite stable against changing the window, \[$`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}`$,$`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}`$\], of masses in the fit provided (a) $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}<250\mathrm{MeV}`$; thereafter, $`\delta `$ monotonically decreases rapidly with increasing $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}`$ (e.g. $`0.14`$ for $`300\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`0.06`$ for $`400\mathrm{MeV}`$), and (b) $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}<350\mathrm{MeV}`$; adding a term $`Bm_0^2a^2`$ to the fit formula increases the region of stability to $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}>700\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The pseudoscalar decay constant $`f_P`$ has similar behavior and fit results to $`(m_\pi a)^2/m_0a`$. (This is automatic for overlap fermions since $`Z_m^1=Z_P=Z_S`$ implies $`f_P=f_\pi ^{(R)}\sqrt{2}m_\pi ^2/2m_0`$.)

Our value of $`\delta `$ is significantly higher than other recent values  most of which are well below the prediction of $`\delta =0.183`$ from the quenched $`\eta ^{}`$ loop (using the Witten-Veneziano model of the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass) in chiral perturbation theory; however, we have exact chiral symmetry and, to date, use the largest spatial volume and probe the lightest pion masses. Indeed, the effect of the chiral log makes the data points rise as the pion mass drops below $`m_\pi 400`$$`450\mathrm{MeV}`$. Notice that if one restricts the data to pion masses in the range of $`350`$$`400\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`700\mathrm{MeV}`$, then the curve can be well approximated by a constant within errors. Equivalently, a plot of $`m_\pi ^2`$ versus $`m_0`$ over this range would show no deviation from linearity, as is also seen in . The effects of chiral logs are seen only at lower pion mass; one is unlikely to see the effect at all without data below $`m_\pi 400\mathrm{MeV}`$. With adequate spatial volume, the extraction of $`\delta `$ would give a low value without data below $`m_\pi 250\mathrm{MeV}`$. Our spatial lattice size is $`L=3.2\mathrm{fm}`$ so finite-volume effects are expected to be small; our lightest (unrenormalized) quark mass of $`14\mathrm{MeV}`$ corresponds to a pion of about $`180\mathrm{MeV}`$. With a lattice scale of $`a=0.202(1)\mathrm{fm}`$ (set from $`f_\pi `$) then $`L=3.2\mathrm{fm}`$ and $`(Lm_\pi )_{\mathrm{lightest}}2.9`$.

## 4 Quark Masses

To renormalize our estimates of the quark mass, we follow  to determine the renormalization constants $`Z_m^1=Z_S=Z_P`$ and thus $`m^{RGI}=Z_m(g_0)m_0(g_0)`$: The value of the bare quark mass $`m_0a`$ that reproduces a given fiducial pseudoscalar mass (through $`x_{\mathrm{ref}}=(r_0m_\pi )^2`$, with $`r_0/a=2.885(18)`$ for our lattice) is obtained by interpolation of our data for the pion mass. From this we obtain $`Z_m^1=Z_S`$ at three values of quark mass (the lowest two quark masses are roughly half-strange and strange). The operators and action are $`𝒪(a)`$ improved. For $`Z_A`$ we find small $`𝒪(m_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}a^2)`$ and $`𝒪(m_0^2a^2)`$ dependence as well; $`Z_A`$ is well approximated (to $`1\%`$) by a constant up through the strange mass region. Thus we fit $`Z_m^1=Z_S`$ to a constant and obtain $`Z_S=1.61(7)`$ as a first approximation.

Our lightest pion mass is $`180\mathrm{MeV}`$ so we needn’t extrapolate far to obtain $`m_0a`$ at the physical pion mass (Fig. 3). Furthermore, exact chiral symmetry (zero residual mass) and the form of the fit function as determined by quenched ChPT provide an end point at zero mass.

Using $`m^{RGI}=m_0/Z_S`$ and, from the 4-loop calculation with $`N_f=0`$ , $`Z_S^{\overline{MS}}=Z_S/0.72076`$, we obtain (very preliminary results) for $`(m_u+m_d)/2`$: $`m^{RGI}=5.1(4)\mathrm{MeV}`$ and

$`m^{\overline{MS}}(\mu =2\mathrm{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`3.7(3)\mathrm{MeV}`$
Last year’s result  from a $`20^4`$ lattice with a Lüscher-Weisz gauge action was $`4.5(3)\mathrm{MeV}`$. (The result quoted in the proceedings was an average of this number with an attempt to subtract out the effects of the chiral log.) A recent estimate  of the world average is $`4.5(6)\mathrm{MeV}`$.


format: text

text:
# Steepest descent on real flag manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Among the compact homogeneous spaces, a very distinguished subclass is formed by the (generalized) real flag manifolds which by definition are the orbits of the isotropy representations of Riemannian symmetric spaces (s-orbits). This class contains most compact symmetric spaces (e.g. all hermitian ones), all classical flag manifolds over real, complex and quaternionic vector spaces, all adjoint orbits of compact Lie groups (generalized complex flag manifolds) and many others. They form the main examples for isoparametric submanifolds and their focal manifolds (so called constant principal curvature manifolds); in fact for most codimensions these are the only such spaces (cf. , , ).

Any real flag manifold $`M`$ enjoys two very peculiar geometric properties: It carries a transitive action of a noncompact Lie group $`G`$, and it is embedded in euclidean space as a taut submanifold, i.e. almost all height or coordinate functions are perfect Morse functions (at least for $`/2`$-coefficients). The aim of our paper is to link these two properties by the following theorem: The gradient flow of any height function is a one-parameter subgroup of $`G`$ where the gradient is defined with respect to a suitable homogeneous metric $`s`$ on $`M`$; in the case where $`M`$ is an adjoint orbit $`s`$ is a homogeneous Kähler metric. In other words, the lines of steepest descend for the height function (gradient flow lines) are obtained by applying a one-parameter subgroup of $`G`$. This is an elementary fact when $`M`$ is a euclidean sphere and $`G`$ its conformal group: The gradient of any height function is a conformal vector field. For adjoint orbits, the (generalized) complex flag manifolds, this fact was observed earlier by Guest and Ohnita . Our more general result can be derived from their theorem since real flag manifolds are contained in complex flag manifolds as fixed point sets under certain involutions. However a short direct proof might be desirable. We would like to thank Martin Guest and Peter Quast for hints and discussion.

## 2 Root space decomposition

Let $`P=G/K`$ be a symmetric space of noncompact type where $`G`$ is a connected noncompact semisimple Lie group and $`KG`$ a maximal compact subgroup (cf. ). Let $`\sigma `$ be the corresponding involution on $`G`$ with fixed point set $`K`$. Consider the corresponding Cartan decomposition

$$𝔤=𝔨𝔭$$
(1)
where $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔨`$ denote the Lie algebras of $`G`$ and $`K`$ and $`𝔭`$ the $`(1)`$-eigenspace of (the differential of) $`\sigma `$. The adjoint action of $`K`$ leaves $`𝔭`$ invariant; this is the isotropy representation of $`P`$. As usual we consider an $`\mathrm{Ad}(G)`$-invariant indefinite inner product $`b`$ on $`𝔤`$ with $`b>0`$ on $`𝔭`$ and $`b<0`$ on $`𝔨`$ (e.g. the Killing form) and define a positive definite inner product $`,`$ on $`𝔤`$ which is $`b`$ on $`𝔭`$ and $`b`$ on $`𝔨`$, and such that $`𝔭𝔨`$. Then any $`\mathrm{ad}(x)`$ with $`x𝔭`$ is self adjoint on $`𝔤`$. Hence a maximal abelian subspace $`𝔞𝔭`$ gives rise to a family of mutually commuting selfadjoint endomorphisms $`\mathrm{ad}(x)`$ of $`𝔤`$ where $`x𝔞`$. These have a common eigenspace decomposition

$$𝔤=\underset{\alpha \widehat{R}}{}𝔤_\alpha ,𝔤_\alpha :=\{z𝔤;[x,z]=\alpha (x)zx𝔞\}$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{R}𝔞^{}`$ is the set of roots including $`0`$.

After fixing some arbitrary $`x𝔞`$, there are three disjoint subsets of $`\widehat{R}`$, formed by the roots $`\alpha `$ with $`\alpha (x)>0`$, $`\alpha (x)=0`$ and $`\alpha (x)<0`$, respectively. Hence we have the decomposition

$$𝔤=𝔫_+𝔠𝔫_{}$$
(3)
with

$$𝔫_+=\underset{\alpha (x)>0}{}𝔤_\alpha ,𝔠=\underset{\alpha (x)=0}{}𝔤_\alpha ,𝔫_{}=\underset{\alpha (x)<0}{}𝔤_\alpha .$$
(4)
Since $`\sigma =id`$ on $`𝔞`$, we have

$$(𝔤_\alpha )^\sigma =𝔤_\alpha ,$$
(5)
hence $`\sigma `$ interchanges $`𝔫_+`$ and $`𝔫_{}`$. Any $`a𝔤`$ allows a unique decomposition $`a=a_{}+a_o+a_+`$ with $`a_\pm 𝔫_\pm `$ and $`a_o𝔠`$, and if $`a𝔨`$ or $`a𝔭`$, we have $`a_{}=a_+^\sigma `$ or $`a_{}=a_+^\sigma `$, respectively.

## 3 Generalized real flag manifolds

By definition, generalized real flag manifolds are the orbits of the isotropy representation of a symmetric space $`P=G/K`$ of noncompact type. We consider an isotropy orbit $`M𝔭`$. For any fixed $`xM`$ we have $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x`$. The stabilizer subgroup is

$$S=\{kK;\mathrm{Ad}(k)x=x\},$$
(6)
thus $`M`$ may be identified with the coset space $`K/S`$ by $`kS\mathrm{Ad}(k)x`$.

Now choose a maximal abelian subalgebra $`𝔞𝔭`$ containing $`x`$. Such $`𝔞`$ is uniquely determined up to applying $`\mathrm{Ad}(s)`$ with $`sS`$; this fact is just the conjugacy of maximal flat subspaces in the symmetric subspace $`\stackrel{~}{P}=C/SP`$ where $`C`$ (with Lie algebra $`𝔠`$) is the centralizer of $`x`$ in $`G`$.111Geometrically, $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is the union of all geodesics parallel to the geodesic $`\mathrm{exp}(x)P`$ which is obviously invariant under geodesic reflection, hence it is a symmetric subspace. Note that each $`\mathrm{Ad}(s)`$, $`sS`$, commutes with $`ad(x)`$ and thus preserves the eigenspaces of $`ad(x)`$, hence $`𝔫_{}=_{\alpha (x)<0}𝔤_\alpha `$ is also invariant under $`\mathrm{Ad}(s)`$.

Next we show that the natural $`K`$-action on $`M`$ can be extended to a $`G`$-action. Consider

$$H=\{gG;\mathrm{Ad}(g)(x+𝔫_{})=x+𝔫_{}\}$$
(7)
which is a closed subgroup of $`G`$ containing $`S`$ as a subgroup. One can see that the Lie algebra of $`H`$ is $`𝔥=𝔠+𝔫_{}`$. Note that $`H`$ does not depend on the choice of $`𝔞`$. Indeed, if instead of $`𝔞`$ we start our construction with $`𝔞^{}=\mathrm{Ad}(s)𝔞`$, where $`sS`$, then $`𝔫_{}^{}=\mathrm{Ad}(s)𝔫_{}=𝔫_{}`$, and we end up with $`H^{}=H`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

$`K`$ acts transitively on the coset space $`G/H`$ with stabilizer $`S`$. Hence $`G/H`$ can be identified with $`K/S=M`$.

Proof. Let $`M^{}G/H`$ be the orbit of $`eHG/H`$ under the subgroup $`KG`$. We show first that it is open in $`G/H`$. To see this it suffices to show $`𝔨+𝔥=𝔤`$, i.e. one needs to show $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔨+𝔥`$ for each $`\alpha R`$ with $`\alpha (x)>0`$. In fact, take $`z𝔤_\alpha `$, decompose it as $`z=v+u`$ with $`v𝔭`$ and $`u𝔨`$ and notice that $`z^\sigma =v+u𝔤_\alpha 𝔥`$. Thus the $`K`$-orbit $`M^{}`$ is open. But it is also closed in $`G/H`$ since $`K`$ is compact. So $`M^{}`$ coincides with $`G/H`$.

The $`K`$-stabilizer of $`eHG/H`$ is $`KH`$; we have to show $`KH=S`$. Clearly $`SKH`$. Vice versa, if $`kKH`$, then

$$\mathrm{Ad}(k)xx𝔭𝔫_{}.$$

But $`𝔭𝔫_{}=0`$, because if $`z`$ belongs to this intersection, then $`z^\sigma =z𝔫_+`$, hence $`z𝔫_{}𝔫_+=0`$. We deduce that $`\mathrm{Ad}(k)x=x`$, which means $`kS`$.

Thus the action of $`G`$ on $`G/H=K/S=M`$ is an extension of the $`K`$-action.222There is a more geometric description of this action: Consider $`𝔭`$ as the tangent space of $`P=G/K`$ at some base point $`oP`$. We may project any nonzero $`xT_oP`$ to the infinite boundary $`P(\mathrm{})`$ (mind that $`P`$ is a simply connected space of nonpositive curvature) by the map $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}(x)=\gamma _x(\mathrm{})`$ where $`\gamma _x`$ is the geodesic in $`P`$ starting at $`o`$ with initial vector $`x`$. The isometry group $`G`$ acts on $`P(\mathrm{})`$ and leaves $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ invariant; this is the $`G`$-action. See  for details. We will denote this action $`G\times MM`$ by $`(g,x)g.x`$. When restricted to $`kKG`$ we have $`k.x=\mathrm{Ad}(k)x`$. Similarly, the infinitesimal action $`𝔤\times MTM`$ will be denoted by $`(a,x)a.x:=\frac{d}{dt}|_{_{t=0}}\mathrm{exp}(ta).x`$ where $`a𝔤`$, and $`a.x=[a,x]`$ whenever $`a𝔨`$.

## 4 Steepest descend

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`G/K`$ be a symmetric space of noncompact type, $`𝔤=𝔨+𝔭`$ the corresponding Cartan decomposition and $`M𝔭`$ a real flag manifold (isotropy orbit). Let $`q𝔭`$ and $`f:M`$, $`f(x)=q,x`$. Then there is a $`K`$-invariant Riemannian metric $`s:TMT^{}M`$ on $`M`$ such that the flow lines $`x(t)`$ of the $`s`$-gradient $`^sf=s^1df`$ satisfy

$$x(t)=\mathrm{exp}(tq).x(0)$$
(8)
Proof. Choose an arbitrary $`xM`$ and consider the decomposition (3) corresponding to $`x`$. We have to show that $`^sf(x)=q.x`$. To compute $`q.x`$ we look for $`r𝔨`$ with $`q.x=r.x`$, i.e. $`qr𝔥`$. We have $`q=q_o+_{\alpha (x)>0}q_\alpha `$ with $`q_o𝔠`$ and $`q_\alpha =z_\alpha z_\alpha ^\sigma `$ for some $`z_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$. We may assume $`q_o=0`$ since $`q_o.x=0`$. Then we put $`r=_+(z_\alpha +z_\alpha ^\sigma )𝔨`$ and hence $`rq=2_+z_\alpha ^\sigma 𝔥`$ where $`_+`$ always denotes $`_{\alpha (x)>0}`$. Now

$$r.x=[r,x]=ad(x)\underset{+}{}(z_\alpha +z_\alpha ^\sigma )=\underset{+}{}\alpha (x)(z_\alpha z_\alpha ^\sigma )=\underset{+}{}\alpha (x)q_\alpha .$$

Any $`vT_xM`$ has a decomposition $`v=_+v_\alpha `$ with $`v_\alpha (𝔤_\alpha +𝔤_\alpha )𝔭`$ for $`\alpha (x)>0`$, and our metric $`s`$ on $`T_xM`$ will be of the form

$$v,w_s=\underset{+}{}s_\alpha v_\alpha ,w_\alpha $$

for certain numbers $`s_\alpha >0`$. We have to choose $`s`$ such that for all $`vT_xM`$

$$^sf(x),v_s=r.x,v_s.$$

The left hand side is

$$^sf(x),v_s=df_xv=q,v=\underset{+}{}q_\alpha ,v_\alpha ,$$

while the right hand side is

$$r.x,v_s=\underset{+}{}s_\alpha \alpha (x)q_\alpha ,v_\alpha .$$

Hence we obtain the result by putting

$$s_\alpha =1/\alpha (x).$$
(9)
## 5 Extrinsic symmetric spaces

An extrinsic symmetric space is a submanifold $`M`$ in euclidian space such that $`M`$ is preserved by the reflections at all of its (affine) normal spaces. By a result of Ferus  (also cf. ), after splitting off euclidean factors, $`M`$ has precisely the form of an s-orbit $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x_o𝔭`$ where $`𝔭`$ corresponds to a symmetric space $`P=G/K`$ and where $`x_o𝔭`$ satisfies

$$\alpha (x_o)\{1,0,1\},$$

for all $`\alpha R`$. In this case the metric $`s`$ of Theorem 4.1 agrees to the given inner product $`,`$ (cf. (9)). By applying Theorem 4.1 one obtains:

###### Theorem 5.1

If $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x_o𝔭`$ is extrinsic symmetric, then the gradient lines of the height function $`h(x)=q,x`$ with respect to the metric $`,`$ are of the form

$$x(t)=\mathrm{exp}(tq).x(0).$$

## 6 Adjoint orbits

In the particular case of complex flag manifolds (i.e. adjoint orbits of compact Lie groups) we will establish relations between Theorem 4.1 and previously known results.

Let $`K`$ be a compact semisimple Lie group of Lie algebra $`𝔨`$, and $`TK`$ a maximal torus of Lie algebra $`𝔱`$. Consider the adjoint orbit $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x`$ for $`x𝔨`$. If $`G=K^{}`$ is the complexification of $`K`$, then $`G/K`$ is a non-compact symmetric space and

$$𝔤=𝔨+\mathrm{i}𝔨$$

is a Cartan decomposition of $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}(G)=𝔨`$ (the involution $`\sigma `$ is just the complex conjugation). Since $`M`$ is (up to a multiple of $`\mathrm{i}`$) an isotropy orbit of $`G/K`$, the results of the previous section can be applied here, too. The goal of this section is to point out that the metric on $`M`$ for which the lines of steepest descent are orbits of one-parameter subgroups of $`G`$ is well known: It is the Kähler metric (cf. , ).

It is well known that any adjoint orbit $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x`$ is a complex manifold. In fact, in the language of Section 4 we have $`M=G/H`$ but here $`G`$ and $`H`$ are complex Lie groups and hence $`M`$ is a complex manifold. The corresponding complex structure $`J`$ on $`T_xM`$ can be described as follows. Choose a maximal abelian subalgebra $`𝔱𝔨`$ with $`x𝔱`$. The corresponding roots are considered as real linear forms $`\alpha 𝔱^{}`$ while the eigenvalues of $`ad(x)`$ are purely imaginary, $`\mathrm{i}\alpha (x)`$. Let $`𝔨_\alpha 𝔨`$ be the root spaces. Then

$$T_xM=\underset{\alpha (x)>0}{}𝔨_\alpha ^r$$

where $`𝔨_\alpha ^r=(𝔨_\alpha +𝔨_\alpha )𝔨`$ is the real root space. Now $`J`$ leaves invariant each $`𝔨_\alpha ^r`$ and on $`𝔨_\alpha ^r`$ it is a multiple of $`\mathrm{ad}(x)`$:

$$\mathrm{ad}(x)=\alpha (x)J$$
(10)
The second ingredient for the Kähler metric is the Kähler form $`\omega `$ which is defined as follows: If $`v=\mathrm{ad}(a)x`$ and $`w=\mathrm{ad}(b)x`$ are tangent vectors of $`M`$ at the point $`x`$, then

$$\omega _x(v,w):=x,[a,b]=[x,a],b=v,b=v,\mathrm{ad}(x)^1w$$
(11)
where $`,`$ denotes an $`Ad(K)`$-invariant inner product on $`𝔨`$.

Now the Kähler metric $`(,)`$ on $`T_xM`$ is defined as follows. For $`v,wT_xM`$ we have

$$(v,w)=\omega _x(v,Jw).$$
(12)
Hence from (10) and (11) we obtain

$$(v,w)=\omega _x(v,Jw)=v,\mathrm{ad}(x)^1Jw=\frac{1}{\alpha (x)}v,w=v,w_s$$
(13)
(cf. (9)). Since $`𝔭=\mathrm{i}𝔨`$ in the present case, we obtain from Theorem 4.1:

###### Theorem 6.1

(cf. , ) Let $`K`$ be a compact Lie group and $`M=\mathrm{Ad}(K)x_o`$ $`𝔨`$ an adjoint orbit, equipped with its Kähler metric $`(,)`$ as in (12) and acted on by the complexified group $`G=K^{}`$ as described above. Let $`,`$ be the corresponding $`\mathrm{Ad}(K)`$-invariant inner product on $`𝔨`$. Then for any $`q𝔨`$ the gradient lines $`x(t)`$ of the function $`f:M`$, $`f(x)=q,x`$, are orbits of a 1-parameter subgroup of $`G=K^{}`$, namely

$$x(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}tq).x(0).$$


text:
# Untitled Document

Dirac Cohomology for the Cubic Dirac Operator

BERTRAM KOSTANT**Research supported in part by NSF grant DMS-9625941 and in part by the KG&G Foundation

Abstract. Let $`g`$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra and let $`r\text{ }\text{ }g`$ be any reductive Lie subalgebra such that $`B|r`$ is nonsingular where $`B`$ is the Killing form of $`g`$. Let $`Z(r)`$ and $`Z(g)`$ be, respectively, the centers of the enveloping algebras of $`r`$ and $`g`$. Using a Harish-Chandra isomorphism one has a homomorphism $`\eta :Z(g)Z(r)`$ which, by a well-known result of H. Cartan, yields the the relative Lie algebra cohomology $`H(g,r)`$.

Let $`V`$ be any $`g`$\- module. For the case where $`r`$ is a symmetric subalgebra, Vogan has defined the Dirac cohomology $`Dir(V)`$ of $`V`$. Using the cubic Dirac operator we extend his definition to the case where $`r`$ is arbitrary subject to the condition stated above. We then generalize results of Huang-Pand$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{z}}`$ić on a proof of a conjecture of Vogan. In particular $`Dir(V)`$ has a structure of a $`Z(r)`$-module relative to a “diagonal” homomorphism $`\gamma :Z(r)EndDir(V)`$. In case $`V`$ admits an infinitesimal character $`\chi `$ and $`I`$ is the identity operator on Dir(V) we prove

$$\gamma \eta =\chi I$$
$`(A)`$
In addition we also prove that $`V`$ always exists (in fact $`V`$ can taken to be an object in Category O) such that $`Dir(V)0`$. If $`r`$ has the same rank as $`g`$ and $`V`$ is irreducible and finite dimensional, then (A) generalizes a result of Gross-Kostant-Ramond-Sternberg.

0. Introduction

0.1. Let $`g`$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra and let $`(x,y)`$ be a nonsingular symmetric invariant bilinear form $`B_g`$ on $`g`$. Let $`r\text{ }\text{ }g`$ be any reductive Lie subalgebra of $`g`$ such that $`B_r=B_g|r`$ is nonsingular. Let $`p`$ be the $`B_g`$-orthocomplement of $`r`$ in $`g`$ so that $`[r,p]\text{ }\text{ }p`$ and one has the direct sum $`g=r+p`$. Let $`B_p=B_g|p`$ so that $`B_p`$ is nonsingular and let $`C(p)`$ be the Clifford algebra over $`p`$ with respect to $`B_p`$. Then there exists a homomorphism $`\nu _{}:rC(p)`$ such that $`[x,y]=[\nu _{}(x),y]`$ for $`xr`$ and $`yp`$ where the bracket on the right side is commutation in $`C(p)`$. See §1.5 in \[K1\]. One then has a homomorphism

$$\zeta :U(r)U(g)C(p)$$
$`(0.1)`$
so that $`\zeta (x)=x1+1\nu _{}(x)`$ for $`xr`$. This defines the structure of an $`r`$-module on $`U(g)C(p)`$. We have defined an element $`\mathrm{}U(g)C(p)`$ in \[K1\] and have referred to $`\mathrm{}`$ as the cubic Dirac operator. The definition of $`\mathrm{}`$ is recalled in §2.2 of the present paper. In case $`r`$ is a symmetric subalgebra of $`g`$ the cubic term in $`\mathrm{}`$ vanishes and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the more familiar Dirac operator under consideration in \[HP\] and \[P\]. The result main result in \[HP\] works in the general case considered here and one has a unique homomorphism

$$\eta _r:Z(g)Z(r)$$

so that for any $`pZ(g)`$ one has

$$p1\zeta (\eta _r(p))=\mathrm{}\omega +\omega \mathrm{}$$
$`(0.2)`$
for some $`\omega (U(g)C^{odd}(p))^r`$. See Appendix. We will determine the homomorphism $`\eta _r`$ in the generality under consideration here.

A subspace $`s\text{ }\text{ }g`$ will be said to be $`(r,p)`$ split if $`s=sr+sp`$. In such a case we will write $`s_r=sr`$ and $`s_p=sp`$. Let $`b`$ be a Borel subalgebra of $`g`$. Let $`h\text{ }\text{ }b`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`g`$ and let $`n`$ be the nilradical of $`b`$. Then $`b`$ and $`h`$ can (and will) be chosen so that they are both $`(r,p)`$ split. Then $`b_r`$ is a Borel subalgebra of $`r`$ and $`h_r`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`r`$. It follows also that $`n`$ is $`(r,p)`$-split. The subspace $`n_p\text{ }\text{ }p`$ is isotropic with respect to $`B_p`$. Let $`uC(p)`$ be the product, in any order, of a basis of $`n_p`$. Let $`L=C(p)u`$ so that $`L`$ is a left ideal in $`C(p)`$ and is in particular a $`C(p)`$-module with respect to left multiplication. Now assume that $`V`$ is a $`U(g)`$-module. The separate actions of $`U(g)`$ and $`C(p)`$ define a homomorphism

$$\xi _V:U(g)C(p)End(VL)$$

Extending Vogan’s definition to the present case one defines the Dirac cohomology $`H_D(VL)`$ so that

$$H_D(VL)=Ker\mathrm{}_V/(Ker\mathrm{}_VIm\mathrm{}_V)$$
$`(0.3)`$
where $`\mathrm{}_V=\xi _V(\mathrm{})`$. The action of $`\xi _V(Z(g)1)`$ on $`VL`$ defines a $`Z(g)`$-module structure on $`H_D(VL)`$. Also if $`\zeta _V=\xi _V\zeta `$ then the action of $`\zeta _V(Z(r))`$ on $`VL`$ defines a $`Z(r)`$-module structure on $`H_D(VL)`$. As a consequence of (0.2) one has, for any $`pZ(g)`$,

$$\xi _V(p1)=\zeta _V(\eta _r(p))\text{on}H_D(VL)$$
$`(0.4)`$
This raises the question as to whether or not $`H_D(VL)`$ vanishes.

Let $`\lambda h^{}`$ and let $`V_\lambda `$ be the unique irreducible (Category O) $`U(g)`$-module with highest weight $`\lambda `$ (with respect to $`b`$). Let $`0v_\lambda V_\lambda `$ be a corresponding highest weight vector. If $`dimh_p=k`$ then $`Cv_\lambda C(h_p)u`$ is a $`2^k`$-dimensional subspace of $`V_\lambda L`$. Here $`C(h_p)\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ is the Clifford algebra over $`h_p`$. Let $`\rho h^{}`$ have its usual meaning. In this paper we will prove

Theorem 0.1. Choose $`\lambda `$ so that $`\lambda +\rho `$ vanishes on $`h_p`$ (e.g., $`\lambda =\rho `$ if $`r=0`$). Then $`Cv_\lambda C(h_p)u\text{ }\text{ }Ker\mathrm{}_{V_\lambda }`$. Furthermore the map from cocycle to cohomology defines an injection

$$Cv_\lambda C(h_p)uH_D(V_\lambda L)$$
$`(0.5)`$
In particular $`H_D(V_\lambda L)0`$.

Since there is no restriction on $`\lambda |h_r`$ we can compute $`\eta _r`$.

Let $`\varphi _o:hh_r`$ be the projection relative to the decomposition $`h=h_r+h_p`$. Then $`\varphi _o`$ extends to a homomorphism $`S(h)S(h_r)`$ and clearly induces a homomorphism

$$\varphi :S(h)^{W_g}S(h_r)^{W_r}$$

where $`W_g`$ and $`W_r`$ are the respective Weyl groups of $`h`$ relative to $`g`$ and $`h_r`$ relative to $`r`$. Given the fact that $`r`$ is essentially an arbitrary reductive Lie subalgebra of $`g`$ the following result established here is a strong generalization of Theorem 5.5 in \[HP\]. As will be noted in §5 in this paper it is also a generalization of Proposition 3.43, (5.18) and (5.19) in \[K1\].

Theorem 0.2. The map $`\eta _r:Z(g)Z(r)`$ is uniquely determined so that the following diagram is commutative. In the diagram the vertical maps are the Harish-Chandra isomorphisms.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z(g)& \stackrel{\eta _r}{}& Z(r)\\ A_g& & A_r\\ S(h)^{W_g}& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& S(h_r)^{W_r}\end{array}$$

The map $`\varphi `$ is well known in the theory of the cohomology of compact homogeneous spaces. Actually what is utilized in that theory is the map $`S(h^{})^{W_g}S(h_r^{})^{W_r}`$ induced by restriction of functions. However this is same as $`\varphi `$ if $`h`$ and $`h^{}`$ are identified and $`h_r`$ and $`h_r^{}`$ are identified using $`B_g`$. Assume $`G`$ is a compact connected semisimple Lie group and $`g`$ is the complexification of $`LieG`$. Let $`R\text{ }\text{ }G`$ be any connected compact subgroup and let $`r`$ be the complexification of $`LieR`$. Obviously we can choose $`B_g`$ so that $`B_g|r`$ is nonsingular (e.g., let $`B_g`$ be the Killing form). The map $`\eta _r`$ induces the structure of a $`Z(g)`$-module on $`Z(r)`$. On the other hand the infinitesimal character for the module $`V_\lambda `$ when $`\lambda =\rho `$ defines the structure of a $`Z(g)`$-module on $`C`$. As a consequence of a well-known theorem of H. Cartan (see §9 in \[C\]) one has

Theorem 0.3. There exists an isomorphism

$$H^{}(G/R,C)Tor_{}^{Z(g)}(C,Z(r))$$
$`(0.6)`$
In §5 we reformulate certain results in \[K1\] using Dirac cohomology.

0.2. We wish to thank David Vogan for many profitable conversations and for introducing us to his Dirac cohomology concept in the case where $`r`$ is a symmetric subalgebra of $`g`$. We also wish to acknowledge the strong impact made upon us by the main result in \[HP\].

1. Preliminaries

1.1. Let $`g`$ be a semisimple complex Lie algebra and let $`B_g`$ be a nonsingular $`ad`$-invariant symmetric bilinear form $`(x,y)`$ on $`g`$. Let $`r\text{ }\text{ }g`$ be a reductive Lie subalgebra and assume that $`B_r=B_g|r`$ is nonsingular. Let $`p`$ be the $`B_g`$-orthocomplement of $`r`$ in $`g`$ and let $`B_p=B_g|p`$. Then of course

$$g=r+p$$

and $`[r,p]\text{ }\text{ }p`$. Let $`h_r`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`r`$ and let $`h\text{ }\text{ }g`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`g`$ containing $`h_r`$. Of course $`B_r|h_r`$ and $`B_g|h`$ are nonsingular. Let $`h_p`$ be the orthocomplement of $`h_r`$ in $`h`$ so that

$$h=h_r+h_p$$
$`(1.1)`$
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_r& =hr\hfill \\ \hfill h_p& =hp\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{ }\text{ }h^{}`$ be the set of roots for $`(h,g)`$ and for each $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`e_\phi g`$ be a corresponding root vector. We normalize the choice so that $`(e_\phi ,e_\phi )=1`$. Let $`g^0`$ be the centralizer of $`h_r`$ in $`g`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0=\{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }\phi (x)=0,xh_r\}`$ so that

$$g^0=h+\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0}{}Ce_\phi $$
$`(1.2)`$
Let $`h^\mathrm{\#}`$ be the real space of hyperbolic elements in $`h`$ and let $`\kappa :hh^\mathrm{\#}`$ be the real projection which vanishes on $`ih^\mathrm{\#}`$. Since $`h_r`$ is complex there clearly exists $`f_r\kappa (h_r)`$ such that if $`g^{f_r}`$ is the centralizer of $`f_r`$ in $`g`$ then $`g^{f_r}=g^0`$. But $`f_r`$ defines a parabolic Lie subalgebra of $`q`$ of $`g`$ where $`g^0`$ is a Levi factor of $`q`$ and the $`nilradq`$ is the span of all eigenvectors of $`adf_r`$ with positive eigenalues. Clearly $`adf_r`$ stabilizes both $`r`$ and $`p`$ and hence

$$nilradq=n_r+p^+$$
$`(1.3)`$
where $`n_r=rnilradq`$ and $`p^+=pnilradq`$. Since clearly

$$g^0r=h_r$$
$`(1.4)`$
it follows that

$$b_r=h_r+n_r$$
$`(1.5)`$
is a Borel subalgebra of $`r`$ and $`n_r`$ is the nilradical of $`b_r`$. Furthermore (1.4) implies that

$$g^0=h_r+p^0$$
$`(1.6)`$
where $`p^0=g^0p`$, is an orthogonal decomposition with respect to the (obviously) nonsingular bilinear form $`B_g|g^0`$. Let $`c=Centg^0`$. Since of course $`h_r\text{ }\text{ }c`$ one has

$$c=h_r+c_p$$
$`(1.7)`$
where $`c_p=cp`$, is an orthogonal decomposition with respect to the (obviously) nonsingular bilinear form $`B_g|c`$. Of course $`c\text{ }\text{ }h`$ so that $`c_p\text{ }\text{ }h^p`$. Let $`d_p`$ be the orthocomplement of $`c_p`$ in $`h_p`$ so that

$$h_p=c_p+d_p$$
$`(1.8)`$
is an orthogonal decomposition.

Remark 1.1 Note that (1.2) and (1.4) imply that

$$p^0=h_p+\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0}{}Ce_\phi $$
$`(1.9)`$
and that $`p^0`$ is a reductive Lie subalgebra of $`g`$ which happens to lie in $`p`$. Furthermore $`h_p`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`p^0`$ and $`c_p\text{ }\text{ }h_p`$ is the center of $`p^0`$. In particular

$$p^0=c_p+[p^0,p^0]$$
$`(1.10)`$
is an orthogonal decomposition and (1.8) implies that $`d_p`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of the semisimple Lie algebra $`[p^0,p^0]`$. Obviously

$$[p^0,p^0]=d_p+\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0}{}Ce_\phi $$
$`(1.11)`$
and (1.11) is the decomposition of $`[p^0,p^0]`$ as the sum of a Cartan subalgebra and corresponding root spaces. Let $`p^{}`$ be the orthocomplement of $`p^0`$ in $`p`$. Clearly $`p^{}`$ is stable under $`adh_r`$ and hence $`p^{}`$ is stable under $`adf_r`$. Let $`p^{}`$ be the span of all eigenvectors of $`adf_r`$ in $`p^{}`$ with negative eigenvalues. Obviously $`p^{}=p^++p^{}`$ so that one has direct sums

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p& =p^0+p^{}\hfill \\ & =p^0+p^++p^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.12)`$
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ }\text{ }h_r^{}`$ be the set of all weights for the adjoint action of $`h_r`$ on $`p^{}`$ and for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ let $`p^\mu \text{ }\text{ }p^{}`$ be the corresponding weight space so that one has the direct sum

$$p^{}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}p^\mu $$
$`(1.13)`$
It is clear that any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ extends uniquely to a linear functional (to be identified with $`\mu `$) on the complex subspace of $`h`$ spanned by $`\kappa (h_r)`$. One has a partition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\text{resp.}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})=\{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\mu (f_r)>0(\text{resp.}\mu (f_r)<0)\}$$

Remark 1.2. By considering the action of $`adh_r`$ a standard argument implies that for $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one has that $`p^\mu `$ is $`B_p`$-orthogonal to $`p^\nu `$ if $`\nu \mu `$. But since $`B_p|p^{}`$ is clearly nonsingular one has that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`p^\mu `$ is nonsingularly paired to $`p^\mu `$ for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It then follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p^+& =\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}p^\mu \hfill \\ \hfill p^{}& =\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}p^\mu \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.14)`$
Obviously there exists a closed Weyl chamber $`C\text{ }\text{ }h^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that $`f_rC`$. Let $`fh^\mathrm{\#}`$ be an element in the interior of $`C`$ so that, in particular, $`fh`$ is regular and hyperbolic. One defines a choice of positive roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by putting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=\{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }\phi (f)>0\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. Let $`b\text{ }\text{ }g`$ be the Borel subalgebra defined by putting

$$b=h+\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}Ce_\phi $$

Let $`n=[b,b]`$ be the nilradical of $`b`$. Since $`f_rC`$ one readily has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b& \text{ }\text{ }q\hfill \\ \hfill nilradq& \text{ }\text{ }n\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.15)`$
Let $`n^0=np^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^0=\mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^0=\mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ so that

$$n^0=\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}{}Ce_\phi $$
$`(1.16)`$
It then follows from (1.3),(1.5) and (1.15) that

$$n=n_r+n^0+p^+$$
$`(1.17)`$
noting now that $`n_r`$, the nilradical of the Borel subalgebra $`b_r`$ of $`r`$, is given by

$$n_r=nr$$
$`(1.18)`$
and also

$$n^0+p^+=np$$
$`(1.19)`$
2. Dirac cocycles

2.1. Let $`C(p)`$ be the Clifford algebra over $`p`$ with respect to $`B_p`$. As in §1.5 of \[K1\] we identify the underlying linear spaces of $`C(p)`$ and the exterior algebra $`p`$ and understand that there are two multiplications in $`C(p)`$. If $`w,zC(p)`$ then $`wz`$ denotes the Clifford product and $`wz`$ the exterior product of $`w`$ and $`z`$. If $`w^kp`$ and $`z^k^{}p`$ then one knows

$$wzwz\underset{j=0}{\overset{k+k^{}2}{}}^jp$$
$`(2.1)`$
(for an argument see e.g., (1.6) in \[K1\]). The bilinear form $`B_p`$ on $`p`$ extends to an nonsingular bilinear form $`(w,z)`$ on $`C(p)`$, to be denoted by $`B_{C(p)}`$, so that if $`w^kp`$ and $`z^k^{}p`$ then $`(w,z)=0`$ if $`kk^{}`$. If $`k=k^{}`$ then $`(w,z)=det(w_i,z_j)`$ where $`w=w_1\mathrm{}w_k`$ and $`z=z_1\mathrm{}z_k`$ for $`z_i,w_jp`$. It is immediate then that

$$m_p=n^0+p^+$$
$`(2.2)`$
is a $`B_p`$-isotropic subspace of $`p`$. However since $`m_p`$ is $`B_p`$-isotropic it follows that Clifford product and exterior product are the same for elements in $`m_p`$. Let $`u_0`$ be the product of all the root vectors $`e_\phi `$ for $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ in some order and let $`u_+`$ be the product of a basis of $`p^+`$ in some order. Put $`u=u_0u_+`$ so that, in $`C(p)`$,

$$zu=0zm_p$$
$`(2.3)`$
Let $`L\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ be the left ideal

$$L=C(p)u$$
$`(2.4)`$
In particular $`L`$ is a $`C(p)`$-module under left multiplication. Let $`C(h_r)`$ be the Clifford algebra over $`h_r`$ so that $`C(h_r)`$ is a subalgebra of $`C(p)`$.

Proposition 2.1. The map

$$C(h_r)L,aau$$

is injective. Furthermore for any $`zm_p`$ and $`aC(h_r)`$ one has

$$zau=0$$
$`(2.5)`$
Proof. The first statement is a consequence of (2.1) and the fact that $`h_rm_p=0`$. The equation (2.5) follows from (2.3) and the fact that $`h_r`$ is $`B_p`$-orthogonal to $`m_p`$. QED 2.2. Let $`U(a)`$ be the universal enveloping algebra of $`a`$ where $`a\text{ }\text{ }g`$ is any Lie subalgebra. We are mainly concerned here with the algebra tensor product $`U(g)C(p)`$. If $`x,yp`$ then no confusion should arise from $`xy`$ as an element in $`U(g)C(p)`$. The left factor $`x`$ is taken to be in $`U(g)`$ and the right factor $`y`$ is taken to be in $`C(p)`$. In §2.1 of \[K1\] we introduced an element $`\mathrm{}U(g)C(p)`$ which we referred to as a cubic Dirac operator (see §0.23 in \[K1\]). We recall the definition of $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`I`$ be an index set having cardinality equal to $`dimp`$. Then $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$ where if $`\{z_i\},iI`$, is an orthonormal basis of $`p`$ with respect to $`B_p`$ one has

$$\mathrm{}^{}=\underset{iI}{}z_iz_i$$
$`(2.6)`$
and

$$\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }=1v$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`v^3p`$ is such that for any $`x,x^{},x^{\prime \prime }p`$ one has

$$([x,x^{}],x^{\prime \prime })=2(v,xx^{}x^{\prime \prime })$$
$`(2.8)`$
See (1.20) in \[K1\].

Now let $`\lambda h^{}`$ be arbitrary and let $`V_\lambda `$ be the unique irreducible highest module for $`U(g)`$ with highest weight (relative to $`b`$) $`\lambda `$. We recall that $`\lambda `$ extends uniquely to a character on $`b`$, $`z\lambda (z)`$, which necessarily vanishes on $`n`$, and if $`C_\lambda `$ is the corresponding 1-dimensional $`U(b)`$-module then $`V_\lambda `$ is the quotient of the Verma module $`U(g)_{U(b)}C_\lambda `$ by the unique maximal proper submodule. Let $`0v_\lambda V_\lambda `$ be a highest weight vector so that $`zv_\lambda =\lambda (z)v_\lambda `$ for any $`zb`$. Now let $`V_{\lambda ,L}=V_\lambda L`$ so the action of $`U(g)`$ on $`V_\lambda `$ and $`C(p)`$ on $`L`$ defines an algebra homomorphism

$$\xi _\lambda :U(g)C(p)EndV_{\lambda ,L}$$
$`(2.9)`$
Let $`aC(h_r`$ and put

$$v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda au$$
$`(2.10)`$
The element $`v_{\lambda ,a}V_{\lambda ,L}`$ is nonzero, by Proposition 2.1, if $`a0`$. Our principal goal now is to compute $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})v_{\lambda ,a}`$.

For any $`\nu h^{}`$ let $`z_\nu h`$ be the element corresponding to $`\nu `$ with respect to the isomorphism $`h^{}h`$ defined by $`B_g|h`$. Thus $`(z,z_\nu )=\nu (z)`$ for any $`zh`$. But now, by (1.1), there uniquely exists $`x_\nu h_r`$ and $`y_\nu h_p`$ such that

$$z_\nu =x_\nu +y_\nu $$
$`(2.11)`$
We will first deal with $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{})v_{\lambda ,a}`$. Let $`\{b_i\},iI`$, be any basis of $`p`$ and let $`\{d_i\},iI,`$ be the dual basis with respect to $`B_p`$. It is clear from (2.6) that $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be rewritten as the sum

$$\mathrm{}^{}=\underset{iI}{}b_id_i$$
$`(2.12)`$
We will now partition the index set $`I`$, first, as a union of three parts

$$I=I^hI^0I^{}$$
$`(2.13)`$
where $`\{b_j\},jI^h`$, is an orthonormal basis of $`h_p`$. Next $`\{b_k\},kI^0,=\{e_\phi \},\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, and $`\{b_m\},mI^{}`$, is a basis of $`p^{}`$. We further refine the choice of the basis by partitioning

$$I^{}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}I^\mu $$
$`(2.14)`$
so that $`\{b_m\},mI^\mu `$, is a basis of $`p^\mu `$. By Remark 1.2 we can make the choice so that

$$\{b_m^{}\},m^{}I^\mu ,=\{d_m\},mI^\mu ,$$
$`(2.15)`$
Note also that if $`jI^0`$ and $`b_j=e_\phi `$ for $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ then necessarily one has

$$d_j=e_\phi $$
$`(2.16)`$
In addition for any $`jI^h`$ one then clearly has

$$d_j=b_j$$
$`(2.17)`$
Remark 2.2. Note that, by (2.15), (2.16) and (2.17), setwise

$$\{b_i\},jI,=\{d_i\},iI,$$

Also for any $`iI^0I^{}`$ one has, by (2.2),

$$\text{either}b_im_p\text{or}d_im_p$$
$`(2.18)`$
Lemma 2.3. For any $`\lambda h^{}`$ and $`aC(h_p)`$ one has

$$\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{})v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda y_\lambda au$$
$`(2.19)`$
Proof. By (1.17) and (2.2) one has

$$m_p\text{ }\text{ }n$$
$`(2.20)`$
It then follows from (2.5) and (2.18) that, for any $`iI^0I^{}`$,

$$\xi _\lambda (b_id_i)v_{\lambda ,a}=0$$
$`(2.21)`$
However for $`jI^h`$ one clearly has, by (2.5),

$$\xi _\lambda (b_jd_j)v_{\lambda ,a}=\lambda (b_j)v_\lambda b_jau$$
$`(2.22)`$
But clearly $`_{jI^h}\lambda (b_j)b_j=y_\lambda `$. This proves (2.19). QED

2.3. We will now compute $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })v_{\lambda ,a}`$. To do so we first introduce a simple ordering in $`I`$. We will choose the ordering so that $`i<j`$ if $`iI^h`$ and $`jI^0`$, and also if $`iI^0`$ and $`jI^{}`$. Also we fix the order so that if $`i,jI^0`$ and $`b_i=e_\phi ,b_j=e_\phi ^{}`$ for some $`\phi ,\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ then $`i<j`$ if $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ and $`\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^0`$. In addition if $`i,jI^{}`$ then $`i<j`$ if $`b_ip^+`$ and $`b_jp_{}`$. Let $`T^{}`$ be the set of all ordered triples $`\{i,j,k\}`$ where $`i,j,kI`$ and $`i<j<k`$. The set $`\{b_ib_jb_k\},\{i,j,k\}T^{}`$, is of course a basis of $`^3p`$. The dual basis with respect to $`B_{C(p)}|^3p`$ is clearly $`\{d_id_jd_k\},\{i,j,k\}T^{}`$. But now we can write

$$v=\underset{\{i,j,k\}T^{}}{}c_{ijk}b_ib_jb_k$$
$`(2.23)`$
for $`c_{ijk}C`$. But then for any $`\{i,j,k\}T^{}`$ one has

$$([d_i,d_j],d_k)=2c_{ijk}$$
$`(2.24)`$
by (2.8).

But it is clear from our choice of basis that, for any $`iI`$, $`b_i`$ is a weight vector for some weight $`\gamma _ih_r^{}`$ with respect to the action of $`adh_r`$ on $`p`$. Also it is clear that $`\gamma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }\{0\}`$. Note then it follows from Remark 2.2 that $`d_i`$ is a weight vector with weight $`\gamma _i`$. But then it follows from (2.24) that $`c_{ijk}0`$ implies that $`\gamma _i+\gamma _j+\gamma _k=0`$. Thus if $`T=\{\{i,j,k\}T^{}\gamma _i+\gamma _j+\gamma _k=0\}`$ then one has

$$v=\underset{\{i,j,k\}T}{}c_{ijk}b_ib_jb_k$$
$`(2.25)`$
Let $`iI`$. Then obviously

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma _i=0& b_ip^0\hfill \\ & iI^hI^0\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma _i0& b_ip^{}\hfill \\ & iI^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.26)`$
Now let $`T_0=\{\{i,j,k\}T\gamma _i=\gamma _j=\gamma _k=0\}`$ so that if $`\{i,j,k\}T`$ then $`\{i,j,k\}T_0`$ if and only if $`\{b_i,b_j,b_k\}\text{ }\text{ }p^0`$. Let $`T_1`$ be the complement of $`T_0`$ in $`T`$. For $`\epsilon =0,1`$, let

$$v^{(\epsilon )}=\underset{\{i,j,k\}T_\epsilon }{}c_{ijk}b_ib_jb_k$$

so that

$$v=v^{(0)}+v^{(1)}$$
$`(2.27)`$
and

$$\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{}_0^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}_1^{\prime \prime }$$
$`(2.28)`$
where $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }=1v^{(\epsilon )}`$. Let $`\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}_{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}\phi `$.

Lemma 2.4. For any $`\lambda h^{}`$ and $`aC(h_p)`$ one has

$$\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}_0^{\prime \prime })v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda y_{\rho _0}au$$
$`(2.29)`$
Proof.. Let $`\{i,j,k\}T_0`$. Now if $`iI^0`$ then $`b_i=e_{\phi _1}`$ for $`\phi _1\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$. But then by the order relation on $`I`$ one has $`b_j=e_{\phi _2}`$ and $`b_k=e_{\phi _3}`$ where also $`\{\phi _2,\phi _3\}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. But then by (2.16) and (2.24) one has $`c_{ijk}=0`$ if $`\phi _1+\phi _2+\phi _30`$. However if $`\phi _1+\phi _2+\phi _3=0`$ then by the ordering one has $`\phi _1\mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$. But then $`b_ib_jb_k=b_jb_kb_i`$ since the elements $`b_i,b_j`$ and $`b_k`$ are mutually orthogonal so that exterior and Clifford multiplication are the same. But then $`\xi _\lambda (b_ib_jb_k)v_{\lambda ,a}=0`$ by (2.5). Thus in computing the left side of (2.29) we can ignore all the terms in the definition of $`v^{(0)}`$ for which $`iI^0`$. Now assume that $`\{i,j,k\}T_0`$ and $`iI^h`$. But then if also $`jI^h`$ one has $`c_{ijk}=0`$ by (2.17) and (2.24). If $`jI^0`$ then also $`kI^0`$ so that for some $`\phi ,\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ one has $`b_j=e_\phi `$ and $`b_k=e_\phi ^{}`$. But then $`c_{ijk}0`$ implies $`\phi +\phi ^{}=0`$ by (2.16) and (2.24). But then $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ and $`\phi ^{}=\phi `$. Moreover (2.16) and (2.17) imply

$$c_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}\phi (b_i)$$
$`(2.30)`$
But since $`b_i`$ is orthogonal to $`e_\beta `$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ one has

$$v^{(0)}au=\underset{iI^h,\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}{}\frac{1}{2}\phi (b_i)b_i(e_\phi e_\phi )au$$
$`(2.31)`$
But now if $`z,wp`$ and $`(z,w)=1`$ then

$$zw=wz+1$$
$`(2.32)`$
by e.g., (1.6) in \[K1\]. Thus $`e_\phi e_\phi =e_\phi e_\phi +1`$ in (2.31). However $`e_\phi au=0`$ by (2.5). Consequently

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v^{(0)}au& =(\underset{iI^h,\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}{}\frac{1}{2}\phi (b_i)b_i)au\hfill \\ & =(\underset{iI^h}{}\rho _0(b_i)b_i)au\hfill \\ & =y_{\rho _0}au\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.33)`$
But of course (2.33) implies (2.29). QED

2.4. We will now determine $`v^{(1)}au`$. We have assumed that $`aC(h_p)`$. However for later purposes we want $`a`$ to be more general. Let $`C(p^0)\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ be the Clifford algebra over $`p^0`$ with respect to $`B_p|p^0`$. The argument establishing (2.5) also establishes

$$zau=0$$
$`(2.34)`$
for $`zp^+`$ and $`aC(p^0)`$.

Lemma 2.5. Assume $`aC(p^0)`$. Let $`\{i,j,k\}T_1`$. Then if $`(b_ib_jb_k)au0`$ one has $`b_ip^0`$ (i.e., $`iI^hI^0`$), $`jI^\mu `$, for some $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`b_k=d_j`$. Furthermore in such a case

$$(b_ib_jb_k)au=b_iau$$

Moreover in this case

$$c_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}([d_i,b_j],d_j)$$
$`(2.35)`$
Proof. One must have $`jI^{}`$, since otherwise $`b_jp^0`$ in which case $`b_ip^0`$ (by the ordering). However this implies $`b_kp^0`$ since

$$\gamma (i)+\gamma (j)+\gamma (k)=0$$
$`(2.36)`$
But then $`\{i,j,k\}T_0`$ which is a contradiction. Thus $`jI^{}`$ and hence $`kI^{}`$. But then if $`iI^{}`$ the relation (2.35) and the ordering implies that $`b_ip^+`$ and $`b_i,b_j`$ and $`b_k`$ are mutually orthognal so that $`b_ib_jb_k=b_jb_kb_i`$. But $`b_iau=0`$ by (2.34). Hence our nonvanishing assumption implies that $`b_ip^0`$. But now $`jI^\mu `$, by (2.14), for some $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But then $`kI^\mu `$ by (2.36). Hence $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ by (1.14) and the ordering in $`I`$. In particular $`b_jp^+`$. Thus the nonvanishing assumption in the lemma implies

$$b_ib_jb_k=b_i(b_jb_k)$$

But if $`b_j`$ is orthogonal to $`b_k`$ then $`b_jb_k=b_kb_j`$. But $`b_jau=0`$ by (2.34). In the remaining case where $`b_k`$ is not orthogonal to $`b_j`$ one has $`b_k=d_j`$ by (2.15). However $`b_jd_j=d_jb_j+1`$ by (2.32). But $`b_jau=0`$ by (2.34). With the exception of (2.35) this proves the lemma. But the equality $`b_k=d_j`$ implies $`b_j=d_k`$ again by (2.15). But then (2.24) implies that $`c_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}([d_i,d_j],b_j)`$. But, by the invariance of $`B_g`$, $`([d_i,d_j],b_j)=([d_i,b_j],d_j)`$. This proves (2.35). QED

Now let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^1=\{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+\phi |h_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^2=\{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+\phi |h_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_+0\}`$. Then one has a partition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_+=\mathrm{\Delta }_+^0\mathrm{\Delta }_+^1\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2$$
$`(2.37)`$
We have already defined $`\rho _0`$. Let $`\rho ,\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ be defined similarly where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+,\mathrm{\Delta }_+^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^2`$ respectively replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$. Thus

$$\rho =\rho _0+\rho _1+\rho _2$$
$`(2.38)`$
Hence

$$y_\rho =y_{\rho _0}+y_{\rho _1}+y_{\rho _2}$$
$`(2.39)`$
Lemma 2.6. One has

$$y_{\rho _2}=0$$
$`(2.40)`$
Proof. Let $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^2`$ and let $`e_\phi ^rr`$ and $`e_\phi ^pp`$ be such that $`e_\phi =e_\phi ^r+e_\phi ^p`$. But since $`adh_r`$ stabilizes both $`r`$ and $`p`$ it follows that $`e_\phi ^r`$ and $`e_\phi ^p`$ are $`adh_r`$-weight vectors for the weight $`\phi |h_r`$. But, by definition, $`\phi |h_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\{0\}`$. But since, clearly, $`\phi (h_r)0`$ one has $`e_\phi ^p=0`$. Hence $`e_\phi r`$. But $`[y,e_\phi ]=\phi (y)e_\phi r`$ for any $`yh_p`$. But $`[r,p]\text{ }\text{ }p`$. Thus

$$\phi |h_p=0,\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^2$$
$`(2.41)`$
This proves (2.40). QED

Now for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1=\{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }\phi |h_r=\mu \}`$. Also for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ let $`g^\mu `$ be the weight space in $`g`$ corresponding to the weight $`\mu `$ with respect to the action of $`adh_r`$ on $`g`$. Clearly $`g^\mu `$ and $`g^\mu `$ are nonsingularly paired by $`B_g`$. In fact $`g^\mu `$ is clearly stable under the adjoint action of $`g^0`$ and, since $`h\text{ }\text{ }g^0`$, it follows immediately that $`\{e_\phi \},\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1`$, is a basis of $`g^\mu `$ and $`\{e_\phi \},\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1`$, is the $`B_g`$-dual basis in $`g^\mu `$. It follows therefore that, for any $`zg^0`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}tradz|g^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1}{}([z,e_\phi ],e_\phi )$$
$`(2.42)`$
In particular if $`\rho _1^\mu =\frac{1}{2}_{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1}\phi `$ and if $`zh_p`$, then

$$\frac{1}{2}tradz|g^\mu =\rho _1^\mu (z)$$
$`(2.43)`$
But clearly $`_{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}\rho _1^\mu =\rho _1`$ since one readily has the partition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_+^1=\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^1$$

Thus for $`zh_p`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}tradz|g^\mu =\rho _1(z)$$
$`(2.44)`$
For any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ let $`r^\mu =rg^\mu `$.

Lemma 2.7. For any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one has

$$g^\mu =r^\mu +p^\mu $$
$`(2.45)`$
Proof. Obviously the right side of (2.45) is contained in the left side. Conversely let $`wg^\mu `$ and let $`w_rr`$ and $`w_p`$ be such that $`w=w_r+w_p`$. But clearly both components $`w_r`$ and $`w_p`$ are also weight vectors of $`adh_r`$ with weight $`\mu `$. Thus $`w_pp^\mu `$ and obviously $`w_rr^\mu `$. QED

Let $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. Obviously $`r^\mu `$ is $`B_g`$-nonsingularly paired to $`r^\mu `$. We already know the same is true if $`p^\mu `$ and $`p^\mu `$ replace $`r^\mu `$ and $`r^\mu `$. If $`zp^0\text{ }\text{ }g^0`$, to compute $`tradz|g^\mu `$ instead of using a basis of root vectors as we did in (2.42) we can use the basis $`\{b_j\},jI^\mu ,`$ of $`p^\mu `$ together with some basis of $`r^\mu `$. But since $`[p,r]\text{ }\text{ }p`$ it follows that $`[z,r^\mu ]\text{ }\text{ }p^\mu `$. Thus we need consider only the basis $`\{b_j\},jI^\mu ,`$ of $`p^\mu `$ to compute the trace. Thus for any $`iI^hI^0`$ (so that $`b_i,d_ip^0`$) and $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ one has

$$tradd_i|g^\mu =\underset{jI^\mu }{}([d_i,b_j],d_j)$$
$`(2.46)`$
But then, by Lemma 2.5, for $`aC(p^0)`$ one has

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}(\underset{iI^hI^0}{}(tradd_i|g^\mu )b_i)au=v^{(1)}au$$
$`(2.47)`$
But $`d_i[g^0,g^0]`$ for $`iI^0`$ by (1.11) and (2.16). Hence $`tradd_i|g^\mu =0`$ for $`iI^0`$ and any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. Thus, by (2.15), (2.47) simplifies to

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}(\underset{iI^h}{}(tradb_i|g^\mu )b_i)au=v^{(1)}au$$
$`(2.48)`$
But then by (2.44) one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{}(\underset{iI^h}{}(tradb_i|g^\mu )b_i)& =\underset{iI^h}{}\rho _1(b_i)b_i\hfill \\ & =y_{\rho _1}\hfill \end{array}$$

Recalling (2.47) we have proved

Lemma 2.8. Let $`aC(p^0)`$. Then

$$v^{(1)}au=y_{\rho _1}au$$

Recall that $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$ (see (2.6) and (2.7)). We now find a condition on $`\lambda `$ to insure that $`v_{\lambda ,a}`$ is a Dirac cocyle (assuming that $`aC(h_p)`$).

Theorem 2.9. Let $`\lambda h^{}`$ and let $`aC(h_p)`$. Recall $`v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda auV_\lambda L`$. Then

$$\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda y_\rho au$$
$`(2.49)`$
Furthermore

$$\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})v_{\lambda ,a}=v_\lambda y_{\lambda +\rho }au$$
$`(2.50)`$
In particular

$$\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})v_{\lambda ,a}=0$$
$`(2.51)`$
in case $`(\lambda +\rho )|h_p=0`$.

Proof. Equation (2.49) follows from (2.27), (2.33), Lemma 2.8, (2.39) and (2.40). But then (2.50) follows from Lemma 2.3 and (2.48). The equation (2.51) is immediate from the definition of $`y_{\lambda +\rho }`$ (see (2.11)). QED

3. Non-vanishing Dirac cohomology

3.1. Henceforth we assume that $`\lambda h^{}`$ is an arbitrary element satisfying $`(\lambda +\rho )|h_p=0`$. We will establish that $`v_{\lambda ,a}`$, for any $`0aC(h_p)`$ defines a nonzero Dirac cohomology class.

Let $`n_{}^0`$ be the span of the root vectors $`e_\phi `$ for $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ so that one has the triangular decomposition

$$p^0=h_p+n^0+n_{}^0$$
$`(3.1)`$
Put $`m_p^{}=n_{}^0+p_{}`$ so that (see (2.2)) one also has the direct sum

$$p=h_p+m_p+m_p^{}$$
$`(3.2)`$
If $`n_{}`$ is the span of all root vectors $`e_\phi `$ for $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ note that

$$m_p^{}\text{ }\text{ }n_{}$$
$`(3.3)`$
since $`p_{}`$ is spanned by eigenvectors of $`adf_r`$ for negative eigenvalues. For any subspace $`a\text{ }\text{ }p`$ let $`C(a)\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ be the Clifford algebra (with respect to $`B_p`$) generated by $`a`$ (and of course 1). Clearly $`C(a)=a`$. Since $`m_p^{}`$ is obviously isotropic it follows that exterior and Clifford multiplication are the same in $`C(m_p^{})`$. Now by (2.3), (2.4) and (3.2) note that the map

$$C(h_r+m_p^{})L,wwu$$
$`(3.4)`$
is a linear isomorphism. Let $`C_{}(m_p^{})`$ be the ideal in $`C(m_p^{})`$ generated by $`m_p^{}`$. It then follows from (3.4) that one has a direct sum

$$L=C(h_p)uC_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u$$
$`(3.5)`$
Now if $`\lambda ^{},\lambda ^{\prime \prime }h^{}`$ we will say that $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ is less than $`\lambda ^{}`$ (or $`\lambda ^{}`$ is greater than $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$) and write $`\lambda ^{}>\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ in case $`\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a nontrivial sum of positive roots. Let $`V_{\lambda ,}`$ be the span of all weight vectors, of some weight $`\lambda ^{}`$ in $`V_\lambda `$, where $`\lambda >\lambda ^{}`$. Then clearly one has

$$V_\lambda =Cv_\lambda V_{\lambda ,}$$
$`(3.6)`$
For notational convenience let $`M\text{ }\text{ }V_\lambda L`$ be defined by putting

$$M=(V_\lambda C_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u)+V_{\lambda ,}L$$
$`(3.7)`$
It then follows from (3.5) and (3.6) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_{\lambda ,L}& =V_\lambda L\hfill \\ & =(Cv_\lambda C(h^p)u)M\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.8)`$
Let $`H_D(V_{\lambda ,L})`$ be the Dirac cohomology defined by $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})`$. See (0.3). By Theorem (2.9) the map from a cocyle to the corresponding cohomology class defines a linear map

$$Cv_\lambda C(h^p)uH_D(V_{\lambda ,L})$$
$`(3.9)`$
We will show that (3.9) is injective.

Proposition 3.1. To show that (3.9) is injective it suffices to prove that $`M`$ is stable under the action of $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})`$.

Proof. This is immediate from (3.8) since $`Cv_\lambda C(h^p)u\text{ }\text{ }Ker\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ by Theorem 2.9. QED

3.2. To show that $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ we first establish

Lemma 3.2. The space $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{})`$.

Proof. We use the notation of §2.2 where $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ is given by (2.12) and the basis $`b_i,iI`$, is defined as in §2.2. To prove the lemma it suffices to show that $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (b_id_i)`$ for any $`iI`$. Assume first that $`iI^0I^{}`$. It is obvious from (2.18) that

$$\text{either}b_im_p^{}\text{or}d_im_p^{}$$
$`(3.10)`$
If $`b_im_p^{}`$ then $`b_in_{}`$ by (3.3) so that clearly

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \xi _\lambda (b_id_i)(M)& \text{ }\text{ }\xi _\lambda (b_id_i)(V_\lambda L)\hfill \\ & \text{ }\text{ }V_{\lambda ,}L\hfill \\ & \text{ }\text{ }M\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`d_im_p^{}`$ then by (3.4)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \xi _\lambda (b_id_i)(M)& \text{ }\text{ }\xi _\lambda (b_id_i)(V_\lambda L)\hfill \\ & \text{ }\text{ }V_\lambda C_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u\hfill \\ & \text{ }\text{ }M\hfill \end{array}$$

Now assume $`iI^h`$ so that $`b_id_i=b_ib_i`$ where $`b_ih_p`$ by (2.17). But obviously

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_iV_{\lambda ,}& \text{ }\text{ }V_{\lambda ,}\hfill \\ \hfill b_iC_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u& \text{ }\text{ }C_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u\hfill \end{array}$$

so that $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (b_id_i)`$ in this case as well. QED

3.3. It remains only to show that $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })`$. But now for $`zV_\lambda `$ it is obvious that $`zL`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })`$. The question is then reduced to considering only $`L`$. In fact one immediately has

Lemma 3.3. If

$$vC_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u\text{ }\text{ }C_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u$$
$`(3.11)`$
then $`M`$ is stable under $`\xi _\lambda (\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })`$.

We now proceed to establish the inclusion (3.11).

Let $`SO(p)`$ be the special orthogonal group with respect to $`B_p`$. One has a homomorphism

$$\nu :rLieSO(p)$$
$`(3.12)`$
where if $`yp`$ and $`xr`$ then $`\nu (x)y=[x,y]`$. Now $`^2p\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ has the structure of a Lie algebra under Clifford commutation and one has a Lie algebra isomorphism $`^2pLieSO(p)`$. See (1.7) in \[K1\]. Furthermore there exists a Lie algebra homomorphism $`\nu _{}:r^2p`$ so that for $`xr`$ and $`yp`$ one has, using commutation in $`C(p)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu (x)y& =[\nu _{}(x),y]\hfill \\ & =2\iota (y)\nu _{}(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.13)`$
where $`\iota (y)`$ is the operator of interior product of $`p`$ by $`y`$. See (1.8) and (1.11) in \[K1\]. Let $`\{b_i\}`$ and $`\{d_i\}`$, for $`iI`$, be the basis and dual basis of $`p`$ defined as in §2.1. Let $`I^+=\{iIb_ip^+\}`$. See (1.14). Note $`\{b_i\},iI^+`$, is a basis of $`p^+`$ and $`\{d_i\},iI^+`$, is a basis of $`p^{}`$ (see (2.15)) so that taken together $`\{b_i\}\{d_i\},iI+,`$ is a basis of $`p^{}`$.

Proposition 3.4. For any $`xh_r`$ one has, using the notation of (2.26),

$$\nu _{}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{iI^+}{}\gamma _i(x)b_id_i$$
$`(3.14)`$
Proof. Let $`w^2p`$ be given by the right side of (3.8). Then clearly, for $`iI^+`$, $`2\iota (d_i)w=\gamma _i(x)d_i`$ and $`2\iota (b_i)w=\gamma _i(x)b_i`$. On the other hand $`2\iota (y)w=0`$ if $`yp^0`$. But, by (3.13), these same equations are satisfied if $`\nu _{}(x)`$ replaces $`w`$. This proves $`w=\nu _{}(x)`$. QED

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }\text{ }h_r^{}`$ be the real space of all (complex) linear functionals $`\beta `$ on $`h^r`$ such that there exists $`\gamma h^{}`$ with the property that (1) $`\gamma |h_r=\beta `$ and (2) $`\gamma (h^\mathrm{\#})\text{ }\text{ }R`$. It is immediate that any $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ extends uniquely, as a linear functional, on the complex subspace of $`h`$ spanned by $`\kappa (h_r)`$. (See §1.1). In particular $`\beta (f_r)`$ is well-defined for $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Obviously (2.45) implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It follows therefore that $`\rho _p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where for any $`xh_r`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _p(x)& =\frac{1}{2}tr\nu (x)|p^+\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\underset{iI^+}{}\gamma _i(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.15)`$
Proposition 3.5. Let $`xh_r`$. Then

$$\nu _{}(x)u=\rho _p(x)u$$
$`(3.16)`$
Proof. Let $`iI^+`$. Then $`b_id_i=d_ib_i+1`$ by (2.32). But $`b_iu=0`$ by (2.3). But then (3.16) follows from (3.14) and (3.15). QED

Now consider the action of $`h_r`$ on $`L`$ defined, for $`xh_r`$, by left multiplication on $`L`$ by $`\nu _{}(x)`$.

Lemma 3.6. If $`sL`$ is an $`h_r`$-weight vector with weight $`\beta h_r^{}`$ and $`iI`$, then $`b_is_i`$ is an $`h_r`$-weight vector with weight $`\gamma _i+\beta `$.

Proof. Let $`xh_r`$. Then $`[\nu _{}(x),b_i]=\gamma _i(x)b_i`$ by (3.13). But

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{}(x)b_is& =[\nu _{}(x),b_i]s+b_i\nu _{}(x)s\hfill \\ & =(\gamma _i(x)+\beta (x))b_is\hfill \end{array}$$

QED

It is immediate from (3.4), Proposition 3.5 and Lemma 3.6 that if $`\beta `$ is an $`h_r`$-weight in $`L`$ then $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the set of all $`h_r`$-weights in $`L`$ and for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ let $`L^\beta `$ be the corresponding weight space so that one has the direct sum

$$L=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L}{}L^\beta $$
$`(3.17)`$
Proposition 3.7. For any $`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ the weight space $`L^\beta `$ is stable under left multiplication by the element $`v^3p`$.

Proof. It is immediate from (2.8) that $`v`$ is invariant under the representation $`\theta _\nu `$ of $`h_r`$ on $`p`$ using the notation of (1.12) in \[K1\]. But by (1.12) in \[K1\] this implies that, with respect to Clifford multiplication, $`v`$ commutes with $`\nu _{}(x)`$ for all $`xh_r`$. The proposition then follows immediately. QED

For notational convenience let $`L_{}=C_{}(m_p^{})C(h_p)u`$ so that by (3.4) one has the direct sum

$$L=C(h_p)uL_{}$$
$`(3.18)`$
Our problem is to show that $`L_{}`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v`$. Let $`C_{}(n_{}^0)`$ be the ideal in $`C(n_{}^0)`$ generated by $`n_{}^0`$ and let $`C_{}(p_{})`$ be the ideal in $`C(p_{})`$ generated by $`p_{}`$. Note that $`L_{}`$ can be written

$$L_{}=(C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u)(C_{}(p_{})C(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u)$$
$`(3.19)`$
Now for $`\beta ,\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we will write $`\beta >\beta ^{}`$ (and say that $`\beta `$ is higher than $`\beta ^{}`$) in case $`\beta (f_r)>\beta ^{}(f_r)`$. It is then immediate from Proposition 3.5, Lemma 3.6, (3.18) and (3.19) that $`\rho _p`$ is the highest $`h_r`$ weight in $`L`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C(n_0)C(h_r)u& =L^{\rho _p}\hfill \\ \hfill C_{}(p_{})C(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u& =\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L,\rho _p>\beta }{}L^\beta \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.20)`$
We can now simplify our problem.

Proposition 3.8. To prove that $`vL_{}\text{ }\text{ }L_{}`$ it suffices only to show that the subspace $`C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v`$.

Proof. By (3.20) and Proposition 3.7 it follows that $`C_{}(p_{})C(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v`$. But then Proposition 3.8 follows from (3.19). QED

Now recall (see (2.27)) we have written $`v=v^{(0)}+v^{(1)}`$.

Proposition 3.9. The space $`C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(1)}`$.

Proof. Since $`y_{\rho _1}h_p`$ the proof follows immediately from Lemma 2.8. QED

We are reduced finally to showing that $`C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(0)}`$. Let $`L_0=C(p^0)u`$ so that $`L_0`$ is a cyclic $`C(p^0)`$-module under left multiplication. On the other hand recalling the triangular decomposition (3.1) and recalling the definition of $`u=u_0u_+`$ in §2.1 one has

$$L_0=C(h_p)uC_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u$$
$`(3.21)`$
Remark 3.10. Note that $`L_0`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(0)}`$ since, by definition, $`v^{(0)}C(p^0)`$.

3.4. Recalling that $`p^0`$ is a reductive Lie algebra and $`B_p|p^0`$ is nonsingular let $`\sigma :h_pLieSO(p^0)`$ be defined so that for $`yh_p`$ and $`zp^0`$ one has $`\sigma (y)z=[y,z]`$. Going back again to §1.5 in \[K1\] one has a Lie algebra homomorphism $`\sigma _{}:h_p^2p^0`$ so that for $`yh_p`$ and $`zp^0`$ one has $`\sigma (y)z=[\sigma _{}(y),z]`$. Noting that $`\sigma (y)z=0`$ for $`zh_p`$ the argument establishing (3.14) readily establishes

Proposition 3.11. For any $`yh_p`$ one has

$$\sigma _{}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}{}\phi (y)e_\phi e_\phi $$
$`(3.22)`$
Now, recalling the definition of $`\rho _0`$ in §2.2 (on the line following (2.28)), one has $`\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}_{\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0}\phi `$. The argument establishing Proposition 3.5 yields

Proposition 3.12. Let $`yh_p`$. Then

$$\sigma _{}(y)u=\rho _0(y)u$$
$`(3.23)`$
The nonsingularity of $`B_p|p^0`$ implies the nonsingularity of $`B_p|[p^0,p^0]`$. But then, recalling (1.11), one has the nonsingularity of $`B_p|d_p`$ since $`d_p`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of the semisimple Lie algebra $`[p^0,p^0]`$. Recalling (1.8) one has $`d_p\text{ }\text{ }h_p`$. Let $`e_p`$ be the $`B_g`$-orthocomplement of $`d_p`$ in $`h`$ so that

$$h=d_p+e_p$$
$`(3.24)`$
is a $`B_g`$-orthogonal direct sum. Let $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Then one must have $`[e_\phi ,e_\phi ]d_p`$ so that

$$\phi |e_p=0$$
$`(3.25)`$
With respect to the decomposition (3.19) let $`f_pd_p`$ be the component in $`d_p`$ of the regular hyperbolic element $`fh^\mathrm{\#}`$. But then for any $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ one has $`\phi (f_p)>0`$ or $`\phi (f_p)<0`$ according as $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_+^0`$ or $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }_{}^0`$. If $`\delta ,\delta ^{}h_p^{}`$ we will say that $`\delta `$ is higher than $`\delta ^{}`$ and write $`\delta >\delta ^{}`$ if $`(\delta \delta ^{\prime \prime })(f_p)`$ is a positive real number. Now let $`D\text{ }\text{ }h_p^{}`$ be the set of weights for the action of $`h_p`$ on $`L_0`$ where $`yh_p`$ operates as left multiplication by $`\sigma _{}(y)`$. For any $`\delta D`$ let $`L_0^\delta `$ be the weight space for the weight $`\delta `$. If $`\phi \mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ and $`tL_0`$ is a weight vector with weight $`\delta `$, then the argument establishing Lemma 3.6 also establishes that $`e_\phi t`$ is a weight vector with weight $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }+\delta `$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi |h_p`$. But then Proposition 3.12 and (3.21) imply

Proposition 3.13. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}=\rho _0|h_p`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}`$ is the highest weight. Moreover

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C(h_p)u& =L_0^{\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}}\hfill \\ \hfill C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u& =\underset{\delta D,\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}>\delta }{}L_0^\delta \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.26)`$
3.5. We can establish the final step.

Proposition 3.14. The space $`C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(0)}`$.

Proof. It is clear from the definition of $`v^{(1)}`$ (see (2.27) that

$$(v^{(1)},yy^{}y^{\prime \prime })=0$$

for any $`y,y^{},yp^0`$. But $`v^{(0)}^3p^0`$ and hence

$$([y,y^{}],y^{\prime \prime })=2(v^{(0)},yy^{}y^{\prime \prime })$$
$`(3.27)`$
for any $`y,y^{},yp^0`$ by (2.8). But then it follows immediately from (3.27) that $`v^{(0)}`$ is invariant under $`\theta _\sigma (z)`$ for any $`zh_p`$ using the notation of (1.12) in \[K1\]. But then $`v^{(0)}`$ commutes with $`\sigma _{}(z)`$ in $`C(p^0)`$ for any $`zh_p`$ by (1.12) in \[K1\]. It follows therefore that any weight space $`L_0^\delta `$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(0)}`$. But by Proposition 3.13 this implies that $`C_{}(n_{}^0)C(h_p)u`$ is stable under left multiplication by $`v^{(0)}`$. QED

We have proved

Theorem 3.15. If $`\lambda h^{}`$ is such that $`\lambda +\rho `$ vanishes on $`h_p`$ then $`V_{\lambda ,L}=V_\lambda L`$ has nonvanishing Dirac cohomology. In fact the map (3.9)

$$Cv_\lambda C(h_p)uH_D(V_{\lambda ,L})$$

is injective. One notes that $`dimC(h_p)u=2^k`$ where $`k=dimh_p`$.

4. Consequences of Theorem 3.15

4.1. The homomorphism $`\nu _{}:r^2p\text{ }\text{ }C(p)`$ (see (3.12) and (3.13)) defines a homomorphism

$$\zeta :U(r)U(g)C(p)$$
$`(4.1)`$
where if $`xr`$ then $`\zeta (x)=x1+1\nu _{}(x)`$. See §2.15 in \[K1\]. This defines the structure of an $`r`$-module on $`U(g)C(p)`$. Let $`(U(g)C(p))^r`$ denote the algebra of $`r`$-invariants in $`U(g)C(p)`$. Let $`Z(g)`$ and $`Z(r)`$, respectively, be the centers of $`U(g)`$ and $`U(r)`$. One notes that $`\mathrm{}(U(g)C(p))^r`$ and also $`Z(g)1`$ and $`\zeta (Z(r))`$ are subalgebras of $`(U(g)C(p))^r`$. In case $`r`$ is symmetric the cubic term in $`\mathrm{}`$ vanishes. The main result in \[HP\] (Theorem 3.4) is a statement for the case where $`r`$ is symmetric. However, as noted in the Appendix, the proof in \[HP\] is valid in the general case considered here (i.e., the case where $`r`$ is arbitrary, subject only to the condition that $`r`$ is reductive and $`B_g|r`$ is nonsingular and the cubic Dirac operator $`\mathrm{}`$ replaces the more familiar Dirac operator in \[HP\] and \[P\]). In addition Corollary 3.5 in \[HP\] is also valid in the general case considered here. That is, one has a unique map

$$\eta _r:Z(g)Z(r)$$
$`(4.2)`$
with the property that, for $`pZ(g)`$, there exists $`\omega (U(g)C^{odd}(p))^r`$ such that

$$p1\zeta (\eta _r(p))=\mathrm{}\omega +\omega \mathrm{}$$
$`(4.3)`$
Furthermore $`\eta _r`$ is an algebra homomorphism. But $`H_D(V_{\lambda ,L})`$ is a module for both $`Z(g)1`$ and $`\zeta (Z(r))`$. But (4.3) implies that for any $`pZ(g)`$ one has

$$p1=\zeta (\eta _r(p))\text{on}H_D(V_{\lambda ,L})$$
$`(4.4)`$
Let $`W_g`$ be the Weyl group of the pair $`(h,g)`$ operating on the symmetric algebra $`S(h)`$ over $`h`$ and let $`W_r`$ be the Weyl group of the pair $`(h_r,r)`$ operating on the symmetric algebra $`S(h_r)`$ over $`r`$. One has the Harish-Chandra algebra isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_g& :Z(g)S(h)^{W_g}\hfill \\ \hfill A_r& :Z(r)S(h_r)^{W_r}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.5)`$
Let $`\rho _rh_r^{}`$ be defined so that for $`xh_r`$ one has $`\rho _r(x)=\frac{1}{2}tradx|n_r`$ (see 1.18)). It follows immediately from (1.17) that on $`h_r^{}`$,

$$\rho _p+\rho _r=\rho |h_r$$
$`(4.6)`$
Let $`E_{\lambda ,L}\text{ }\text{ }H_D(V_{\lambda ,L})`$ be the image of (3.9). On the other hand the elements of $`Cv_\lambda C(h_r)u`$ are $`g1`$ highest weight vectors with highest weight $`\lambda `$ and these elements are highest weight vectors for $`\zeta (r)`$ with highest weight $`\lambda |h_r+\rho _p`$. But this establishes the following generalization of Theorem 5.5 in \[HP\] (case where $`r`$ is symmetric).

Theorem 4.1. Let $`pZ(g)`$ and $`qZ(r)`$. Then $`p1`$ reduces to the scalar $`A_g(p)(\lambda +\rho )`$ on $`E_{\lambda ,L}`$ and (by 4.6) $`\zeta (q)`$ reduces to the scalar $`A_r(q)((\lambda +\rho )|h_r)`$ on $`E_{\lambda ,L}`$.

But now since $`(\lambda +\rho )|h_p=0`$ and there is no restriction on $`\lambda |h_r`$, this completely determines the map $`\eta _r`$. In fact let $`\varphi _o:hh_r`$ be the projection relative to the decomposition $`h=h_r+h_p`$. Then $`\varphi _o`$ extends to a homomorphism $`S(h)S(h_r)`$ and clearly induces a homomorphism

$$\varphi :S(h)^{W_g}S(h_r)^{W_r}$$
$`(4.7)`$
Given the Harish-Chandra isomorphisms $`A_g`$ and $`A_r`$ the map $`\eta _r`$ is given by completing a commutative diagram. Since one must have $`A_g(p)(\lambda +\rho )=A_r(\eta _r(p))((\lambda +\rho )|h_r)`$ for all $`pZ(g)`$ and all $`\lambda h^{}`$ such that $`(\lambda +\rho )|h_p=0`$ we have established the following generalization of Theorem 5.5 in \[HP\]. It follows from the observations in §5 below that it is also a generalization of Proposition 3.43, (5.18) and (5.19) in \[K1\].

Theorem 4.2. The map $`\eta _r:Z(g)Z(r)`$ is uniquely determined so that the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z(g)& \stackrel{\eta _r}{}& Z(r)\\ A_g& & A_r\\ S(h)^{W_g}& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& S(h_r)^{W_r}\end{array}$$

The map $`\varphi `$ is well known in the theory of the cohomology of compact homogeneous spaces. Actually what is utilized in that theory is the map $`S(h^{})^{W_g}S(h_r^{})^{W_r}`$ induced by restriction of functions. However this is same as $`\varphi `$ if $`h`$ and $`h^{}`$ are identified and $`h_r`$ and $`h_r^{}`$ are identified using $`B_g`$. Assume $`G`$ is a compact connected semisimple Lie group and $`g`$ is the complexification of $`LieG`$. Let $`R\text{ }\text{ }G`$ be any connected compact subgroup and let $`r`$ be the complexification of $`LieR`$. Obviously we can choose $`B_g`$ so that $`B_g|r`$ is nonsingular (e.g., let $`B_g`$ be the Killing form). The map $`\eta _r`$ induces the structure of a $`Z(g)`$-module on $`Z(r)`$. On the other hand the infinitesimal character for the module $`V_\lambda `$ when $`\lambda =\rho `$ defines the structure of a $`Z(g)`$-module on $`C`$. As a consequence of a well-known theorem of H. Cartan (see §9 in \[C\]) one has

Theorem 4.3. There exists an isomorphism

$$H^{}(G/R,C)Tor_{}^{Z(g)}(C,Z(r))$$
$`(4.8)`$
5. The case where $`rankr=rankg`$ and $`dimV_\lambda <\mathrm{}`$

5.1. Let the notation be as §0.1 so that $`V`$ is an arbitrary $`g`$-module. It is clear that $`\zeta (r)`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{}`$ so that the Dirac cohomology, $`H_D(VL)`$ has the structure of an $`r`$-module. Of course $`Ker\mathrm{}_V\text{ }\text{ }Ker\mathrm{}_V^2`$. Note that the special case

$$Ker\mathrm{}_V=Ker\mathrm{}_V^2$$
$`(5.1)`$
occurs if and only if

$$Ker\mathrm{}_VIm\mathrm{}_V=0$$
$`(5.2)`$
If (5.1), or equivalently (5.2), occurs then we may regard $`H_D(VL)\text{ }\text{ }VL`$ where in fact one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_D(VL)& =Ker\mathrm{}_V\hfill \\ & =Ker\mathrm{}_V^2\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.3)`$
In this section we would like to formulate results in \[K1\] and \[K2\], especially results beginning with §3 in \[K1\], in terms of Dirac cohomology. Assume, as in §3 of \[K1\], that $`rankr=rankg`$ so that $`h=h_r`$ and $`h_p=0`$. Note that, in this case, the restriction on $`\lambda `$ in Theorem 3.15 disappears. Also in this case

$$S=L$$
$`(5.4)`$
where $`S`$ is the $`C(p)`$-spin module of §3.1 in \[K1\]. See (3.11) in \[K1\]. Next assume that $`\lambda `$ is dominant with respect to $`b`$ and integral with respect to $`g`$. But then $`V_\lambda `$ is finite dimensional and $`g`$-irreducible. Consider $`H_D(V_\lambda S)`$. Using the notation of (4.8) let $`R\text{ }\text{ }G`$ be any connected compact subgroup having the same rank as $`G`$. Up to conjugacy we can take $`R`$ to be defined as in §5.21 in \[K1\] so that $`r`$ is the complexification of $`LieR`$. In this section, as in \[K1\], let $`d`$ be the Euler characteristic of $`G/R`$. We have written $`W`$ for the Weyl group $`W_g`$ in \[K1\]. One has $`W_r\text{ }\text{ }W`$ and one knows that the index of $`W_r`$ in $`W`$ is $`d`$. See e.g., (5.32) in \[K1\]. Let $`W^1\text{ }\text{ }W`$ be the set of representatives of the right cosets of $`W_r`$ in $`W`$ defined as in (3.24) in \[K1\] so that $`d=cardW^1`$. For any $`\tau W^1`$ let $`\tau \lambda =\tau (\lambda +\rho )\rho _r`$. Then $`\tau \lambda `$ is dominant with respect to $`b_r`$ and integral for the simply-connected covering group of $`R`$. In particular if $`Z_{\tau \lambda }`$ is an irreducible $`r`$-module with highest weight $`\tau \lambda `$ then $`Z_{\tau \lambda }`$ is finite dimensional. Also $`Z_{\tau _i\lambda },i=1,2,`$ are inequivalent for $`\tau _iW^1`$ where $`\tau _1\tau _2`$. See §3.22 in \[K1\]. But now Theorems 4.17 and 4.24 in \[K1\] imply

Theorem 5.1. Assume $`rankr=rankg`$ and $`\lambda h^{}`$ is dominant and integral with respect to $`G`$. Then $`Z_{\tau \lambda }`$ occurs with multiplicity one in $`V_\lambda S`$, for any $`\tau W^1`$, so that we can unambiguously regard $`Z_{\tau \lambda }\text{ }\text{ }V_\lambda S`$. Furthermore the condition (5.1) is satisfied and (recalling (5.3))

$$H_D(V_\lambda S)=\underset{\tau W^1}{}Z_{\tau \lambda }$$
$`(5.5)`$
In particular $`H_D(V_\lambda S)`$, as an $`r`$-module, is multiplicity-free and decomposes into a sum of $`d`$ irreducible components, where $`d`$ is the Euler number of $`G/R`$.

Remark 5.2. In the case where $`r`$ is the Levi factor of a parabolic subalgebra of $`g`$ we have shown in \[K2\] that Theorems 4.17 and 4.24 in \[K1\] imply the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem (BBW). This may formulated in terms of Dirac cohomology. In case $`r`$ is the Levi factor of a parabolic subalgebra of $`g`$ the argument in \[K2\] shows that BBW is a consequence of Theorem 5.1 together with the construction of $`Z_{\tau \lambda }`$ given in Theorem 4.17 of \[K1\].

5.2. As mentioned above, Theorem 4.2, for the case where $`rankr=rankg`$ appears in \[K1\]. See §5, especially equations (5.18) and (5.19), in \[K1\]. In more detail, the map $`\varphi `$ in the present case, is injection so that the map $`\eta _r`$ is injective. The image of $`Z(g)`$ in $`Z(r)`$ has been denoted by $`Z_g(r)`$ in \[K1\]. Let the notation be as in Theorem 5.1. The set $`\{Z_{\tau \lambda }\},\tau W^1`$, of representations of $`r`$ is referred to in \[K1\] as a multiplet. Recalling (5.5), a verification of equation (4.4) is the statement that the infinitesmal character of $`Z(r)`$ for all the members of a multiplet remains the same when restricted to $`Z_g(r)`$ and that, furthermore, the restriction is given by the infinitesmal character of $`Z(g)`$ for the $`g`$-representation $`V_\lambda `$. But this and more is stated in Proposition 3.43 of \[K1\] together with (5.18) and (5.19).

Remark 5.3. In a certain sense matters have come full circle. Consider the case where $`g`$ is of type $`F_4`$ and $`r`$ is of type $`B_4`$ (i.e., $`RSpin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}`$). In that case $`d=3`$ so the multiplets are triplets. That the members of each triplet had remarkable properties in common was the empirical discovery of the physicists Ramond and Pengpan. This discovery inspired the paper \[GKRS\] which in turn led to \[K1\]. One of the properties discovered by Ramond and Pengpan, in the terminology above, is, in retrospect, the statement that $`Z_g(r)`$ operates the same way on each member of any triplet. (We use the term “in retrospect” since Ramond and Pengpan were dealing only with $`r`$ and were unaware of the role of $`g`$.) But, with the notion of Dirac cohomology, this behavior of $`Z_g(r)`$ is necessarily the case since (see (5.5)) $`H_D(V_\lambda S)`$ is just the sum of the members of that triplet which corresponds to $`\lambda `$.

Appendix

A.1. One of the properties of $`\mathrm{}`$ used in \[HP\] to establish the main theorem, Theorem 3.4 in \[HP\], was Lemma 3.1 in \[HP\]. Let $`Cas_gZ(g)`$ be the $`g`$-Casimir element with respect to $`B_g`$ and let $`Cas_rZ(r)`$ be the $`r`$-Casimir element with respect to $`B_r`$. Recall that $`r`$ is assumed to be symmetric in \[HP\]. Lemma 3.1 in \[HP\] asserts

$$\mathrm{}^2=Cas_g1\zeta (Cas_r)+constant$$
$`(A.1)`$
It should be noted that the definition of Dirac operator in \[HP\] differs from its definition here and in \[K1\], in the symmetric case, by a factor of $`i`$. This factor clearly plays no significant role in our concerns here.

The equation (A.1) is used in \[HP\] to define a $`Z_2`$-graded differential complex in $`(U(g)C(p))^r`$ with $`ad\mathrm{}`$ as the coboundary operator. Here commutation with $`\mathrm{}`$ is taken in the $`Z_2`$-graded sense. However in the general case we are considering, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the cubic Dirac operator, we have established (A.1). See Theorem 2.16 in \[K1\]. The validity of (A.1) enables one to define this complex in the general case using the cubic Dirac operator. Also, as in \[HP\], $`Z(g)1`$ and $`\zeta (Z(r))`$ are, in the general case, spaces of cocyles. Theorem 3.4 in \[HP\] asserts $`\zeta (Z(r))`$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of this complex. But again the same argument yields the same result in the general case. The idea in \[HP\] is to replace $`U(g)`$ by the symmetric algebra $`S(g)`$ and to replace $`ad\mathrm{}`$ by its symbol. A computation of the symbol leads to the Koszul complex. The proof then follows from the acyclicity of the Koszul complex. The reason why this argument works in the general case is that one obtains the same symbol. This is because the cubic term has no affect on the symbol. It should be noted that our result, for the case where $`r=0`$, appears in \[AM\].

The validity of Theorem 3.4 in \[HP\], for the general case, leads to the map (4.2), which one easily shows, is a homomorphism of algebras. Theorem 4.1 here determines the map (4.2) in the general case.

References

\[AM\] A. Alekseev and E. Meinrenken, The non-commutative Weil algebra, Inventiones math. 139(2000), 135-172

\[C\] H. Cartan, La transgression dans un groupe de Lie et dans un espace fibré principal, Colloque de Topologie, C.B.R.M. Bruxelles 57-71(1950)

\[GKRS\] B. Gross, B. Kostant, P. Ramond, S. Sternberg, The Weyl character formula, the half-spin representations, and equal rank subgroups, PNAS 95(1998), 8441-8442

\[HP\] J-S. Huang and P. Pand$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{z}}`$ić, Dirac cohomology, unitary representations and a proof of a conjecture of Vogan, JAMS 15 (2002), 185-202; electronic publication with Pand$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{z}}`$ić, Sept. 6, 2001.

\[K1\] B. Kostant, A cubic Dirac operator and the emergence of Euler number multiplets of representations for equal rank subgroups, Duke Math. Jour. 100 (1999), 447-501.

\[K2\] B. Kostant, A generalization of the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem and Euler number multiplets of representations, Letters in Mathematical Physics, 52(2000), 61-78

\[P\] R. Parthasarathy, Dirac operator and the Discrete series, Ann. of Math., 96(1972), 1-30

Bertram Kostant

Dept. of Math.

MIT

Cambridge, MA 02139

E-mail kostant@math.mit.edu