Arxiv:2101.08107V2 [Math.RT] 28 Jan 2021 Keywords: 2010: MSC ..I H Lsia Ae K] Otn Nrdcdadcla and Introduced Kostant [Ko], Paper Classical the Modules in 1.1

Home , Bimodule

arXiv:2101.08107v2 [math.RT] 28 Jan 2021 Keywords: 2010: MSC ..I h lsia ae K] otn nrdcdadcla and introduced Kostant [Ko], paper classical the modules In 1.1. ioue aha-uzi combinatorics. Kazhdan-Lusztig bimodule; etrfrasml oueo iersmsml i ru.Su group. Lie semisimple e linear the the of of of condition module construction the simple found a he for models, vector Whittaker of study the lxsmsml i lers otiigKsatssimple Kostant’s containing algebras, Lie semisimple plex HTAE OUE O LSIA I SUPERALGEBRAS LIE CLASSICAL FOR MODULES WHITTAKER .Mlilcte fsadr htae oue 17 12 References Appendix modules Whittaker 6. standard of Multiplicities bimodules Harish-Chandra 5. and modules Whittaker modules Whittaker 4. standard and Simple 3. Preliminaries 2. Introduction 1. oiinfcoso tnadWitkrmdlst hto Ve of that to red modules we Whittaker categories I, standard categorBGG type of a of t factors and superalgebras a position Lie modules establish classical Whittaker For We of bimodules. category decompositions. a parabolic of their equivalence of terms in oue vrtegnrllna i superalgebras Lie linear general the over modules Abstract. i superalgebras Lie Y ξ,η i ler;Lesprler;mdl;Witkrmdl;H module; Whittaker module; superalgebra; Lie algebra; Lie 71 17B55 17B10 vrfiiedmninlcmlxsmsml i lers M algebras. Lie semisimple complex finite-dimensional over ecasf ipeWitkrmdlsfrcasclLesupe Lie classical for modules Whittaker simple classify We htae modules Whittaker O osp sacneune h opsto eiso tnadWhitt standard of series composition the consequence, a As . (2 | 2 n a ecmue i h aha-uzi combinatorics. Kazhdan-Lusztig the via computed be can ) 1. HHWICHEN CHIH-WHI Introduction Contents ntecategory the in 1 gl ( m | n N n h ortho-symplectic the and ) vrfiiedmninlcom- finite-dimensional over c h rbe fcom- of problem the uce oue n oue nthe in modules and modules p fMiliˇcić-Soergel of ype m oue ntheir in modules rma fHarish-Chandra of y sfidafml fsimple of family a ssified sqety systematic a bsequently, itneo Whittaker a of xistence ralgebras arish-Chandra tvtdby otivated aker 27 26 8 7 1 2 CHIH-WHI CHEN

BGG category O, was studied by McDowell in [Mc1, Mc2] and by Miliˇci´cand Soergel in [MS1, MS2]. It is known in [MS1] that N has certain standard Whittaker modules parametrized by cosets in the Weyl group of a certain subgroup (see also [Mc1]). In particular, an equivalence of certain categories of Whittaker modules and Harish-Chandra bimodules was established by Miliˇci´cand Soergel in [MS1, Theorem 5.1]. As an application, the problem of composition factors of the standard Whittaker modules was partially solved in [MS1, Section 5]. Namely, this solution follows from the composition factors of Verma modules in the BGG category O, which is reduced to the Kazhdan-Lusztig conjectures (see, e.g., [BB, BK, KL]). Around the same time, Backelin in [Ba] developed a complete solution to the same problem using Whittaker functors. Consequently, this problem can be completely calculated by the Kazhdan-Lusztig combinatorics (see [Ba, Theorem 6.2]). There have been numerous attempts to obtain results toward the study of Whittaker modules for Lie algebras and related algebras that possess a structure similar to triangular decomposition; see, e.g., [ALZ, BO, Ch, CDH, GLZ, LZ, LWZ, O, OW, Se1, Wa] and references therein. Inspired by these activities, Batra and Mazorchuk developed in [BM] a general framework for Whittaker modules. More recently, Coulembier and Mazorchuk studied in [CMa] the extension fullness of the Whittaker categories.

1.2. While there are now complete solutions to the problem of composition factors in standard Whittaker modules for the semisimple Lie algebras, the Whittaker modules for Lie superalgebras were not investigated until recently. In a recent exposition [BCW], Bagci, Christodoulopoulou and Wiesner initiated the study of Whittaker modules over Lie superalgebras in a systematic fashion, where some simple and standard Whittaker modules over basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I were also constructed. In particular, these standard Whittaker modules are of ﬁnite length. Therefore it is natural to classify simple modules and study the composition series of modules in the category of Whittaker modules. There have also been a variety of work done to study Whittaker modules and W-algebras over basic Lie superalgebras; see, e.g., [BGo, Xi, ZS]. We study several aspects of Whittaker modules over classical Lie superalgebras. Namely, the present paper attempts to classify simple Whittaker modules and to construct a type of Miliˇci´c-Soergel equivalence between a category of Whittaker modules and a corresponding category of Harish-Chandra bimodules and to compute composition series of standard Whittaker modules.

1.3. Recall that a finite-dimensional Lie superalgebra g = g0¯ ⊕ g1¯ is called classical if the restriction of the adjoint representation of g to the Lie algebra g0¯ is semisimple. The Killing-Cartan type classification of finite-dimensional complex simple Lie superalgebras has been established by Kac in his celebrated paper [Ka1, Ka2]. One of the most interesting subclass of Kac’s list is the following series of classical Lie superalgebras: (1.1) gl(m|n), sl(m|n), psl(n|n), osp(m|2n), D(2, 1|α), G(3), F (4), WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 3

(1.2) p(n), [p(n), p(n)], q(n), sq(n), pq(n), psq(n). We refer to [CW2, Mu] for more details of these Lie superalgebras. A classical Lie superalgebra g is called type I, if it has a compatible Z-gradation of the form g = g−1 ⊕g0 ⊕g1, with g0¯ = g0, g1¯ = g−1 ⊕g1. In particular, we have the following Lie superalgebras of type I from the list (1.1)-(1.2): (1.3) (Type A) : gl(m|n), sl(m|n), psl(n|n), (1.4) (Type C) : osp(2|2n), (1.5) (Type P) : p(n), [p(n), p(n)].

1.4. To explain the contents of the present paper in more detail, we start by explaining our precise setup. Let g be a classical Lie superalgebra. Now we fix a Cartan subalgebra ∗ h0¯ of g0¯. Then we have a weight space decomposition with the set Φ ⊂ h0¯ of roots α α g = α∈Φ∪{0} g , where g = {X ∈ g | [h, X] = α(h)X, for any h ∈ h0¯}. The subalgebra h := g0 is usually referred to as the Cartan subalgebra of g; see also [CCC, L Section 1.3]. We recall the notion of parabolic decomposition of classical Lie superalgebras from [Ma, §2.4] (see also [CCC, DMP, Mu] and references therein). For given H ∈ h0¯ we can define subalgebras of g (1.6) l := gα, u := gα, u− := gα, ReαM(H)=0 ReαM(H)>0 ReαM(H)<0 where Re(z) denotes the real part of z ∈ C. Such a decomposition g = u− ⊕ l ⊕ u gives rise to a corresponding parabolic subalgebra p = l ⊕ u. We refer to l as the Levi subalgebra of g. If l = g0 = h, then (1.6) leads to a triangular decomposition. In this case, we write n := u, n− := u− and define the Borel subalgebra b := h ⊕ n (see also [Mu, Section 3.3]). Throughout the present paper, we fix a triangular decomposition g = n− ⊕ h ⊕ n with Borel subalgebra b = h ⊕ n. Then it gives a triangular decomposition − (1.7) g0¯ = n0¯ ⊕ h0¯ ⊕ n0¯ of g0¯ as well. Unless mention otherwise, we choose the vector H such that p ⊇ b, l = l0¯ R and α(H) ∈ , for all α ∈ Φ. We may note that h = h0¯. See also [CCC, Section 1.3] for the definition of reduced parabolic subalgebras.

1.5. We denote by g-Mod and g0¯-Mod the category of all g-modules and g0¯-modules, respectively. There is a category W(g, n) consisting of g-modules that are locally finite over n as considered in [BCW]. To study simple modules in W(g, n), we propose a full subcategory N of W(g, n), which contains modules in the BGG category O. That is, the category N consists of finitely-generated g-modules that are locally finite over n and over thee center Z(g0¯) of the universal enveloping algebra U(g0¯). This is thus the category of g-modulese that are restricted to g0¯-modules in the category N of [MS1]. We will prove that N and W(g, n) have the same collection of simple objects;

e 4 CHIH-WHI CHEN see Proposition 1 and Remark 2. In the present paper, the modules in N are called Whittaker modules. ∗ e We set I := {ζ ∈ n | ζ([n0¯, n0¯]) = 0, ζ(n1¯) = 0}. Denote by Φ(n0¯) the set of roots in n0¯. For any ζ ∈I, we deﬁne a subset of simple roots of g0¯: α (1.8) Φζ := {α ∈ Φ(n0¯)|ζ(g0¯ ) 6= 0}.

This gives rise to a parabolic decomposition of g0¯ with corresponding Levi subalgebra α lζ generated by g0¯ ’s (α ∈ Φζ) and h. Let N (ζ) be the full subcategory of N consisting of modules M ∈ N such that x−ζ(x) acts locally nilpotently on M, for any x ∈ n0¯. In the case when g = g0¯ we write N (ζ) instead,e which has been considered ine [MS1, Section 1]. We then havee a decomposition N = ζ∈I N (ζ) by [BCW, Theorem 3.2].

FollowingL notations in [MS1], we denote the family of Kostant’s simple modules Yξ,η e e ∗ by Yζ(λ, ζ), where λ ∈ h and ζ is a character on n0¯. In [BCW, Section 4], some interesting partial results concerning the simple Whittaker modules of N for basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I were obtained, which we complete in Theorem 8 and the following theorem: e

Theorem A. Let g be an arbitrary classical Lie superalgebra. Suppose that lζ is a Levi − ∗ subalgebra in a parabolic decomposition g = uζ ⊕ lζ ⊕ uζ of g. Then, for any λ ∈ h , the g-module M(λ, ζ) that is parabolically induced from Yζ(λ, ζ) has simple top, denoted L(λ, ζ), and the correspondence gives rise to a bijection between the sets of isomorphism classes of simplef lζ -modules of the form Yζ (λ, ζ) and simple g-modules of N (ζ). e The modules M(λ, ζ) may be called standard Whittaker modules by analogye with the Whittaker modules of Lie algebras (see, e.g., [MS1, Section 1]). Suppose that g is a classical Lie superalgebraf of type I. It was established in [CM, Theorem A] that the g Kac induction functor K(−) := Indg0⊕g1 (−) gives rise to a bijection between simple g- modules and simple g0¯-modules. Naturally, it turns out that the functor K(−) provides a bijection between simple objects in N (ζ) and in N (ζ) without assuming that lζ is a Levi subalgebra, leading to a classification of simple objects of the category W(g, n) from [BCW] too; see Theorem 8. e 1.6. In [MS1], a powerful approach was developed to solve the problem of composition factors of standard Whittaker modules. Before giving the results, we recall several preparatory definitions and notions from [MS1, Section 5]. Let g be a reductive Lie algebra with ζ ∈ I. Then lζ is a Levi subalgebra of g. Any module M ∈ N (ζ) l decomposes into generalized eigenspaces M l according to the central characters χ of χµ µ ∗ ∗ l := lζ associated with the weight µ ∈ h . LetΥ ⊂ h denote the set of integral weights, that is, weights appearing in finite-dimensional g-modules. For a given weight λ ∈ h∗, define Λ := λ +Υ and l l (1.9) N (Λ,ζ)= {M ∈N (ζ)| Mχl = 0 unless χ = χµ, for some µ ∈ Λ}. WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 5

Then N (ζ) decomposes into blocks N (Λ,ζ), for cosets Λ ∈ h∗/Υ. The study of Harish-Chandra bimodules for semisimple Lie algebras goes back at least to the work of Bernstein and Gelfand [BG]. They established an equivalence of the category O and a category of Harish-Chandra bimodules; see [BG, Theorem 5.9]. Miliˇcić and Soergel established in [MS1, Theorem 5.1] an equivalence of N (Λ,ζ) and a corresponding category of Harish-Chandra bimodules. An analogue of Miliˇcić-Soergel equivalence was also given and used in [KM]. The category O can be defined in a natural way in the setup of Lie superalgebras; see [CW2, Mu]. In particular, we have O ⊂ N (0). In [MM], Mazorchuk and Miemietz established an analogous equivalence of the category O and a category of Harish-Chandra (g, g)-bimodules for Lie superalgebra g. Moree recently, a similar version of equivalence of the category O and a category of Harish-Chandra (g, g0¯)-bimodules has been established in [CC, Theorem 3.1], which turns out to be a powerful tool in the study of primitive spectrum of the periplectic Lie superalgebras pe(n). With this equivalence, we will generalize results of [MS1, Section 5] to that for our setup of Lie superalgebras in the present paper. Consider a classical Lie superalgebra g with ζ ∈I. We define the Weyl group W of g ∗ to be the Weyl group of g0¯. Let λ ∈ h be dominant under the dot-action of elements in W . Denote by M(λ) the Verma module over g0¯ of highest weight λ with respect to the triangular decomposition (1.7). We set Bλ to be the full subcategory of Harish- Chandra (g, g0¯)-bimodules consisting of objects that are annihilated by some power of the annihilator of M(λ). For a given dominant weight µ ∈ h∗, the stabilizer of µ under the dot-action of W is denoted by Wµ. Also, we set Wζ ⊆ W to be the Weyl group of lζ , for any ζ ∈I. There is a version of the category N (λ, ζ) adapted to our situation of classical Lie superalgebras, which we denote by N (λ, ζ); see Section 4.1.2. The following is our second main result: e

Theorem B. Let ζ ∈I be such that Wλ = Wζ. Then N (Λ,ζ) and Bλ are equivalent.

e We remark some consequences: if η ∈ I satisﬁes that Wλ = Wζ = Wη then N (λ + Υ,ζ) =∼ N (λ +Υ, η). Also, if s ∈ W is a simple reﬂection such that s does not lie in the integral Weyl group of λ, then we have N (λ +Υ,ζ) =∼ N (s · λ +Υ, η), for anyeη ∈I with Wη e= Ws·λ. e e

1.7. We write M(λ, ζ) instead of M(λ, ζ) in the case when g = g0¯. As has been mentioned, if g is a classical Lie superalgebra of type I, then the Kac functor gives a bijection of simple Whittaker modulesf in N and N , leading to the following alternative deﬁnition of standard Whittaker module (1.10) M(λ, ζ) := K(M(eλ, ζ)),

f 6 CHIH-WHI CHEN for any λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I. This definition can be viewed as a specific case of that given in Theorem A (see Definition (3.3)) in the case when g is one of gl(m|n), osp(2|2n) and pe(n). Recall that the category O for classical Lie superalgebras admit structures of highest weight category (see, e.g., [BS, CCC]) with Verma modules M(λ) indexed by λ ∈ h∗ as standard objects. The following is our third main result: f Theorem C. Suppose that g is a classical Lie superalgebra of type I. Then for any λ, µ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I, we have (1.11) [M(λ, ζ) : L(µ,ζ)] = [M(λ) : L(ν)], ν X where the summation runsf over allenζ -antidominantf weightse ν such that µ ∈ Wζ · ν.

As a consequence, the composition factors of standard Whittaker modules over the general linear Lie superalgebras gl(m|n) and the ortho-symplectic Lie superalgebras osp(2|2n) can be computed by recent works on the irreducible characters of the BGG category O; see, e.g., [Br1, CLW1, CLW2, CMW, Bo, BW].

1.8. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide some background materials on classical Lie superalgebras and Whittaker modules. In Section 3, we obtain a classification of standard and simple Whittaker modules for classical Lie superalgebras in terms of their parabolic decompositions. The proof of Theorem A will be given in Section 3.1. For classical Lie superalgebras of type I, an alternative definition of standard Whittaker modules will be introduced in Section 3.2 that are to be used in the sequel. In this case, we will classify simple objects of N in full generality. In Section 4, we review Harish-Chandra bimodules, cokernel categories and Miliˇcić- e Soergel equivalence, including several essential ingredients for our main results. Apply- ing tools in [CC] and generalizing [MS1], we will establish in Section 4.3 the equivalence stated in Theorem B. In Section 5, we focus on the multiplicity problem of standard Whittaker modules for classical Lie superalgebras of type I. Section 5.2 is devoted to the proof of Theorem C. One can also find a detailed example of the general linear Lie superalgebra gl(1|2) in Section 5.3.2. Several various criteria of simplicity for Whittaker modules over Lie superalgebras gl(m|n), osp(2|2n) and pe(n) are given in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Also, we obtain composition factors of typical standard Whittaker modules M(λ, ζ) over pe(n) in Section 5.4. For g = gl(m|n), osp(2|2n), we put together all the results from previous sections and reduce the problem of composition factors in certainf standard Harish-Chandra bimodules to Kazhdan-Lusztig combinatorics in Section 5.5.

Acknowledgment. The author was supported by a MoST grant, and he would like to thank Shun-Jen Cheng, Kevin Coulembier, Volodymyr Mazorchuk and Weiqiang Wang for interesting discussions and helpful comments. WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 7

2. Preliminaries 2.1. Let g be a ﬁnite-dimensional complex classical Lie superalgebra. Denote by U(g) the universal enveloping algebra of g. Let Z(g) be the center of U(g). For a given ∗ g C λ ∈ h , we set χλ : Z(g) → to be the central character associated with λ. We 0¯ g0¯ sometimes write χλ instead of χλ . Recall that we ﬁxed a triangular decomposition − g = n ⊕ h ⊕ n with even Cartan subalgebra h = h0¯.

The Weyl group W of g is by definition the Weyl group W of g0¯ with its defining ∗ ∗ action on h . The usual dot-action of W on h is defined as w · λ := w(λ + ρ0¯) − ρ0¯, ∗ for any w ∈ W and λ ∈ h , where ρ0¯ is the half of the sum of all positive roots of g0¯. A weight is called integral, dominant or anti-dominant if it is integral, dominant or anti-dominant as a g0¯-weight, respectively. We recall that Wλ denotes the stabilizer of λ under the dot-action of W , for any weight λ ∈ h∗. For any ζ ∈ I, we denote by ∗ Wζ ⊆ W the Weyl group of lζ , which naturally acts on h via consistent dot-action. For any weight module M, we set P (M) to be the set of all weights in M. Finally, we denote by Υ ⊂ h∗ the set of integral weights. Then we have ZΦ ⊂ Υ. k 2.2. Let k be a Lie superalgebra. For a subalgebra s ⊂ k, we denote by Ress the restriction functor from k to s. We have exact induction and coinduction functors k k Inds(−)= U(k) ⊗U(s) − and Coinds(−) = HomU(s)(U(k), −). k They are left and right adjoint functors to Ress. If s contains k0¯, then [BF, Theorem 2.2] k ∼ k top (see also [Go1]) implies that Inds(−) = Coinds(Λ (k/s) ⊗−). We will use the undecorated notations

Ind, Coind : g0¯-Mod → g-Mod, Res : g-Mod → g0¯-Mod, to refer to these functors when k = g and s = g0¯. In particular, the functors Ind and Coind are isomorphic, up to the equivalence given top by tensoring with the one-dimensional g0¯-module Λ g1¯ on the top degree subspace of Λg1¯.

Proposition 1. Suppose that S is a simple g-module. Then Res S is locally ﬁnite over Z(g0¯).

Proof. We adapt the argument in [CM, Lemma 4.2] to complete the proof. Since U(g) is a ﬁnitely-generated U(g0¯)-module, the g0¯-module Res S is ﬁnitely-generated. Therefore Res S has a simple quotient V . By adjunction we have

Homg(S, CoindV ) = Homg0¯ (Res S, V ) 6= 0, top ∗ which implies that S is a submodule of Ind W, where W := Λ g¯ ⊗ V is a simple ∼ 1 g0¯-module. We note that the module Res Ind W = U(g1¯) ⊗ W is locally ﬁnite over Z(g0¯) by [BG, Section 2.6]. This completes the proof.

Remark 2. To compare simple objects of the category W(g, n) from [BCW] to that of our category N , we note that any simple g-module that is locally ﬁnite over n lies in

e 8 CHIH-WHI CHEN

N by Lemma 1. Namely, we remark that W(g, n) and N have the same collection of simple objects. e e Lemma 3. The functors Ind, Coind and Res restrict to exact functors between N and N : Ind, Coind : N → N , Res : N →N . e Proof. Let M ∈ N . Then M is a finite sume of cyclic eU(g)-submodules. We note that U(g) is finitely-generated over U(g0¯) since U(g1¯) is finite-dimensional. This means that Res M ∈N . e ∼ Conversely, assume that V ∈ N . Then ResInd V = U(g1¯) ⊗ V is locally finite over Z(g0¯) (see, e.g., [BG, Section 2.6]). Also, U(g1¯) ⊗ V is locally finite over n0¯, and so Ind V ∈ N .

As a consequencee of Lemma 3, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 4. Every object in N has ﬁnite length.

Proof. By [MS1, Theorem 2.6],e every object in N has ﬁnite length (see also [Mc1] and [CMa, Corolloary 4]). The conclusion follows.

For any ζ ∈I, we deﬁne the following blocks (see also [MS1, Section 1]):

(2.1) N (ζ) := {N ∈ N | x − ζ(x) acts locally nilpotently on N, for any x ∈ n0¯},

(2.2) N (ζ) := {M ∈ N | x − ζ(x) acts locally nilpotently on M, for any x ∈ n0¯}.

We may observee that Inde, Coind and Res restrict to well-deﬁned functors between N (ζ) and N (ζ).

e 3. Simple and standard Whittaker modules In this section, we deﬁne the various generalizations of standard Whittaker modules and study their fundamental properties in our setup. We will classify the simple Whittaker modules in terms of parabolic decompositions for an arbitrary classical Lie superalgebra. For Lie superalgebras of type I, we provide a complete classiﬁcation of simple Whittaker modules using the Kac functors.

3.1. Simple Whittaker modules: arbitrary classical Lie superalgebras. Let g be an arbitrary ﬁnite-dimensional complex classical Lie superalgebra. For each ζ ∈I, − we denote by lζ = nζ ⊕h⊕nζ the corresponding triangular decomposition of lζ . For any λ ∈ h∗, we recall that Kostant’s simple Whittaker modules are deﬁned as follows lζ C (3.1) Yζ (λ, ζ) := U(lζ )/Ker(χλ )U(lζ ) ⊗U(nζ ) ζ, WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 9

lζ lζ C where Ker(χλ ) is the kernel of the central character χλ of lζ and ζ is the one- ∼ dimensional nζ -module associated with ζ. The isomorphism Yζ(λ, ζ) = Yζ (µ,ζ) holds if and only if Wζ · λ = Wζ · µ. − Suppose that lζ is a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic decomposition g = uζ ⊕ lζ ⊕ uζ of g. The standard Whittaker modules over g0¯ and g are respectively deﬁned as

(3.2) M(λ, ζ) := U(g0¯) ⊗p0¯ Yζ(λ, ζ),

(3.3) M(λ, ζ) := U(g) ⊗p Yζ(λ, ζ), where p := pζ = lζ ⊕ uζ is the corresponding parabolic subalgebra. The module M(λ, ζ) ∈N has been studiedf in [Mc1, MS1] (see also [Ba]). The following result is proved in [MS1, Proposition 2.1].

∗ Lemma 5 (Miliˇci´c-Soergel). For any λ ∈ h and ζ ∈ I, the standard Whittaker g0¯- module M(λ, ζ) has simple top L(λ, ζ). Let µ ∈ h∗, then ∼ ∼ L(λ, ζ) = L(µ,ζ) ⇔ M(λ, ζ) = M(µ,ζ) ⇔ Wζ · λ = Wζ · µ. Every simple module in N (ζ) is of the form L(λ, ζ), for λ ∈ h∗.

We are now in a position to prove our ﬁrst main result. The conclusion of Theorem B is a consequence of the following theorem.

Theorem 6. Let ζ ∈I. Suppose that lζ is a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic decomposi- − tion g = uζ ⊕ lζ ⊕ uζ . Then we have (1) M(λ, ζ) has simple top, which is denoted by L(λ, ζ), for each λ ∈ h∗. (2) {L(λ, ζ)| λ ∈ h∗} is the complete list of simple modules in N (ζ). f e (3) For any λ, µ ∈ h∗, the following are equivalent: e e (a) M(λ, ζ) =∼ M(µ,ζ). (b) L(λ, ζ) ∼ L(µ,ζ). f = f (c) W · λ = W · µ. e ζ eζ

Proof. We first claim that M(λ, ζ) ∈ N . To see this, we may observe that Res M(λ, ζ) is an epimorphic image of the g0¯-module U(g1¯)⊗M(λ, ζ) by the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt basis theorem. Therefore Mf(λ, ζ) is locallye finite over Z(g0¯) (see, e.g., [BG,f Section 2.6]) and over n. We may conclude that M(λ, ζ) ∈ N since it is generated by any non-zero vector of Yζ(λ, ζ) f⊂ Res M(λ, ζ). f e Next, we shall proceed with an argument similar to the proof of [MS1, Proposition 2.1]. f We may note that H ∈ Ker(α) and so H acts on Y (λ, ζ) via λ(H). Therefore α∈Φζ ζ M(λ, ζ) decomposes into eigenspaces M(λ, ζ)k with k ∈ λ(H)+ − Z≥0α(H) T α∈P (uζ ) f f P 10 CHIH-WHI CHEN

− according to the eigenvalues of the action H. Since α(H) < 0 for any α ∈ P (uζ ), it follows that M(λ, ζ)λ(H) = Yζ(λ, ζ). Also, all the M(λ, ζ)k are lζ -submodules since α(H) = 0 for any α ∈ Φζ. f f

Let N be a proper submodule of M(λ, ζ), then N decomposes N = k Nk with lζ - submodules Nk ⊆ M(λ, ζ)k according to the eigenvalues k of H acting on N. Since f L Yζ (λ, ζ) is simple, we may conclude that Nλ(H) = 0. Therefore M(λ, ζ) has a unique maximal submodule.f This proves Part (1). We denote the simple top of M(λ, ζ) by L(λ, ζ). f f Nexte we prove Part (2). Recall that we put p := pζ . Let S ∈ N (ζ) be a simple module. Since S has ﬁnite length, there exists µ ∈ h∗ such that L(µ,ζ) ֒→ Res S. Therefore we have e

(3.4) Homg(Ind M(µ,ζ),S) = Homg0¯ (M(µ,ζ), Res S) 6= 0. p p The l -module Res Ind Y (µ,ζ) =∼ U(p¯) ⊗ Y (λ, ζ) have composition factors of the ζ lζ p0¯ ζ 1 ζ form Yζ (λ + ν,ζ), for ν ∈ P (U(p1¯)) (see, e.g., [Ko, Theorem 4.6]). Note that ν(H) > 0, p p p for any ν ∈ P (U( 1¯)). Therefore the -module Indp0¯ Yζ (µ,ζ) has a ﬁltration with simple subquotients Yζ (λ + ν,ζ)’s, which are annihilated by uζ . We may observe that g (3.5) Ind M(µ,ζ) = Indg Ind 0¯ Y (µ,ζ) =∼ Indg Indp Y (µ,ζ), g0¯ p0¯ ζ p p0¯ ζ which implies that Ind M(µ,ζ) admits a ﬁltration of standard Whittaker modules. Consequently, S is a composition factor of M(λ, ζ) for some λ ∈ h∗. It remains to show that every composition factor of M(λ, ζ) is of the form L(λ′,ζ), for λ′ ∈ h∗. f Let S be a composition factor offM(λ, ζ). Again, undere the action of H the S decomposes into eigenspaces Sk with k ∈ λ(H)+ − Z≥0α(H). Since uζ Sk ⊂ Sk′ α∈P (uζ ) ′ f with k < k , we may conclude that there exists anP eigenvalue m such that Sm 6= 0 and uζ Sm = 0. Since Sm is a lζ -submodule of M(λ, ζ)m, it follows from [Ko, Theorem 4.6] ∗ that Sm has a simple submodule Yζ(γ,ζ), for some γ ∈ h . Consequently, we have f g (3.6) Homg(M(γ,ζ),S) = Hompζ (Yζ (γ,ζ), Respζ S) 6= 0. Therefore S ∼ L(γ,ζ). This proves Part (2). = f

We have knowne (c) ⇒ (a) already. We now prove (a) ⇒ (b). If M(λ, ζ) =∼ M(µ,ζ) then M(λ, ζ)λ(H) = Yζ(λ, ζ) and M(µ,ζ)µ(H) = Yζ(µ,ζ) are isomorphic as lζ -modules, and so Wζ · λ = Wζ · µ by Lemma 5. f f f f Finally, we prove the direction (b) ⇒ (c). Again, L(λ, ζ) decomposes into eigenspaces Z L(λ, ζ)k with k ∈ λ(H)+ α∈P (u−) ≥0α(H) according to the eigenvalues of the action ζ e of H on L(λ, ζ). Thus, we have L(λ, ζ) = Y (λ, ζ) and L(µ,ζ) = Y (µ,ζ), e P λ(H) ζ µ(H) ζ which implies Wζ · λ = Wζ · µ by Lemma 5. This completes the proof. e e e WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 11

3.2. Simple Whittaker modules: Lie superalgebras of type I. In this subsection, we let g = g−1 ⊕ g0 ⊕ g1 be a finite-dimensional complex classical Lie superalgebra of type I. We will redefine the standard Whittaker modules in this case, leading to a complete classification of simple Whittaker g-modules. The advantage is that we do not need to assume that lζ is a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic decomposition of g.

For a given g0-module V , we can extend V trivially to a g0 ⊕ g1-module and define g the Kac module of V as K(V ) := Indg≥0 (V ). Then this defines an exact functor K(·) : g0-Mod → g-Mod, which we call Kac functor (see also [CM, Sections 2.4, 3]). We observe that K(V ) =∼ Λ(g−1)⊗V as vector spaces. Throughout this subsection, for any λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I we define the standard Whittaker module for type I Lie superalgebra as (3.7) M(λ, ζ) := K(M(λ, ζ)), where M(λ, ζ) is the standard Whittaker module over g0¯ as in (3.2). We remark that the definition 3.7 can be viewed as specialf cases of (3.3) when g is one of gl(m|n), osp(2|2n) and pe(n).

Lemma 7. The Kac functor K(−) deﬁnes an exact functor from N to N .

∼ Proof. Let M ∈N . We note that Res K(M) = Λ(g−1) ⊗ M as g0¯-modules.e Therefore K(M) is locally finite over n. It follows from [BG, Section 2.3, 2.6] that K(M) is a finitely-generated g-module and is locally finite over Z(g0¯), proving the claim.

The following theorem is an analog of Theorem 6, but we do not need to assume that lζ is a Levi subalgebra of g.

Theorem 8. Let ζ ∈I. Then we have (1) M(λ, ζ) has simple top, which is denoted by L(λ, ζ), for each λ ∈ h∗. (2) {L(λ, ζ)| λ ∈ h∗} is the complete list of simple modules in N (ζ). f e (3) For any λ, µ ∈ h∗, the following are equivalent: e e (a) M(λ, ζ) =∼ M(µ,ζ). (b) L(λ, ζ) ∼ L(µ,ζ). f = f (c) W · λ = W · µ. e ζ eζ

g±1 Proof. For any M ∈ g-Mod, we deﬁne M to be the subspaces of g±1-invariants, g±1 namely, M := {m ∈ M| g±1m = 0}. We shall ﬁrst adapt the argument in [CM, Lemma 4.4] to complete the proof of Part (1). Suppose that φ : M(λ, ζ) → S is a simple quotient of M(λ, ζ). By [CM, Theorem 4.1 (ii)] there is a simple g0¯-module V such that f .f S ֒→ Indg V (3.8) g0¯+g−1 12 CHIH-WHI CHEN

By definition the g0¯-module M(λ, ζ) can be regarded as a g0¯-submodule of Res M(λ, ζ). top Note that φ(M(λ, ζ)) ⊆ Λ g1 ⊗ V since g1 · M(λ, ζ) = 0 and the subspace of g1- g top top invariants of Ind V is Λ g ⊗ V. But Λ g ⊗ V is a simple g¯-module, we g0¯+g−1 1 1 0 f top may conclude that Λ g1 ⊗ V =∼ L(λ, ζ) by Lemma 5. Therefore we obtain that ∼ top ∗ V = Λ g1 ⊗ L(λ, ζ). Finally, using adjunction and Schur’s lemma, it follows that g top dim Homg(M(λ, ζ), Indg0+g−1 V ) = dim Homg≥0 (M(λ, ζ), Λ g1 ⊗ V ) = 1, by Lemma 5. This proves Part (1). f We are going to prove (2). Let S ∈ N (ζ) be a simple module. We claim that the g1 subspace S of g1-invariant elements is a simple g0¯-module in N (ζ). It suffices to show that Sg1 is simple. To see this,e we note that S is isomorphic to the socle of g g Indg0+g−1 V , for some simple 0¯-module V by [CM, Corollary 4.3]. By [CM, Lemma g g1 top 3.2], the simple g0¯-submodule (Indg0+g−1 V ) = Λ g1 ⊗ V generates the simple socle ∼ g g g1 S = soc(Indg0+g−1 V ) of Indg0+g−1 V as a g-submodule. It follows that S is simple. By Lemma 5, there exists λ′ ∈ h∗ such that Sg1 =∼ L(λ′,ζ). It follows from [CM, Theorem 4.1] that S is the quotient of M(λ′,ζ), that is, S =∼ L(λ′,ζ) by definition. Finally, it remains to show Part (3). For any λ ∈ h∗, since L(λ, ζ) is the simple top f e of K(L(λ, ζ)), we know that L(λ, ζ) =∼ L(µ,ζ) if and only if L(λ, ζ) =∼ L(µ,ζ) by [CM, Theorem 4.1]. Thus, Parts (b), (c) are equivalent by Lemma 5.e It remains to show the direction (a) ⇒ (b). e e

Suppose (a) holds. Then we have the following isomorphisms of g0¯-modules

top g−1 g−1 top Λ g−1 ⊗ M(λ, ζ)= M(λ, ζ) =∼ M(µ,ζ) = Λ g−1 ⊗ M(µ,ζ). Therefore the conclusion of Part (3) follows from Lemma 5. f f We should mention that the Part (1) in Theorem 8 generalizes the construction of simple modules in [BCW, Section 4], where the case of some basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I was considered.

4. Whittaker modules and Harish-Chandra bimodules In this section, we continue to assume that g is a classical Lie superalgebra with ζ ∈I. − Recall that lζ = nζ ⊕ h ⊕ nζ denotes the corresponding triangular decomposition of lζ . For a given weight λ ∈ h∗, we set Λ := λ + Υ.

4.1. Action of the ring SˆW .

4.1.1. In this subsection, we recall the action of the ring SˆW from [MS1, Section 4, Section 5]: let Sˆ denote the completion of the symmetry algebra over h over the maximal ideal generated by h. Denote by SˆW its invariants under the action of the W Weyl group Wζ . We will give a natural action of Sˆ on modules in N using results in [MS1, Sections 4, 5]. e WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 13

We note that modules in N (ζ) restrict to lζ -modules that are locally ﬁnite over Z(lζ ). Therefore for any M ∈ N (ζ) there is a ring homomorphism e W (4.1) θM : Sˆ → Endl M, e ζ as constructed in [MS1, Section 4]. As has been proved in [MS1, Theorem 4.1] (see W also [MS1, Section 5]), the action of elements of Sˆ via θM in (4.1) commute with the g0¯-action on M. As an analog for our setup, we remark the following corollary, but we will not use it.

W Proposition 9. We have θM (Sˆ ) ⊂ EndgM, for any M ∈ N .

ζ Proof. Let Id denote the identity functor on the category of lζe-modules that are locally W ﬁnite over Z(lζ ). By the construction in [MS1, Section 4], for each s ∈ Sˆ the element ζ ζ θM (s) is the evaluation of an endomorphism θ(s): Id → Id at M, where θ is a ring homomorphism from SˆW to the endomorphism ring of functor Idζ . We note that the adjoint representation adg is semisimple over lζ . Let πM : adg ⊗ M → M be the canonical epimorphism. By [MS1, Theorem 4.1] we have ζ θadg⊗M (s)=Idadg ⊗ θM (s), ζ ˆW which gives rise to the identity πM ◦ (Idadg ⊗ θM (s)) = θM (s) ◦ πM , for any s ∈ S . This completes the proof.

4.1.2. We recall some results and notations in [MS1, Section 5] as follows. For any positive integer n, we define N (ζ)n := {M ∈ N (ζ)| θ(m)nM = 0}, where m is the W maximal ideal of Sˆ . Set l := lζ . Any module M ∈N (ζ) decomposes into generalized eigenspaces M = ∗ M l according to the action of elements of Z(l). λ∈h χλ Recall that we denoteL the set of integral weights by Υ. For any coset Λ = λ +Υ in h∗/Υ we put l l N (Λ,ζ) := {M ∈N (ζ)| Mχl = 0 unless χ = χµ, for some µ ∈ Λ}, N (Λ,ζ)n := N (Λ,ζ) ∩N (ζ)n, as defined in [MS1, Section 5]. Then N (ζ) decomposes into N (ζ)= Λ∈h∗/Υ N (Λ,ζ). Similarly, we define N (Λ,ζ) := {M ∈ N (ζ)| Res M ∈N (Λ,ζ)}. SinceL N (Λ,ζ) is stable under tensoring with finite-dimensional g0¯-modules (see [MS1, Theorem 4.1, Lemma 4.3]) and every modulee in N (Λ,ζ) hase finite length, we know that the family of objects in N (Λ,ζ) consists of composition factors of Ind X, for X ∈ N (Λ,ζ). Therefore Ind and Res restrict to well-defined functors between N (Λ,ζ) and N (Λ,ζ). Also, we have e the decomposition N (ζ)= Λ∈h∗/Υ N (Λ,ζ) (see also [MS1, Lemma 4.3]). e We define e L e n n n N (ζ) := {M ∈ N (ζ)| θM (m) M = 0} = {M ∈ N (ζ)| Res M ∈N (ζ) }, N (Λ,ζ)n = {M ∈ N (ζ)n| Res M ∈N (Λ,ζ)n}. e e e e e 14 CHIH-WHI CHEN

We claim that Ind and Res restrict to well-deﬁned functors between N (ζ)n and N (ζ)n. n n To see this, let V ∈N (ζ) and s ∈ m . Consider the canonical epimorphism U(g1¯) ⊗ ։ ζ V V . By [MS1, Theorme 4.3] we have θU(g¯)⊗V (s) = Id ⊗ eθV (s) = 0, which 1 U(g1¯) implies that θRes Ind V (s) = 0, as desired. Therefore Ind and Res restrict to well-deﬁned functors between N (Λ,ζ)n and N (Λ,ζ)n, for any n ≥ 0.

e 4.2. Harish-Chandra bimodules. We recall some conventions of Harish-Chandra bimodules; see, e.g., [CC, Section 3], or [MS1, Section 3] for more details. In the rest of the present paper, we set U := U(g) and U := U(g0¯).

e 4.2.1. We denote by F the category of finite-dimensional semisimple g0¯-modules. Set F to be the category of finite-dimensional g-modules which restrict to objects in F. We denote the full subcategory of projective modules in F by P. Modules in P are preciselye the direct summands of modules Ind V , for arbitrary V ∈ F. For a g-module M, we denote by F ⊗ M the category of g-modules of thee form eV ⊗ M, with V e∈ F. Similarly, we define P⊗ M, F ⊗ N and P⊗ N, for N ∈ g0¯-Mod. e e For a given full subcategorye C of either g-Mod or g0¯-Mod, we denote by add(C) the category of all modules isomorphic to direct summands of objects in C. Also, we set hCi to be the full subcategory of all modules isomorphic to subquotients of modules in C. Let Coker(F⊗ M) denote the coker-category of M consisting of all g-modules X that have a presentation e A → B → X → 0, where A, B ∈ add(F ⊗ M). Similarly we define the coker-category Coker(F ⊗ N) of g0¯-modules N (see [MSt]). e 4.2.2. For a given (U,U)-bimodule Y , we denote by Y ad the restriction of Y to the op .adjoint action of g0¯. This is the restriction via U ֒→ U ⊗ U , X 7→ X ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ X Let B denote the categorye of finitely-generated (U,U)-bimodules N for which N ad is a direct sum of modules in F. Let J ⊂ U be a two-sidede ideal, denote by B(J) the full subcategory of B consisting of bimodules Ne such that NJ = 0. Also, we set n BJ := n≥1 B(J ).

For a givenS g-module M and a given g0¯-module N, we set L(N, M) to be the maximal (U,U)-submodule of HomC(N, M)ad that belongs to B. Namely, L(M,N) is the maximal submodule which is a direct sum of modules in F under the usual adjoint action. Wee have a canonical monomorphism ad e C . ιM : U/AnnU (M) ֒→ Hom (M, M) , for M ∈ g -mod (4.2)

The question ofe surjectivitye of the ιM is known as the Kostant’s problem; see [Jo, Go3, MM]. By slight abuse of notation, we will use the notations L(−, −) and ι(−) for the corresponding functor applied to thee case of g = g0¯. WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 15

4.3. Equivalence. We are going to establish an equivalence between N (Λ,ζ) and a category of Harish-Chandra (U,U)-bimodules. The following theorem established in [CC, Theorem 3.1] is a variation of [MS1, Theorem 3.1]. e e Theorem 10. Let M ∈ g0¯-Mod. Set I to be the annihilator ideal of M. Suppose that the monomorphism ιM in (4.2) is an isomorphism and M is projective in hF ⊗ Mi. Then −⊗U M : B(I) → Coker(F ⊗ Ind(M)) is an equivalence of categories with inverse L(M, −). e Theorem 10 will be the main tool in the proof of Theorem B. Before giving the proofs, ∗ lζ we need several preparatory results. For a given µ ∈ h , recall that χµ : Z(lζ ) → C denotes the central character of lζ associated with µ.

Recall that lζ is a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic decomposition of g0¯, giving a corre- ∗ sponding parabolic subalgebra qζ of g0¯. For µ ∈ h , we deﬁne n n M (µ,ζ) := U ⊗qζ Yζ (µ,ζ), n lζ n C where Yζ (µ,ζ) := U(lζ )/(Kerχµ ) U(lζ ) ⊗U(nζ ) ζ ; see [MS1, Section 5]. We put Iµ := 0¯ n UKerχµ. We set H(Iµ ) to be the category of Harish-Chandra (U, U)-bimodules X such n that XIµ = 0. The following lemma is established in [MS1, Theorem 5.3].

∗ Lemma 11 (Miliˇci´c-Soergel). Let λ ∈ h be dominant such that Wζ = Wλ. Then the n n n functor N → N ⊗U M (λ, ζ) provides an equivalence Tn from N (Λ,ζ) to H(Iλ ), for n each n ≥ 1. This gives rise to an equivalence T from n≥1 H(Iλ ) to N (Λ,ζ).

Before proving Theorem B, we collect some useful factsS from [MS1] as follows.

∗ Lemma 12 (Miliˇci´c-Soergel). Let λ ∈ h be dominant with Wλ = Wζ. Set Λ := λ +Υ. Then for any n ≥ 1 we have n (1) N (Λ,ζ) is stable under tensoring with ﬁnite-dimensional g0¯-modules. (2) N (Λ,ζ)n has enough projective modules, and M n(λ, ζ) is projective in N (ζ)n. n n n (3) AnnU M (λ, ζ) = Iλ , and ιM n(λ,ζ) is an isomorphism for M = M (λ, ζ) in (4.2). (4) For any n>m the canonical epimorphism M n(λ, ζ) ։ M m(λ, ζ) has kernel 0¯ m n Ker(χλ) M (λ, ζ).

Proof. Part (1) is a consequence of [MS1, Theorem 4.1, Lemma 4.3]. As has been noted n in the proof of [MS1, Theorem 5.3], H(Iλ ) has enough projective modules. Therefore, conclusions in Part (2) and Part (3) follow from [MS1, Lemma 5.11, Proposition 5.5] and Lemma 11. Part (4) is taken from [MS1, Lemma 5.14].

Remark 13. The facts (1) − (3) are also given in the proof of [MS1, Theorem 5.3]. 16 CHIH-WHI CHEN

We set Bλ := BIλ to be the full subcategory consisting of objects n {X ∈ B| XIλ = 0, for n >> 0}. Recall that Λ := λ + Υ. We now in a position to state the following equivalence.

∗ Theorem 14. Suppose that λ ∈ h is dominant such that Wζ = Wλ. Then the functor n X 7→ lim X ⊗U M (λ, ζ) gives an equivalence of categories T : Bλ → N (Λ,ζ). ← e e Proof. By deﬁnition N (Λ,ζ)n is the full subcategory of N (ζ) consisting of modules M such that Res M ∈ N (Λ,ζ)n, for any n ≥ 1. By [Co, Proposition 2.2.1], we know that N (Λ,ζ)n has enoughe projective objects, and any projectivee module in N (Λ,ζ)n is a direct summand of Ind X, for projective object X ∈N (Λ,ζ)n. We claim that the n n ∼ n functore −⊗U M (λ, ζ) gives an equivalence B(Iλ ) = N (Λ,ζ) . e n n n Using Part (2) of Lemma 12, we know M (λ, ζ) is projectivee in hF⊗M (λ, ζ)i⊂N (ζ) . Then by Part (3) of Lemma 12 and Theorem 10, we obtain an equivalence n n n (4.3) −⊗U M (λ, ζ) : B(Iλ ) → Coker(F ⊗ Ind(M (λ, ζ))).

To complete the proof, we shall show that Coker(Fe ⊗ Ind(M n(λ, ζ))) = N (Λ,ζ)n. We may observe that E ⊗ Ind M n(λ, ζ) =∼ Ind(Res E ⊗ M n(λ, ζ)) is projective in N (Λ,ζ)n, for any E ∈ F. Since N (Λ,ζ)n has enough projectives,e we need just toe show that add(F ⊗ Ind(M n(λ, ζ))) contains all projective modules in N (Λ,ζ)n. To seee this, let n n P ∈ N (Λ,ζ) ebe a projectivee object. Since every projective module in H(Iλ ) is a n directe summand of E ⊗ U/Iλ , for E ∈ F, we may conclude thate P is a direct summand of a projective module of the form E ⊗ M n(λ, ζ) by Lemma 11. Therefore we have Ind P ∈ add(Ind(F ⊗ M n(λ, ζ))). Now we calculate P ⊆ add(Ind(F ⊗ M n(λ, ζ))) ⊆ add(Ind(F ⊗ Res Ind M n(λ, ζ))) e = add(Ind F ⊗ Ind M n(λ, ζ)) = add(P⊗ Ind M n(λ, ζ)) ⊆ add(F ⊗ Ind M n(λ, ζ)). e n n n Consequently, we have equivalence −⊗U M (λ, ζ) : B(Iλ ) → N (Λ,ζ) . By Part (4) of e n Lemma 12, the functor X 7→ lim X ⊗U M (λ, ζ) determines an equivalence of categories ← e T : Bλ → N (Λ,ζ). This completes the proof. e e ∗ Corollary 15. Let λ ∈ h be dominant and ζ, η ∈I such that Wλ = Wζ = Wη. Then we have N (λ +Υ, η) =∼ N (λ +Υ,ζ).

e e WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 17

∗ Corollary 16. Let λ ∈ h be dominant such that Wλ = Wζ . Suppose that s is a simple reﬂection that s does not lie in the integral Weyl group of λ. Then we have N (s · λ +Υ, η) =∼ N (λ +Υ,ζ),

e e for any η ∈I with Ws·λ = Wη.

Proof. By Theorem 14, we have the following equivalences ∼ ∼ (4.4) N (s · λ +Υ, η) = Bs·λ = Bλ = N (λ +Υ,ζ). e e

5. Multiplicities of standard Whittaker modules

In this section, we assume that g = g−1 ⊕g0 ⊕g1 is a classical Lie superalgebra of type I − and ζ ∈I such that lζ is a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic decomposition g = uζ ⊕lζ ⊕uζ satisfying − (5.1) (uζ )1¯ = g−1, (uζ )1¯ = g1 = b1¯. In particular, we are mainly interested in the following concrete subset of the classical Lie superalgebras: (5.2) g = gl(m|n), osp(2|2n), pe(n).

In this case, for an arbitrary ζ ∈ I, the lζ is always a Levi subalgebra in a parabolic − decomposition g = uζ ⊕ lζ ⊕ uζ that satisﬁes (5.1). We refer to [Mu, Section 3] and [CCC, Section 5] for more details. We note that the deﬁnitions of standard Whittaker module M(λ, ζ) from (3.7) in Section 3.2 and that from (3.3) in Section 3.1 coincide. Also, we remark that the character ζ on n is naturally extended to a homomorphism from U(nf) to C.

5.1. The category O and the Whittaker vectors. We recall that the BGG category O consists of ﬁnitely-generated g-modules which are semisimple over h and locally ﬁnite over n. Therefore O is the category of g-modules that restrict by Res to g0¯- modules in the BGG category of [BGG2], which we will denote by O0¯ in the present paper. We refer to [CW2, Mu] for a more complete treatment. In particular, we may note that O⊂ N (0).

0¯ Both categorieseO and O admit highest category structures (see, e.g., [CPS, Ma, CCC]). The partial order ≤ on h∗ is deﬁned as the transitive closure of the following relations λ − α ≤ λ, for α ∈ Φ(n), − (λ + α ≤ λ, for α ∈ Φ(n ). We deﬁne M(λ) and M(λ) to be the Verma modules of highest weight λ as follows

M(λ)= U(g¯) ⊗ C , M(λ) := U(g) ⊗ C =∼ K(M(λ)). f 0 b0¯ λ b λ f 18 CHIH-WHI CHEN

Denote by L(λ) and L(λ) the simple quotients of M(λ) and M(λ), respectively. There are canonical epimorphisms M(λ) ։ K(L(λ)), K(L(λ)) ։ L(λ), for any λ ∈ h∗. e f For any g-module M and g -module V , we deﬁne 0¯f e Whζ(V ) := {v ∈ V | xv = ζ(x)v, for any x ∈ n0¯},

Whζ(M) := {m ∈ M| xm = ζ(x)m, for any x ∈ n}.

Following [Ko], elements in Whζ (V ) and Whζ (M) are called Whittaker vectors. The following useful lemmag is taken from [BCW, Lemma 3.3]. g

Lemma 17 (Bagci-Christodoulopoulou-Wiesner). The subspace Whζ (M) is non-zero, for any M ∈ N (ζ). In particular, M is simple if dimWhζ(M)= 1. g Proof. Let v ∈eM be non-zero. By [CW2, Lemma 3.17]g there exists one-dimensional n- module Cη of U(n)v, for some η ∈I. We may conclude that η = ζ since M ∈ N (ζ).

∗ e 5.2. The functors Γζ. Let ζ ∈I. For a given M ∈ O and λ ∈ h , let Mλ denote the ∗ corresponding weight subspace, that is, Mλ := {m ∈ M| hm = λ(h)m, for any h ∈ h }. We may associate thee completion M := λ∈h∗ Mλ, which admits a structure of g- module in a natural way. Define Q Γζ (M) := {m ∈ M| x − ζ(x) acts nilpotently at m, for any x ∈ n0¯}. We may note that Γ (M) ∈ g-Mod since e ζ (5.3) (x − ζ(x))ym = (ad(x)y)m + y(x − ζ(x))m, e for any y ∈ U(g), x ∈ n0¯ and m ∈ Γζ (M). Therefore Γζ defines a functor from O to g-Mod. e e The g-module Γζ (M) is locally finite over n (see, e.g., [AB, Lemma 1]). We may also note that Γζ(M) is the set of elements in M that are annihilated by some power of e Kerζ, and hence Res Γζ(M) = Γζ (Res M) ∈ N (ζ) (cf. [Ba, Lemma 3.2]), where the functor Γζ eis defined in [Ba, Section 3.1]. We recall that the functor Γζ sends Verma modules to standard Whittakere modules and sends simple modules to simple modules or zeros by [Ba, Proposition 6.9]. The conclusion of Theorem C is an immediate consequence of the following theorem:

Theorem 18. The functor Γζ deﬁnes an exact functor from O to N (ζ). Furthermore, for any λ ∈ h∗ we have e e (5.4) Γζ (M(λ)) = M(λ, ζ); K(L(λ, ζ)), if λ is n -antidominant; (5.5) Γ (K(L(λ))) =∼ ζ eζ f f 0, otherwise; e WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 19

L(λ, ζ), if λ is n -antidominant; (5.6) Γ (L(λ)) =∼ ζ ζ 0, otherwise. e e e ∼ Proof. The ﬁrst claim follows from the isomorphism Res ◦Γζ = Γζ ◦Res and [Ba, Lemma ∼ 0¯ 3.2]. We shall show that Γζ ◦ K = K ◦ Γζ . For M ∈ O , the g-module Γζ(K(M)) can be considered as the set of elements of K(M) that are annihilatede by some powers of ∼ Kerζ. Therefore we havee natural isomorphisms Γζ(K(M)) = K(Γζ (M))e by the proof of [AB, Proposition 3]. The conclusions of (5.4)-(5.5) follow from [Ba, Proposition 6.9]. e We note that Γζ (L(λ)) = 0 if λ is not nζ-antidominant by (5.5). Now, suppose that ∼ λ is nζ -antidominant. We are going to show that Γζ (L(λ)) = L(λ, ζ). To see this, e e g C we ﬁrst note that there is a non-zero homomorphism φ from M(λ) to Coindh+n− λ e e g e C since λ is the highest weight in the weight subspace of Coindh+n− λ. Let S denote fg C the image of φ. We note that Γζ(S) is a g-submodule of Coindh+n− λ (see also the ∼ proof of [BM, Theorem 36]). Also, Γζ (S) is non-zero since Res Γζ(S) ։ Res Γζ(L(λ)) = e Γζ (Res L(λ)) ⊃ Γζ (L(λ)) = L(λ, ζ) by [Ba, Proposition 6.9]. e e e e Since Γζe(S) is non-zero, the subspace Whζ (Γζ (S)) of Whittaker vectors of Γζ (S) is non- zero. By a similar argument as used in [BM, Lemma 37], we also know that the subspace e g C g e g C e Whζ (Coindh+n− λ) of Whittaker vectors of Coindh+n− λ is of one-dimensional, which ∼ implies that Γζ (S) is simple. Since Γζ(S) is the simple quotient of Γζ (M(λ)) = M(λ, ζ), g ∼ we may conclude that Γζ (S) = L(λ, ζ). Also, since Γζ (L(λ)) is a non-zero quotient of e e ∼ e f f Γζ (S) by the exactness of Γζ , we have Γζ(L(λ)) = L(λ, ζ). This completes the proof. e e e e e e e e e The following corollary is an analog of Kostant’s characterizations of simple Whittaker modules in [Ko, Theorem 3.6.1].

Corollary 19. Let M ∈ N . Then M is simple if and only if dimWhζ (M)= 1.

e g ∗ Proof. By the proof of Theorem 18, we have dim Whζ(L(λ, ζ)) = 1, for any λ ∈ h . The conclusion follows from Lemma 17. g e 5.3. Basic Lie superalgebras of type I. The series of types A and C Lie superalgebras from the list (1.1), (1.2) belong to the so-called series of basic Lie superalgebras; see [CW2, Section 1.1]. In this subsection, we will give a detailed example of the composition series for the standard Whittaker modules over gl(1|2). We will also study several criteria of simplicity and the annihilator for standard Whittaker modules over Lie superalgebras of types A, C and P. Following [Ko, MS1], an element ζ ∈I is called regular (or nonsingular) if Wζ = W . 20 CHIH-WHI CHEN

5.3.1. The general linear Lie superalgebras gl(m|n). For positive integers m,n, the general linear Lie superalgebra gl(m|n) can be realized as the space of (m + n) × (m + n) complex matrices A B (5.7) , C D where A,B,C and D are m × m,m × n,n × m,n × n matrices, respectively. The bracket is given by the super commutator. For any 1 ≤ a, b ≤ m + n, set Eab to be the elementary matrix in gl(m|n), namely, the (a, b)-entry of Eab is equal to 1 and all other entries are 0.

The Cartan subalgebra h ⊂ g0 consists of diagonal matrices above. We denote the dual ∗ basis of h by {ǫ1,ǫ2,...,ǫm+n} with respect to the following standard basis of h

(5.8) {Hi := Ei,i| 1 ≤ i ≤ m + n}. The space h∗ is equipped with a natural bilinear form (·, ·) : h∗ × h∗ → C by letting − − (ǫi,ǫj) = δij. We fix a triangular decomposition g = n ⊕ h ⊕ n, where n and n consisting of all strict upper and lower triangular matrices in (5.7), respectively. The corresponding Borel subalgebra is b = h ⊕ n. Recall that we denote by Φ the set of roots and by Φ+ the set of positive roots in the Borel subalgebra b. LetΦ0¯ and Φ1¯ be the sets of even and odd roots in Φ, respectively. The Weyl vector ρ is defined as 1 1 ρ = α − β, 2 2 α∈Φ+ β∈Φ+ X0¯ X1¯ + + ¯ ¯ where Φi := Φi ∩ Φ , for i = 0, 1. We recall that a weight λ is typical if (λ + ρ, α) 6= 0, for any α ∈ Φ1¯ and is atypical otherwise; see, e.g., [CW2, Section 2.2.6]. + + 5.3.2. Example: g = gl(1|2). We now consider g = gl(1|2). The sets Φ0¯ ,Φ1¯ are given as follows: + + (5.9) Φ0¯ = {ǫ2 − ǫ3}, Φ1¯ = {ǫ1 − ǫ2, ǫ1 − ǫ3}. Also, we set Fij := Eij, for 1 ≤ j < i ≤ 3. Let ζ ∈ I. Note that standard Whittaker modules and Verma modules coincide in the case when ζ = 0. Throughout this subsection, we let ζ be regular, namely, ζ(E23) 6= 0. In this case we have M(λ, ζ) = L(λ, ζ) for any λ ∈ h∗ by [Ko, Theorem 3.6.1]. In this subsection, we will construct composition series of standard Whittaker modules of N (ζ) explicitly by finding their Whittaker vectors. Similar computation was also given in [BCW, Section 5.1], where the authors concluded that all standard Whittaker modulese are simple. However, by [CM, Theorem 6.7] and [MS1, Proposition 2.1(3)] there exist reducible standard Whittaker modules; see Section 5.3.3 for more details. It is worth pointing out that the assumption of typical weight λ is needed to be added in the calculation in [BCW, Section 5.1]. ∼ We define the Chevalley generators f := E32, e := E23 and h := E22 −E33 for [g0¯, g0¯] = 2 1 sl(2). The Casimir element Ω of g0¯ is given by Ω := 4fe+h +2h. Let z := E11+ 2 (E22+ WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 21

∗ 0¯ C E33) ∈ Z(g0¯). For λ ∈ h , let χλ : Z(g0¯) → be the central character associated with 0¯ 0¯ ∗ λ. We set a := ζ(e) 6= 0, b := χλ(Ω) and c := χλ(z). Let λ = λ1ǫ1 + λ2ǫ2 + λ3ǫ3 ∈ h ′ with complex numbers λis. Recall that we have deﬁned U := U(g),U := U(g0¯). The following lemma is a consequence of [CM, Corollary 6.8] and [MS1, Proposition e 2.1(3)]

Lemma 20. Consider g = gl(1|2) with notations as above. The following are equivalent: (1) λ is atypical. (2) b = 4(c2 − c). (3) M(λ, ζ) is not simple.

Proof. Byf [Ko, Theorem 3.9] (see also [MS1, Proposition 2.1(3)]) we know that the annihilators of g0¯-modules M(λ, ζ) and M(λ) coincide. The fact that Part (1) and Part (3) are indeed equivalent was established in [CM, Corollary 6.8]. The equality b = 4c(c − 1) holds if and only if 1 1 1 1 (λ − λ )(λ − λ + 2) = 4(λ + λ + λ )(λ + λ + λ − 1), 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 which is equivalent to (λ1 + λ2)(λ1 + λ3 − 1) = 0 by a direct computation. This shows that Part (1) and Part (2) are equivalent. The conclusion follows.

Alternative proof of Lemma 20. By a direct computation we have 1 1 E E F F x = (z2 − z − Ω)x = (c2 − c − b)x, 12 13 31 21 4 4 for any x ∈ M(λ, ζ) (see also [CM, Example 6.6]). The conclusion follows from [CM, Theorem 6.7].

We will generalize Lemma 20 later; see Theorem 26. We now turn to the composition series of M(λ, ζ) for atypical weight λ. The following lemma will be useful.

Lemmaf 21. For each atypical weight λ ∈ h∗, there are exactly two antidominant composition factors of M(λ). They are L(λ), L(λ−α), where λ ∈ W ·λ is antidominant and α is the unique positive odd root such that (λ+ρ, α) = 0 and λ−α is antidominant. f e e Proof. Suppose that λ is non-integral. In this case, it is known that the block Oλ is equivalent to the principal block of gl(1|1) (see, e.g., [CCL, Section 4.2] for an argument), and every simple module in Oλ are antidominant. Therefore M(λ) has exactly two desired composition factors L(λ) and L(λ − α) that are all antidominant. f Suppose that λ is integral. Then the conclusion follows from the BGG reciprocity and Lemma 32 in Section 6. 22 CHIH-WHI CHEN

The g0¯-module M(λ, ζ) can be regarded as a submodule of Res M(λ, ζ). Let v ∈ Whζ (M(λ, ζ)) be a non-zero Whittaker vector. By [BCW, Lemma 5.6], the set f {v1 := v, v2 := F21v, v3 := F21F31v, v4 := 2aF31v + F21hv}, forms a basis for Whζ (M(λ, ζ)).

Proposition 22. Supposef that λ is atypical with λ ∈ W · λ antidominant. Let α be the unique positive odd root such that (λ + ρ, α) = 0 and λ − α is antidominant. Then there is a short exact sequence (5.10) 0 → Uw → M(λ, ζ) → L(λ, ζ) → 0, where the submodule Uw =∼ L(λ − α, ζ) is generated by the Whittaker vector e f e 1 v2 + v4, for c 6= 1; (5.11) e w e= 2(1−c) v , for c = 1; 4 and L(λ, ζ) generated by the image of v in the quotient M(λ, ζ)/Uw.

e f e Proof. Set w := Bv2 + Cv3 + Dv4 with B,C,D ∈ C. By a direct computation we have −1 E w = 0 ⇐⇒ Bc = Db, B = 2D(1 − c), C = 0; 12 2 E13w = 0 ⇐⇒ B = 2D(1 − c), C = 0.

Consequently, the equality b = 4(c2 −c) coming from Lemma 20 determines all relations between the coeﬃcients B, C and D such that w ∈ Whζ (M(λ, ζ)): B = 2(1 − c)D, for c 6= 1; (5.12) B =0 and D is arbitrary,g for cf= 1;   C = 0.  By Lemma 21 and Theorem B, the vector w ∈ Whζ (M(λ, ζ)) satisfying (5.12) generates the desired proper simple submodule Uw =∼ L(λ − α, ζ). This completes the proof. g f We also give an alternative proof of Propositione e 22 without using Theorem B and the character formulas of gl(2|1) in Section 6.

Alternative proof of Proposition 22. We claim that the length of a composition series of Res L(λ, ζ) is always 2, for any atypical weight λ ∈ h∗. To see this, we ﬁrst note that the length of Res M(λ, ζ) =∼ Λg−1 ⊗ L(λ, ζ) is the dimension dim Λg−1 = 4 by [BCW, Propositione 5.1] (see also [Ko, Theorem 4.6]). By Lemma 20, it suﬃces to show that the length of Res Lf(λ, ζ) is equal to or greater than 2.

∗ By [CM, Theoreme 4.1] there exists µ ∈ h such that L(λ, ζ) is the socle of M(µ,ζ), which top is generated by Λ g−1 ⊗ L(µ,ζ). If Res L(λ, ζ) is of length one then Res L(λ, ζ) = e f e e WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 23

top Λ g−1 ⊗ L(µ,ζ) ⊂ Res M(µ,ζ). But for any nonzero v ∈ Whζ (L(µ,ζ)) we calculate 1 1 E F F v = F ( h − 1)v − F ((b − 2h − h2)v), 12 21 31f 31 2 4a 21 which is nonzero by [Mc2, Lemma 2] (see also [BCW, Lemma 5.5]). Therefore we have shown that the length of Res L(λ, ζ) is 2. Consequently, there is a short exact sequence (5.13) 0 → X → M(λ, ζ) → Y → 0, e where both X,Y are simple Whittaker modules such that X is generated by the Whit- taker vector w from (5.12). f If c 6= 0, 1 and (λ+ρ, β) = 0, for some positive odd root β. Then by a direct computation we have −1 Ωw = (4c2 − 8c + 3)w, zw = ( + c)w, 2 0¯ which implies that Uw admits the central character χλ−β associated with the weight λ−β. Since Uw is a proper simple submodule, we may conclude that Uw =∼ L(λ−β,ζ) =∼ L(λ − α, ζ), as desired. The remaining cases c = 0, 1 can be calculated by similar arguments. Thee conclusion follows. e e e The following corollary gives a description of block decomposition of N (ζ) for g = gl(1|2). e Corollary 23. Consider g = gl(1|2). Let λ, µ ∈ h∗ be atypical and ζ ∈ I regular. Then L(λ, ζ) and L(µ,ζ) lie in the same indecomposable block of N (ζ) if and only if λ ∈ W · (µ + kα), where α is an odd root with (µ + ρ, α) = 0. e e e 5.3.3. Criteria for simplicity of standard Whittaker modules. In this subsection, we study the simplicity of standard Whittaker modules for classical Lie superalgebras of types A and C from (1.3), (1.4). We refer to [CW2] for more details about the ortho-symplectic Lie superalgebras osp(m|2n). In particular, the notions of typical and atypical weights for osp(m|2n) are deﬁned in a similar fashion; see [CW2, Section 2.2.6].

e For any M ∈ g-Mod, denote by AnnU M the annihilator of M. Similarly, we deﬁne the annihilator AnnU(k)N for any subalgebra k ⊆ g and N ∈ k-Mod. We ﬁrst show that the annihilators of standard Whittaker modules and Verma modules coincide.

Proposition 24. Let g be a classical Lie superalgebra of type I. Then

e e AnnU M(λ, ζ) = AnnU M(λ).

e In particular, if g is basic then AnnfU M(λ, ζ) is centrallyf generated for typical λ.

lζ Proof. Let M (λ) denote the parabolicf Verma module over lζ of highest weight λ. lζ By [Ko, Theorem 3.9], AnnU(lζ )Yζ(λ, ζ) = AnnU(lζ )M (λ). The conclusion follows by 24 CHIH-WHI CHEN an argument similar to the one in the proof of [Di, Proposition 5.1.7] (see also [MS1, Lemma 2.2] and [CM, Lemma 6.4]).

In the rest of this subsection, we let g be one of the series of gl(m|n) and osp(2|2n). The following lemma is taken from [CM, Corollary 6.8].

Lemma 25. Let V be a simple g0¯-module. Then K(V ) is simple if and only if ∗ AnnU V = AnnU L(λ), for some typical λ ∈ h .

Proposition 26. For any λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I, the following are equivalent. (1) M(λ, ζ) is simple. (2) λ is typical and M(λ, ζ) is simple. f (3) λ is typical and there is a unique nζ-antidominant weight ν ∈ W · λ with λ ≥ ν. In particular, if ζ is regular then M(λ, ζ) is simple if and only if λ is typical.

Proof. The fact that Part (2) andf Part (3) are indeed equivalent is a consequence of [Ba, Theorem 6.2]. Next, we recall that the socle socM(λ) of M(λ) has a typical highest weight if and only if λ is typical. By [MS1, Proposition 2.1(3)] it follows that

(5.14) AnnU M(λ, ζ) = AnnU M(λ) = AnnU socM(λ).

Now, suppose that M(λ, ζ) is simple. Then the simplicity of M(λ, ζ) follows from the exactness of Kac functor K(−) and (3.7). By Lemma 25, the socle socM(λ) is a simple g0¯-module of typicalf highest weight, and so λ is typical. This shows the implication (1) ⇒ (2). Conversely, suppose that M(λ, ζ) is simple and λ is typical. Then the proof of direction (2) ⇒ (1) follows by Lemma 25. Finally, by [Ko, Theorem 3.6.1], we know that M(λ, ζ) is simple if ζ is regular. This completes the proof.

Alternative proof of Propotision 26. As has been mentioned, Parts (2) and (3) are equivalent by [Ba, Theorem 6.2]. It remains to show (1) ⇔ (2). First, we suppose on the contrary that M(λ, ζ) is simple with λ atypical. We know that M(λ, ζ) is simple by the exactness of the functor K(−). Let λ ∈ W ·λ be antidominant. By [CCM, Theorem 51] and Lemma 25f the socle of M(λ) is isomorphic to the socle of K(λ), which is a simple module of antidominant highest weight γ with λ 6= γ; see also [CCC, Theorem 4.4, Proposition 4.15]. Using the grading operator dg from [CM, Sections 5.1, 5.2], we know ∼ γ 6∈ W · λ, and so γ 6∈ Wζ · λ. By Theorem 5.2, Γζ(L(γ)) = L(γ,ζ) is a composition factor that is not isomorphic to L(λ, ζ) by Theorem 8, a contradiction. e e e Conversely, suppose that λ is typical.e Then we have [M(λ) : L(µ)] = [M(λ) : L(µ)], for any µ ∈ h∗ (see, e.g., [Go2, Theorem 1.3.1]). Therefore the simplicities of M(λ, ζ) and M(λ, ζ) are equivalent by Theorem B. f e

f WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 25

Corollary 27. Let λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I satisfy one of conditions (1)-(3). Then

e e AnnU L(λ, ζ) = AnnU L(λ), is centrally generated, where λ ∈ W · λ is antidominant. e e 5.4. The periplectic Lie superalgebras. The standard matrix realization of the periplectic Lie superalgebra pe(n) is given by A B (5.15) pe(n) := k A,B,C ∈ Cn×n, Bt = B and Ct = −C ⊂ gl(n|n). C −At The Cartan subalgebra h ⊂ g0 consists of diagonal matrices above. There is a standard basis of h deﬁned as

(5.16) {Hi := Ei,i − En+i,n+i| 1 ≤ i ≤ n}, where Ea,b ∈ gl(n|n) denotes the (a, b)-matrix unit, for 1 ≤ a, b ≤ 2n. We denote by ∗ {ǫ1,ǫ2,...,ǫn} the dual basis for h with respect to the basis {Hi| 1 ≤ i ≤ n}.

∗ We recall from [Se2, Section 5] that a weight λ = λiǫi ∈ h is called typical if 1≤Xi≤n (λi − λj + j − i − 1) 6= 0. 1≤iY6=j≤n The following proposition gives composition factors of the standard Whittaker module M(λ, ζ) in terns of the Kazhdan-Lusztig combinatorics for typical weight λ.

Propositionf 28. Let λ ∈ h∗ be typical. Then for any ζ ∈I we have (5.17) [M(λ, ζ) : L(µ,ζ)] = [M(λ) : L(ν)], where ν ∈ Wζ · µ is nζ-antidominant. f e

Proof. By [CP, Corollary 4.4] we have [M(λ) : L(µ)] = [M(λ) : L(µ)], for any µ ∈ h∗ (ass also [Se2, Corollary 5.8]). The conclusion follows Theorem 18. f e We have the following suﬃcient condition for the simplicity of standard Whittaker modules over pe(n).

Corollary 29. Let λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I. Then M(λ, ζ)= L(λ, ζ) if either λ is antidominant or ζ ∈I is regular. In particular, if λ is antidominant then we have

e f e e AnnU L(λ, ζ) = AnnU L(λ).

e e Proof. It was shown in [CC, Lemma 5.11] (see also [Se2, Lemma 3.2]) that M(λ) is simple if λ is antidominant. The conclusion follows from Theorem 18 and Proposition 24. f 26 CHIH-WHI CHEN

Example 30. Consider g = pe(2). Set X12 := E14 + E23, Y12 := E32 − E41. Sup- pose that ζ ∈ I is regular. Then M(λ, ζ) is simple for any λ ∈ h∗. We have Whζ (Res M(λ, ζ)) = Cv ⊕ CY12v, for any nonzero vector v ∈ Whζ(M(λ, ζ)). Then k the elements in the set {(H1 − H2) v| k ≥ 0} are linear independent by [Mc2, Lemma 2]. By a directf computation we obtain that X12Y12v = (H1 − H2)v, and so this veriﬁes that Whζ (M(λ, ζ)) = Cv.

5.5. Theg equivalencef T . In this subsection, we continue to work under the assumption that g is a classical Lie superalgebra of type I. Let λ ∈ h∗ and ζ ∈I such that λ is dominant with Wλ = We ζ.

We recall that the equivalence T of the categories Bλ and N (λ+Υ,ζ) as constructed in Theorem 14. We are going to consider the eﬀect of T on standard and simple objects in Bλ. The following is an analoge of [MS1, Proposition 5.15].e e Proposition 31. For any µ ∈ λ +Υ, the module L(M(λ), M(µ)) has a simple top Sλ,ζ(µ) such that f (5.18) T (L(M(λ), M (µ))) = M(µ,ζ), (5.19) T (S (µ)) = L(µ,ζ). e λ,ζ f f Proof. We ﬁrst note that e e T (L(M(λ), M (µ))) =∼ T (L(M(λ), K(M(µ)))) =∼ K(T (L(M(λ), M(µ)))), where T is the equivalence in Lemma 11. By [MS1, Proposition 5.15], we know that T (L(M(eλ), M(µ)))f=∼ M(µ,ζ).e This claim follows.

Now, we put together all the pieces from previous sections. Then, Theorem 14, Theorem 18 and Proposition 31 imply that the composition factors of the standard Harish- Chandra bimodule L(M(λ), M(µ)) in Proposition 31 can be computed via Kazhdan- Lusztig combinatorics for g = gl(m|n) and osp(2|2n). f 6. Appendix 6.1. Character formulae of gl(2|1). The goal of this subsection is to give the list of character formulae of projective covers in the principal block of O of g := gl(2|1) computed in [CW1]. With the canonical isomorphic gl(1|2) =∼ gl(2|1) and the BGG reciprocity, the composition factors of Verma modules over gl(1|2) can be read oﬀ from character formulae in this subsection. C We choose the Borel subalgebra b := 1≤i≤j≤3 Eij and the standard Cartan subalgebra h∗ := ⊕3 CE . Set ρ ∈ h∗ to be the corresponding Weyl vector. For µ ∈ h∗, we let i=1 ii L M a(µ) denote Verma module over gl(2|1) with highest weight µ − ρ. Also, we let P a(µ) denote the projective cover of the simple quotient of M a(µ). For any a, b, c ∈ C, we set a a a a (a|b, c) := aǫ1 +bǫ2 +cǫ3. We adopt the notation P (λ)= µ∈h∗ (P (λ) : M (µ))M (µ) to record the Verma ﬂag structure P a(λ). P WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 27

Lemma 32. [CW1, Section 9] We have the following character formulae: (1). P a(0, 0|0) = M a(0, 0|0) + M a(0, 1|− 1) + M a(1, 0|− 1). (2). P a(0, −1|1) = M a(0, −1|1) + M a(0, 0|0) + M a(1, 0|− 1). (3). P a(−1, 0|1) = M a(−1, 0|1) + M a(0, −1|1) + M a(00|0). (4). P a(0, −k|k)= M a(0, −k|k)+ M a(0, −(k − 1)|(k − 1)), for k> 1. (5). P a(−k, 0|k)= M a(−k, 0|k)+ M a(0, −k|k)+ M a(−(k − 1), 0|(k − 1))+ M a(0, −(k − 1)|(k − 1)), for k> 1. (6). P a(k, 0|− k)= M a(k, 0|− k)+ M a(k + 1, 0|− (k + 1)), for k ≥ 1. (7). P a(0, k|− k)= M a(0, k|− k)+ M a(k, 0|− k)+ M a(0, k + 1|− (k + 1))+ M a(k + 1, 0|− (k + 1)), for k ≥ 1.

References

[AB] J.C. Arias, E. Backelin Projective and Whittaker functors on category O. Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05697. A(1) [ALZ] D. Adamović, Rencai Lü, K. Zhao. Whittaker modules for the affine Lie algebra 1 . Adv. Math. 289 (2016): 438–479. [Ba] E. Backelin. Representation of the category O in Whittaker categories. Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1997), 4, 153–172. [Bo] H. Bao Kazhdan-Lusztig theory of super type D and quantum symmetric pairs. Represent. Theory 21 (2017), 247-276 [Br1] J. Brundan, Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials and character formulae for the Lie superalgebra gl(m|n), J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), 185–231. [Br2] J. Brundan. Representations of the general linear Lie superalgebra in the BGG category O. In: ”Developments and Retrospectives in Lie Theory: Algebraic Methods,” eds. G. Mason et al., Developments in Mathematics 38, Springer, 2014, pp. 71–98. [Bro] A. Brown. Arakawa-Suzuki functors for Whittaker modules. J. Algebra, 538 (2019): 261–289. [BB] A. Beilinson; J. Bernstein, Localisation de g-modules, Sér. I Math., 292, Paris: C. R. Acad. Sci. (1981), 15–18. [BF] A. Bell and R. Farnsteiner. On the theory of Frobenius extensions and its application to Lie superalgebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 335 (1993) 407–424. [BG] J. N. Bernstein and S. I. Gelfand, Tensor products of finite- and infinite-dimensional representations of semisimple Lie algebras, Compositio Math. 41 (1980), no. 2, 245–285. MR581584 [BGo] J. Brundan, S.M. Goodwin. Whittaker coinvariants for GL(m|n). Adv. Math., 347 (2019), pp. 273–339 [BK] J. Brylinski; M. Kashiwara, Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture and holonomic systems, Invent. Math., Springer-Verlag, 64 (3): 387–410. [BM] P. Batra and Volodymyr Mazorchuk. Blocks and modules for Whittaker pairs. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 215.7 (2011): 1552–1568. [BO] G. Benkart, M. Ondrus. Whittaker modules for generalized Weyl algebras. Represent. Theory (2009) 13: 141–164. [BS] J. Brundan, C. Stroppel. Semi-infinite highest weight categories. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08022. [BW] H. Bao and W. Wang, A new approach to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory of type B via quantum symmetric pairs, Asterisque 402, 2018, vii+134pp. [BCW] I. Bagci, K. Christodoulopoulou, E. Wiesner. Whittaker Categories and Whittaker modules for Lie superalgebras. Comm. Algebra 42 (2014), no. 11, 4932–4947. 28 CHIH-WHI CHEN

[BGG1] I. Bernˇstein, I. Gel’fand and S. Gel’fand. Differential operators on the base affine space and a study of g-modules. Lie groups and their representations (Proc. Summer School, Bolyai Janos Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971), pp. 21–64. Halsted, New York, 1975. [BGG2] I. Bernˇstein, I. Gel’fand and S. Gel’fand. A certain category of g-modules. Funkcional. Anal. i Priloˇzen. 10 (1976), no. 2, 1–8. [Ch] K. Christodoulopoulou. Whittaker modules for Heisenberg algebras and imaginary Whittaker modules for affine Lie algebras. J. Algebra (2002) 320:2871–2890. [Co] K. Coulembier. Gorenstein homological algebra for rngs and Lie superalgebras. Preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05040.pdf. [CC] C.-W. Chen and K. Coulembier. The primitive spectrum and category O for the periplectic Lie superalgebra. Canad. J. Math. 72 (2020), no. 3, 625–655. [CP] C.-W. Chen and Y.-N. Peng. Parabolic category Op for periplectic Lie superalgebras pe(n). Preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.10311.pdf. [CM] C.-W. Chen and V. Mazorchuk. Simple supermodules over Lie superalgebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 374 (2021), 899-921 [CMa] K. Coulembier and V. Mazorchuk. Extension fullness of the categories of Gelfand–Zeitlin and Whittaker modules. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 11 (2015), Paper No. 016. [CW1] S.-J. Cheng and W. Wang, Brundan-Kazhdan-Lusztig and Super Duality Conjectures. Publi- cations of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, 2008, 44(4):1219–1272. [CW2] S.-J. Cheng and W. Wang. Dualities and representations of Lie superalgebras. Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics 144. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. [CCC] C.-W. Chen, S.-J. Cheng and K. Coulembier. Tilting modules for classical Lie superalgebras. Preprint arXiv:1907.06579, to appear in J. Lond. Math. Soc.. [CCL] C.-W. Chen, S.-J. Cheng, Li Luo. Blocks and characters of G(3)-modules of non-integral weights. Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00998. [CCM] C.-W. Chen, K. Coulembier and V. Mazorchuk. Translated simple modules for Lie algebras and simple supermodules for Lie superalgebras. Math. Z. 297, 255–281 (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00209-020-02510-y. [CDH] H. Chen, X. Dai, Y. Hong A class of super Heisenberg-Virasoro algebras. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06853. [CLW1] S.-J. Cheng, N. Lam and W. Wang, Super duality and irreducible characters of ortho- symplectic Lie superalgebras, Invent. Math. 183 (2011), 189–224. [CLW2] S.-J. Cheng, N. Lam and W. Wang, Brundan-Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture for general linear Lie superalgebras, Duke Math. J. 110 (2015), 617–695. [CMW] S.-J. Cheng, V. Mazorchuk and W. Wang. Equivalence of blocks for the general linear Lie superalgebra. Lett. Math. Phys. 103 (2013), 1313–1327. [CPS] E. Cline, B. Parshall and L. Scott, Finite dimensional algebras and highest weight categories, J. Reine Angew. Math. 391 (1988), 85–99. [Di] J. Dixmier. Enveloping algebras. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 11. American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 1996. xx+379 pp. [DMP] I. Dimitrov, O. Mathieu, I. Penkov On the structure of weight modules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), no. 6, 2857–2869. [Go1] M. Gorelik. On the ghost centre of Lie superalgebra. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 50 (2000), no. 6, 1745–1764. [Go2] M. Gorelik. Strongly typical representations of the basic classical Lie superalgebras. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002) no. 1, 167–184. [Go3] M. Gorelik. Annihilation theorem and separation theorem for basic classical Lie superalgebras. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002), no. 1, 113–165. [GLZ] X. Guo, R. Lu and K. Zhao. Irreducible modules over the Virasoro algebra, Doc. Math., 16 (2011), 709–721 [Hu] J. Humphreys. Representations of semisimple Lie algebras in the BGG category O. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 94, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. WHITTAKER MODULES FOR CLASSICAL LIE SUPERALGEBRAS 29

[Jo] A. Joseph. Kostant’s problem, Goldie rank and the Gelfand-Kirillov conjecture. Invent. Math. 56 (1980), no. 3, 191–213. [Ka1] V. Kac. Lie superalgebras. Adv. Math. 16 (1977), 8–96. [Ka2] V. Kac. Representations of classical Lie superalgebras, Differential geometrical methods in mathematical physics, II (Proc. Conf., Univ. Bonn, Bonn, 1977), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 676, Springer, 1978, pp. 597–626. [Ko] B. Kostant. On Whittaker vectors and representation theory. Inv. Math. 48.2 (1978): 101–184. [KL] D. Kazhdan, G. Lusztig, Representations of Coxeter groups and Hecke algebras, Invent. Math. 53 (1979), 165–184. [KM] O. Khomenko; V. Mazorchuk, Structure of modules induced from simple modules with minimal annihilator. Canad. J. Math. 56 (2004), no. 2, 293–309. [LZ] R.LuandK.Zhao. Generalized oscillator representations of the twisted Heisenberg-Virasoro algebra. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 23. 4 (2020), 1417–1442. [LWZ] D. Liu, Y. Wu, L. Zhu. Whittaker modules for the twisted Heisenberg- Virasoro algebra. J. Math. Physics (2010) 51:023524, 12p. [Ma] V. Mazorchuk. Parabolic category O for classical Lie superalgebras. Advances in Lie Superal- gebras. Springer International Publishing, 2014, 149–166. [Mc1] E. McDowell, On modules induced from Whittaker modules. J. Algebra 96 (1985), 161–177. [Mc2] E. McDowell, A module induced from a Whittaker module. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 118 (1993), no. 2, 349–354. [Mu] I. Musson. Lie superalgebras and enveloping algebras. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 131. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. [MM] V. Mazorchuk and V. Miemietz, Serre functors for Lie algebras and superalgebras, Annales de linstitut Fourier, 62 (2012), No. 1, 47–75. [MSt] V. Mazorchuk, C. Stroppel. Categorification of (induced) cell modules and the rough structure of generalised Verma modules. Adv. Math. 219 (2008), no. 4, 1363–1426. [MS1] D. Miliˇcićand W. Soergel. The composition series of modules induced from Whittaker modules. Comment. Math. Helv. 72.(1997), no.4, 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000140050031. [MS2] D. Miliˇcić, W. Soergel. Twisted Harish-Chandra sheaves and Whittaker modules; Preprint, Freiburg University, 1995. [O] M. Ondrus. . Whittaker modules for Uq (sl2). J. Algebra (2005) 289:192–213. [OW] M. Ondrus, E. Wiesner. Whittaker modules for the Virasoro algebra. J. Algebra Appl. (2009) 8:363–377. [Ro] A. Romanov. A Kazhdan-Lusztig Algorithm for Whittaker Modules. Algebr. Represent. Theory (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10468-019-09934-z [Se1] A. Sevostyanov. Quantum deformation of Whittaker modules and the Toda lattice. Duke Math. J. (2000) 105:211–238. [Se2] V. Serganova. On representations of the Lie superalgebra p(n). J. Algebra 258 (2) (2002), 615–630. [So] W. Soergel. Kategorie O, perverse Garben und Moduln über den Koinvarianten zur Weyl- gruppe. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), no. 2, 421–445. [Wa] B. Wang. Whittaker modules for graded Lie algebras. Algebr. Represent. Theory (2010) 1–12. [Xi] H. Xiao On finite dimensional representations of basic W-superalgebras. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07345 [ZS] Y. Zeng, B. Shu Finite W-superalgebras for basic Lie superalgebras J. Algebra, 438 (2015), pp. 188–234

Chih-Whi Chen: Department of Mathematics, National Central University, Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, Taiwan; E-mail: [email protected]