TOWARDS GEOMETRIC SATAKE CORRESPONDENCE FOR KAC-MOODY ALGEBRAS – CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A

HIRAKU NAKAJIMA

Abstract. We give a provisional construction of the Kac-Moody Lie algebra module structure on the hyperbolic restriction of the intersection cohomology complex of the Coulomb branch of a framed quiver gauge theory, as a refinement of the conjectural geo- metric Satake correspondence for Kac-Moody algebras proposed in an earlier paper with Braverman, Finkelberg in 2019. This construction assumes several geometric properties of the Coulomb branch under the torus action. These properties are checked in affine type A, via the identification of the Coulomb branch with a Cherkis bow variety established in a joint work with Takayama.

Introduction

Let Q = (Q0,Q1) be a quiver without edge loops and gKM be the corresponding sym- metric Kac-Moody Lie algebra. Let M(λ, µ) be the Coulomb branch of the framed quiver gauge theory associated with dimension vectors specified by a dominant weight λ and a weight µ with µ ≤ λ, defined as an affine algebraic variety by Braverman, Finkelberg, and the author [BFN18a]. (See also the earlier paper [Nak16b] for motivation and references to physics literature.) In the subsequent paper [BFN19, §3(viii)] it was conjectured that there is a geometric construction of an integrable highest weight gKM-module structure on the direct sum (over µ) via M(λ, µ): Recall M(λ, µ) is equipped with an action of the torus T = (C×)Q0 , the Pontryagin dual of the fundamental group of the gauge group, which is ZQ0 in this case. The conjecture in [BFN19] refines and generalizes the earlier conjecture by Braverman-Finkelberg [BF10], which uses instanton moduli spaces on R4/(Z/`Z) in the affine case. The Coulomb branch M(λ, µ) for an affine type with dominant µ is conjectured to be instanton moduli spaces. (This is proved for affine type A.) Let Φ denote the hyperbolic restriction functor ([Bra03, DG14]) with respect to a generic arXiv:1810.04293v2 [math.RT] 6 Sep 2021 one parameter subgroup in T . Let us apply it to the intersection cohomology complexes IC of M(λ, µ) with coefficients in Q. It is conjectured that Φ is hyperbolic semismall in the sense of [BFN16, 3.5.1], and the fixed point set is either empty or a single point. Hence def. Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) is a vector space. The main part of the conjecture states that L V(λ) = µ Vµ(λ) has a structure of an integrable highest weight gKM-module V (λ) with the highest weight λ so that Vµ(λ) is a weight space with weight µ. It is regarded as the geometric Satake correspondence for the Kac-Moody Lie algebra gKM, as a generalization of the usual geometric Satake for a finite dimensional complex reductive group due to Lusztig, Ginzburg, Beilinson-Drinfeld and Mirkovi´c-Vilonen[Lus83, Gin95, BD00, MV07]. 1 2 H. NAKAJIMA

(See also [Fin18] for a review of the conjecture.) In particular, the hyperbolic restriction functor was used in Mikovi´c-Vilonen’srealization of representations. Ginzburg’s realization of V (λ) by the cohomology over the affine Grassmannian has no analog in general gKM setting at the moment when this paper is written. In this paper, we give a provisional construction of the gKM-module structure, assuming several geometric properties of M(λ, µ). This is a refinement of the conjecture in [BFN19], as well as its supporting evidence since these geometric properties are technical in nature, and not mysterious unlike the gKM-module structure. We then check the properties when gKM is of affine type A, using the identification of relevant Coulomb branches with Cherkis bow varieties proved by Takayama and the author [NT17]. Bow varieties are symplectic reduction, and easier to handle than Coulomb branches. We also use Hanany-Witten tran- sition (see §3(iv)) at various points. It is an isomorphism between two bow varieties. This technique is useful by the following reason. When a bow variety satisfies a balanced con- dition (see §3(ii)), it is isomorphic to Coulomb branch M(λ, µ). A fixed point component of a balanced bow variety is another bow variety, but it does not necessarily satisfy the balanced condition. We then show that it is isomorphic to one with the balanced condition by Hanany-Witten transition. The idea of the construction is simple. The gKM-structure should be compatible with restriction to a Levi subalgebra l, and realized by the hyperbolic restriction functor with respect to a one parameter subgroup χl corresponding to the Levi subalgebra. When the one parameter subgroup is generic, the Levi subalgebra is Cartan, and we recover the above construction. This compatibility is well-known for the usual geometric Satake correspondence and is a key ingredient of the construction. Therefore we define operators ei, fi, hi corresponding to i ∈ Q0 by using the hyperbolic restriction with respect to χi for the Levi subalgebra li and the reduction to the case A1. It is easy to prove the conjecture in the A1 case. The check of the defining relations on ei, fi, hi, say [ei, fj] = 0 for i 6= j, is reduced to rank 2 cases. By considering tensor products as explained below, it is enough to check them when λ is a fundamental weight. For sl(3) relevant bow varieties are affine spaces, and we check them by direct computation. We also realize the embedding slb(n) → glb(∞) by a variant of a family M(λ, µ) below. This argument covers the case slb(2). Since we consider only affine types, these are enough. Unlike in [MV07] we take Q as field of coefficients. We believe that some of the arguments survive even in positive characteristic, but we leave the study for the future. Suppose that Q is of finite type, and hence gKM is a finite dimensional complex simple Lie algebra g of type ADE. Then M(λ, µ) is isomorphic to a transversal slice to an orbit in the closure of another orbit in the affine Grassmannian when µ is dominant [BFN19]. The group G∨ for the affine Grassmannian is Langlands dual to the simply-connected G with Lie algebra g. (Hence representations of G are nothing but representations of g.) This is one of the reasons why we expect the geometric Satake correspondence for gKM via M(λ, µ). Moreover the hyperbolic restriction Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) is naturally identified with one in the affine Grassmannian even for non-dominant µ by a recent result by Krylov CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 3

[Kry18]. Therefore the g-module structure is induced from the usual geometric Satake correspondence. From this point of view, our construction above resembles the definition of Kashi- wara crystal structure on the set of irreducible components of Mirkovi´c-Vilonencycles by Braverman-Gaitsgory [BG01]. It is also similar to Vasserot’s construction [Vas02] of a g-module structure. The main difference between these constructions and ours is a construction of an isomorphism between multiplicity spaces appearing in the hyperbolic restriction with respect to χi, which we will explain in §1(ii). In our case, the isomorphism is given by the factorization property of Coulomb branches. This isomorphism comes for free or is unnecessary in the usual setting [BG01, Vas02]. See §5(viii) for a comparison between our construction and the usual one. After the author gave a talk on this work at Sydney, B. Webster explained to him an approach to a construction of a gKM-module structure via symplectic duality. It is not clear to the author that how much can be said in this approach at the time this paper is written. The construction in this paper is nothing to do with the symplectic dual side, which is a quiver variety, where a geometric construction of gKM-modules was given in [Nak94, Nak98]. See [BFN19, §3(viii)] for parallel explanation of two constructions. After the first version of this paper was written, the author and Weekes generalize the definition of the Coulomb branch of a framed quiver gauge theory to a quiver with symmetrizer [NW19]. Our geometric Satake correspondence is naturally generalized to cover the case when gKM is symmetrizable but not necessarily symmetric. The type of ∨ the quiver with symmetrizer is Langlands dual gKM as in the usual geometric Satake correspondence. The paper is organized as follows. In §1 we formulate conjectures on geometric properties of Coulomb branches under the torus action. In §2 we fix notation for weights of affine Lie algebras. In §3 we review the quiver description and important properties of bow varieties studied in [NT17]. §4 is the heart of this paper and is devoted to study of torus action on bow varieties. In §5 we use results in §4 to define a gKM structure on the hyperbolic restriction for affine type A. In §A we parametrize torus fixed points in bow varieties when they are smooth. Fixed points are in bijection to Maya diagrams which appear in the infinite wedge space.

Notation. The symmetric group of n letters is denoted by Sn. Let Jk denote the regular nilpotent Jordan matrix of size k : 0 1 0 ... 0 0 0 1 ... 0 . . .  Jk = . .. .. 0 .   0 ... 0 1 0 ... 0 For an irreducible algebraic variety X we denote by IC(X) its intersection cohomology complex associated with the trivial rank 1 local system on its regular locus with rational coefficients. 4 H. NAKAJIMA

Acknowledgments. The author thanks A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, and D. Muthiah for useful discussion. He also thanks the referees for their careful reading. The result of this paper was reported at several places including the Third Pacific Rim Mathematical Association (PRIMA) Congress in August 2017, the Banff International Research Station in August 2017, the University of Sydney in December 2017, and Korea Institute for Advanced Study in December 2017. The author is grateful to the hospitality of institutes and organizers of workshops. The research of HN was supported in part by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and by JSPS Grant Number 16H06335.

1. Conjectures 1(i). Earlier conjectures. We first recall conjectures from [BFN19]. Let Q = (Q0,Q1) and gKM be as in Introduction. Let M(λ, µ) be the Coulomb branch associated with a dominant weight λ and a weight µ with µ ≤ λ. It has a structure of a Poisson variety such that its regular locus is symplectic (see [BFN18a, §3(iv) and Prop. 6.15]). It is conjectured that there are only finitely many symplectic leaves. This conjecture is known when gKM is affine type A. See Theorem 3.13 below. We assume it from now, and we call symplectic leaves strata of M(λ, µ). Let T be the torus acting on M(λ, µ) as in Introduction. Let us take a generic 1- parameter family χ: C× → T and consider a diagram

T p j pt = M(λ, µ) ←− Aχ(λ, µ) −→M(λ, µ), where Aχ(λ, µ) is the attracting set with respect to χ. When there is no fear of confusion, we denote it simply by A. Here j is the inclusion, and p is the map given by taking the ! limit ρ(t) for t → 0. The hyperbolic restriction functor Φ = p∗j is defined on the derived category of equivariant constructible sheaves.

× Conjecture 1.1 ([BFN19, Conj. 3.25]). (1) M(λ, µ)T = M(λ, µ)χ(C ) is either a single point or empty. (2) Intersections of Aχ(λ, µ) with symplectic leaves of M(λ, µ) are lagrangian. Hence Φ is hyperbolic semi-small for the intersection cohomology complex IC(M(λ, µ)). In particular, def. Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) is a vector space. L (3) The direct sum V(λ) = Vµ(λ) has a structure of an integrable highest weight gKM-module V (λ). 1(ii). New conjectures. Let us introduce several notations in order to state conjectural geometric properties and the construction of the gKM-module structure in more detail. Set |v| = P v and v = |v|/ Q S , where λ − µ = P v α with simple i∈Q0 i A A i∈Q0 vi i i i v roots αi. We consider A as the configuration space of Q0-colored points in A. We have the factorization morphism $ : M(λ, µ) → Av ([BFN18a, (3.17)]). This was denoted by Ψ in the context of bow varieties [NT17], and played fundamental roles in the analysis of Coulomb branches and their identification with bow varieties. In particular, it enjoys CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 5

the factorization property that says M(λ, µ) factorizes over an open subset of disjoint configurations. (See §3(iii) for a brief review.) |v| Let wi,r, yi,r (i ∈ Q0, r = 1,..., vi) be regular functions on M(λ, µ) ×Av A intro- duced in [BFN19, §3(iii)] (yi,r was denoted by yi,r there) and [NT17, §6.8.1]. They induce |v| ≈ |v| a birational isomorphism M(λ, µ) ×Av A (A × Gm) . The factorization mor- phism $ corresponds to the projection to the first factor A. In other words, it is given by ((wi,r)r mod Svi )i. See §3(viii) for the definition of wi,r, yi,r in terms of bow varieties. We take the one parameter subgroup χ of T from the ‘negative’ Weyl chamber, i.e., mj χ(t) = (t )j∈Q0 with mj < 0 for all j ∈ Q0. We consider the corresponding hyperbolic restriction functor Φ with respect to χ. Choosing i ∈ Q0, we take another one parameter mj subgroup χi so that χi(t) = (t ) with mi = 0, mj < 0 for j 6= i. This χi lives at the boundary of the chamber containing χ. We then consider the fixed point set M(λ, µ)χi with respect to χi.

Conjecture 1.2. (1) The fixed point set M(λ, µ)χi is either empty or isomorphic to a 0 0 0 Coulomb branch MA1 (λ , µ ) of an A1 type framed quiver gauge theory with weights λ , 0 0 µ , where µ = hµ, hii. χi s 0 0 (2) The intersection of M(λ, µ) with a stratum is either empty or a stratum MA1 (κ , µ ) 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 of MA1 (λ , µ ). (Here MA1 (κ , µ ) is the smooth locus of MA1 (κ , µ ). The stratification of 0 0 MA1 (λ , µ ) was determined in [NT17, §7.5].) (3) The restrictions wj,r, yj,r|M(λ,µ)χi are zero for j 6= i, and are equal to the corre- 0 0 sponding functions on MA1 (λ , µ ) or zero for j = i. In particular, the restriction of the 0 0 i-th component of the factorization morphism $ of M(λ, µ) to MA1 (λ , µ ) is equal to the 0 0 factorization morphism of MA1 (λ , µ ) up to adding 0. This conjecture will be shown for affine type A in Theorem 4.14. χi ∼ 0 0 The condition (3) uniquely fixes the isomorphism M(λ, µ) = MA1 (λ , µ ) since the 0 0 restrictions of wi,r, yi,r give the birational coordinates on MA1 (λ , µ ). ∼ 0 Once we prove that V(λ) = V (λ), λ is determined as follows. Let li be the i-th Levi subalgebra of gKM. We consider li-modules with highest weight µ + vαi (v ∈ Z≥0) which appear in the restriction of the integrable highest weight module V (λ). Then (λ0 − µ0)/2 is the maximum among such v. When Conjecture 1.2 will be discussed, this would not be clear. See the proof of Theorem 4.14. Remark 1.3. After the first version of this paper was written, we find that the above λ0 = µ0 + 2v is characterized as T T (1.4) M(λ, µ + vαi) 6= ∅, M(λ, µ + (v + 1)αi) = ∅ during a discussion with D. Muthiah. This condition is phrased in terms of Coulomb branches, and is equivalent to the above representation theoretic one by Conjecture 1.1(1). The condition (1.4) is checked for affine type A. See Remark 4.18.

Since χi lives in the boundary of a chamber containing χ, the hyperbolic restriction Φ i i factors as Φ = Φ ◦ Φi. Here Φi is the hyperbolic restriction with respect to χi, and Φ 6 H. NAKAJIMA

is the hyperbolic restriction with respect to χ, restricted to the fixed point set M(λ, µ)χi . Assuming Conjecture 1.1(2) (and also that for type A1, which was already proved in [NT17, Prop. 7.33]), we see that Φi is hyperbolic semismall in the sense of [BFN16, 3.5.1], hence it sends IC(M(λ, µ)) to a semisimple perverse sheaf. See the argument in [BFN16, App. A]. We further conjecture

0 0 0 Conjecture 1.5. Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) is a direct sum of IC(MA1 (κ , µ )) with various κ with µ0 ≤ κ0 ≤ λ0.

This conjecture means that we do not have nontrivial local systems on the regular locus 0 0 of MA1 (κ , µ ). For affine type A, it follows from the smoothness of deformation of M(λ, µ), and compatibility between Conjecture 1.2 and the deformation of M(λ, µ) explained later. See the proof of Proposition 5.6. By Conjecture 1.5

∼ M λ,µ 0 0 (1.6) Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) = Mκ0,µ0 ⊗ IC(MA1 (κ , µ )) κ0

λ,µ for vector spaces Mκ0,µ0 , called multiplicity spaces. Hence we also deduce

∼ M λ,µ i 0 0 Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) = Mκ0,µ0 ⊗ Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))) κ0

i as Φ = Φ ◦ Φi. i 0 0 0 0 The factor Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))) is Vµ (κ ) for the finite A1 case. Therefore it should be the weight space of a finite dimensional irreducible sl(2)-module. We indeed construct i 0 0 f i 0 0 operators Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))) −==− Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ − 2))) in Theorem 5.4. e
The factorization property of the Coulomb branch says that there is a χi-equivariant isomorphism between open subsets of M(λ, µ) × (A × Gm) and M(λ, µ − αi) after a base λ,µ change. See Theorem 3.6. Here χi acts trivially on A×Gm. The multiplicity spaces Mκ0,µ0 , λ,µ−αi Mκ0,µ0−2 are determined by restriction to open subsets. Therefore we have an isomorphism λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2. (See Proposition 5.10.) We define operators ei, fi

−fi Vµ(λ) ==− Vµ−αi (λ), ei
as (the above isomorphism) ⊗ (e, f for A1 case). λ,µ 0 The multiplicity space Mκ0,µ0 is Homli (Vli (˜κ ), V(λ)) once V(λ) is equipped with an li- 0 0 0 0 module as above, whereκ ˜ = µ+(κ −µ )αi/2. Here Vli (˜κ ) is a finite dimensional irreducible 0 0 0 representation of li with highest weightκ ˜ . Noteκ ˜ and hence Homli (Vli (˜κ ), V(λ)) are 0 0 unchanged under simultaneous shifts µ → µ − αi, µ → µ − 2. Thus the construction of λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi the isomorphism Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2 is crucial in the definition of a gKM-module structure on V(λ). This isomorphism is obscure in the usual geometric Satake correspondence, as we mentioned in the Introduction. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 7

1(iii). Tensor products. Next, we consider the realization of tensor products in this framework. We recall [BFN19, Conj. 3.27] and give its refinement as in the previous subsection. Take a decomposition λ = λ1 + λ2 into a sum of two dominant weights λ1, λ2. Then it gives a one parameter subgroup in the flavor symmetry group of the quiver gauge theory. (See [BFN18a, §3(viii)].) This gives rise a family M(λ, µ) → A1 parametrized by the affine line A1 together with π : Mf(λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) which is expected to be a small birational morphism, and the second family Mf(λ, µ) → A1 is topologically trivial over A1. We further conjecture that the fixed point set M(λ, µ)χ is a union of finitely many copies of A1, glued at the origin such that components correspond, in bijection, to a decomposition 1 2 1 2 µ = µ + µ with Vµ1 (λ ), Vµ2 (λ ) 6= 0. Finally, we conjecture that there are isomorphisms ∼ ∼ M 1 2 (1.7) Φ ◦ π∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ))) = ψ ◦ Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) = Vµ1 (λ ) ⊗ Vµ2 (λ ), µ=µ1+µ2 where Mf(λ, µ) is the fiber of Mf(λ, µ) over 0, and ψ is the nearby cycle functor. The first isomorphism is a consequence of the triviality of Mf(λ, µ) → A1 and the commutativity of the nearby cycle and hyperbolic restriction functors. (See Remark 1.11 below for a comment on the commutativity.) Since the second isomorphism in (1.7) was stated in [BFN19, Conj. 3.27(2)] without •,C reason, let us give explanation. Take a fiber Mν (λ, µ) of M(λ, µ) over 1 ∈ A1. The parameter ν•,C is determined by a nonzero complex numberν ˙ which corresponds to the second weight λ2, while 0 corresponds to λ1. See §4(ii) for detail. Then

ν•,C χ F 1 1 χ Conjecture 1.8. (1) The fixed point set M (λ, µ) is bijective to µ1+µ2=µ M(λ , µ ) × M(λ2, µ2)χ. (The bijection realizes the above bijection between irreducible components of M(λ, µ)χ and decomposition.) (2) The image of a fixed point in Mν•,C (λ, µ)χ under the factorization morphism $ is supported at 0 andν ˙. The factorization gives an isomorphism Mν•,C (λ, µ) and M(λ1, µ1)× M(λ2, µ2) in neighborhoods of fixed points. The factorization isomorphism in (2) gives the second isomorphism in (1.7). We will prove this conjecture in Proposition 4.7 for affine type A. We thus have

M M =∼ 1 2 (1.9) V(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) → Φ ◦ π∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ))) −−→ V(λ ) ⊗ V(λ ), (1.7) µ µ where the middle arrow is induced from the inclusion of the direct summand IC(M(λ, µ)) ,→

π∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ))). The composite is conjectured ([BFN19, Conj. 3.27(3)]) to be a homo- morphism of gKM-modules. We refine this conjecture as follows. We apply the above construction of the gKM-module structure via χi to π∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ))). The construction is compatible with the inclusion of the direct summand, hence the middle arrow in (1.9) is a gKM-homomorphism. 8 H. NAKAJIMA

=∼ We then prove that −−→ in (1.9) is a gKM-homomorphism by a reduction to the A1 (1.7) case, which is easy to show by direct computation. The A1 reduction is guaranteed by a geometric property of the fixed point set in the deformed case, as will be shown in Proposition 5.13:

•, ν R χi Conjecture 1.10. Let us take χi as above. The fixed point set M (λ, µ) is a union of A1 type Coulomb branches where the parameter is induced from the original parameter ν•,R. We do not have a good understanding of what we mean by the induced parameter. At this moment, we just say that the entries of new parameters, once we forget multiplicities, •,R are entries νh of the original parameter. We check this for affine type A in Lemma 5.8. Remark 1.11. The reference for the commutativity was [Nak17, Prop. 5.4.1] in [BFN19, Conj. 3.27(2)]. The last part of the proof of [Nak17, Prop. 5.4.1(2)] works only the case when Mf(λ, µ) is smooth. This is true for affine type A, but not in general. We need ∗ ! to usec ˜X =c ˜X . The commutativity, as well as the commutativity between the nearby ! ∼ − − ∗ − − cycle functor and the isomorphism p∗j = p! (j ) are proved in [Ric19]. Here p , j is the projection and the inclusion for the attracting set with respect to the opposite 1- parameter subgroup χ−1. The isomorphism is a main theorem of [Bra03], and used here as semisimplicity of Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))). 2. Weights of affine Lie algebras We fix our convention on weights of affine Lie algebras of type A in this section. We denote the central extension of the loop Lie algebra of sl(n) by slb(n) while the affine Lie algebra containing the degree operator d is denoted by sl(n)aff . We also use versions for gl(n), which are denoted by glb(n), gl(n)aff respectively. Let us take the Cartan subalgebra hgl(n) of gl(n) as the space of diagonal matrices. The n weight lattice Pgl(n) of gl(n) is Z , where the i-th coordinate vector ei is hgl(n) → C given by taking the i-th diagonal entry of h ∈ hgl(n). The weight lattice Psl(n) of sl(n) is its quotient n Z /Z(1,..., 1), considered as n-tuples of integers [λ1, . . . , λn] up to simultaneous shifts. def. We let αi = ei − ei+1 mod Z[1,..., 1], the i-th simple root of sl(n). The i-th fundamental weight Λi of sl(n) is (1,..., 1, 0,..., 0 ) mod Z[1,..., 1]. | {z } | {z } i times (n − i) times We denote simple roots of sl(n)aff by α0,..., αn−1. Here the primitive positive imaginary root is δ = α0 + ··· + αn−1, hence α0 = δ − (α1 + ··· + αn). We denote fundamental weights

by Λ0,...,Λn−1. Our convention is hd, Λii = 0, hd, αii = δ0i. The weight ‘lattice’ Psl(n)aff of Ln−1 sl(n)aff is i=0 ZΛi ⊕Cδ. (This is not a lattice, but we keep this terminology.) The weight lattice P of sl(n) is identified with Ln−1 Λ . The level of a weight λ in P (or slb(n) b i=0 Z i sl(n)aff P ) is hc, λi. If λ = Pn−1 w Λ (+aδ), the level is equal to Pn−1 w . We often fix a level slb(n) i=0 i i i=0 i `, then the set of level ` weights is identified with Zn/Z[1,..., 1] × C (or Zn/Z[1,..., 1]), CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 9

n Pn−1 where wi with 1 ≤ i ≤ n is read off from Z /Z[1,..., 1], and w0 is given by ` − i=1 wi. Namely [λ1, . . . , λn] defines w1 = λ1 − λ2,. . . , wn−1 = λn−1 − λn. In the same way a level n n ` weight of gl(n)aff (resp. glb(n)) is an element in Z × C (resp. Z ). n−1 Let Waff be the Weyl group of sl(n)aff . It is the semi-direct product W n Z of a finite n−1 ∼ Ln−1 Weyl group (= the symmetric group of n letters) and the root lattice Z = i=1 Zαi. It acts on the set of level ` weights of P , identified with n/ [1,..., 1] by permutation slb(n) Z Z for the W part, and translation by `Zn−1 for the root lattice part. The fundamental alcove is {[λ1, . . . , λn] | λ1 ≥ · · · ≥ λn ≥ λ1 − `}. A level ` weight λ is dominant if and only if the corresponding [λ1, . . . , λn] is contained in the fundamental alcove. It is convenient to extend λi to all i ∈ Z so that λi+n = λi − `. For example, the fundamental alcove consists of · · · ≥ λ0 ≥ λ1 ≥ · · · ≥ λn ≥ λn+1 ≥ · · · . The j-th permutation sj (j = 0, . . . , n − 1) of Waff acts on (λi)i∈Z by exchanging λi and λi+1 if i ≡ j mod n. A level ` dominant weight of glb(n) corresponds to a generalized Young diagram with the level ` constraint (see [Nak09, App. A],[NT17, §7.6]) −3/2 −1/2 1/2 3/2 n n rows ··· ··· , | {z } ` columns where a box is indexed by (i, σ, N) with 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ σ ≤ `, N ∈ Z + 1/2 and we put a gray box  if `(N − 1/2) + σ ≤ λi. The above figure is [λ1, λ2] = [2, −1] for n = 2, ` = 3. We define the transpose of a generalized Young diagram by the transposition of each t t t t t t rectangle. Then we get a sequence [ λ1,..., λ`] which satisfies λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λ` ≥ λ1−n, i.e., a generalized Young diagram with the level n constraint. The above example gives t t t [ λ1, λ2, λ3] = [1, 1, −1]. Recall that a simultaneous shift [λ1, . . . , λn] 7→ [λ1 − 1, . . . , λn − 1] does not change the weight of P . It corresponds to [tλ ,..., tλ ] 7→ [tλ ,..., tλ , tλ − n]. If we consider slb(n) 1 ` 2 ` 1 [tλ ,..., tλ ] as a level n weight of P , it corresponds to a diagram automorphism 0 → 1 ` slb(`) 1 → 2 → · · · → (` − 1) → 0.

3. Bow varieties 3(i). Definition. Let us recall the quiver description of bow varieties in [NT17]. It is associated with a bow diagram such as Figure1. A bow diagram consists of ×,  on a circle, and nonnegative integers R(ζ) for segments ζ cut by either × or . We index × as x0, x1,..., xn−1,  as h1, h2,..., h` in anticlockwise and clockwise orientation respectively. The number n of × will be the rank of the affine Lie algebra sl(n)aff . The number ` of  will be the level of an integrable highest weight representation. In Figure1 only R for 0 segments ζ, ζ between h1 and h2, h2 and xn−1 are drawn for simplicity. We assign a vector space Vζ for each segment ζ with dim Vζ = R(ζ). We also assign a

1-dimensional vector Cxi for each xi. We assume n > 1 throughout this paper except Remarks 4.21 and 5.15. 10 H. NAKAJIMA

xn−1 h2 h3 × xn−2 h1   0 × R(ζ ) h4  R(ζ) x0  × ×xn−3 x1 × ×xn−2 . .

Figure 1. bow diagram

C R We have a complex parameter νh and a real parameter νh for each h (i.e., hσ for 1 ≤ C R σ ≤ `), and also one additional pair ν∗ , ν∗ . We use the convention in [NT17, (6.3)], rather than in [NT17, §2.2]. A quiver description consists of the following:

(1) A linear endomorphism Bζ : Vζ → Vζ . o(x) x i(x) (2) Let x be ×. Let o(x), i(x) be the adjacent segments so that × in the anticlockwise orientation. We assign triple of linear maps

Ax : Vo(x) → Vi(x), ax : Cx → Vi(x), bx : Vo(x) → Cx. o(h) h i(h) (3) Let h be . Let o(h), i(h) be the adjacent segments so that  in the anticlockwise orientation. We assign a pair of linear maps

Ch : Vo(h) → Vi(h),Dh : Vi(h) → Vo(h). See [NT17, Fig. 1]. L L We denote the direct sum Bζ ∈ End( Vζ ) by B, and similarly for a, b, C, D. However we also denote Bζ by B when ζ is clear from the context. The same applies for Ax, etc. We require the following conditions:

(a) Let x, o(x), i(x) as in (2) above. As a linear map Vo(x) → Vi(x) we have C (Bi(x) + δx,x0 ν∗ )Ax − AxBo(x) + axbx = 0. They satisfy the two conditions (S1),(S2): (S1): There is no nonzero subspace 0 6= S ⊂ Vo(x) with Bo(x)(S) ⊂ S, A(S) = 0 = b(S). (S2): There is no proper subspace T ( Vi(x) with Bi(x)(T ) ⊂ T , Im A + Im a ⊂ T . (b) Let h, o(h), i(h) as in (3). As endomorphisms on Vi(h) and Vo(h), we have C C ChDh + Bi(h) = νh ,DhCh + Bo(h) = νh CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 11

respectively. Because of these defining equations, we often omit Bζ when ζ has  on the boundary. (c) We say (A, B, C, D, a, b) is νR-semistable if the following conditions are satisfied: L L (ν1): Suppose a graded subspace S = Sζ ⊂ Vζ invariant under A, B, C, D with b(S) = 0 is given. We further assume that Ax is an isomorphism

Ax o(x) x i(x) So(x) −→ Si(x) for all . Then =∼ ×

R X R ν∗ dim Si(x0) + νh (dim Si(h) − dim So(h)) ≤ 0. h Here i(h), o(h) are determined by h by the rule in (3). L L (ν2): Suppose a graded subspace T = Tζ ⊂ Vζ invariant under A, B, C, D with Im a ⊂ T is given. We further assume that the restriction of A induces

Ax o(x) x i(x) an isomorphism Vo(x)/To(x) −→ Vi(x)/Ti(x) for all . Then =∼ ×

R X R ν∗ codim Ti(x0) + νh (codim Ti(h) − codim To(h)) ≥ 0. h We say (A, B, C, D, a, b) is νR-stable if we have strict inequalities in (ν1), (ν2) unless Sζ = 0, Tζ = Vζ for all ζ. Q We have a natural group action of G := GL(Vζ ) by conjugation, which preserves the above conditions. Let Mfν-ss (resp. Mfν-s) denote the set of νR-semistable (resp. νR- stable) points satisfying other conditions (a),(b). (We understand that the parameter ν is a pair (νC, νR).) We introduce the S-equivalence relation ∼ on the Mfν-ss by defining m ∼ m0 if and only if orbit closures Gm and Gm0 intersect in the Mfν-ss. Let Mν denote Mfν-ss/∼. It is a geometric invariant theory quotient, hence in particular has a structure of a quasi-projective variety. Let Mν-s denote the open subvariety of M given by Mfν-s/G. When νC = 0 = νR, we denote Mν, Mν-s by M, Ms for brevity. We also under- stand that MνC is a bow variety with vanishing real parameters, i.e., νC is understood as an abbreviation of (0, νC). We also use MνR for a bow variety with vanishing complex parameters, i.e., νR means (νR, 0). We have a projective morphism (3.1) π : Mν → MνC , where νC is the complex part of ν, i.e., ν = (νR, νC), and MνC is a bow variety with vanishing real parameters as above. Remark 3.2. Note that the inequality in (ν1) can be rewritten as

R X R R ν∗ dim Si(x0) + (νh − νh+1) dim Si(h) ≤ 0. h 12 H. NAKAJIMA

The first term can be absorbed in the second term with h such that i(h) is connected to R R R P R i(x0) through triangle parts. For example, we have (ν∗ + ν1 − ν2 ) dim Si(h1) + h6=1(νh − R νh+1) dim Si(h) in Figure1. R From this reformulation, it is clear that an overall shift of νh is irrelevant. The same is C true for νh as we can simultaneously subtract a scalar from all Bζ ’s. Therefore the total number of real or complex parameters is `. 3(ii). Coulomb branch. We say that the balanced condition is satisfied if R(o(h)) = o(h) h i(h) R(i(h)) for any  . Then R(ζ) depends only the arc xi−1 → xi which contains ζ. In particular R is determined by an n-tuple of integers v0, v1,..., vn−1 corresponding to x0 → x1, x1 → x2,..., xn−1 → x0. Let w0, w1,..., wn−1 be the numbers of  on the corresponding arcs. Let v = (v0,..., vn−1), w = (w0,..., wn−1). Theorem 3.3 ([NT17, §6]). Suppose the balanced condition is satisfied, and determine v, w as above. Then the corresponding bow variety with parameters νR = 0, νC = 0 is isomorphic to the Coulomb branch of the framed affine quiver gauge theory with dimensions v, w. Here the Coulomb branch is one defined in [BFN18a]. We take

n−1 M v v w v N = Hom(C i−1 , C i ) ⊕ Hom(C i , C i ), i=0 def. Qn−1 as a representation of G = i=0 GL(vi), and consider the variety R = {([g], s) ∈ −1 GK/GO × NO | g s ∈ NO} where O = C[[z]] ⊂ K = C((z)). Then we consider its GO equivariant Borel-Moore homology group H∗ (R) equipped with the convolution prod- uct. The Coulomb branch MC of the gauge theory associated with G, N is defined as the GO spectrum of the ring H∗ (R). ˜ × × This N is equipped with an action of a larger group G = (G×T (w))/C ×Cdil (T (w) = Q wi × × i T ), where C is the diagonal scalar in G × T (w) and Cdil acts on N by scaling ˜ vn−1 v0 GO Hom(C , C ). We can consider the spectrum of H∗ (R), which is a deformation of MC parametrized by Spec H∗ (pt) = Lie(G ), where G = G˜ /G. Theorem 3.3 is generalized GF F F to this deformation (see [NT17, §6.8.2]). Therefore it is identified with MνC (with vanishing C real parameters) where ν ∈ Lie(GF ) is identified with a tuple of complex numbers above under the standard coordinates. (The above definition of bow varieties is slightly modified from one in [NT17, §2] so that we have the identification of parameters. See [NT17, §6.2.2]. × Ln−1 vi vi+1 We also change the action of Cdil from the scaling on i=0 Hom(C , C ) to the scaling only on the factor i = n − 1.) ˜ Similarly the variety RG˜ ,N defined for the larger group G (and N) defines a quasi- C projective variety equipped with a projective morphism to Mν depending on a Q-coweight ν κ of GF . This is identified with M so that this projective morphism coincides with π : Mν → MνC in (3.1), when the real parameters νR. (See [BFN18b, §4].) CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 13

In what follows, we will not use the original definition of Coulomb branches and discuss only bow varieties. Hence we do not explain the further detail.

Remark 3.4. If the balanced condition is satisfied, the ordering of parameters νh in the arc xi → xi+1 is irrelevant. Consider the relevant part

B Bi(x ) Bo(x ) B o(xi) i i+1 i(xi+1)

Ax Ax i 0 1 wi i+1 Vo(xi) Vi Vi ··· Vi Vi(xi+1) .

ax ax bxi i bxi+1 i+1

Cxi Cxi+1

1 wi−1 We can apply reflection functors [Nak03] at Vi ,..., Vi to change the ordering of 0 wi parameters νh. Since the balanced condition means dim Vi = ··· = dim Vi , dimensions of vector spaces are preserved under reflection functors.

v Qn−1 vi ∗ 3(iii). Factorization. Let A = i=0 A /Svi = Spec HG(pt). In the proof of Theo- rem 3.3, the factorization morphism $ : Mν → Av played an important role. Since we will use it later, let us recall its definition and properties. Suppose that Mν is a bow variety with the balanced condition. For each xi we consider i(xi) and the associated linear map

Bi(xi). We count its eigenvalues with multiplicities and let it as the i-th component of $.

Since Bi(xi) and Bo(xi+1) have the same eigenvalues by the defining equations thanks to the

following lemma, we can also use Bo(xi+1). Lemma 3.5. Let C : V → V 0, D : V 0 → V be a pair of linear maps. We have N N N 0 trV 0 (t + CD) = trV (t + DC) + t (dim V − dim V )

for any N ∈ Z≥0. 0 00 v0 v00 Let v = v + v be a decomposition of the dimension vector v. Let (A × A )disj be v0 v00 0 0 00 00 n−1 the open subset of × consisting of (w + ··· + w 0 , w + ··· + w 00 ) such that A A i,1 i,vi i,1 i,vi i=0 0 00 0 00 0 00 C 0 00 C wi,j 6= wi,k, wi,j 6= wi±1,k, wn−1,σ 6= w0,τ + ν∗ , w0,σ 6= wn−1,τ + ν∗ , where σ, τ run over the set of indices for data at i, i±1, n−1 or 0 appropriately. Note that the last two conditions C correspond to the additional term δx,x0 ν∗ in the defining equation. Theorem 3.6. (1)([NT17, Th. 6.9]) Mν satisfies the factorization property: ν v0 v00 ∼ ν 0 ν 00 v0 v00 M × v ( × ) (M (v , w) × M (v , w)) × v0 v00 ( × ) , A A A disj = A ×A A A disj where Mν(v0, w), Mν(v00, w) are bow varieties associated with dimension vectors v0,w and v00,w respectively. (2)([NT17, Th. 6.9]) Mν is normal, and all fibers of $ have the same dimension. In fact, the balanced condition is not essential in (1) once we note that eigenvalues C of Bi(xi) and Bo(xi+1) may differ, but differences are determined by νh and differences of dimensions of Vi(h) and Vo(h) thanks to Lemma 3.5. 14 H. NAKAJIMA

v0 v00 When there is no fear of confusion and the open subset (A × A )disj is clear from the context, we simply write the above isomorphism after the base change as Mν ≈ Mν(v0, w) × Mν(v00, w) for brevity. ∗ In the context of Coulomb branches the factorization morphism $ corresponds to HG(pt) → HGO (R). The factorization property above follows from the localization theorem in the equivariant cohomology and was essentially proved in [BFN18a, §5]. The factorization of bow varieties is an essential ingredient for the identification of bow varieties and Coulomb branches in Theorem 3.3.

3(iv). Hanany-Witten transition. Let us recall the Hanany-Witten transition of bow varieties, which is formulated as isomorphisms between bow varieties with adjacent × and  swapped [NT17, §7]. Consider the following part of bow data:

B1 B2 B3 C A C C V1 V2 V3 CD + B2 = ν ,DC + B1 = ν , D B3A − AB2 + ab = 0. b a C

We assume the triangle part is not x0 for a moment. We replace this part by

new B1 B2 B3

new Cnew A new new new C new new C V1 V2 V3 C D + B3 = ν ,D C + B1 = ν , Dnew new new new new new B2 A − A B1 + a b = 0. bnew anew C so that we have a commutative square with the exact middle row:

 D  α= A b β=[ AC (B3−νC) a ] V2 −−−−→ V1 ⊕ V3 ⊕ C −−−−−−−−−−−−→ V3 x  new C new α β new 0 −−−→ V2 −−−→ V1 ⊕ V3 ⊕ C −−−→ V2 −−−→ 0 x  C " # νC−B new 1 α = CnewAnew new new new new new b β =[ A −D a ] new V1 −−−−−−−−−−−→ V1 ⊕ V3 ⊕ C −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ V2 . This gives an isomorphism between bow varieties where adjacent  and × are swapped, and the dimensions of vector spaces are changed by the rule

new dim V2 + dim V2 = dim V1 + dim V3 + 1. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 15

C When the triangle part is x0, the defining equations are changed to (B3 + ν∗ )A − AB2 + new C new new new new new ab = 0, (B2 + ν∗ )A − A B1 + a b = 0. Thus B3 and B2 must be shifted, hence other defining equations must be changed to new new C C new new C C C D + B3 = ν − ν∗ ,D C + B1 = ν − ν∗ . We consider two C×-actions on the relevant part. The first one is the action induced from the weight 1 action on C, hence a 7→ t−1a, b 7→ tb, anew 7→ t−1anew, bnew 7→ tbnew, and other data are unchanged. The second one is A, b 7→ tA, tb, Anew, bnew 7→ tAnew, tbnew, and others are unchanged. See [NT17, §6.9.2]. The following was not stated in [NT17], but clear from the definition.

Lemma 3.7. The Hanany-Witten transition respects the (C×)2-action. Note also that the factorization morphism does not essentially change under Hanany- Witten transition by Lemma 3.5. It is because we can use spectra of B1, B3 for the definition of the factorization morphism, which are unchanged under Hanany-Witten tran- sition.

3(v). Invariants. Let h be  in a bow diagram. Let Nh be R(i(h)) − R(o(h)) where i(h), o(h) are as in (3) of §3(i). Let hσ, hσ+1 be consecutive . We define def. N(hσ, hσ+1) = Nhσ − Nhσ+1 + (the number of × between hσ+1 → hσ), where hσ+1 → hσ means that on the arc starting from hσ+1 towards hσ in the anticlockwise direction. Similarly we define Nx and N(xi,x i+1) in the same way by replacing  by ×, and the anticlockwise direction by clockwise one. Then N(hσ, hσ+1), N(xi,x i+1) are invariant under Hanany-Witten transition ([NT17, Lem. 7.6]). We have two other invariants ` n−1 n−1 ` X X X X (3.8) − N 2 + (R(o(x )) + R(i(x ))), − N 2 + (R(o(h )) + R(i(h ))), hσ i i xi σ σ σ=1 i=0 i=0 σ=1

xi o(xi) i(xi) o(hσ)hσ i(hσ) where × and  invariant under Hanany-Witten transition ([NT17, Lem. 7.6]). The following is stated in [NT17, Prop. 7.19], but it is based on a wrong statement. Proposition 3.9. There is at most one bow diagram satisfying the balanced condition among those obtained by successive applications of Hanany-Witten transitions. Proof. Let us suppose a bow diagram satisfying the balanced condition is given. Then ` N(hσ, hσ+1) is the number of × between hσ+1 → hσ. Hence the collection {N(hσ, hσ+1)}σ=1 determines the distribution of  and ×. On the other hand the vector w in §3(ii) is given by the number of  on the arc xi → xi+1. Therefore w is determined up to a cyclic permutation. This is because the numbering of × by xi is not fixed by N(hσ, hσ+1), but 16 H. NAKAJIMA

the only ambiguity is given by a shift xi 7→ xi+i0 (modulo n) for some i0. (This ambiguity was overlooked in [NT17, Prop. 7.19].) But this shift cannot be achieved by Hanany-Witten transitions. By Hanany-Witten hσ transitions, Nhσ is changed by the number of × crossing  in the anticlockwise direction minus the number of × crossing in the clockwise direction. Therefore in order to keep

Nhσ vanishing, those two numbers must be equal. Therefore the numbering for the first × hσ after  (in either direction) remains the same. Thus the shift is not possible. Thus the numbering of × by xi is unique, hence w is determined. Next note that N(xi,x i+1) is the i-th entry of u = w − Cv = (wi + vi−1 + vi+1 − n−1 2vi)i=0 [NT17, Lem. 7.18]. Therefore the collection {N(xi,x i+1)} and w determine v up to an addition of a multiple of t(1, 1,..., 1). But an addition of t(1, 1,..., 1) increases two invariants in (3.8) by 2n and 2` respectively. Hence v, i.e., numbers R(ζ) on segments are determined. 

3(vi). Another form. Let us take a bow diagram satisfying the balanced condition, and define dimension vectors v = (v0,..., vn−1), w = (w0,..., wn−1) as in §3(ii). We apply Hanany-Witten transitions successively so that we separate × and  as follows.

t t t t λ1 λ2 λ`−1 λ`     ··· (3.10) P h1 h2 h`−1 h` v0 + i iwi v0 µ1 µ2 µ3 µn−2 µn−1 µn × × × × × ×

x1 x2 x3 ··· xn−2 xn−1 x0

See the proof of [NT17, Cor. 7.21]. We do not move  across x0, hence the dimension t v0 next to x0 is unchanged. Numbers λσ, µi above , × indicate the values of Nhσ , Nxi P respectively. Two numbers v0 and v0 + i iwi are dimensions of vector spaces on two segments, between x0 and h`, h1 and x1 respectively. t t The numbers λσ, µi are Nhσ and Nxi respectively. In order to explain how λσ, µi are given in terms of v, w, we introduce weights of P , P . We first define two weights sl(n)aff glb(n)

λ, µ of Psl(n)aff by

n−1 n−1 X X (3.11) λ = wiΛi, µ = (wiΛi − viαi). i=0 i=0

We have hd, λi = 0, hd, µi = −v0. (Note that this is different from the convention in [NT17, §7.6] by −v0δ. Since we change v0, the current convention is more natural.) Let ` be the level of λ, which is equal also to the level of µ. It is hc, λi = hc, µi, where c Pn−1 is the central element in slb(n). Concretely it is equal to i=0 wi, hence the number of . Therefore we can number  as h1,..., h` as in (3.10). CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 17

We define two integer vectors [λ1, . . . , λn], [µ1, . . . , µn] by n−1 n−1 X X λi = wj, µi = vn−1 − v0 + uj, j=i j=i

where ui is the i-th entry of u = w − Cv as in the proof of Proposition 3.9. We consider Pn Pn them as level ` weights of glb(n). Note that i=1 λi = i=1 µi It means that the pairings with the central element diag(1,..., 1) in gl(n) (charges) are the same for λ and µ. Note that λ is dominant by its definition. Hence it is contained in the fundamental alcove, i.e.,

λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λn ≥ λ1 − `.

Let us consider the corresponding generalized Young diagram [λ1, . . . , λn] and its transpose t t [ λ1,..., λ`]. The latter is a generalized Young diagram with the level n constraint, i.e., t t t t λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λ` ≥ λ1 − n. See §2. Now numbers in (3.10) are given by these rules. h1 Recall that we did not move  over x0 in this procedure. Let us move  anticlockwise overall xi including x0 to return back to the same picture as (3.10). But this process changes numbers on , ×, and also dimensions of vector spaces on two segments. The result is as follows.

t t t t λ2 λ3 λ` λ1 −n    

h2 h3 ··· h` h1 (3.12) P t t v0 + i iwi − λ1 v0 − λ1 +n µ1 −1 µ2 −1 µn−1 −1 µn −1 × × × ×

x1 x2 ··· xn−1 x0

t t t t t Note that [ λ1,..., λ`] 7→ [ λ2,..., λ`, λ1−n] corresponds to a simultaneous shift [λ1, . . . , λn] 7→ [λ1 − 1, . . . , λn − 1] (see §2). Therefore this process shifts both λ and µ simultaneously. By [NT17, Prop. 7.20] (more precisely its dual version), bow diagrams (3.10) can be transformed to a balanced one by successive applications of Hanany-Witten transition, as t t [ λ1,..., λ`] is in the fundamental alcove. And it is unique by Proposition 3.9. Dimension vectors are read off from numbers in (3.10) as

wi = λi − λi+1 (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1), w0 = λn − (λ1 − `),

ui = µi − µi+1 (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1), u0 = µn − (µ1 − `),

and ambiguity (v0,..., vn−1) + Z(1,..., 1) is fixed by one of invariants in (3.8) by ` n−1 1 X 1 X v + ··· + v = − tλ2 + (R(o(x )) + R(i(x ))). 0 n−1 2 σ 2 i i σ=1 i=0 18 H. NAKAJIMA

Let us denote the bow variety with the balanced condition with dimension vectors v, w by M(λ, µ) hereafter, where λ, µ are given by (3.11). (Note that it was denoted by M(µ, λ) in [NT17].)

3(vii). Stratification. By [NT17, Prop. 4.5, Th. 7.26] Theorem 3.13. (1) Suppose ` 6= 1. We have a stratification

G s k 2 M(λ, µ) = M (κ, µ) × S (C \{0}/(Z/`Z)), κ,k

where k = [k1, k2,... ] is a partition and κ is a dominant weight with µ ≤ κ ≤ λ − |k|δ. The same is true if we replace C2 \{0}/(Z/`Z) by C2 and we allow only κ = λ − |k|δ when ` = 1. (2) Take a generic real parameter νR. Then π : MνR (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) in (3.1) is a semismall resolution with respect to the above stratification, and all strata are relevant. Here we understand MνR (λ, µ) has vanishing complex parameters.

3(viii). Birational coordinate system. We consider a bow variety with the balanced condition. Suppose that we have vector spaces and linear maps between i(xi) and o(xi+1) as in Remark 3.4. Recall that the factorization morphism $ is given by eigenvalues with

multiplicities of Bi(xi) or Bo(xi+1) by §3(iii). Let wi,r (r = 1,..., vi) be eigenvalues. Let 0 wi 0 1 wi Cwi...1,i : Vi → Vi be the composite of linear maps Vi → Vi → · · · → Vi . We define def. Y yi,r = bxi+1 (Bo(xi+1) − wi,s id)Cwi...1,iaxi .

1≤s≤vi s6=r

|v| Then wi,r, yi,r are regular functions on M(λ, µ) ×Av A . The isomorphism between the Coulomb branch and the bow variety is constructed so that wi,r, yi,r coincide with one defined in [BFN19, §3(iii)] (yi,r was denoted by yi,r there) and [NT17, §6.8.1], as certain homology classes.

Under Hanany-Witten transitions, eigenvalues of Bo(xi) remain unchanged except 0 by Lemma 3.5. It is also obvious that yi,r, as a map from C at xi−1 to C at xi, is unchanged. Therefore wi,r, yi,r are given by the same formula for bow varieties, not necessarily with balanced condition.

4. Torus action

× Q0 ∼ n We consider the T = (C ) -action given by π1(G) = Z [BFN18a, §3(v)]. (We formally × add the factor C even when vi = 0 so that T depends only on Q.) Let (s0, . . . , sn−1) denote the standard coordinates of T , where si corresponds to π1(GL(vi)) at the vertex i.

By [NT17, §6.9.2], the action is given by one induced by s0 ··· si−1 on Cxi (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1) and A, b at the vertex x0 are multiplied by s0 ··· sn−1. By Lemma 3.7 Hanany-Witten transitions are equivariant under the torus action. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 19

4(i). Torus fixed points. Recall that the T -fixed point in M(λ, µ) is either a single point or empty [NT17, Prop. 7.30]. (Recall also M(λ, µ) is Mν(λ, µ) for νC = νR = 0.) Let us review the proof as we will study fixed points with respect to smaller tori by using the same argument. Let us give a slight improvement simultaneously. F s k 2 F s We have a stratification M(λ, µ) = M (κ, µ)×S (C \{0}/(Z/`Z)) (` > 1), M (κ, µ)× Sk(C2)(` = 1), where k is a partition, and κ is a dominant weight between µ and λ − |k|δ. (See Theorem 3.13.) This stratification is compatible with the T -action. On the factor Sk(C2 \{0}/(Z/`Z)) or Sk(C2), the action is induced from the C×-action on C2 given by −1 t · (x, y) = (tx, t y) where t = s0 ··· sn−1. In particular, the T -fixed point set is empty for Sk(C2 \{0}/(Z/`Z)) unless k = ∅ when ` > 1. When ` = 1, it is the single point k[0] of S(k)(C2) when k only has a single entry k and is empty otherwise. Thus it is enough to determine Ms(κ, µ)T . Proposition 4.1. The T -fixed point set Ms(κ, µ)T is a single point if κ = µ+, the dominant weight in the Weyl group orbit of µ. It is empty otherwise.

Proof. Let us apply Hanany-Witten transitions successively to separate  and ×. Moreover def. we move  all over × many times so that µi = Nxi ≥ 0 for all i. See §3(vi). Let us take a representative (A, B, C, D, a, b) of a point in Ms(κ, µ)T . We have a homo- Q morphism ρ = (ρζ ): T → G = ζ GL(Vζ ) such that −1 −1 Axi = ρi(xi)(s) Axi ρo(xi)(s)(i 6= 0), s0 ··· sn−1Ax0 = ρi(x0)(s) Ax0 ρo(x0)(s), −1 −1 −1 Bζ = ρζ (s) Bζ ρζ (s), (s0 ··· si−1) axi = ρi(xi)(s) axi ,

s0 ··· si−1bxi = bxi ρo(xi)(s)(i 6= 0), s0 ··· sn−1bx0 = bx0 ρo(x0)(s), −1 −1 Chσ = ρi(hσ)(s) Chσ ρo(hσ)(s),Dhσ = ρo(hσ)(s) Dhσ ρi(hσ)(s),

h o(xi) xi i(xi) o(hσ) σ i(hσ) where × ,  . We consider the weight space decomposition of V with

respect to ρ. Then Axi (i 6= 0), Bζ , Chσ and Dhσ preserve weight spaces, while Ax0 −1 shifts weights by (s0 ··· sn−1) . And axi sends Cxi to the s0 ··· si−1 weight space, bxi is 0 on weight spaces other than s0 ··· si−1 (i 6= 0), s0 ··· sn−1 (i = 0). In particular, we Z classify weights to n classes (s0 ··· si−1)(s0 ··· sn−1) (i = 0, . . . , n − 1) so that Cxi can be ‘communicated’ with only weight spaces in the i-th class. Thus the data is a direct sum of n pieces.

Let us consider the direct summand for Cxi and the corresponding bow diagram. Since

axj , bxj vanish for j 6= i, Axj is an isomorphism thanks to the condition (S1,2). Then we

can identify Vo(xj ) with Vi(xj ) so that we may assume that the bow diagram has only one −1 ×. Moreover we can unwind the circle to a line as Ax0 shifts weight by (s0 ··· sn−1) . Thus the bow diagram is

µi (4.2)     ×     . ··· ··· x ··· ··· hm h2 h1 i h0 h−1 h−n 20 H. NAKAJIMA

Note that µi remains the same as one for the original bow diagram, as Axi is an isomorphism in other summands. In particular, the above µi is ≥ 0 as we have assumed so in the original bow diagram. reg By the necessary condition for M0 6= ∅ in [Nak94, Lem. 8.1], [Nak98, Lem. 4.7] we have N(hσ, hσ+1) ≥ 0 for any σ. (To show N(h0, h1) ≥ 0, we use the Hanany-Witten transition. P See the proof of [NT17, Th. 7.26] for detail.) On the other hand, N(hσ, hσ+1) = 1 by

definition. Therefore N(hσ, hσ+1) 6= 0 at most one σ. Since Nhσ = 0 if |σ| is sufficiently large, we have N = ··· = N = 1, other N = 0. Thus the data looks like h1 hµi hσ

B o(xi)

C C2 ··· Cµi (4.3) bxi

Cxi

Note that Bo(xi) is nilpotent by the defining equation. The condition (S1,2) says bxi is t t cocyclic vector for Bo(xi). Hence bxi , Bo(xi) can be moved to eµi , Jµi by conjugation. Once the action of GL(µi) is killed, the remaining data Ci, Di are regarded as a point of a quiver variety of type Aµi−1, which is the nilpotent cone of sl(µi − 1). See [Nak94, §7]. Therefore the fixed point set is a single point. Alternatively, we apply Hanany-Witten transitions µi times to move xi to the left. Then we arrive at the bow variety with all vector spaces Vζ vanish. It is a single point. Since dimensions of vector spaces are determined by µ, the weight κ with Ms(κ, µ)T 6= ∅ is determined uniquely by µ. Let us show that κ = µ+. Recall that the projection of κ to P can be read off from N (σ = 1, . . . , `) as in (3.10). Namely κ is the transpose of slb(n) hσ the generalized Young diagram associated with Nh1 ≥ Nh2 ≥ · · · ≥ Nh` ≥ Nh1 − n. The coefficient of δ is fixed by either of two invariants (3.8). First, note that κ is unchanged under permutations of µi. It is because vector spaces are direct sums of vector spaces for Cxi , hence the ordering is not relevant. Thus we may assume µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ · · · ≥ µn. Next we change µ to (µn + `, µ2, . . . , µn−1, µ1 − `). Then all vector spaces in the upper semicircle of (3.10) between x1 and x0 changes their dimensions by µn + ` − µ1, which is u0 = w0 + v1 + vn−1 − 2v0. Thus this process does not change κ, and replace µ by s0µ. Here s0 is the simple reflection for the 0-th simple root. If we extend µi to i ∈ Z by µi+n = µi − ` as in §2, s0 exchanges µj and µj+1 for j ≡ 0 mod n. It is also clear that s0 does not change κ in this description. These two operation generate the Weyl group of sl(n)aff . Hence we may assume that µ is in the fundamental alcove, i.e., µ1 ≥ · · · ≥ µn ≥ µ1 − `. Moreover we can shift µi simultaneously by the process explained in §3(vi). So we make µn = 0. Then µ determines a Young diagram with at most (n − 1) rows and ` columns. Then Nhσ is the number of rows which have length more than σ.

Namely [Nh1 ,...,Nh` ] is the transpose of the Young diagram. Moreover the vector space between x0 and h` is 0 as ` ≥ µi for any i. It means that κ = µ.  Corollary 4.4. The followings are equivalent: CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 21

(1) M(λ, µ) has a T -fixed point. (2) λ ≥ µ+ in the dominance order. (3) µ is a weight of the integrable highest weight module with the highest weight λ. The equivalence between (2) and (3) is a consequence of [Kac90, Prop. 12.5]. The equiv- alence between (1) and (2) follows from an observation that M(λ, µ) contains Ms(µ+, µ) as an stratum if and only if λ ≥ µ+ in the dominance order. This confirms Conjecture 1.1(1) T and a part of (3), that is Vµ(λ) = 0 ⇔ M(λ, µ) = ∅, for affine type A. Note also that the above will follow without the combinatorial argument in Proposi- tion 4.1, once we will endow V(λ) with a gKM-module structure and identify it with the integrable highest weight module. Let us take a generic 1-parameter family χ: C× → T and consider a diagram T p j pt = M(λ, µ) ←− Aχ(λ, µ) −→M(λ, µ),

where Aχ(λ, µ) is the attracting set with respect to ρ. When there is no fear of confusion, we denote it simply by A. Here j is the inclusion, and p is the map given by taking the limit ρ(t) for t → 0. Then the following confirms [BFN19, Conjecture 3.25(2)] for affine type A. Theorem 4.5 ([NT17, Prop. 7.33]). The intersection of A with strata in Theorem 3.13 ! are lagrangian. In particular, the hyperbolic restriction functor Φ = p∗j is hyperbolic semismall. Let def. Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))). L Thanks to the above theorem, this is a vector space. We also set V(λ) = Vµ(λ). Remark 4.6. Since Φ is hyperbolic semismall, we have ∼ Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) = H2 dim(Aχ(λ, µ)),

and hence Vµ(λ) possesses a basis parametrized by irreducible components of of Aχ(λ, µ) of dim = dim M(λ, µ)/2 [MV07, Prop. 3.10]. After identifying Vµ(λ) with a weight space of an integrable highest weight representation of an affine Lie algebra, irreducible components are regarded as Mirkovi´c-Vilonencycles for affine Lie algebras, hence for double affine Grassmannian. This generalizes the construction in [Nak09, §6] for dominant µ. • •,C •,R 4(ii). Deformed case. Let us next choose a parameter ν such that ν∗ = 0 = ν∗ and •,C •,R •,C νh = νh is eitherν ˙ or 0, whereν ˙ is a nonzero real number. As before we denote by ν , the complex part of ν• and understand it as one with vanishing real parameters. This gives 1 2 P us a decomposition λ = λ + λ : recall λ = wiΛi, and wi is the number of ’s between 1 2 C xi and xi+1. Let wi , wi be numbers of ’s with νh = 0 and =ν ˙ respectively. Then we 1 2 1 P 1 2 P 2 have wi = wi + wi and define λ = wi Λi, λ = wi Λi. Thanks to Remark 3.4, the • results in this subsection does not depend on howν ˙ is distributed to νh. They depend only on λ1, λ2. The following confirms [BFN19, Conjecture 3.27(1) and the first half of (2)] for affine type A. 22 H. NAKAJIMA

Proposition 4.7. The T -fixed points Mν•,C (λ, µ)T are finite, and correspond to decompo- sition µ = µ1 + µ2 such that M(λ1, µ1)T , M(λ2, µ2)T are nonempty. Moreover the image of Mν•,C (λ, µ)T under the factorization morphism $ is supported at 0 and ν˙, and the mul- tiplicities are determined by the decomposition µ = µ1 + µ2. Therefore around the point corresponding to µ = µ1 + µ2, the bow variety Mν•,C (λ, µ) is isomorphic to a neighborhood of the unique T -fixed point in M(λ1, µ1) × M(λ2, µ2) by the factorization.

More explicitly, if p ∈ Mν•,C (λ, µ)T corresponds to a decomposition µ = µ1 + µ2, we 1 2 1 1 P 1 2 2 P 2 have $(p) = (vi [0] + vi [ν ˙])i∈Q0 with λ − µ = vi αi, λ − µ = vi αi. Proof. We argue as in the proof of Proposition 4.1 to decompose a fixed point as sum of the data associated with (4.2) over i. Each summand looks like

B1 B0

Cm−1 C C−1 C−n 1 A Vm Vm−1 ··· V1 V0 ··· V1−n V−n D D D D (4.8) m−1 1 −1 −n b a C

instead of (4.3). By the defining equation we see that eigenvalues of B0, B1 are either 0 or 0 00 0 00 ν˙. Let us decompose V0 = V0 ⊕ V0 , V1 = V1 ⊕ V1 by eigenvalues, the prime for 0 and the 0 00 double prime forν ˙. We have inherited decomposition Vh = Vh ⊕ Vh for other h’s. Then we have factorization Mν•,C ≈ 0Mν•,C × 00Mν•,C around the fixed point. (See the paragraph after Theorem 3.6.) C Take a two way part h and consider the corresponding Ch, Dh. If νh = 0 (resp.ν ˙), then 00 0 Ch, Dh are isomorphism on the factor V (resp. V ). Therefore we can absorb the action of 00 00 GL(V ) to that of GL(V ) by normalizing C | 00 to the identity homomorphism. The i(h) o(h) h Vo(h) 00 remaining D | 00 is fixed by the defining equation. Thus we can eliminate V . The same h Vi(h) i(h) applies for V 0. After this normalization each factor gives a fixed point in a bow variety with parameter ν = 0, one classified in Proposition 4.1. Therefore it is a form in (4.3). We return back to the balanced bow variety Mν•,C (λ, µ) by successive applications of Hanany-Witten transitions. Eigenvalues of B’s are preserved (Lemma 3.5), hence we have the factorization Mν•,C (λ, µ) ≈ M(λ1, µ1) × M(λ2, µ2) corresponding to the above fac- torization. Here we eliminate several summands of V 0, V 00 as above. Since the fixed point corresponds to a fixed point in M(λ1, µ1) × M(λ2, µ2), it is the one described in Proposition 4.1. In particular we must have M(λ1, µ1)T , M(λ2, µ2)T 6= ∅. Conversely if M(λ1, µ1)T , M(λ2, µ2)T 6= ∅, we get a fixed point in M(λ, µ) after adding removed 0 00 summands of V , V .  We allow scaling of ν•,C in the defining equation to get families

G 0 G •,R 0 M(λ, µ) = Mν (λ, µ), Mf(λ, µ) = Mν ,ν (λ, µ) ν0∈Cν•,C ν0∈Cν•,C CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 23

•,C parametrized by C, where the fiber at 0 (resp. 1) is M(λ, µ) (resp. Mν (λ, µ)) for the first •, family. The fiber at 0 of the second family is Mν R (λ, µ). We have π : Mf(λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) as in (3.1). Let us denote its fiber over 0 as π : Mν•,R (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ). The latter is a stratified semismall birational morphism ([NT17, Prop. 4.5]), hence the former is a stratified small birational morphism. Moreover Mf(λ, µ) is a topologically trivial family. In fact, by hyperK¨ahlerrotation, we can consider it as a family of bow varieties with the same defining equation (the parameter is ν•,R) with varying stability conditions with parameters in R Re ν•,C. But we only consider submodules whose dimension vectors are perpendicular to ν•,R, hence slopes appearing in inequalities in (ν1, 2) in §3(i) are automatically vanish. Therefore Re ν•,C-(semi)stability and 0-(semi)stability are equivalent. Therefore the nearby ν•,R cycle functor ψ for the family M(λ, µ) → C sends IC(M(λ, µ)) to π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))). Now the remaining half of [BFN19, Conjecture 3.27(2)] follows as Corollary 4.9. We have ν•,R ∼ Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) = ψ ◦ Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) M ∼= Φ(IC(M(λ1, µ1))) ⊗ Φ(IC(M(λ2, µ2))). µ=µ1+µ2 M(λ1,µ1)T ,M(λ2,µ2)T 6=∅

The first isomorphism is given by the triviality of the family Mf(λ, µ) → C and the com- mutativity of the nearby cycle and hyperbolic restriction functors by [Ric19]. The second isomorphism is given by the factorization in Proposition 4.7.

ν•,R Recall we denote Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) by Vµ(λ). Since π : M (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) is an s ν•,R isomorphism over the open locus M (λ, µ), the direct image π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) contains IC(M(λ, µ)) as a direct summand with multiplicity one. Therefore we have natural homo- ν•,R morphisms, inclusion and projection IC(M(λ, µ))  π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))). They induce M M ν•,R (4.10) Φ(IC(M(λ, µ)))  Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))). µ µ

◦,R ◦,R 4(iii). Weyl group action. Let us consider a real parameter with ν∗ = 0 but other νh are generic. We consider Mν◦,R (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ). As in Corollary 4.9 we have

n−1 wi ◦, ν R ∼ M O O ai (4.11) Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) = Φ(IC(M(Λi, µi ))). a P i i=0 ai=1 µi =µ We divide the hamiltonian reduction in the definition of a balanced bow variety in two steps: the first by GL(Vζ )’s when both ends of ζ are , and the second by the remaining GL(Vζ )’s. In the first step, we obtain products of triangle parts and quiver varieties of type ν◦,R Awi−1 with dimension vectors (vi, vi,..., vi, vi), (vi, 0,..., 0, vi). For ζ this first step vi vi ∗ gives the inverse image of Slodowy slice S((wi − 1) , 1 ) under the projection π : T F → vi vi vi vi ∗ N (wi ). Here ((wi − 1) , 1 ), (wi ) denote Jordan type of nilpotent orbits, and T F is the cotangent bundle of the partial flag variety of flags of subspaces of Cwivi of dimensions 24 H. NAKAJIMA

vi, 2vi,...,(wi − 1)vi. For M(λ, µ) the first step gives the intersection of Slodowy slice vi and N (wi ). (See e.g., [NT17, §7.4].) ∗ vi The projection π : T F → N (wi ) is very similar to the Springer resolution. (In fact, it is exactly the Springer resolution when vi = 1.) Recall that the Springer representation is ∗ ∗ a Swi -action on π∗(QT F [dim T F]) for vi = 1 in Lusztig’s construction [Lus81] (see also [BM83, §2.6]).

ν◦,R Q Lemma 4.12. (1) A perverse sheaf π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) is equipped with a i Swi -action. Q ν◦,R (2) The induced i Swi -action on the hyperbolic restriction Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) co- incides with the permutation among factors ai = 1,..., wi with common i in (4.11). Taking the sum over µ, we rewrite the right hand side of (4.11) as n−1 O ⊗wi V(Λi) , i=0 L ai as V(Λi) = ai Φ(IC(M(Λi, µ ))). Thus this analog of Springer representation permutes µi i tensor factors.

Proof. (1) We follow Lusztig’s construction. We consider the family Mf(λ, µ) → A`−1 where ◦,R C C the real parameter is the one we already choose ν . Complex parameters ν have ν∗ = 0, C P but other parts νh are arbitrary. The number of parameters is i wi − 1 = ` − 1. (Recall C `−1 that an overall shift of νh is irrelevant.) For M(λ, µ) → A , we choose complex parameter R Q as above while the real parameter ν is 0. The product of symmetric groups i Swi acts on `−1 C A , where Swi permutes νh ’s in the arc xi → xi+1. This action can be lifted to M(λ, µ) by reflection functors [Nak03] as we have already mentioned in Remark 3.4. Alternatively ˜ GO we use the identification of M(λ, µ) with the spectrum of H∗ (R), and observe that it Q GO Q × has a quotient by i Swi given by Spec H∗ (R) with G = (G × i GL(wi))/C . We now have a commutative diagram

◦,R ˜ι Mν (λ, µ) Mf(λ, µ) A`−1

π π

ι Q `−1 Q M(λ, µ) M(λ, µ)/ i Swi A / i Swi , where the leftmost column consists of fibers over 0. ∗ ∼ ∗ Since the left square is Cartesian, we have ι π∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ))) = π∗˜ι (IC(Mf(λ, µ))) by base change. Since Mf(λ, µ) is a topologically trivial family as explained in §4(ii), we ◦, have ˜ι∗(IC(Mf(λ, µ)))[1 − `] ∼= IC(Mν R (λ, µ)). On the other hand, π is a stratified small birational morphism again as in §4(ii). Hence π (IC(Mf(λ, µ))) is the IC associ- Q ∗ ated with the local system given by the i Swi -covering defined by the the restriction `−1 Q of π to the open subset of A / i Swi consisting of disjoint configurations. In partic- ∗ ν◦,R ular, π (IC(Mf(λ, µ))), and hence also ι π (IC(Mf(λ, µ)))[1 − `] = π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) is ∗ Q ∗ equipped with a i Swi -action. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 25

Q ν◦,R (2) Since Φ is a functor, we have a i Swi -action on Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) = Φ ◦ ∗ ∗ ! − − ∗ ˜ι (IC(Mf(λ, µ)))[1 − `]. We exchange Φ and ˜ι after we replace Φ = p∗j by p! (j ) by [Bra03] and use the base change. As in Proposition 4.7 the fixed point components in T P ai Mf(λ, µ) correspond to decomposition µ = µi . Moreover each factor corresponds to C h, as νh ’s take different values on the open subset of disjoint configurations. Therefore Q ai i Swi -action permutes fixed point components according to permutations of µi ’s. Note ∗ also ˜ι (IC(Mf(λ, µ)))[1−`] and ψ(IC(Mf(λ, µ))|Cν•,C ) are isomorphic as Mf(λ, µ)) is a topo- logically trivial family. The same is true for those applied with Φ. Therefore (4.11) is given ∗ also by ˜ι [1 − `].  4(iv). Weyl chambers on the space of one parameter subgroups. Let us take a one- m0 mn−1 parameter subgroup χ(t) = (t , . . . , t ) ∈ T (mi ∈ Z). We consider the corresponding fixed point M(λ, µ)χ. Since we can replace t by tN for N ∈ Z \{0}, we can also consider n mi ∈ Q. We regard m = (m0, . . . , mn−1) ∈ Q as an element of the Cartan subalgebra of the affine Lie algebra slb(n) (without the degree operator). Recall that the roots of slb(n) are (k, k, . . . , k) = kδ (k 6= 0) and ±(0,..., 0, 1,..., 1, 0,..., 0) + kδ (1 ≤ j < i ≤ n, k ∈ ). j i Z

Lemma 4.13. Suppose that hm, αi 6= 0 for any root α of slb(n). Then M(λ, µ)χ = M(λ, µ)T . F s k 2 Proof. Recall a stratification M(λ, µ) = M (κ, µ) × S (C \{0}/(Z/`Z)) (` > 1), F s k 2 M (κ, µ) × S (C )(` = 1). The action on symmetric products is induced from the × 2 −1 C -action on C given by t · (x, y) = (tx, t y) where t = s0 ··· sn−1. We have n−1 2 T 2 χ X (C ) = (C ) ⇐⇒ 0 6= mi = hm, δi. i=0 Thus T -fixed points and χ(C×)-fixed points in symmetric products are the same if m is not in the imaginary root hyperplane δ = 0. Next we consider Ms(κ, µ)χ as in §4(i). If −1 Z (s0 ··· si−1)(s0 ··· sj−1) ∈/ (s0 ··· sn−1)

on the image of χ, data for Cxi and Cxj live on different weight spaces, hence we have a direct sum decomposition as before. The above condition is n−1 X mi−1 + mi−2 + ··· + mj ∈/ Z mi, i=0 if i > j and similar for i < j. This means that m is not in root hyperplanes (0,..., 0, 1,..., 1, 0,..., 0) + kδ j i for any k.  Thus we get a geometric interpretation of Weyl chambers in terms of one parameter subgroups. 26 H. NAKAJIMA

4(v). Fixed points with respect to smaller tori. Let us consider the ‘negative’ cham- ber mi < 0 for i = 0, . . . , n − 1 on the space of one parameter subgroups. It does not inter- sect with root hyperplanes, hence the fixed point set with respect to χ(t) = (tm0 , . . . , tmn−1 ) coincides with the T -fixed point set. Let us consider a one parameter subgroup χi(t), which lies on the boundary of the negative chamber.

Theorem 4.14. Take a one parameter subgroup χi(t) with mi = 0 for some i and mj < 0 otherwise. χi (1) The χi-fixed point set M(λ, µ) is either empty or isomorphic to a Coulomb branch 0 0 0 0 0 MA1 (λ , µ ) of an A1 type framed quiver gauge theory with weights λ , µ , where µ = χi hµ, hii = µi − µi+1 (i 6= 0), ` + µn − µ1 (i = 0). Moreover the intersection of M(λ, µ) 0 0 with a stratum is either empty or a stratum of MA1 (λ , µ ). 0 0 (2) The restrictions of wj,r, yj,r are zero for j 6= i, and are equal to ones for MA1 (λ , µ ) or zero for j = i. The weight λ0 is determined from λ, µ in a combinatorial way as we will see during the proof. On the other hand, it is the largest highest weight with ≥ µ0 among those corresponding sl(2)i-modules appearing the restriction of the integrable highest weight module V (λ), once we establish V(λ) = V (λ). But it is not clear to the author how to show that the combinatorial expression of λ0 coincides with the representation theoretic characterization directly.1 Proof. Let us first suppose i 6= 0, n − 1. The same argument as in §4(i) shows that a s χi point M (κ, µ) is represented by (A, B, C, D, a, b) which decomposes to data for Cxj

(j 6= i, i + 1) and data for Cxi ⊕ Cxi+1 . We already know that the former data gives a single point by §4(i). We untwist the circle to the line as before, and the bow diagram for the latter is

µi µi+1 (4.15)     × ×     . ··· ··· x x ··· ··· hm h2 h1 i i+1 h0 h−1 h−n

When i = n − 1, we have s0 ··· sn−2 = s0 ··· sn−1. Then the action on Cxn−1 and that on A, b at x0 have the same weight. The argument above yields the same diagram above, if we understand (i, i + 1) = (n − 1, 0) and µ0 = µn. When i = 0, we have ` ’s between x0 and x1. (See (3.10).) So we get

µn µ1  ×   ×  . ··· x ··· x ··· h`+1 0 h` h1 1 h0

Then we move ` ’s to the left of x0 by Hanany-Witten transition to get the same diagram in (4.15) with µn replaced by µn + `. The argument below remains if we understand µi=0 is µn + `.

1This sentence was written in the first version of the manuscript. See Remark 4.18 for the update. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 27

We assume µi, µi+1 ≥ 0 as in the proof of Proposition 4.1. We have N(hσ, hσ+1) ≥ 0 P for any σ again as before. On the other hand, N(hσ, hσ+1) = 2 by definition. Therefore N(hσ, hσ+1) 6= 0 at most two σ’s. Let us suppose N(hσ, hσ+1) 6= 0 for σ = τ1, τ2 and N(hσ, hσ+1) = 0 otherwise. We

assume τ1 ≥ τ2. We have N(hτ1 , hτ1+1) = 1 = N(hτ2 , hτ2+1) if τ1 > τ2, N(hτ1 , hτ1+1) = 2 if

τ1 = τ2. We move xi (resp. xi+1) between hτ1 and hτ1+1 (resp. hτ2 and hτ2+1) by successive applications of Hanany-Witten transition. Then Nhσ becomes 0 for any σ. Thus vector spaces appear between xi and xi+1 with the same dimension (let it be v), and all others are 0. See 0 −v 0 ··· 0 v 0  ×   × 

hτ1+1 hτ1 hτ2+1 hτ2 The balanced condition is satisfied, hence it gives a Coulomb branch. The gauge theory is of type A1 with dimensions v, w, where w = τ1 − τ2. It is nonempty if and only if v ≥ 0. More precisely, we consider the fixed point set in a stratum Ms(κ, µ), hence the data above must satisfy the 0-stability condition. Therefore the fixed point set is the open stratum of the Coulomb branch. Note that τ1, τ2 are determined by µi, µi+1 and v as ( µi + v (i 6= 0), τ1 = τ2 = µi+1 − v. µn + ` + v (i = 0),

In particular, we have w − 2v = µi − µi+1 (i 6= 0), ` + µn − µ1 (i = 0). This is determined only by µi, µi+1, hence only by the bow data for the original bow variety M(λ, µ). Let us return back to the data (4.15), and then to (3.10) in order to see how strata of M(λ, µ) and the above are related. If τ1 > τ2 > 0, the data looks like

B B o(xi) i(xi)

C C2 ··· Cτ1−τ2 Cτ1−τ2+2 ··· Cτ1+τ2 Cτ2+v b (4.16) xi+1 ax bxi i

Cxi Cxi+1 .

From left to right, vector spaces increase dimension by 1 until τ1 − τ2. Then increase by 2 2 4 until τ1 + τ2. If τ1 = τ2, the left edge starts as C C ··· . Note τ1 + τ2 = µi + µi+1, τ2 + v = µi+1, τ1 − τ2 = 2v + µi − µi+1. In particular, τ1 + τ2 and τ2 + v are determined by µ. Going to (3.10), we see that τ1 − τ2 (and hence v) is determined from κ, µ. In fact, the sum of dimension of vector spaces in two way parts is 1 2 1 1 2 4 (τ1 + τ2) + 2 (τ1 + τ2) + 4 (τ1 − τ2) . Hence τ1 − τ2 is determined by dimension vectors in the form (3.10). 28 H. NAKAJIMA

If we add 2 to w keeping w − 2v unchanged, we go to a larger stratum in MA1 . It corresponds to adding C ··· C (τ1 − τ2 + 1 copies of C). It goes to a larger stratum in M(λ, µ) also. If τ1 ≥ 0 ≥ τ2, the data looks like

C C2 ··· Cτ1 Cv C−τ2 ··· C2 C .

C C 1 2 1 1 The sum of dimension of vector spaces in two way parts is 4 (τ1 +τ2) + 2 (τ1 +τ2)+ 4 (τ1 − 2 τ2) . Hence τ1 − τ2 and v are determined from κ, µ as in the first case. If we add 2 to w keeping w − 2v unchanged, we add C to each entry of the top row, including changing 0 to C at the leftmost and rightmost entries. This process also change Ms(κ, µ) to a larger stratum. For type A1 Coulomb branches, the closure relation on strata is a total order. We 0 0 χi take MA1 (λ , µ ) as the closure of the largest stratum. The intersection of M(λ, µ) with s s 0 0 M (κ, µ) is either empty or MA1 (τ1 − τ2, τ1 + τ2) above, which is a stratum of MA1 (λ , µ ).

Let us consider the assertion (2). The data for Cxj with j 6= i, i + 1 is of the form (4.2).

Note that we have other triangle parts xk (k 6= j) which are suppressed as axk = 0 = bxk and Axk = id. The data contribute to wk,r, yk,r by zero including the case k = j since Bxj is nilpotent and axj = 0 holds.

Next consider the data for Cxi ⊕ Cxi+1 as in (4.16). The data contribute to wi,r, yi,r Q by eigenvalues of Bi(xi) and bxi+1 s6=r(Bi(xi) − wi,s)axi . They are the same as wi,r, yi,r 0 0 for MA1 (λ , µ ). As for wk,r, yk,r with k 6= i, the data contribute by zero since Bo(xi) is nilpotent by the defining equation, and axk = 0.  Remark 4.17. The corresponding result for a finite type quiver Q was proved by Krylov [Kry18, Lem. 5.5]. In fact, he considered more general one parameter subgroups corre- sponding to any Levi subalgebra. The fixed point set is, in general, not a Coulomb branch of a framed quiver gauge theory for the semisimple part of the Levi subalgebra. The above argument does not work since the dominance order, restricted to weights that differ from µ0 by a linear combination of roots, is not a total order. s 0 0 Remark 4.18. During the proof of Theorem 4.14 we prove that a stratum MA1 (µ + 2v, µ ) 0 0 s χi of MA1 (λ , µ ) is the intersection M (κ, µ) ∩ M(λ, µ) . Let us compute κ in terms of v, µ. Note that κ is determined by two way parts. Looking at (4.16), we find that dimensions of vector spaces in two way parts are the same as those for the torus fixed point appearing in the proof of Proposition 4.1 after we replaced µ by µ˜ = µ + vαi. The same is true for the case τ1 ≥ 0 ≥ τ2, once we understand that vector spaces and linear maps go to the right of xi+1 whenµ ˜i+1 < 0. Therefore by the proof of Proposition 4.1, κ is the dominant weightµ ˜+ in the Weyl group orbit ofµ ˜. Namely we have s 0 0 s + χi MA1 (µ + 2v, µ ) = M (˜µ , µ) ∩ M(λ, µ) , µ˜ = µ + vαi. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 29

We further observe that Ms(˜µ+, µ) ⊂ M(λ, µ) ⇐⇒ λ ≥ µ˜+ ⇐⇒ M(λ, µ˜)T 6= ∅, where the second ⇔ is a consequence of Corollary 4.4. Since we take κ =µ ˜+ with the largest v, we verify the characterization of λ0 in Remark 1.3.

4(vi). Another choice of the stability parameter. Let us consider a parameter ν , ,C ,R  ν C with ν∗ , ν∗ are nonzero, but all other νh are zero. We have M(λ, µ), M (λ, µ), ν,R • Mf(λ, µ), M (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) as in §4(ii). Recall that we choose ν∗ = 0 in §4(ii). Therefore this parameter ν is complementary to the choice ν• there. Let us consider the case n = 2, ` = 1, λ = Λ0 for notational simplicity. The data and equations are

C B1 D A1 A0 V2 V1 V0 ( ,C (−DC + ν∗ )A0 − A0B1 + a0b0 = 0, a a b1 1 b0 0 B1A1 + A1CD + a1b1 = 0. C C

We assume the balanced condition, i.e., dim V0 = dim V2. Let us analyze the fixed point set Mν,C (λ, µ)T as in Propositions 4.1 and 4.7. The data

for a fixed point decompose as sum of (4.2) for Cxi (i = 0, 1), and each summand looks like

(4.8). Recall that we shrink triangle parts, which do not communicate with Cxi to get (4.8). ,C In particular, at a vector space Vi , the defining equation is CiDi − Di−1Ci−1 + ν∗ = 0. ,C Therefore we see that eigenvalues of −DC, B1, −CD are in Zν∗ . We decompose V0, V1, ,C V2 into generalized eigenspaces, and apply the factorization. Because of the shift ν∗ , the resulted data look as

B1

A0 C A1 A0 C A1 ··· V0(m) V2(m) V1(m) V0(m − 1) V2(m − 1) ··· D D

a0 b1 a1 b0 a0 b1 C C C C ,

,C where Vi(m) corresponds to the eigenvalue mν∗ for the fixed point. (We are thinking of ,C data in a neighborhood of the fixed point. So the eigenvalue is not precisely mν∗ . But it is ‘close’.) Since we may assume CD, DC on V0(m), V2(m) have eigenvalues different from 0 if m 6= 0, we see that C, D are isomorphisms. Therefore we can identify V0(m) and V2(m) by C, and then determine D by the equation. Therefore we can collapse all two way parts except one between V0(0) and V2(0). Thus bow data is for type A∞, type A diagram going to infinity in both directions, with single  corresponding to the remaining ,C two way part. We can absorb ν∗ to Bi’s once we do not have two way parts except one. (See [NT17, §3.1.4].) Note also that the balanced condition dim V0(0) = dim V2(0) remains 30 H. NAKAJIMA

to be true as we observed dim V0(m) = dim V2(m) for m 6= 0. Therefore the A∞ type bow 0 0 0 0 P variety is MA∞ (λ , µ ) with λ = Λ0, µ = Λ0 − m,i vi(m)αmn+i. ν,C 0 0 Moreover the factorization isomorphism M (λ, µ) ≈ MA∞ (λ , µ ) is T -equivariant, if we let T act on the right hand side as follows: for C in a triangle between V2(m) and −m V1(m), it acts by s0(s0s1) . For C in a triangle between V1(m + 1) and V0(m), it acts −m by (s0s1) . The action of s0s1 on the triangle between V1 and V0 for the left hand side −m is absorbed into the shift (s0s1) in the right hand side. By the same argument as in 0 0 the proof of Lemma 4.13, the T -fixed point set in MA∞ (λ , µ ) is not larger than the fixed point set with respect to the torus T∞ acting by linearly independent weights on C for triangles. Pn−1 Proposition 4.19. Let λ = Λ0 as above and write λ − µ = i=0 viαi. The T -fixed points Mν,C (λ, µ)T are finite, and correspond to a decomposition v = P v (m) such i m∈Z i 0 0 that the corresponding A∞ bow variety MA∞ (λ , µ ) as above has a T -fixed point, where 0 0 P ν,C T λ = Λ0, µ = Λ0 − m,i vi(m)αmn+i. The image of M (λ, µ) under the factorization ,C ,C morphism $ is supported in Zν∗ , and the multiplicities of mν are given by v0(m), ν,C v1(m). Around the fixed point, the bow variety M (λ, µ) is isomorphic to a neighborhood 0 0 of the unique T -fixed point in MA∞ (λ , µ ). 0 0 T It is also easy to describe MA∞ (λ , µ ) . See §A. Next consider the morphism π : Mν,R (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ). Since ` = 1, the stratification F s k 2 (see Theorem 3.13) is M(λ, µ) = M (λ − |k|δ, µ) × S (C ). The fiber of π over the stratum Ms(λ − |k|δ, µ) × Sk(C2) is isomorphic to a product of the punctual Hilbert 2 scheme of k1 points, k2 points, . . . on C by [NT17, §4.3]. In particular, it is irreducible. Hence ∼ M π∗( ν , [dim]) = IC(M(λ − |k|δ, µ)) k 2 [dim], CM  R (λ,µ)  CS (C ) k 2 where CX [dim] denote the shift of the constant sheaf on X by dim X and S (C ) is the closure of Sk(C2) in S|k|(C2). Therefore !   M ∼ M M k (4.20) Φ ◦ π∗(CM,R(λ,µ)[dim]) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) ⊗  C[S (C)] , µ µ k

where Sk(C) is the stratum of the symmetric product of the line C corresponding to a partition k, and its closure is the attracting set in Sk(C2). Remark 4.21. Suppose n = 1, ` = 1. Let us denote the corresponding balanced bow variety by M(v, 1) by using dimension vectors as in §3(ii).(w = 1 as ` = 1.) We have also Mν,R (v, 1), etc. In this case M(v, 1), Mν,R (v, 1) are isomorphic to quiver varieties of Jordan type as the cobalanced condition is satisfied. In particular, they are isomorphic v to the symmetric product Sv(C2) and Hilbert scheme Hilb (C2) of v points on C2. The proof of Proposition 4.19 works in this case, and we recover a well-know fact that a fixed v point in Hilb (C2) corresponds to a partition of v. (See e.g., [Nak99, Ch. 5].) CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 31

s L Since M (λ−|k|δ, µ) = ∅ unless µ = λ−|k|δ in this case, we have µ Φ◦π∗(CMν,R (λ,µ)[dim]) = L k k C[S (C)] instead of (4.20). This result is also known, see e.g., [Nak99, Ch. 7]. 4(vii). Hyperbolic restriction in two steps. Let us take one parameter subgroup as in Theorem 4.14. Since it depends on i, let us denote it by χi. We also take a one parameter m0 mn−1 subgroup χ(t) = (t , . . . , t ) with mj < 0 for all j. We have a chamber structure on the space of one parameter subgroups, and χi lives in the boundary of the chamber containing χ. The result in this subsection remains true only under this assumption, but we keep notation for brevity. Let us denote the attracting sets with respect to χ and χi by A and p j χi i i Ai respectively. We have M(λ, µ) ←− Ai −→M(λ, µ). Note also that χ acts nontrivially on the fixed point set M(λ, µ)χi , and we have the corresponding attracting set, which will pi ji be studied in §5(i). Let us denote it by Ai. We have pt = M(λ, µ)χ ←− Ai −→M(λ, µ)χi as above. Then we form the diagram 00 j ji A −−−→ Ai −−−→ M(λ, µ)   00 pi p y y ji Ai −−−→ M(λ, µ)χi  i p y M(λ, µ)χ

i χi where A is the fiber product of Ai and A over M(λ, µ) . Then as in [BFN16, §4.5] A is 00 i 00 the attracting set in M(λ, µ) with respect to χ such that compositions ji ◦ j , p ◦ p give pi◦p00 j ◦j00 the diagram pt = M(λ, µ)χ ←−−− A −−−→Mi (λ, µ) is the one given by χ. Proposition 4.22. There is a natural transformation from the hyperbolic restriction func- i 00 00 ! i tor Φ = (p ◦ p )∗(ji ◦ j ) to Φ ◦ Φi, the composition of two hyperbolic restriction functors i i i ! ! by base change. Here Φ = p∗(j ) , Φi = (pi)∗ji. 5. Construction After preparation in the previous sections, we are ready to define the action of generators ei, fi, hi on V(λ). The operator hi is defined so that Vµ(λ) is the weight space with weight µ.

5(i). Type A1. Let us consider the bow variety of type A1 with the balanced condition. We suppose dimension vectors are v, w ∈ Z≥0. By Corollary 4.4 we assume v ≤ w, as there is no fixed point otherwise. We take a one parameter subgroup χ(t) = tm (m < 0) as in the previous subsection. The following was observed in [Kry18, several paragraphs after Th. 3.1], but let us give a proof in terms of bow varieties for completeness.

Theorem 5.1. The attracting set A for the type A1 balanced bow variety associated with v, w is isomorphic to Cv. 32 H. NAKAJIMA

Proof. We start with the balanced diagram, two triangles at the left and right ends. We have w two way parts in between. The leftmost and rightmost vector spaces are 0 and others are v-dimensional. By Hanany-Witten transition, we move the leftmost triangle next to the rightmost one. The result is

B+ B−

Cw−1 C C Cw 3 2 A C C2 ··· Cw−1 Cw Cv Dw Dw−1 D3 D2

b+ a+ b− C+ C−.

m Let us study the attracting set. The action is induced from one given by b− 7→ t b− and other maps unchanged. k k We have b−B−a+ = 0 for any k as it has weight m < 0. But b−B− (k = 0, 1,..., v − 1) v is a base of the dual of C by the condition (S1). Hence a+ = 0. The defining equation now becomes B−A = AB+. Therefore A is surjective by (S2). (This gives a direct proof that there is no fixed point unless v ≤ w.) By the equation Ci+1Di+1−CiDi = 0, we see that B+ = −C1D1 is nilpotent by induction. k v Hence B− is also nilpotent. By (S1) b−B− (k = 0, 1,..., v − 1) is a base of the dual of C , hence we write B−, b− as

t t B− = Jv b− = ev.

t   This normalization kills the action of GL(v). Here ev = 0 ··· 0 1 . ∗ Note that Ker A is B+-invariant, and b+|Ker A ∈ (Ker A) is cocyclic with respect to B+|Ker A by (S1). Therefore

v−1 v−1 v−2 v−2 b−B− A = b−AB+ , b−B− A = b−AB+ , . . . , b−A, w−v−1 w−v−2 b+B+ , b+B+ , . . . , b+B+, b+

w t is a base of the dual of C . If w > v, we have A = [ idv 0 ] , b+ = ew and

  t  c1 Jv ~c 0 . w−v v−1 B+ = , ~c =  .  with b+B+ = c1b−AB+ + ··· + cvb−A. 0 Jw−v cv

t If w = v, we have A = id, B+ = Jv, and b+ is arbitrary. Once the action of GL(w) is killed, the remaining data Ci, Di are regarded as a point of a quiver variety of type Aw−1, which is the nilpotent cone of sl(w). See [Nak94, §7]. Therefore they are normalized by the remaining action of GL(w −1)×· · ·×GL(1). Hence the attracting set is Cv parametrizing c1,..., cv (w > v), or b+ (w = v).  CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 33

Remark 5.2. Suppose w > v. Then M is isomorphic to the intersection of the nilpotent cone of sl(w) and the space of w × w matrices of the following form: v columns w − v columns z }| { z }| {     0 ... 0 ∗ 0 ... 0 ∗   1 0 ∗ . . .  v rows  . . . .   0 .. 0 ∗       0 ... 1 ∗ 0 ... 0 ∗  ,     ∗ ... ∗ 0 ... 0 ∗       0 ... 0 1 0 ∗  w − v rows    ..    0 ... 0 0 . 0 ∗   0 ... 0 0 ... 1 ∗ where ∗ indicates an arbitrary complex number. We use [NT17, Prop. 3.2] twice, first to determine the upper left block, and second to give the remaining part. The space of matrices of the above form is a slice to the nilpotent matrix (v, w−v) considered in [MV03] when v ≤ w − v. When v > w − v, the space has larger dimension than the slice. If w = v, the triangle parts (quotient-ed by GL(v)) give the product of GL(w)×C2w and the space of the matrix of the above form (with w − v = 0). Then M is the hamiltonian reduction of the product of the nilpotent cone for sl(w) and this space by the diagonal action of GL(w).

Since the hyperbolic restriction functor Φ is hyperbolic semismall, Φ(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) (λ = w, µ = w − 2v) has a base parametrized by irreducible components of the attracting

set A = AA1 (λ, µ). Therefore ∼ Corollary 5.3. The attracting set AA1 (λ, µ) is irreducible. Hence Φ(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) =

C[AA1 (λ, µ)]. L L Theorem 5.4. (1) The direct sum µ Vµ(λ) = µ Φ(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) has an sl(2)-module structure, which is irreducible with dimension λ + 1 = w + 1. Moreover homomorphisms in (4.10) intertwine sl(2)-module structures when we endow an sl(2)-module structure on the right hand side as the tensor product via Corollary 4.9. f n (2) [AA1 (λ, µ)] = n! [AA1 (λ, λ)] for λ − µ = 2n. The construction is explicit and will be given during the proof.

Proof. The operator h is given by µ id on the summand Vµ(λ). If λ = 0, it is the trivial representation. We have nothing to do. Next consider the case λ = 1. We need to study MA1 (1, ±1). In the + case, we get a special case of the bow diagram studied in the proof of Proposition 4.1. In particular, it is a point. We ∼ have Φ(IC(MA1 (1, 1))) = C[point]. In the − case we normalize A, b− to 1 to kill the action, and determine B− from the equation B− + a+b+ = 0. The remaining data are ∼ 2 a+, b+, hence we have MA1 (1, −1) = C . The attracting set A is given by a+ = 0 as 34 H. NAKAJIMA ∼ ∼ above, therefore A = C. We have Φ(IC(MA1 (1, −1))) = C[A]. We then define e, f on

Φ(IC(MA1 (1, 1))) ⊕ Φ(IC(MA1 (1, −1))) by e[point] = 0, f[point] = [A], f[A] = 0, e[A] = [point]. This gives the two dimensional standard representation of sl(2). The formula in (2) holds by definition. R R R R Let us consider λ > 1. We take a real parameter ν so that ν1 < ν2 < ··· < νλ−1. There R is no ν∗ as we are considering type A1 bow varieties. The condition (ν2) is automatically satisfied, and (ν1) says that a graded subspace S as in (ν1) must be zero. In particular, νR-semistability and νR-stability are equivalent, and Mν is smooth. Recall that we constructed an isomorphism between the hyperbolic restriction Φ of νR π∗(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) and λ M O Vµi (1) µi=±1 i=1 µ1+···+µw=µ in Corollary 4.9. Therefore for the direct sum λ M νR ∼ O 2 2 (5.5) Φ(π∗(IC(MA (λ, µ)))) = (V1(1) ⊕ V−1(1)) = C ⊗ · · · ⊗ C . 1 | {z } µ i=1 λ times We endow an sl(2)-module structure as the tensor product of the above construction for λ = 1. Now we consider the hamiltonian reduction in the definition of the bow variety in two steps as in §4(iii). In this case, the first reduction gives the product of a quiver variety of type Aλ−1 with dimension vectors (1, 2, . . . , λ − 1), (0,..., 0, λ) and another variety given by triangles. The first quiver variety is the cotangent bundle of the flag variety for SL(λ). S L νR Thus we have λ action on µ π∗(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) and its hyperbolic restriction (5.5). The action on the latter is given by permutation of factors. L L Now µ Vµ(λ) = µ Φ(IC(MA1 (λ, µ))) is the direct summand of (5.5) consisting of λ 2 Sλ-fixed vectors. Therefore it is isomorphic to the symmetric power S (C ). In particular, it inherits an sl(2)-module structure, which is irreducible with dimension λ + 1, as we promised. The assertion on tensor products is clear from the construction.

To check the formula (2) we need to compute [AA1 (λ, µ)] in the tensor product (5.5). The isomorphism in (5.5) came from the factorization, and we use the base change from n n A /Sn to A . Therefore we get a factor n!. 

5(ii). Definition of operators ei, fi. Let us take χ, χi as in §4(vii).

χi 0 0 Proposition 5.6. Suppose M(λ, µ) is MA1 (λ , µ ) as in Theorem 4.14. The hyperbolic 0 0 0 restriction Φi sends IC(M(λ, µ)) to a direct sum of IC(MA1 (κ , µ )) with various κ with µ0 ≤ κ0 ≤ λ0.

! Proof. Since Φi = (pi)∗ji is hyperbolic semismall with respect to the natural stratification 0 0 of M(λ, µ), MA1 (λ , µ ), the assertion means that there is no direct summand for an IC CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 35 complex for a non trivial local system. Using a deformation by νC as in §4(ii), it is enough C to show that ψ ◦ Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) does not contain such a summand. We take ν generic so that fibers of M(λ, µ) → C are smooth outside 0, unlike a degenerate case used in §4(ii). Again as in §4(ii), we introduce the corresponding real parameter to construct a topologically trivial family Mf(λ, µ). Then we have

ψ ◦ Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) = π∗(CMνR (λ,µ)χi [dim]), where the right hand side is the direct sum of constant sheaves on connected components of the fixed point set MνR (λ, µ)χi shifted by their dimensions. Note that MνR (λ, µ) and MνR (λ, µ)χi are smooth. We analyze the fixed point set as in the proof of Theorem 4.14. After Hanany-Witten transitions, we arrive at

B+ B− C Cm 2 A Vm Vm−1 ··· V2 V+ V− Dm D2 (5.7) b a b C C ,

where dimensions of Vm,..., V+, V− may differ depending on components. As in the proof of Theorem 5.4 this is a hamiltonian reduction of the product of a quiver variety of type A, which is the cotangent bundle of a partial flag variety, and a variety given by the triangles by the action of GL(V+). Since the hamiltonian reduction is compatible with the

decomposition of the pushforward π∗(CMνR (λ,µ)χi [dim]) as before, the assertion follows from the corresponding result for nilpotent orbits of type A (the connectedness of stabilizers), or quiver varieties [Nak01a, Prop. 15.3.2].  For a later purpose, we study the fixed point set MνR (λ, µ)χi . Here the parameter νR is arbitrary, not necessarily generic in the proof of Proposition 5.6.

νR χi Lemma 5.8. The fixed point set M (λ, µ) is a union of A1 type balanced bow varieties with real parameters induced from νR.

R Here the induced parameters mean the following: recall νh is assigned for each h = hσ (1 ≤ σ ≤ `). We take the universal covering of the bow diagram so that σ runs over Z. R Then {hσ} for A1 is a subset of {hσ | σ ∈ Z}, and the parameters νh are given by the restriction. Proof. Let us change the fixed point component to the form of (5.7) as in the proof of Proposition 5.6. We will show that the balanced condition is achieved by first applying reflection functors in [Nak03], then next applying Hanany-Witten transitions. We consider the deformation M as in the proof of Proposition 5.6. Since reflection functors are hyperK¨ahlerisometry, MνR and MνC are changed in the same way. Also Hanany-Witten transitions respects complex and real parameters. Therefore it is enough to show the statement for MνC . 36 H. NAKAJIMA

Let Nh2 = dim V+ − dim V2,..., Nhm+1 = dim Vm as before. By applying reflection functors in [Nak03] at the cost of change of the parameter ν, we achieve the dominance condition Nh2 ≥ Nh3 ≥ · · · ≥ Nhm+1 . By an argument in [NT17, Prop. 7.5] we can transform the bow diagram to a balanced one by Hanany-Witten transition, if Nh2 ≤ 2, the number of triangles in (5.7). As in the proof of Proposition 4.7, the data (5.7) factorizes according to eigenvalues of C B+, which are entries of ν . Moreover we can normalize Ch to the identity on a component C for an eigenvalue 6= νh . Then each factor is an A1 type bow variety with the parameter

0, which was studied during the proof of Theorem 4.14. In particular, we have Nhσ = 0,

1 or 2 in each factor. Since other factors do not contribute to Nhσ , we have Nhσ ≤ 2, in particular, Nh2 ≤ 2. Once we achieve the balanced condition, the ordering on parameters νh is irrelevant by Remark 3.4.  We can apply [BFN18b, §4] after changing the stability parameter in the decreasing order so that [BFN18b, (4.2)] is satisfied. Hence MνR (λ, µ)χi is isomorphic to a union of Coulomb branches of the quiver gauge theory of type A1 with parameter induced from the original νR. Remark 5.9. Let us give an alternative argument for Lemma 5.8 for finite type A. It is informed us by Finkelberg. νR λ Recall that M (λ, µ) is realized as an iterated convolution diagram Wfµ in [BFN18b, §5]. For type An, it is the moduli space of flags of lattices L0 ⊃ L1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ LN such that Ls−1 ⊃ Ls ⊃ zLs−1, and dim Ls−1/Ls = is, 1 ≤ is ≤ n, where L0 = V [[z]], V = Cv0 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Cvn. Here the sequence i1, i2, . . . , iN is as follows. We consider coordinates of cocharacter of GF R corresponding to ν . We choose i1 so that the maximum k1 of coordinates is achieved at the vertex i1 of the Dynkin diagram. Then we choose i2 so that the next one k2 is achieved at i2, and so on. The determinant bundle is Ds = det(Ls−1/Ls) (or its dual?), and the R N ⊗ks ample line bundle for the stability parameter ν is Ds . Let our Levi subgroup be 0 00 GL(V := Cv0 ⊕ Cv1) times the remaining torus T . Then the corresponding torus fixed points in the above convolution diagram will have many connected components. A typical 0 0 0 00 00 connected component will be the moduli space of flags (L0 ⊃ L1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ LN )⊕(L0 ⊃ L1 ⊃ 00 0 0 · · · ⊃ LN ) where the first summand is a flag in L0 = V [[z]], while the second summand is 00 00 00 00 a T -invariant flag in L0 = V [[z]], where V = Cv2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Cvn. There are finitely many 00 0 0 00 00 possibilities for choices of Ls . Clearly, det(Ls−1/Ls) = det(Ls−1/Ls) ⊗ det(Ls−1/Ls ), and the second factor is “constant” from the point of view of sl(2)-Grassmannian. Thus the N 0 0 ⊗ks ample line bundle for the fixed point component is det(Ls−1/Ls) .

Thanks to Proposition 5.6, we write the hyperbolic restriction Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) as in λ,µ (1.6). The multiplicity space Mκ0,µ0 is top degree Borel-Moore homology group of a −1 s 0 0 subvariety pi (x), where x is a point in the smooth locus of a stratum MA1 (κ , µ ) of 0 0 χi MA1 (λ , µ ) = M(λ, µ) . See §4(vii). By Proposition 5.6 the top degree Borel-Moore s 0 0 homology group form a trivial local system over MA1 (κ , µ ). Therefore its fibers are canonically identified, i.e., independent of the choice of x. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 37

Proposition 5.10. The factorization gives us an isomorphism

λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2. The construction will be explained during the proof.

Proof. Recall that the i-th component of the factorization morphism Φ of M(λ, µ) is re- 0 0 0 0 stricted to the factorization morphism of MA1 (λ , µ ) (for which MA1 (κ , µ ) is a stratum). We consider the Coulomb branch of another quiver gauge theory obtained by increasing the i-th entry of the vector v by 1, i.e., M(λ, µ − αi). Let δi be the dimension vector v δi whose i-entry is 1 and other entries are 0. We take the open subset (A × Gm)disj of Av × Aδi consisting of pairs of colored configurations whose supports are disjoint as in §3(iii), and also the support of the second configuration is disjoint from 0. Then we have the factorization isomorphism

v δi (5.11) M(λ, µ − αi) × v+δi ( × m)disj A A G ∼ v δi = (M(λ, µ) × × m) × v δi ( × m)disj. A G A ×A A G

The second factor is M(λ, λ − αi) in the statement of Theorem 3.6. It can be replaced by the Coulomb branch of type A1 theory with w = wi, v = 1 as entries of δi are 0 except at i. Moreover we restrict it to the open subset where the factorization morphism is nonzero, hence we can further replace it by the Coulomb branch of the quiver gauge theory of type A1 with w = 0, v = 1, which is just A × Gm as above. This factorization is compatible with the one parameter subgroup χi, as χi does not change the i-th component of Φ. Note χi acts trivially on the factor A × Gm. We have the s 0 0 s 0 0 factorization MA1 (κ , µ − 2) ≈ MA1 (κ , µ ) × (A × Gm) for strata of χi-fixed point sets, compatible with M(λ, µ − αi) ≈ M(λ, µ) × (A × Gm). Thus the desired isomorphism is given by the factorization.  L By Proposition 4.22 and (1.6) we define operators ei, fi on µ Vµ(λ) induced from e, f given by Theorem 5.4 for the A1 case, as explained in Introduction.

5(iii). Tensor product. Let us slightly generalize the above construction of ei, fi. We re- •, •, ν R •,R ν R place IC(M(λ, µ)) by π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))). Here ν is as in §4(ii). Then Φi◦π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) L λ,µ 0 0 decomposes as κ0 Mfκ0,µ0 ⊗IC(MA1 (κ , µ )) as in (1.6). Then we construct an isomorphism λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Mfκ0,µ0 = Mfκ0,µ0−2 in the same way as in the proof of Proposition 5.10 by the factorization. Then we define ei, fi as (this isomorphism) ⊗ (e, f for A1 case). This construction is compatible with the original one: Since IC(M(λ, µ)) is a direct ν•,R λ,µ summand of π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))), we have the induced inclusion and projection Mκ0,µ0  λ,µ λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Mfκ0,µ0 . They commute with isomorphisms Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2, Mfκ0,µ0 = Mfκ0,µ0−2 by the construction. Therefore maps in (4.10) intertwine ei, fi. 38 H. NAKAJIMA

ν•,R Now recall Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) decomposes into a sum of tensor product by Corol- lary 4.9. Hence we have

M ν•,R ∼ 1 2 (5.12) Φ ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) = V(λ ) ⊗ V(λ ). µ

Proposition 5.13. (1) Homomorphisms in (4.10) intertwine operators ei, fi. (2) The operators ei, fi defined on the left hand side of (5.12) just above is equal to the tensor product in the right hand side, i.e., ei is given by 1 ⊗ ei + ei ⊗ 1, etc. Proof. The statement (1) is already proved above. ν•,R In order to understand Φ◦π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) in (5.12), we consider ψ◦Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) i as in Corollary 4.9 and change it to Φ ◦ ψ ◦ Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))). Then the triviality of the family Mf(λ, µ) → C and the commutativity of the nearby cycle and hyperbolic restriction functors give an isomorphism

ν•,R ∼ Φi ◦ π∗(IC(M (λ, µ))) = ψ ◦ Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))).

C By Lemma 5.8 (or more precisely its version for the complex parameter ν ), Φi(IC(M(λ, µ))) L λ,µ 0 0 0 0 is a direct sum M κ ,µ ⊗ IC(MA1 (κ , µ )) over the inverse image of C \{0} under 0 0 MA1 (κ , µ ) → C. Moreover M(λ, µ) factors as M(λ1, µ1) × M(λ2, µ2)

λ,µ λ1,µ1 around a T -fixed point by Proposition 4.7. Therefore M κ0,µ0 is the tensor product Mκ10,µ10 ⊗ λ2,µ2 Mκ20,µ20 . λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi The factorization gives an isomorphism M κ0,µ0 = M κ0,µ0−2 as in Proposition 5.10. We can apply two factorization simultaneously. Therefore the isomorphism is induced from λ1,µ1 λ2,µ2 isomorphisms for factors Mκ10,µ10 , Mκ20,µ20 , and it is also independent of the choice of the decomposition µ = µ1 + µ2. Thus it is enough to check the assertion ei = ei ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ ei for i 0 0 ∼ M i 10 10 i 20 20 ψ ◦ Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))) = Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))) ⊗ Φ (IC(MA1 (κ , µ ))), µ10+µ20=µ0 the isomorphism given by the factorization as a special case of Corollary 4.9 for type A1. But this is clear from the definition as explained in the proof of Theorem 5.4. 

5(iv). Type A2. We next show the relation [ei, fj] = 0 if i 6= j and the Serre relation. This is reduced to the rank 2 case. If i and j are not connected in the Dynkin diagram, the bow variety decomposes into a product. The assertion is trivial. Next we study the A2 case. Thanks to Proposition 5.13, we may assume λ is a fundamental weight. We may further assume λ = Λ1, the first fundamental weight, by a diagram automorphism. The

bow variety MA2 (λ, µ) has a fixed point if and only if µ = Λ1,Λ1 − α1,Λ1 − α1 − α2. We CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 39 apply Hanany-Witten transition to go to a bow diagram

0 1 v1 v2 0  × × ×

with (v1, v2) = (0, 0), (1, 0), (1, 1). In the case µ = Λ1, the bow variety is a single point. Let A1 denote the corresponding attracting set, which is also a single point. We have e1[A1] = 0 = e2[A1] as the correspond- ing bow varieties are empty. We also have f2[A1] = 0 since the corresponding bow variety does not have torus fixed points. Next consider the case µ = Λ − α1. We have

B0=0 B1

A1 C C 0

b1 a1 b2 C C C

We normalize A1 = b2 = 1, and determine B1 from the equation B1 + a1b1 = 0. Therefore ∼ 2 MA2 (λ, µ) = C by the remaining variables (a1, b1). The action is

m1 −m1 (a1, b1) 7→ (t a1, t b1).

The attracting set is {a1 = 0}, which is C. Let us denote it by A2. We have e2[A2] = 0 = f1[A2] as the corresponding bow varieties are empty. For the case µ = Λ1 − α1 − α2, we have

B0=0 B1 B2

A1 A2 C C C

b1 a1 b2 a2 b3 C C C

We normalize A1 = A2 = b3 = 1, and determine B1, B2 from the equations B1 + a1b1 = 0, ∼ 4 B2 − B1 + a2b2 = 0. Therefore MA2 (λ, µ) = C by the remaining variables (a1, b1, a2, b2). The action is

m1+m2 −m1−m2 m2 −m2 (a1, b1, a2, b2) 7→ (t a1, t b1, t a2, t b2). 2 The attracting set is {a1 = a2 = 0}, which is C . Let us denote it by A3. We have f1[A3] = 0 = f2[A3], e1[A3] = 0 as above. In order to calculate remaining actions of operators e1, e2, f1, f2, we take one parameter subgroups with m1 = 0, m2 < 0 and m1 < 0, m2 = 0 respectively. When m1 = 0, the action is trivial in the case µ = Λ1 −α1 −α2. Therefore the hyperbolic restriction does nothing. Hence we have

f1[A1] = [A2], e1[A2] = [A1]. 40 H. NAKAJIMA

When m2 = 0, the attracting set remains A2, and the fixed point is a single point ∼ 3 (a1, b1) = 0 for µ = Λ1 − α1, while the attracting set is {a1 = 0} = C and the fixed point ∼ 2 set is {a1 = b1 = 0} = C for µ = Λ1 − α1 − α2. Therefore we have

f2[A2] = [A3], e2[A3] = [A2]. This finishes the calculation, and we see that this gives the 3-dimensional standard repre- sentation of sl(3).

5(v). Reduction to A∞ case. We are left to check the case affine A1. As in §5(iv) we may assume λ is a fundamental weight, and λ = Λ0 by the diagram automorphism. The following argument works for general n ≥ 2. , , We apply the method used in §5(iii) to Mν R (λ, µ), Mν C (λ, µ) studied in §4(vi). We have M ν,R ∼ M 0 0 (5.14) Φ ◦ π∗((IC(M (λ, µ)))) = Φ(IC(MA∞ (λ , µ ))), µ µ0 0 where λ is the 0-th fundamental weight for A∞. As in Proposition 5.13, we define operators 0 0 ei, fi on the left hand side, and ask what they are in the right hand side. In MA∞ (λ , µ ) , it is straightforward to check that the fixed point set Mν C (λ, µ)χi with respect to the degenerate one-parameter subgroup χi is mapped to the product of A1-type bow varieties for χi+mn (m ∈ Z) under the isomorphism in Proposition 4.19. Therefore ei, fi are given by P e , P f in the right hand side. This is nothing but an embedding of m∈Z i+mn m∈Z i+mn slb(n) into glb(∞), see e.g., [KRR13, Lecture 9]. In particular the relation [ei, fj] = 0 for i 6= j and the Serre relation are satisfied also for slb(2). Let us look at (4.20). It is an isomorphism of slb(n)-modules. The left hand side is the restriction of the Fock space for glb(∞) to slb(n). In the right hand side the first factor is V (Λ0), while the second factor corresponds to the Fock space for the Heisenberg subalgebra in glb(∞). Remark 5.15. Consider the case n = 1. (5.14) remains to be true. As we mentioned in L k Remark 4.21 the left hand side is k C[S (C)]. This space is equipped with the structure of the Fock space of the Heisenberg algebra so that [Sk(C)] corresponds to the monomial symmetric function for the partition k [Nak16a, §2]. 0 0 On the other hand the summand Φ(IC(MA∞ (λ , µ ))) in (5.14) corresponds to a fixed ν,C 0 0 P point in M (λ, µ) corresponding to a partition given by λ − µ = m v(m)αm. (See §A how v(m) corresponds to a Maya diagram. Then we use the standard bijection between a partition and a Maya diagram.) This fixed point was studied by Vasserot [Vas01]: Its class is the Schur function for k. Since the correspondence Maya diagrams and Schur functions appears in boson-fermion correspondence (see e.g., [KRR13, Lectures 5,6]), we see that (5.14) respects the Heisenberg algebra action where we consider the Heisenberg subalgebra in glb(∞) in the right hand side. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 41

5(vi). Kashiwara crystal. Recall Vµ(λ) has a base parametrized by irreducible compo- nents of the attracting set Aχ(λ, µ) of dim = dim M(λ, µ)/2. (Remark 4.6) In [BFN19, F Remark 3.26(2)] it was conjectured that the union of irreducible components Irr Aχ(λ, µ) has a structure of Kashiwara crystal, isomorphic to B(λ), the crystal of the integrable high- est weight module of the quantized enveloping algebra. As we mentioned in the Introduction, our construction resembles the construction of Kashiwara crystal structure in [BG01], it is straightforward to apply the construction in [BG01] to our setting. Let us briefly sketch. We use the standard notation for crystal, e.g., as in [Nak01b].

(1) We define Kashiwara operators e, fe for sl(2) from the analysis in §5(i). Namely they send [Aχ(λ, µ)] to [Aχ(λ, µ ± 2)] or 0. (2) We define ei, fei in general by reduction to sl(2) by the hyperbolic restriction with respect to χi as in §5(ii). In particular, we use the factorization isomorphism appeared in the proof of Proposition 5.10. (3) We consider irreducible components of attracting sets in Mν•,C (λ, µ) and Mν•,R (λ, µ) as in §4(ii). They are naturally identified via the topologically trivial family ν• F ν• Mf(λ, µ). Let us denote it by Irr Aχ (λ, µ). Then µ Irr Aχ (λ, µ) has a Kashi- wara crystal structure. Moreover ν•,R F (a) The projection π : M (λ, µ) → M(λ, µ) induces an inclusion Irr Aχ(λ, µ) ⊂ F ν• µ Irr Aχ (λ, µ) which is an embedding of crystals. (b) the factorization in Proposition 4.7 induces an isomorphism

G ν• ∼ G 1 1 G 1 1 Irr Aχ (λ, µ) = Irr Aχ(λ , µ ) ⊗ Irr Aχ(λ , µ ) µ µ1 µ2 of crystals. ∼ (4) If we view [Y ] ∈ Irr Aχ(λ, µ) as an element of H2 dim(Aχ(λ, µ)) = Vµ(λ), Kashiwara operator fei and fi in the Lie algebra are related as

X 0 fi[Y ] = (εi(Y ) + 1)fei[Y ] + cY 0 [Y ] 0 0 Y :εi(Y )>εi(Y )+1

for some constants cY 0 . (This property was explained in a different way in [BG01, Prop. 4.1].) As in [BG01] the only remaining property we need to check is the highest weight property: for any [Y ] ∈ Irr Aχ(λ, µ) which is not [Aχ(λ, λ)], there exists i such that ei[Y ] 6= 0. This Fe will be discussed in the next subsection. At this moment, if we replace Irr Aχ(λ, µ) by the connected component containing [Aχ(λ, λ)], it is isomorphic to the crystal B(λ).

5(vii). Irreducibility. So far we have constructed a gKM-module structure on V(λ). It is integrable and has a vector vλ correspond to the fundamental class of Aχ(λ, λ) which is killed by all ei by definition. It remains to show that V(λ) is generated by vλ. By the F construction in §5(vi) it follows once we show that Irr(Aχ(λ, µ)) has the highest weight 42 H. NAKAJIMA

property. Conversely if we show that V(λ) is generated by vλ, there are no other irreducible F ∼ components, hence Irr(Aχ(λ, µ)) = B(λ). We expect that there is a direct argument showing the highest weight property of crystal, but we give two indirect arguments. Let us show that the number of irreducible components in Aχ(λ, µ) is equal to the weight multiplicities. Since we have constructed a gKM-module structure, we can assume µ is dominant. Then the bow variety M(λ, µ) is isomorphic to a quiver variety of affine type A, where the level ` and rank n are swapped. See [NT17, Prop. 7.20]. Moreover the attracting set Aχ(λ, µ) is the tensor product variety studied in [Nak01b]. More precisely its s s intersection with M (λ, µ) is the modified version of the tensor product variety Z0(v, w) s introduced in [Nak09, §6]. It was proved in [Nak09, §6] that the number of Irr Z0(v, w) t is equal to the the tensor product multiplicity of Vgl(`)aff ( µ) in the tensor product of fun- damental representations. By level-rank duality, this is equal to the weight multiplicity of Vµ(λ) for sl(n)aff(n). The second argument uses the computation of the stalk of IC(M(λ, µ)) when µ is domi- nant in [BF10]. As far as dimension is concerned, the stalk and hyperbolic restriction give the same answer. Hence the result in [BF10, §7] can be used. Note that [BF10, §7] used a geometric construction of affine Lie algebra modules via quiver varieties and level rank duality. In this sense, the second argument is not far away from the first one.

5(viii). Finite dimensional cases. Suppose that Q is a quiver with symmetrizer as in [NW19], mentioned in the Introduction. We further assume that it is of finite type. We denote the corresponding Lie algebra by g∨, and the Langlands dual Lie algebra by g. Then λ M(λ, µ) is isomorphic to a generalized affine Grassmannian slice Wµ by [BFN19, NW19]. Here the complex reductive group G∨ for the affine Grassmannian has the Lie algebra ∨ ∨ ∨ g and of adjoint type. Let us fix a Borel subgroup B and an opposite Borel B−. Let ∨ ∨ ∨ λ ∨ GrG∨ = G ((z))/G [[z]] be the affine Grassmannian for G . Let GrG∨ be the G [[z]]-orbit λ λ λ µ through z , GrG∨ its closure. When µ is dominant, Wµ is a transversal slice to GrG∨ in λ λ GrG∨ . For general µ, Wµ is the moduli space parametrizing (a)a G∨-bundle P on P1. (b) A trivialization of P over P1 \{0} having a pole of degree ≤ λ at 0 ∈ P1. 1 (c)A B-structure on P of degree w0µ having fiber B− at ∞ ∈ P with respect to the trivialization in (b). λ See [BFN19, §2(ii)] for more detail. Here we mention that it is equipped with p: Wµ → λ µ GrG∨ by (b),(c). It is a closed embedding when µ is dominant, and gives a slice to GrG∨ λ in GrG∨ . × Q0 ∨ ∨ ∨ We identify T = (C ) with the maximal torus of G , which is the intersection B ∩B−. (We will not use G∨ except in this subsection. Therefore we do not use the notation ∨ λ T .) The T -action is identified with the standard one on Wµ under the isomorphism ∼ λ λ M(λ, µ) = Wµ. Let us use M(λ, µ) instead of Wµ hereafter. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 43

We take an anti-dominant cocharacter χ: C× → T as above. By a result of Krylov [Kry18] mentioned in Introduction, Vµ(λ) = Φ(IC(M(λ, µ))) is isomorphic to the hyper- bolic restriction considered by Mirkovi´c-Vilonen[MV07] via a homomorphism induced by p. Therefore it is equipped with a g-module structure, same as a G-module structure, as G is simply-connected, by the usual geometric Satake correspondence. On the other hand, Conjectures 1.2 and 1.5 were proved in [Kry18], as we will explain below. Therefore the construction in §1(ii) is applicable. 2 L Theorem 5.16. Operators ei, fi, hi on Vµ(λ) given by the construction in §1(ii) are equal to ones given by the usual geometric Satake correspondence. The proof occupies the rest of this subsection. For type A1, both constructions are explicit. We can directly check that they are the same. We consider the one parameter subgroup χi as in §1(ii). We then have a diagram ˜ p˜i ji − GrL ←− Gr − −→ GrG∨ , where Li (resp. P ) is the Levi (resp. parabolic) subgroup for χi. i Pi i We further choose connected components GrL ,µ, Gr − for µ ∈ π1(Li) corresponding to µ. i Pi ,µ This is an analog of a diagram in §4(vii), and two diagrams sit in a commutative diagram

pi ji χi M(λ, µ) Ai M(λ, µ)

(5.17) pLi p

− ∨ GrLi,µ GrP ,µ GrG . p˜i i ˜ji

λ See [Kry18, (5.1)]. Here we denote the composite of p: M(λ, µ) → GrG∨ with the in- λ ∨ clusion GrG∨ → GrG also by p for brevity. The leftmost vertical morphism pLi is the χi 0 0 corresponding morphism for Li. Furthermore M(λ, µ) is isomorphic to MA1 (λ , µ ) by [Kry18, Lemma 5.5]. (Note that we have the maximal λ0 as we are considering the case when the semisimple part of Li is of type A1.) Since the fixed point set is naturally regarded 0 0 0 0 a generalized slice for Li, let us change the notation from MA1 (λ , µ ) to MLi (λ , µ ). We 0 0 also understand λ , µ as coweights of Li, instead of integers. λ,µ The multiplicity vector space Mκ0,µ0 is the top degree Borel-Moore homology group −1 0 0 0 of a subvariety pi (x), where x is a point in the smooth locus of MLi (κ , µ ). Here κ is understood as a coweight of Li. The left square of (5.17) is Cartesian by [Kry18, −1 −1 λ Lemma 5.11]. Hence pi (x) is isomorphic top ˜i (pLi (x)) ∩ GrG∨ . When we move a point κ0 −1 λ y in the L [[z]]-orbit Gr , the top degree Borel-Moore homology group ofp ˜ (y) ∩ Gr ∨ i Li i G 0 forms a local system, which is trivial as the Grκ is simply-connected. (This triviality has Li been used in the usual geometric Satake correspondence. See e.g., [BG01, §3.1].) As a consequence, we have

2The author thanks D. Muthiah who asks him how to prove this result. 44 H. NAKAJIMA

0 Lemma 5.18. Let X be an irreducible subvariety in Grκ . There is a natural bijection Li −1 λ −1 κ0 λ between irreducible components of p˜ (X) ∩ Gr ∨ and those of p˜ (Gr ) ∩ Gr ∨ . i G i Li G −1 As an application, we obtain a bijection between irreducible components of pi (x) and those of p−1(x−) for x ∈ Ms (κ0, µ0), x− ∈ Ms (κ0, µ0−α ), as µ − α = µ and κ0 is common. i Li Li i i λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Hence we get an isomorphism Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2. It also shows Conjecture 1.5, as the local system given by the top degree Borel-Moore homology of p−1(x) is trivial over Ms (κ0, µ0). i Li ! ˜! λ In fact, Krylov also compared pi∗jiIC(M(λ, µ)) withp ˜i∗jiIC(GrG∨ ) by homomorphisms associated with vertical morphisms in (5.17). See [Kry18, Proof of Th. 3.4]. Since the usual geometric Satake correspondence is constructed so that it is compatible with the restriction to Levi subgroups (see e.g., [BD00, Prop. 5.3.29]), operators ei, fi are given by the same method as in §1(ii). Thus we only need to check that the above λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi isomorphism Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2 is the same as one given by the factorization. v δi Let us factorize M(λ, µ − αi) over (A × Gm)disj as in (5.11). The factorization induces −1 −1 − − an isomorphism between pi (x) and pi (x ), where x corresponds to (x, p) where p is a generic point in M(λ, λ − αi). In particular, we have a bijection between irreducible −1 −1 − components of pi (x) and pi (x ). We need to check that this bijection is the same as −1 − one given by Lemma 5.18. Let X be an irreducible component of pi (x) and X the −1 − corresponding one of pi (x ) under the factorization. We show the following. 0 Claim. p(X) and p(X−) are contained in the same irreducible component ofp ˜−1(Grκ ) ∩ i Li λ GrG∨ . Proof of the claim. By the definition of generalized slices in [BFN19, §2(ii)], M(λ, µ) is −µ an open subvariety of a larger subvariety GZλ , which is the moduli space of (a),(b),(c) above, but the B-structure in (c) could have defects in P1 \ {∞}. It is equipped with −µ p: GZλ → GrG∨ such that the above p is its restriction. The diagram (5.17) extends to −µ − −1 −µ χi −1 −µ+αi χi GZλ . We regard X, X as irreducible components of pi ((GZλ ) ) and pi ((GZλ ) ) respectively. −µ+αi We have a locally closed embedding M(λ, µ) × A ,→ GZλ by regarding the factor A as a defect of the B-structure. The open subset M(λ, µ) × Gm is contained in the image −µ+αi −µ of the factorization isomorphism GZλ ≈ GZλ × (A × A) via Gm = Gm × {0} ⊂ A × A: In fact, the second factor A × Gm in (5.17) is the Coulomb branch for type A1 quiver with w = 0, v = 1. It is the space of based maps P1 → P1 of degree 1. By allowing defects as above, we get the corresponding zastava space, isomorphic to A × A. Since we δi are restricting to the inverse image of Gm under the factorization morphism, the first A −µ+αi factor is restricted to Gm. Note also that the factorization for GZλ is an extension of that for M(λ, µ − αi) by its construction. −µ+αi The restriction of p: GZλ → GrG∨ to M(λ, µ)×Gm is equal to p: M(λ, µ) → GrG∨ , composed with the first projection, as the defect has nothing to do with the data (a),(b). Therefore X− contains a subvariety that is mapped to p(X) under p. Hence the claim is proved.  CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 45

λ,µ ∼ λ,µ−αi Therefore the isomorphism Mκ0,µ0 = Mκ0,µ0−2 is the same as one given by the factoriza- tion. This completes the proof of Theorem 5.16. Let us also mention that Kashiwara crystal structure on the set of irreducible components of the attracting set in M(λ, µ) given in §5(vi) is the same as one constructed in [Kry18] by the same reason as above.

Appendix A. Fixed points and Maya diagrams

R R R R R R Let us choose a real parameter ν so that ν∗ + νh < νh+1 or νh < νh+1 according to i(h) is connected to i(x0) through triangle parts or not. (See Remark 3.2.) A complex parameter νC is arbitrary. It could be 0. Because of this choice of νR, the condition (ν1) is automatically satisfied, and (ν2) says that a graded subspace T as in (ν2) must be the whole V . In particular, νR-semistability and νR-stability are equivalent, and Mν is smooth. Let us study the torus fixed point set (Mν)T as in Proposition 4.1. Let us also transform so that the bow diagram is of form (3.10). The data (A, B, C, D, a, b) decomposes into a direct sum corresponding to Cxi (0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1). And a summand corresponding to a bow diagram of a form (4.2). Let us move xi to the right by Hanany-Witten transitions until the vector space at the right of xi becomes 0. Then we get data as

B

Cm−1 Cm−2 C2 C1  km / km−1 / / k2 / k1 C o C o ··· o C o C Dm−1 Dm−2 D2 D1 b  C.

Let us first take the reduction by GL(k2) × · · · × GL(km) and next take the reduction by GL(k1). By the first step we get the product of (a) a quiver variety of type Am−1 with dimension vectors v = (km, . . . , k2), w = (0,..., 0, k1), and (b) a pair (B, b) of a k1 × k1- matrix and a co-vector in Ck1 such that b is co-cyclic with respect to B. In the second step we set B = −C1D1 and take the quotient by GL(k1). By the standard argument (cf. [Nak94, Th. 7.3]) Di (1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1) is surjective. In particular, dim Si is decreasing. However C1D1 = −B has a cocyclic vector, we must have ks − ks+1 = 0 or 1. We fill  for two way parts with ks − ks+1 = 1 as . k1 The defining equation determines the characteristic polynomial of C1D1 (e.g., it is z C if the complex parameter ν is 0). Then B = −C1D1 together with b forms a single free GL(k1)-orbit. Note also C1, D1, . . . are determined automatically once k1, k2, . . . are specified, if B is fixed. Namely the corresponding bow variety is a single point. Returning back to (4.2) by Hanany-Witten transitions, we find that  for h is filled as if and only if ( Nh = 1 if h = hj with j > 0,

Nh = 0 if h = hj with j ≤ 0. 46 H. NAKAJIMA

Though we move xi only finite amount, we extend the above rule to any . Hence we have a sequence of ’s going to infinite in both left and right with some filled as such that they are filled for hj with sufficiently negative j, not filled sufficiently positive j. We have an infinite sequence for each xi (0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1), and we arrange them as follows:

−3/2 −1/2 1/2 3/2 n (A.1) n rows ··· ··· , | {z } ` columns

where h1 is the first column in the block 1/2, h2 is the second one, and h0 is the last column in the block −1/2, and so on. This is a variant of a Maya diagram. Conversely a diagram above gives a torus fixed point: Reading (i + 1)-th row, we de- termine the bow diagram corresponding to xi (0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1) including dimensions R(ζ). Then we take the sum over i. Note that R(o(xi)) (resp. R(i(xi))) is equal to the number of  (resp. ) in blocks 1/2,

3/2, . . . (resp. −1/2, −3/2, . . . ) of xi. In particular, Nxi is the difference between these

numbers. Since a summand corresponding to xj (j 6= i) has isomorphic Axi , Nxi is the same for this summand and the original bow diagram. In other words, if a diagram corresponding to a T -fixed point in Mν of a bow diagram of form (3.10), we have a constraint the number of  in the (i + 1)-th row in blocks 1/2, 3/2,. . . (A.2) Nxi = − the number of  in the (i + 1)-th row in blocks −1/2, −3/2,. . . Let us consider numbers of ,  in each column on the other hand. In blocks 1/2, 3/2, ...,  contributes 1 to Nh. In blocks −1/2, −3/2, . . . ,  contributes −1. Therefore the number of  in the σ-th column in blocks 1/2, 3/2,. . . (A.3) Nhσ = − the number of  in the σ-th row in blocks −1/2, −3/2,. . .

Though Nxi , Nhσ determine R(ζ) only up to over all shifts, the number v0 in (3.10) is given by

(A.4) v0 = (the number of  in blocks −1/2) + 2(the number of  in blocks −3/2) + 3(the number of  in blocks −5/2) + ··· . Therefore Theorem A.5. The fixed point set (Mν)T is in bijection to the set of diagrams (A.1) with constraint (A.2), (A.3) and (A.4). In particular, we have a natural bijection between fixed point sets of the bow variety and another bow variety given by the bow diagram with ×,  swapped. It includes the case of Higgs and Coulomb branches of the same quiver gauge theory of affine type A. This should be equal to the natural bijection given as a consequence of Hikita conjecture [Hik17, Nak16b]. CHERKIS BOW VARIETIES AND AFFINE LIE ALGEBRAS OF TYPE A 47

References [BD00] A. Beilinson and V. Drinfeld, Quantization of Hitchin’s integrable system and Hecke eigen- sheaves, available at http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mitya/langlands.html, 2000. [BF10] A. Braverman and M. Finkelberg, Pursuing the double affine Grassmannian I: transversal slices via instantons on Ak-singularities, Duke Math. J. 152 (2010), no. 2, 175–206. [BFN16] A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, and H. Nakajima, Instanton moduli spaces and W-algebras, Ast´erisque(2016), no. 385, vii+128, arXiv:1406.2381 [math.QA]. [BFN18a] , Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N = 4 gauge theories, II, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 22 (2018), no. 5, 1071–1147, arXiv:1601.03586 [math.RT]. [BFN18b] , Line bundles over Coulomb branches, ArXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1805.11826 [math.RT]. [BFN19] , Coulomb branches of 3d N = 4 quiver gauge theories and slices in the affine Grass- mannian, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23 (2019), no. 1, 75–166, With two appendices by Braver- man, Finkelberg, Joel Kamnitzer, Ryosuke Kodera, Nakajima, Ben Webster and Alex Weekes, arXiv:1604.03625 [math.RT]. [BG01] A. Braverman and D. Gaitsgory, Crystals via the affine Grassmannian, Duke Math. J. 107 (2001), 561–575. [BM83] W. Borho and R. MacPherson, Partial resolutions of nilpotent varieties, Analysis and topology on singular spaces, II, III (Luminy, 1981), Ast´erisque,vol. 101, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1983, pp. 23–74. [Bra03] T. Braden, Hyperbolic localization of intersection cohomology, Transform. Groups 8 (2003), no. 3, 209–216. [DG14] V. Drinfeld and D. Gaitsgory, On a theorem of Braden, Transform. Groups 19 (2014), no. 2, 313–358. [Fin18] M. Finkelberg, Double affine Grassmannians and Coulomb branches of 3d N = 4 quiver gauge theories, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 2018 (2017), to appear, arXiv:1712.03039 [math.AG]. [Gin95] V. Ginzburg, Perverse sheaves on a Loop group and Langlands’ duality, ArXiv e-prints (1995), arXiv:alg-geom/9511007 [alg-geom]. [Hik17] T. Hikita, An Algebro-Geometric Realization of the Cohomology Ring of Hilbert Scheme of Points in the Affine Plane, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2017), no. 8, 2538–2561, arXiv:1501.02430 [math.AG]. [Kac90] V. G. Kac, Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras, third ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. [KRR13] V. G. Kac, A. K. Raina, and N. Rozhkovskaya, Bombay lectures on highest weight representa- tions of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, second ed., Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics, vol. 29, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2013. [Kry18] V. V. Krylov, Integrable crystals and a restriction on a Levi subgroup via generalized slices in the affine Grassmannian, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 52 (2018), no. 2, 40–65, arXiv:1709.00391 [math.RT]. [Lus81] G. Lusztig, Green polynomials and singularities of unipotent classes, Adv. in Math. 42 (1981), no. 2, 169–178. [Lus83] G. Lusztig, Singularities, character formulas, and a q-analog of weight multiplicities, Ast´erisque 101-102 (1983), 208–229. [MV03] I. Mirkovi´cand M. Vybornov, On quiver varieties and affine Grassmannians of type A, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 336 (2003), no. 3, 207–212. [MV07] I. Mirkovi´cand K. Vilonen, Geometric Langlands duality and representations of algebraic groups over commutative rings, Ann. of Math. (2) 166 (2007), no. 1, 95–143. 48 H. NAKAJIMA

[Nak94] H. Nakajima, Instantons on ALE spaces, quiver varieties, and Kac-Moody algebras, Duke Math. J. 76 (1994), no. 2, 365–416. [Nak98] , Quiver varieties and Kac-Moody algebras, Duke Math. J. 91 (1998), no. 3, 515–560. [Nak99] , Lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces, University Lecture Series, vol. 18, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. [Nak01a] , Quiver varieties and finite-dimensional representations of quantum affine algebras, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), no. 1, 145–238 (electronic). [Nak01b] , Quiver varieties and tensor products, Invent. Math. 146 (2001), no. 2, 399–449. [Nak03] , Reflection functors for quiver varieties and Weyl group actions, Math. Ann. 327 (2003), no. 4, 671–721. [Nak09] , Quiver varieties and branching, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 5 (2009), Paper 003, 37. [Nak16a] , More lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces, Development of moduli theory— Kyoto 2013, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., vol. 69, Math. Soc. Japan, [Tokyo], 2016, arXiv:1401.6782 [math.RT], pp. 173–205. [Nak16b] , Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N = 4 gauge theories, I, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 20 (2016), no. 3, 595–669, arXiv:1503.03676 [math-ph]. [Nak17] , Lectures on perverse sheaves on instanton moduli spaces, Geometry of moduli spaces and representation theory, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., vol. 24, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, April 2017, arXiv:1604.06316 [math.RT], pp. 381–436. [NT17] H. Nakajima and Y. Takayama, Cherkis bow varieties and Coulomb branches of quiver gauge theories of affine type A, Selecta Mathematica 23 (2017), no. 4, 2553–2633, arXiv:1606.02002 [math.RT]. [NW19] H. Nakajima and A. Weekes, Coulomb branches of quiver gauge theories with symmetrizers, arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv:1907.06552, arXiv:1907.06552 [math.QA]. [Ric19] T. Richarz, Spaces with Gm-action, hyperbolic localization and nearby cycles, J. Algebraic Geom. 28 (2019), no. 2, 251–289. [Vas01] E. Vasserot, Sur l’anneau de cohomologie du sch´emade Hilbert de C2, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´er.I Math. 332 (2001), no. 1, 7–12. [Vas02] , On the action of the dual group on the cohomology of perverse sheaves on the affine Grassmannian, Compositio Math. 131 (2002), no. 1, 51–60.

Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan

Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8583, Japan Email address: [email protected]