Arxiv:1909.10908V2 [Math.QA] 25 Jan 2021 Gr;Tit Raglrhp Algebra

arXiv:1909.10908v2 [math.QA] 25 Jan 2021 gr;tit raglrHp algebra. Hopf triangular twist; egory; OUECTGRE VRAFN SUPERGROUP AFFINE OVER CATEGORIES MODULE e od n phrases. and words Key Date ..An uegopshms3 5 sCoh category tensor categories. The tensor over categories 3. Module schemes supergroup 2.2. Affine 2.1. Preliminaries 2. Introduction 1. .Euvratqaichrn hae 8 sCoh over categories module Exact sheaves quasi-coherent 5. Equivariant 4. ..Smsml ouectgre frn .20 the with 20 algebras Hopf triangular schemes of supergroup classification finite The over categories 1. module 7. rank Exact of categories module 6.3. Semisimple categories. 6.2. sRep( Module over categories module 6.1. Exact 6. ..Tit for Twists 7.1. ..Mnmltit for twists Minimal 7.2. hvle property Chevalley aur 6 2021. 26, January : h lsicto of classification the G rical .]t lsiyfiiedmninltinua ofagba ihthe with algebras over Hopf property triangular Chevalley dimensional finite classify to 4.1] cat- tensor the over categories sCoh module egory exact indecomposable the uegopscheme supergroup sRep( category tensor finite the over uemdlsi em f( of terms in supermodules lsicto ftit o h uegopalgebra supergroup the for twists of classification a or Abstract. eddc rmi h lsicto findecomposable of classification the it from deduce We . > p ouectgre vrsRep( over categories module .Let 2. f ( Let G G k f(oeetsevso)fiiedimensional finite of) sheaves (coherent of ) G ea ffiesprru ceeover scheme supergroup affine an be k . ea lerial lsdfil fcaatrsi 0 characteristic of field closed algebraically an be ffiesprru cee esrctgr;mdl cat- module category; tensor scheme; supergroup affine G all n hncmiei ih[G,Corollary [EG2, with it combine then and , HOOGELAKI SHLOMO k neopsbeeatmdl categories module exact indecomposable k G SCHEMES . Contents 22 . H , f ( )euvratchrn hae on sheaves coherent Ψ)-equivariant G 1 6 ) G .When ). G .I atclr eobtain we particular, In ). f ( G G 16 ) 12 ) G sfiie hsyields this finite, is k k eclassify We . G fafinite a of geomet- O ( G )- 16 21 21 3 2 2 SHLOMOGELAKI

7.3. Triangular Hopf algebras 23 References 24

1. Introduction Let k be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 or p> 2. Let G be a finite group scheme over k. Consider the finite tensor category Coh(G) of finite dimensional O(G)-modules over k, and the finite tensor category Rep(G) of finite dimensional rational representations of G over k. In [G2] we classified the indecomposable exact module categories over Rep(G), generalizing the classification of Etingof and Ostrik [EO] for constant groups G. In particular, we obtained the classification of twists for the group algebra kG, reproducing the classification given by Movshev for constant groups G in zero characteristic [Mo]. The goal of this paper is to extend [G2] to the super case, and then combine it with [EG2, Corollary 4.1] to classify finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebras with the Chevalley property over k (as promised in [EG2, Remark 1.5(3)]). Let G be a finite supergroup scheme over k. Following [G2], we first classify the indecomposable exact module categories over sRep(O(G)), where O(G) is the coordinate Hopf superalgebra of G, and then use the fact that they are in bijection with the indecomposable exact module categories over sRep(G) [EO] to get the classification of the latter ones. The reason we approach it in this way is that sRep(O(G)) is tensor equivalent to the tensor category sCohf (G) = sCoh(G) (of coherent sheaves) of finite dimensional O(G)-supermodules with the tensor product of convolution of sheaves, which allows us to use geometric tools and arguments. In fact, in Theorem 5.5 we classify the indecomposable exact module categories over sCohf (G), where G is any affine supergroup scheme over k (i.e., G is not necessarily finite). The classification is given in terms of certain (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaves on G (see Defini- tion 4.1). However when G is not finite, not all indecomposable exact module categories over sRep(G) are obtained from those over sCohf (G) (see Theorem 6.6 and Remark 6.7); we refer to those which are as geometrical. So the classification of exact module categories (even fiber functors) over sRep(G) for infinite affine supergroup schemes G remains unknown (even when G is a linear algebraic group over C, see [G2]). As a consequence of our results, combined with [AEGN, EO], we obtain in Corollary 7.1 that gauge equivalence classes of twists for the supergroup algebra kG of a finite supergroup scheme G over k MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 3 are parameterized by conjugacy classes of pairs (H, J ), where H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme and J is a non-degenerate twist for kH (just as in the case of abstract finite groups). Furthermore, using Proposition 7.5 we show in Proposition 7.6 that a twist for G is non-degenerate if and only if it is minimal (again, as for abstract finite groups). Finally, in Theorem 7.8 we classify finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebras with the Chevalley property over k. Acknowledgments. The author is grateful to Pavel Etingof for stimulating and helpful discussions.

2. Preliminaries Throughout the paper we ﬁx an algebraically closed ﬁeld k of characteristic 0 or p> 2. We refer the reader to the book [EGNO] for the general theory of tensor categories.

2.1. Affine supergroup schemes. We refer the reader to, e.g. [W], for preliminaries on affine group schemes over k, and to [Ma] for preliminaries on affine supergroup schemes over k. Let G be an affine supergroup scheme over k, with unit morphism e : Spec(k) → G, inversion morphism i : G → G, and multiplication morphism m : G×G→G, satisfying the usual group axioms. Recall that the coordinate algebra O(G)1 of G is a supercommutative Hopf superalgebra over k, and G is the functor from the category of supercommutative k-superalgebras to the category of groups defined by R 7→ G(R) := HomSAlg(O(G), R) (so-called functor of points). Note that any affine supergroup scheme is the inverse limit of affine supergroup schemes of finite type. A closed supergroup subscheme H of G is the spectrum of the Hopf quotient O(H) := O(G)/I(H) by a Hopf ideal I(H) ⊂ O(G). The ideal I(H) is referred to as the defining ideal of H in O(G). For example, the even part of G is the closed group subscheme G0 ⊂ G with the defining ideal I(G0)= hO(G)1i, i.e., G0 is an ordinary affine group scheme with coordinate algebra O(G0) = O(G)/hO(G)1i. In particular, we have a surjective Hopf algebra map π : O(G) ։ O(G0). Let g = g0 ⊕ g1 be the Lie superalgebra of G, i.e., g is the space of left-invariant derivations of O(G), g0 is the space of even derivations of O(G), and g1 is the space of odd derivations of O(G). We have g =(m/m2)∗, where m ⊂ O(G) is the kernel of the augmentation map, and g0 = Lie(G0) is the Lie algebra of G0.

1Some authors use k[G] instead. 4 SHLOMOGELAKI

∗ ∗ Recall that G0 acts on g1 via the adjoint action. Let a : G0 × g1 → g1 ∗ ∗ be the coadjoint action of G0 on g1. Then ∧g1 is an O(G0)-comodule ∗ ∗ ∗ algebra with structure map a : ∧g1 → O(G0) ⊗ ∧g1. Since O(G0) is a quotient Hopf algebra of O(G), it follows that O(G) has a canonical structure of a left O(G0)-comodule algebra with structure map (π⊗id)∆. It is known [Ma, Theorem 4.5] that the subalgebra ∗ of O(G0)-coinvariants in O(G) is isomorphic to ∧g1, and that we have a tensor decomposition ∼ ∗ (2.1) O(G) = ∧g1 ⊗ O(G0) of O(G0)-supercomodule counital superalgebras. In particular, we have abelian equivalences ∼ ∗ ⊠ (2.2) sRep(O(G)) = sRep(∧g1) sVect sRep(O(G0)) ∼ ∗ ⊠ (2.3) = sRep(∧g1) Rep(O(G0)) such that Rep(O(G0)) can be identiﬁed with a full tensor subcategory of sRep(O(G)) in the obvious way. Recall that we have

Rep(O(G0)) = Cohf (G0)= M Cohf (G0)g, g∈G0(k) where Cohf (G0)g is the abelian subcategory of sheaves supported at g, with unique simple object δg and indecomposable projective object \ Pg := O(G0)g in the pro-completion category, where O(G0)g is the completion of O(G0) at g [G2, Section 3.1]. Thus by (2.2), we have ∼ ∗ ⊠ (2.4) sRep(O(G)) = M sRep(∧g1) Cohf (G0)g g∈G0(k) as abelian categories. Recall that closed supergroup subschemes H ⊂ G are in bijection with pairs (H0, h1), where H0 ⊂ G0 is a closed group subscheme, h1 ⊂ g1 is an H0-invariant subspace, and [h1, h1] ⊂ h0 := Lie(H0) (see, e.g., [MS, Section 6.2]). Let Ψ : G×G→ Gm be a normalized even 2-cocycle. Equivalently, Ψ ∈ O(G) ⊗ O(G) is a twist for O(G), i.e., Ψ is an invertible even element satisfying the equations (∆ ⊗ id)(Ψ)(Ψ ⊗ 1) = (id ⊗ ∆)(Ψ)(1 ⊗ Ψ), (ε ⊗ id)(Ψ) = (id ⊗ ε)(Ψ) = 1. Finally, recall that a finite supergroup scheme G is an affine supergroup scheme whose function algebra O(G) is finite dimensional. In MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 5 this case, kG := O(G)∗ is a supercocommutative Hopf superalgebra (called the group algebra of G).

2.2. Module categories over tensor categories. Let C be a tensor category over k. Let Ind(C) and Pro(C) be the categories of Ind-objects and Pro-objects of C, respectively. It is well known that the tensor structure on C extends to a tensor structure on Ind(C) and Pro(C). However Ind(C) and Pro(C) are not rigid, but the rigid structure on C induces two duality functors Pro(C) → Ind(C) (“continuous dual”) and Ind(C) → Pro(C) (“linear dual”), which we shall both denote by X 7→ X∗; they are antiequivalence inverses of each other. It is also known that Ind(C) has enough injectives. Recall that a (left) module category M over C is a locally ﬁnite abelian category equipped with a (left) action ⊗M : C ⊠ M→M, such that the bifunctor ⊗M is bilinear on morphisms and biexact. Re- call also that M is exact if any additive module functor M→M1 from M to any other C-module category M1 is exact, and that M is indecomposable if M is not equivalent to a direct sum of two nontrivial module subcategories. It is also known that the C-module structure on M extends to a module structure on Ind(M) over Ind(C). Moreover, M is exact if and only if for any M ∈ M and any injective object I ∈ Ind(C) (resp., projective object P ∈ Pro(C)), I ⊗ M is injective in Ind(M) (resp., P ⊗ M is projective in Pro(M)) (see [EO, Propositions 3.11, 3.16], [G2, Proposition 2.4]). Following [EO], we say that two simple objects M1, M2 ∈ M are related if there exists an object X ∈ C such that M1 appears as a M subquotient in X ⊗ M2. This deﬁnes an equivalence relation, and M decomposes into a direct sum M = ⊕Mi of indecomposable exact module subcategories indexed by the equivalence classes (see [EO, Lemma 3.8 & Proposition 3.9] and [G2, Proposition 2.5]). Assume M is exact. Recall that an object δ ∈ M generates M if M for any M ∈M there exists X ∈ C such that HomM(X ⊗ δ, M) =6 0. It is known that δ generates M if and only if for any M ∈ M there exists X ∈ C such that M is a subquotient of X ⊗M δ (cf. [EO]). Thus if M is indecomposable and δ is simple, then δ ∈M generates M. Finally recall that for every two objects M1, M2 ∈ M, we have an object Hom(M1, M2) ∈ Pro(C) satisfying M ∼ HomM(M2,X ⊗ M1) = HomPro(C)(Hom(M1, M2),X), X ∈ C

(the dual internal Hom). For every M ∈M, the pro-object Hom(M, M) has a canonical structure of a coalgebra. In terms of internal Hom’s 6 SHLOMOGELAKI

[EO], the algebra Hom(M, M) in Ind(C) is isomorphic to the dual algebra (Hom(M, M))∗ under the duality functor ∗ : Pro(C) → Ind(C). Now if M is indecomposable and exact, we have a C-module equiva- ∼ lence M = ComodPro(C)(Hom(M, M)).

3. The tensor category sCohf (G) Let G be an aﬃne supergroup scheme2 over k, and let O(G)= O(G) × khui be the Radford’s biproduct ordinary Hopf algebra, where u is a grou- plike element of order 2 acting on O(G) by parity, and

|x2| (3.1) ∆(x)= X(x1 ⊗ u ) ⊗ (x2 ⊗ 1) for every homogeneous element x ∈ O(G), where ∆(x) = P x1 ⊗ x2. Recall that we have an equivalence of tensor categories (3.2) Rep(O(G)) ∼= sRep(O(G)).

In particular, Rep(O(G0)) is a tensor subcategory of Rep(O(G)).

Definition 3.1. Let sCohf (G) (resp., sQCoh(G)) be the tensor category (resp., monoidal category) of finite dimensional (resp., all) representations of the Hopf algebra O(G). By definition, we have equivalences of tensor and monoidal categories ∼ ∼ sCohf (G) = sRep(O(G)) and sQCoh(G) = SRep(O(G)), respectively, where sRep(O(G)) and SRep(O(G)) are the categories of finite dimensional and all representations of the Hopf superalgebra O(G) on k-supervector spaces, respectively. We have that Ind(sCohf (G)) is the category of locally finite quasi- coherent sheaves of O(G)-supermodules (i.e., representations in which every vector generates a finite dimensional subrepresentation). Remark 3.2. By a quasi-coherent sheaf on G we will mean a quasi- coherent sheaf of O(G)-supermodules, and by a finite quasi-coherent sheaf on G we will mean a quasi-coherent sheaf of finite dimensional O(G)-supermodules. Note that finite quasi-coherent sheaves on G are automatically supported on finite sets in G0. Thus, one can think of sCohf (G) and sQCoh(G) as the k-linear abelian categories of finite quasi-coherent sheaves and quasi-coherent sheaves on G, respectively (which explains our notation). In particular, the tensor products

2The purely even case is treated in [G2, Section 3.1]. MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 7 in sCohf (G) and sQCoh(G) correspond to the convolution product of sheaves

(3.3) X ⊗ Y := m∗(X ⊠ Y)

(where m∗ is the direct image functor of m). Notice that the tensor category Cohf (G0) is identiﬁed with the tensor subcategory of sCohf (G) consisting of sheaves on which odd elements act trivially. We will also consider the following categories.

Deﬁnition 3.3. Let Cohf (G) (resp., QCoh(G)) be the abelian category of ﬁnite dimensional (resp., all) representations of the algebra O(G).

Note that Cohf (G) is not a tensor category when G is not even, ∼ and that we have a tensor equivalence sCohf (G0) = Cohf (G0) ⊠ sVect. However, we do have the following.

Lemma 3.4. The abelian category Cohf (G) has a natural structure of a left module category over sCohf (G), given by

sCohf (G) ⊠ Cohf (G) → Cohf (G), X ⊠ Y 7→ m∗(X ⊠ Y ).

Moreover, the restriction functor sCohf (G) ։ Cohf (G), induced by the algebra inclusion O(G) ⊂ O(G), has a canonical structure of a surjective sCohf (G)-module functor. Proof. Since by (3.1), O(G) ⊂ O(G) is a left coideal subalgebra, the claim follows from (3.2). ∗ ⊠ For every g ∈ G0(k), let sCohf (G)g := sRep(∧g1) Cohf (G0)g. By (2.2), we have an abelian equivalence ∼ (3.4) sCohf (G) = M sCohf (G)g. g∈G0(k) We will need the following result.

Lemma 3.5. Every tensor subcategory of sCohf (G) is either of the form sCohf(H) or Cohf (H) for some closed supergroup subscheme H ⊂ G or closed subgroup scheme H ⊂ G0, respectively. Proof. It is known that every tensor subcategory of Rep(O(G)) corresponds to a Hopf quotient of O(G). Now if u is mapped to 1 in the quotient, then we get the second case (as all odd elements must act by zero). Otherwise, we get the ﬁrst case.

Remark 3.6. The class of tensor categories sCohf (G) can be extended to a larger class of tensor categories sCohf (G, Ω) in exactly the same way as in the even case [G2, Section 5]. Namely, let G be an aﬃne 8 SHLOMOGELAKI

3 supergroup scheme over k, and let Ω ∈ Z (G, Gm) be a normalized even 3-cocycle. Equivalently, Ω is a Drinfeld associator for O(G), i.e., Ω ∈ O(G)⊗3 is an invertible even element satisfying the equations (id ⊗ id ⊗ ∆)(Ω)(∆ ⊗ id ⊗ id)(Ω) = (1 ⊗ Ω)(id ⊗ ∆ ⊗ id)(Ω)(Ω ⊗ 1) and (ε ⊗ id ⊗ id)(Ω) = (id ⊗ ε ⊗ id)(Ω) = (id ⊗ id ⊗ ε)(Ω) = 1.

Then sCohf (G, Ω) is the abelian category sCohf (G) equipped with the tensor product given by convolution and associativity constraint given by the action of Ω (viewed as an invertible element in O(G)⊗3).

4. Equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves Let G be an aﬃne supergroup scheme3 over k, let H ⊂ G be a closed supergroup subscheme (see 2.1), and let ι = ιH : H ֒→ G be the inclusion morphism. Let µ : G×H→G be the free action of H on G by right translations (in other words, the free actions of H(R) on G(R) by right translations that are functorial in R, R a supercommutative k-superalgebra). Set η := µ(id × m) = µ(µ × id) : G×H×H→G, and let

p1 : G×H→G, p1 : G×H×H→G, p12 : G×H×H→G×H be the obvious projections. We clearly have p1 ◦p12 = p1 as morphisms G×H×H→G. Now let Ψ : H×H → Gm be a normalized even 2-cocycle, i.e., ⊗2 Ψ ∈ O(H) is a twist for O(H) (see 2.1), and let O(H)Ψ be the (“twisted”) supercoalgebra with underlying supervector space O(H) and comultiplication ∆Ψ given by ∆Ψ(f) := ∆(f)Ψ, where ∆ is the standard comultiplication of O(H). Note that Ψ deﬁnes an automor- phism of any quasi-coherent sheaf on H × H by multiplication.

Deﬁnition 4.1. Let Ψ : H×H→ Gm be a normalized even 2-cocycle on a closed supergroup subscheme H ⊂ G. (1) An(H, Ψ)-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaf on G is a pair (S,λ), ∼ ∗ = ∗ where S ∈ sQCoh(G) and λ : p1(S) −→ µ (S) is an isomorphism

3The purely even case is treated in [G2, Section 3.2]. MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 9

of sheaves on G × H, such that the diagram of morphisms of sheaves on G×H×H

p∗ (λ) ∗ 12 / ∗ p1(S) (µ ◦ p12) (S)

(id×m)∗(λ) (µ×id)∗(λ) η∗(S) / η∗(S) id⊠Ψ is commutative. (2) Let(S,λS)and(T,λT )betwo(H, Ψ)-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves on G. A morphism φ : S → T in sQCoh(G) is said to be (H, Ψ)-equivariant if the diagram of morphisms of sheaves on G × H

p∗(Ψ) ∗ 1 / ∗ p1(S) p1(T )

λS λT µ∗(S) / µ∗(T ) µ∗(φ) is commutative. (H,Ψ) (3) Let sCohf (G) be the k-abelian category of (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaves on G with finite support in G0/H0 (i.e., sheaves supported on finitely many H0-cosets), with (H, Ψ)-equivariant morphisms. Replacing sQCoh(G) with QCoh(G) everywhere in Definition 4.1, we define the notion of an (H, Ψ)-equivariant O(G)-module, and the k- (H,Ψ) abelian category Cohf (G) of finitely generated (H, Ψ)-equivariant O(G)-modules with finite support in G0/H0. Example 4.2. We have ({1},1) ({1},1) sCohf (G) = sCohf(G) and Cohf (G) = Cohf (G). Remark 4.3. Let (H′, Ψ′) be another pair consisting of a closed supergroup subscheme H′ ⊂ G and an even normalized 2-cocycle Ψ′ on H′. By considering the free right action of H′ × H on G given by g(a, b) := a−1gb, we can similarly define ((H′, Ψ′), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant quasi- coherent sheaves on G, ((H′, Ψ′), (H, Ψ))-equivariant O(G)-modules, ((H′,Ψ′),(H,Ψ)) ((H′,Ψ′),(H,Ψ)) and the k-abelian categories sCohf (G), Cohf (G). Remark 4.4. Retain the notation from Remark 3.6. Let H ⊂ G be a 2 closed supergroup subscheme, and let Ψ ∈ C (H, Gm) be a normalized (H,Ψ) even 2-cochain such that dΨ = Ω|H. Then similarly to sCohf (G) 10 SHLOMOGELAKI

(the case Ω = 1), with the obvious adjustments, we can define the cat- (H,Ψ) egory sCohf (G, Ω) of (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaves on (G, Ω) (H,Ψ) with finite support in G0/H0, and the category Cohf (G, Ω) of finitely generated (H, Ψ)-equivariant O(G, Ω)-modules, where O(G, Ω) is the obviously defined quasi-Hopf algebra. \ Consider now the supercoalgebra O(H)Ψ in sCoh(G), and let O(H)Ψ be its profinite completion with respect to the superalgebra structure \ of O(H) (see [G2, Example 2.4]). Then O(H)Ψ is a supercoalgebra object in both Pro(sCoh(G)) and Pro(sCohf (G)). Lemma 4.5. We have abelian equivalences (H,Ψ) ∼ \ sCohf (G) = ComodPro(sCohf (G))(O(H)Ψ) and (H,Ψ) ∼ \ Cohf (G) = ComodPro(Cohf (G))(O(H)Ψ). Proof. We prove the first equivalence, the proof of the second one being similar. For every S ∈ Pro(sCohf (G)), we have a natural isomorphism ∗ ∗ ∼ ∗ HomG×H(µ (S), p1(S)) = HomG(S,µ∗p1(S)) ∗ ∼ \ (“adjunction”). Since µ∗p1(S) = S ⊗ O(H), we can assign to any ∗ ∗ \ isomorphism λ : µ (S) → p1(S) a morphism ρλ : S → S ⊗ O(H). It is \ now straightforward to verify that ρλ : S → S ⊗ O(H)Ψ is a comodule map if and only if (S,λ−1) is an (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaf on G with finite support in G0/H0. The next proposition will be very useful in the sequel. Proposition 4.6. Let H ⊂ G be a closed supergroup subscheme, and let Ψ be an even normalized 2-cocycle on H. Then the following hold: (1) The structure sheaf O(H) of H admits a canonical structure of an (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaf on H, making it a simple (H,Ψ) ∼ object of sCohf (H) = sVect, and the regular O(H)-module admits a canonical structure of an (H, Ψ)-equivariant O(H)- (H,Ψ) ∼ module, making it the simple object of Cohf (H) = Vect. 4 (H,Ψ) (2) The sheaf ι∗O(H) is a simple object in sCohf (G), and the 5 (H,Ψ) O(G)-module ι∗O(H) ∈ Coh(G) is a simple object in Cohf (G).

4The superrepresentation of O(G) on O(H) coming from ι. 5The representation of O(G) on O(H) coming from ι. MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 11

(3) For every X ∈ sCohf (G), we have ⊠ (H,Ψ) (H,Ψ) m∗(X M) ∈ sCohf (G), M ∈ sCohf (G), and ⊠ (H,Ψ) (H,Ψ) m∗(X M) ∈ Cohf (G), M ∈ Cohf (G). Proof. We will prove the proposition for sheaves, the proof for modules being similar. =∼ (1) Consider the isomorphism ϕ := (m, p2): H × H −→H × H. ∗ ∗ Since p1 ◦ ϕ = m, it follows that (p1 ◦ ϕ) O(H) = m O(H). Now, multiplication by Ψ deﬁnes an isomorphism

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Ψ ∗ ∗ m O(H)=(p1 ◦ ϕ) O(H)=(ϕ ◦ p1)O(H) −→ (ϕ ◦ p1)O(H), ∗ and since we have p1O(H)= O(H) ⊗ O(H), we get an isomorphism

∗ −1 ∗ ϕ ∗ Ψ ∗ λ : p1O(H)= O(H) ⊗ O(H) −→ ϕ (O(H) ⊗ O(H)) −−→ m O(H). The fact that (O(H),λ) is an (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaf on H can be checked now in a straightforward manner using the tensor de- (H,Ψ) composition (2.1). Clearly, (O(H),λ) is a simple object in sCohf (H). Let δ := (O(H),λ), and consider the simple object δ− := k0|1 ⊗ δ − (H,Ψ) (via id ⊗ ∆). It is clear that δ ≇ δ in sCohf (H). (H,Ψ) coO(H) Now let M be any object in sCohf (H), and let X := M . We claim that ∼ coO(H) − M = M ⊗k δ := X0 ⊗k δ ⊕ X1 ⊗k δ (H,Ψ) in sCohf (H), where X denotes the underlying vector space of X. coO(H) Indeed, let α : M ⊗k O(H) → M be the action map, and let

coO(H) −1 β : M → M ⊗k O(H), m 7→ X S (m1) · m0 ⊗ m2. Then it is straightforward to check that α and β are inverse to each (H,Ψ) other. Hence, sCohf (H) is semisimple of rank 2, as claimed. (2) Since ι is aﬃne, the commutative diagrams

p1 H × H / H H × H m / H

ι×id ι ι×id ι / / G × H p1 G G × H µ G yield isomorphisms

∗ =∼ ∗ (4.1) p1ι∗O(H) −→ (ι × id)∗p1O(H) 12 SHLOMOGELAKI and ∗ =∼ ∗ (4.2) (ι × id)∗m O(H) −→ µ ι∗O(H) (“base change”). ∼ ∗ = ∗ Let λ : p1O(H) −→ m O(H) be the isomorphism constructed in Part (1). Since ι is H-equivariant, we get an isomorphism

∗ (ι×id)∗(λ) ∗ (4.3) (ι × id)∗p1O(H) −−−−−−→ (ι × id)∗m O(H). It is now straightforward to check, using the tensor decomposition (2.1), that the composition of isomorphisms (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3)

∗ =∼ ∗ p1ι∗O(H) −→ µ ι∗O(H) endows ι∗O(H) with a structure of an (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaf on G. Clearly, ι∗O(H) is simple. (3) Consider the right action id × µ : G×G×H→G×G of H on (H,Ψ) ⊠ G×G. If M ∈ sCohf (G), it is clear that X M ∈ sCohf (G×G) is an (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaf on G×G (here we identify H with the supergroup subscheme {1}×H⊂G×G). But since m : G×G→G is H-equivariant, m∗ carries (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaves on G ×G to (H, Ψ)-equivariant coherent sheaves on G.

5. Exact module categories over sCohf (G) In this section we extend [G2, Section 3.3] to the super case. Let G, H, ι and Ψ be as in 4. Set (H,Ψ) ◦ ◦ (H,Ψ) M = M(H, Ψ) := sCohf (G), M = M (H, Ψ) := Cohf (G), and let \ V = V(H, Ψ) := ComodPro(sCohf (G))(O(H)Ψ), ◦ ◦ \ V = V (H, Ψ) := ComodPro(Cohf (G))(O(H)Ψ) \ be the abelian categories of right comodules over O(H)Ψ in Pro(sCohf (G)) and Pro(Cohf (G)), respectively. Let (H,Ψ) ◦ ◦ (H,Ψ) δ = δH := ι∗O(H) ∈ sCohf (G), δ = δH := ι∗O(H) ∈ Cohf (G). Proposition 5.1. The following hold: (1) The bifunctors M ⊗ : sCohf (G) ⊠ M→M, X ⊠ M 7→ m∗(X ⊠ M) and M◦ ◦ ◦ ⊗ : sCohf (G) ⊠ M →M , X ⊠ M 7→ m∗(X ⊠ M) MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 13

◦ define on M and M structures of indecomposable sCohf(G)- module categories. (2) The bifunctors V ⊗ : sCohf (G) ⊠ V→V, X ⊠ V 7→ m∗(X ⊠ V ) and V◦ ◦ ◦ ⊗ : sCohf (G) ⊠ V →V , X ⊠ V 7→ m∗(X ⊠ V ) ◦ define on V and V structures of sCohf (G)-module categories. (3) We have equivalences M ∼= V and M◦ ∼= V◦ of module cat- ∼ \ egories over sCohf(G). In particular, Hom(δ, δ) = O(H)Ψ as ◦ ◦ ∼ \ supercoalgebras in Pro(sCohf (G)), and Hom(δ , δ ) = O(H)Ψ as coalgebras in Pro(Cohf (G)). Proof. We prove it for M and V, the proof for M◦ and V◦ being similar. (1) Since m(m × id) = m(id × m) and Ψ is an even 2-cocycle, it fol- M lows from Lemma 4.6 that ⊗ defines on M a structure of a sCohf (G)- module category. Clearly, sCohf (H) ⊂ sCohf (G) consists of those objects X for which X ⊗M δ is a sum of multiples of δ and k0|1 ⊗ δ, and M any object M ∈M is of the form X ⊗ δ for some X ∈ sCohf (G). In particular, the simple object δ (see Proposition 4.6) generates M, so M is indecomposable. (2) By definition, an object in V is a pair (V, ρV ) consisting of an \ object V ∈ Pro(sCohf (G)) and a morphism ρV : V → V ⊗ O(H)Ψ in Pro(sCohf (G)) satisfying the comodule axioms. It is clear that for every X ∈ sCohf (G), we have m∗(X ⊠ V ) ∈ Pro(sCohf (G)) and that

ρm∗(X⊠V ) := idX ⊗ ρV is a morphism in Pro(sCohf (G)) deﬁning on \ m∗(X ⊠ V ) a structure of a right comodule over O(H)Ψ. (3) Follows from Lemma 4.5. Example 5.2. Let G be an aﬃne supergroup scheme over k.

(1) M({1}, 1) = sCohf (G) (the regular module). ◦ (2) M ({1}, 1) = Cohf (G). (3) M(G, 1) = sVect (the standard superfiber functor on sCohf (G)). ◦ (4) M (G, 1) = Vect (the standard fiber functor on sCohf (G)). Proposition 5.3. The indecomposable module categories M(H, Ψ) and ◦ M (H, Ψ) over sCohf (G) are exact. Proof. We prove it for M(H, Ψ), the proof for M◦(H, Ψ) being similar. Set M := M(H, Ψ). It suffices to show that for every projective P ∈ M Pro(sCohf(G)) and X ∈M, P ⊗ X is projective (see 2.2). Clearly, it suffices to show it for X := δ = δ(H,Ψ). Moreover, since any projective 14 SHLOMOGELAKI in Pro(sCohf (G)) is a completed direct sum of Pg,± (see 3), it suffices M to check that Pg ⊗ δ is projective. Furthermore, since Pg = δg ⊗ P1, M and δg⊗ ? is an autoequivalence of M as an abelian category (since δg is invertible), it suffices to do so for g = 1. Finally, this is done just by computing this product explicitly using the definition, which yields M \ that P1 ⊗ δ = O(H)1 ⊗k P (δ), where P (δ) is the projective cover of δ (i.e., the unique indecomposable projective in the block of Pro(M) containing δ; as a sheaf on G, it is the function algebra on the formal neighborhood of H), and hence projective as desired. We say that two pairs (H, Ψ) and (H′, Ψ′) are conjugate if there exists −1 ′ g ′ 2 ′ g ∈ G0(k) such that gHg = H and Ψ =Ψ in H (H , Gm). Lemma 5.4. If (H, Ψ) and (H′, Ψ′) are conjugate then M(H, Ψ) =∼ M(H′, Ψ′) and M◦(H, Ψ) ∼= M◦(H′, Ψ′) as module categories over sCohf (G).

Proof. Follows from Proposition 5.1 since for every g ∈ G0(k), we have \ ∼ \−1 O(H)Ψ = O(gHg )Ψg as supercoalgebras in Pro(sCohf (G)). We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this section. Theorem 5.5. Let G be an aﬃne supergroup scheme over k. There is a 1:2 correspondence between conjugacy classes of pairs (H, Ψ) and equivalence classes of indecomposable exact module categories over ◦ sCohf(G), assigning (H, Ψ) to M(H, Ψ) and M (H, Ψ). Proof. By Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 5.4, it remains to show that any indecomposable exact module category M over sCohf (G) is of the form M(H, Ψ) or M◦(H, Ψ) for a unique pair (H, Ψ) (up to conjugation). To this end, pick a simple object δ in M, and let δ− := k0|1 ⊗M δ. There are two cases: either δ ≇ δ− or δ =∼ δ−. Assume that δ ≇ δ−. Consider the full subcategory M − C := {X ∈ sCohf (G) | X⊗ δ = dimk(X0)δ⊕dimk(X1)δ } ⊂ sCohf (G). For every X,Y ∈ C, we have (X ⊗ Y ) ⊗M δ ∼= X ⊗M (Y ⊗M δ) ∼ M − = X ⊗ (dimk(Y0)δ ⊕ dimk(Y1)δ ) ∼ M M = dimk(Y0)X ⊗ δ ⊕ dimk(Y1)Π(X) ⊗ δ ∼ − = dimk(Y0)(dimk(X0)δ ⊕ dimk(X1)δ ) ⊕ − dimk(Y1)(dimk(X1)δ ⊕ dimk(X0)δ ) − = dimk(Y0 ⊗ X0 ⊕ Y1 ⊗ X1)δ ⊕ dimk(Y0 ⊗ X1 ⊕ Y1 ⊗ X0)δ . MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 15

Thus, C ⊂ sCohf (G) is a tensor subcategory. Moreover, the functor − M F : C → Vect, F (X) = HomM(δ ⊕ δ ,X ⊗ δ), ∼ together with the tensor structure F (·) ⊗ F (·) −→= F (·⊗·) coming from the associativity constraint, is a fiber functor on C. Now by Lemma 3.5, either C = sCohf (H) for some closed supergroup subscheme H ⊂ G, or C = Cohf (H) for some closed group subscheme H ⊂ G0. In any case, we see that for every X ∈ C, F (X) = X is the underlying vector space of X. Thus we have a functorial isomorphism ∼ X ⊗ Y −→= X ⊗ Y , which is nothing but an invertible even element Ψ ⊗2 of O(H) , taking values in Gm(k). Clearly, Ψ is a twist for O(H). Thus, we have obtained that if C = sCohf(H) then the C-submodule (H,Ψ) category hδi⊂M is equivalent to sCohf (H), and if C = Cohf (H) (H,Ψ) then the C-submodule category hδi⊂M is equivalent to Cohf (H). For X ∈ sCohf (G), let XH ∈ C be the maximal subsheaf of X which is scheme-theoretically supported on H (i.e., XH consists of all vectors in X which are annihilated by the defining ideal of H in O(G)). Now, M M − on the one hand, since for any g ∈ G0(k), δg ⊗ δ and δg ⊗ δ are simple, and one of them is isomorphic to δ and the other one to δ− if and only if g ∈ H0(k), it is clear that − − HomPro(sCohf (G))(Hom(δ ⊕ δ , δ ⊕ δ ),X) − M − = HomM(δ ⊕ δ ,X ⊗ (δ ⊕ δ )) = XH (since it holds for any simple X). On the other hand, it is clear that \ HomPro(sCohf (G))(O(H)Ψ,X)= XH. Thus by Yoneda’s lemma, the two supercoalgebras Hom(δ ⊕δ−, δ ⊕δ−) \ and O(H)Ψ are isomorphic in Pro(sCohf (G)). This implies that M \ is equivalent to ComodPro(sCohf (G))(O(H)Ψ) as a module category over − sCohf(G) (as M is indecomposable, exact, and generated by δ ⊕ δ ), hence to M(H, Ψ) by Proposition 5.1, as desired. Furthermore, the conjugacy class of (H, Ψ) is uniquely determined by M M since replacing δ with δg ⊗ δ, g ∈ G0(k), corresponds to replacing H with gHg−1 and Ψ with Ψg. Finally, if δ ∼= δ− then the proof that M ∼= M◦(H, Ψ) as module categories over sCohf (G) for a uniquely determined conjugacy class of pairs, is similar. Example 5.6. Since for an affine group scheme G over k, we have sCohf(G) = Cohf (G) ⊠ sVect, we see that Theorem 5.5 reduces to [G2, Theorem 3.9] in the even case. 16 SHLOMOGELAKI

Example 5.7. Let V be a n-dimensional odd k-vector space, n ≥ 0. By Theorem 5.5, equivalence classes of indecomposable exact module categories over sCohf (V ) are in 2 : 1 correspondence with equivalence classes of pairs (W, B), where W ⊂ V is a super subspace and B ∈ S2W ∗. For example, if n = 0 then there are two non-equivalent indecomposable exact module categories over sCohf (V ) = sVect: Vect and sVect. Also, if n = 1 then there are exactly three non-equivalent pairs of the form (W, B): (0, 0), (V, 0) and (V, B), where B(v, v)=1 (v a ﬁxed basis for V ). Thus, there are six non-equivalent indecomposable exact module categories over sCohf (V ) (in agreement with ∼ [EO, Theorem 4.5]). More precisely, we have M(0, 0) = sCohf (V ) ◦ ∼ and M (0, 0) = Cohf(V ), M(V, 0), M(V, B), which are semisimple of rank 2, and M◦(V, 0), M◦(V, B), which are semisimple of rank 1. Remark 5.8. Retain the notation from Remark 4.4. Similarly, the (H,Ψ) (H,Ψ) categories sCohf (G, Ω) and Cohf (G, Ω) admit a structure of an indecomposable exact module category over sCohf (G, Ω) given by convolution of sheaves, and furthermore, there is a 1 : 2 correspondence between (appropriately deﬁned) conjugacy classes of pairs (H, Ψ) and equivalence classes of indecomposable exact module categories over (H,Ψ) (H,Ψ) sCohf(G, Ω), assigning (H, Ψ) to sCohf (G, Ω) and Cohf (G, Ω).

6. Exact module categories over sRep(G) In this section we extend [G2, Section 4] to the super case. Let C be a tensor category. Given two exact module categories M, N over C, let FunC(M, N ) denote the abelian category of C-functors from M to N . The dual category of C with respect to M is the category ∗ CM := EndC(M) of C-endofunctors of M. If M is indecomposable, ∗ CM is a tensor category, and M is an indecomposable exact module ∗ category over CM. Also, FunC(M, N ) is an exact module category over ∗ CM via the composition of functors. 6.1. Module categories. Retain the notation from 4 and 5. Set ((G,1),(H,Ψ)) M((G, 1), (H, Ψ)) := sCohf (G) and ◦ ((G,1),(H,Ψ)) M ((G, 1), (H, Ψ)) := Cohf (G).

Recall that the 2-cocycle Ψ determines a central extension HΨ of H by Gm. Byan(H, Ψ)-superrepresentation of H we will mean a rational representation of the affine supergroup scheme HΨ on a k- supervector space on which Gm acts with weight 1 (i.e., via the identity MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 17 character). Let us denote the category of finite dimensional (H, Ψ)- superrepresentations of HΨ by N (H, Ψ). Clearly, we have an equivalence of abelian categories ∼ N (H, Ψ) = sComod(O(H)Ψ). Similarly, let N ◦(H, Ψ) be the category of finite dimensional (H, Ψ)- representations of HΨ. We have an equivalence of abelian categories ◦ ∼ N (H, Ψ) = Comod(O(H)Ψ). Lemma 6.1. The following hold: (1) We have abelian equivalences ◦ ∼ ◦ FunsCohf (G)(M (G, 1), M(H, Ψ)) = M ((G, 1), (H, Ψ)) and ◦ ◦ ∼ FunsCohf (G)(M (G, 1), M (H, Ψ)) = M((G, 1), (H, Ψ)). In particular, we have a tensor equivalence ∗ ∼ sCohf (G)M◦(G,1) = sRep(G). (2) We have sRep(G)-module equivalences ◦ ∼ ◦ FunsCohf (G)(M (G, 1), M(H, Ψ)) = N (H, Ψ) and ◦ ◦ ∼ FunsCohf (G)(M (G, 1), M (H, Ψ)) = N (H, Ψ). Proof. We prove the theorem for functors to M(H, Ψ), the proof for functors to M◦(H, Ψ) being similar. (1) Since M◦(G, 1) = Vect, a functor M◦(G, 1) → M(H, Ψ) is just an (H, Ψ)-equivariant sheaf X on G. The fact that the functor is a sCohf(G)-module functor means that we have functorial isomorphisms =∼ µS : S ⊗ X −→ S ⊗ X in M(H, Ψ), S ∈ sCohf (G). Thus, µ gives X a commuting G-equivariant structure for the left action of G on itself, i.e., X is a ((G, 1), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant sheaf on G. In particular, ∼ 0|1 = for S = k , we have an isomorphism µk0|1 : X0 −→ X1, hence X corresponds to ((G, 1), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant O(G)-module, as desired. Conversely, it is clear that any ((G, 1), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant O(G)- ◦ module X0 defines a sCohf (G)-module functor M (G, 1) → M(H, Ψ) determined by k 7→ X with X0 = X1. Finally, the category of (G, G)-biequivariant sheaves on G is equivalent to the category sRep(G) as a tensor category, and the second claim follows. (2) If X is a ((G, 1), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant O(G)-module, then the inverse image sheaf e∗(X) on Spec(k) (“the stalk at 1”) acquires a 18 SHLOMOGELAKI structure of an (H, Ψ)-representation via the action of the element (h, h−1) in G × H, i.e., it is an object in N ◦(H, Ψ). We have thus defined a functor M◦((G, 1), (H, Ψ)) →N ◦(H, Ψ), X 7→ e∗(X). Conversely, an (H, Ψ)-representation V can be spread out over G and made into a (G, (H, Ψ))-biequivariant O(G)-module. In other words, we have the functor ◦ ◦ N (H, Ψ) →M ((G, 1), (H, Ψ)), V 7→ O(G) ⊗k V. Finally, it is straightforward to verify that the two functors constructed above are inverse to each other. Similarly, we have the following result. Lemma 6.2. The following hold: (1) We have abelian equivalences ∼ FunsCohf (G)(M(G, 1), M(H, Ψ)) = M((G, 1), (H, Ψ)) and ◦ ∼ ◦ FunsCohf (G)(M(G, 1), M (H, Ψ)) = M ((G, 1), (H, Ψ)). In particular, we have a tensor equivalence ∗ ∼ sCohf (G)M(G,1) = sRep(G). (2) We have sRep(G)-module equivalences ∼ FunsCohf (G)(M(G, 1), M(H, Ψ)) = N (H, Ψ) and ◦ ∼ ◦ FunsCohf (G)(M(G, 1), M (H, Ψ)) = N (H, Ψ). Example 6.3. We have the following: (1) N ({1}, 1) = sVect is the usual superfiber functor on sRep(G). (2) N ◦({1}, 1) = Vect is the usual fiber functor on sRep(G). Lemma 6.4. The following hold: (1) We have a tensor equivalence ∗ ∼ sRep(G)N ◦({1},1) = sCohf (G).

(2) We have sCohf (G)-module equivalences ◦ ∼ ◦ FunsRep(G) (N ({1}, 1), N (H, Ψ)) = M (H, Ψ) and ◦ ◦ ∼ FunsRep(G) (N ({1}, 1), N (H, Ψ)) = M(H, Ψ). MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 19

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 6.1. Lemma 6.4 prompts the following definition. Definition 6.5. An indecomposable exact module category N over ◦ sRep(G) is called geometrical if FunsRep(G)(N ({1}, 1), N ) =6 0. It is clear that geometrical module categories over sRep(G) form a full 2-subcategory Modgeom(sRep(G)) of the 2-category Mod(sRep(G)). We can now deduce from Lemmas 6.1, 6.4 the main result of this section, which says that geometrical module categories over sRep(G) are precisely those exact module categories which come from exact module categories over sCohf (G). More precisely, we have the following generalization of [G2, Theorem 4.5]. ′ ′ Recall that (H, Ψ) and (H , Ψ ) are conjugate if there exists g ∈ G0(k) −1 ′ g ′ 2 ′ such that gHg = H and Ψ =Ψ in H (H , Gm). Theorem 6.6. Let G be an affine supergroup scheme over k. Then the 2-functors ◦ Mod(sCohf(G)) → Modgeom(sRep(G)), M 7→ FunsCohf (G)(M (G, 1), M), and ◦ Modgeom(sRep(G)) → Mod(sCohf (G)), N 7→ FunsRep(G)(N ({1}, 1), N ), are inverse to each other. In particular, there is a 1:2 correspondence between conjugacy classes of pairs (H, Ψ) and equivalence classes of indecomposable geometrical module categories over sRep(G), assigning (H, Ψ) to N (H, Ψ) and N ◦(H, Ψ). Remark 6.7. If G is not finite, sRep(G) may very well have non- geometrical module categories (see [G2, Remark 4.6]). Remark 6.8. Retain the notation from Remark 5.8. Similarly to the even case [G2], we can define supergroup scheme-theoretical categories ◦ C(G, H, Ω, Ψ) and C (G, H, Ω, Ψ) as the dual categories of sCohf (G, Ω) (H,Ψ) (H,Ψ) with respect to sCohf (G, Ω) and Cohf (G, Ω)), respectively. We then have that C(G, H, Ω, Ψ) is equivalent to the tensor category of ((H, Ψ), (H, Ψ))-biequivariant coherent sheaves on (G, Ω), supported on finitely many left H0-cosets (equivalently, right H0-cosets), with tensor product given by convolution of sheaves. For example, the center Z(sCohf (G)) of sCohf (G) is supergroup scheme-theoretical since ∼ ⊠ op ∗ Z(sCohf (G)) = (sCohf (G) sCohf (G) )sCohf (G), so ∼ Z(sCohf (G)) = C(G × G, G, 1, 1) 20 SHLOMOGELAKI as tensor categories, where G is viewed as a closed supergroup subscheme of G × G via the diagonal morphism ∆ : G→G×G. Moreover, we can define indecomposable geometrical module categories over C := C(G, H, Ω, Ψ), and obtain that the 2-functors

Mod(sCohf (G, Ω)) → Modgeom(C), M 7→ FunsCohf (G,Ω)(M(H, Ψ), M), and

Modgeom(C) → Mod(sCohf (G, Ω)), N 7→ FunC(M(H, Ψ), N ), are 2-equivalences which are inverse to each other. In particular, the equivalence classes of geometrical module categories over C are in 2 : 1 correspondence with the conjugacy classes of pairs (H′, Ψ′) such that ′ ′ 2 ′ H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme and Ψ ∈ C (H , Gm) satisfies ′ ◦ dΨ = Ω|H′ . (The analogs for C (G, H, Ω, Ψ) are obvious.) 6.2. Semisimple module categories of rank 1. Recall that the set of equivalence classes of semisimple module categories over sRep(G) of rank 1 is in bijection with the set of equivalence classes of tensor structures on the forgetful functor sRep(G) → Vect. Therefore, Theorem 6.6 implies that the conjugacy class of any pair (H, Ψ) for which the category sComod(O(H)Ψ) or Comod(O(H)Ψ) is semisimple of rank 1 gives rise to an equivalence class of a tensor structure on the forgetful functor sRep(G) → Vect. Clearly, for such pair (H, Ψ), H must be a finite supergroup subscheme of G (as a simple coalgebra must be finite dimensional). This observation suggests the following definition. Definition 6.9. Let H be a finite supergroup scheme over k. We call an even 2-cocycle Ψ : H×H→ Gm (equivalently, a twist Ψ for ∗ O(H)=(kH) ) non-degenerate if the category sComod(O(H)Ψ) or Comod(O(H)Ψ) is equivalent to Vect. We thus have the following corollary. Corollary 6.10. The conjugacy class of a pair (H, Ψ), where H ⊂ G is a finite closed supergroup subscheme and Ψ: H×H → Gm is a non-degenerate even 2-cocycle, gives rise to an equivalence class of an even Hopf 2-cocycle for O(G). Remark 6.11. Finite supergroup schemes having a non-degenerate even 2-cocycle may be called supergroup schemes of central type in analogy with the even case [G2, Remark 4.9]. 6.3. Exact module categories over finite supergroup schemes. Thanks to [EO, Theorem 3.31], Theorem 6.6 can be strengthened in the finite case to give a canonical bijection between exact module categories over sCohf (G) = sCoh(G) and sRep(G) (i.e., for finite supergroup MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 21 schemes, every exact module category over sRep(G) is geometrical). Namely, we have the following result. Theorem 6.12. Let G be a finite supergroup scheme over k. The 2- functors ◦ Mod(sCoh(G)) → Mod(sRep(G)), M 7→ FunsCoh(G)(M (G, 1), M), and ◦ Mod(sRep(G)) → Mod(sCoh(G)), N 7→ FunsRep(G)(N ({1}, 1), N ), are inverse to each other. In particular, the equivalence classes of indecomposable exact module categories over sRep(G) = sRep(kG) are 2:1 parameterized by the conjugacy classes of pairs (H, Ψ), where H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme and Ψ: H×H→ Gm is a normalized even 2-cocycle. Example 6.13. Let V be a one-dimensional odd vector space, and consider the purely odd finite supergroup scheme G := V . By Example 5.7 and Theorem 6.12, the tensor category sRep(V ) has exactly six non- equivalent indecomposable exact left module categories corresponding to the pairs (0, 0), (V, 0) and (V, B), where B(v, v) = 1. Namely, the categories N (0, 0) = sVect, N ◦(0, 0) = Vect, N (V, 0) = sMod(∧V ), ◦ N (V, 0) = Mod(∧V ), N (V, B) = sMod(kZ2) = Vect (here k(Z/2Z) is viewed as a superalgebra, where the generator of Z/2Z is odd), and N ◦(V, B) = Mod(Z/2Z) = sVect.

7. The classification of triangular Hopf algebras with the Chevalley property In Sections 7.1, 7.2 we assume that G is a ﬁnite supergroup scheme over k. (The even case is treated in [G2, Sections 6.1-6.3].) 7.1. Twists for kG. By [AEGN, Theorem 5.7], there is a bijection between non-degenerate twists for kG and non-degenerate twists for O(G). Hence, as a consequence of Theorem 6.12, we deduce the following strengthening of Corollary 6.10. Corollary 7.1. Let G be a ﬁnite supergroup scheme over k. The following four sets are in canonical bijection with each other: (1) Equivalence classes of tensor structures on the forgetful functor sRep(G) → Vect. (2) Gauge equivalence classes of twists for kG. (3) Conjugacy classes of pairs (H, Ψ), where H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme and Ψ: H×H → Gm is a non-degenerate even 2-cocycle. 22 SHLOMOGELAKI

(4) Conjugacy classes of pairs (H, J ), where H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme and J is a non-degenerate twist for kH.

Remark 7.2. If moreover, [g1, g1] = 0 (e.g., in characteristic 0, or if kG = kG0⋉∧g1), then each one of the above four sets is in bijection with the set of conjugacy classes of quadruples (H0, ψ, h1, B), where H0 ⊂ G0 is a closed subgroup scheme, ψ : H0 × H0 → k is a non-degenerate 2 ∗ 2-cocycle, Y ⊂ g1 is an H0-invariant subspace, and B ∈ S h1 is non- degenerate (see 2.1). Remark 7.3. Corollary 7.1 was proved for étale group schemes in [Mo, EG1, AEGN], for finite supergroups G such that kG = kG0 ⋉ ∧g1 in [EO], and for finite group schemes in [G2]. Example 7.4. Retain the notation from Example 6.13. Then the tensor category sRep(V ) has exactly two non-equivalent fiber functors to Vect corresponding to the left module categories N ◦(0, 0) and N (V, B). 7.2. Minimal twists for kG. Recall that a twist J for kG is called J −1 minimal if the triangular Hopf superalgebra ((kG) , J21 J ) is minimal, −1 i.e., if the left (right) tensorands of J21 J span kG [R]. By [G2, Proposition 6.7], a twist for a finite group scheme is minimal if and only if it is non-degenerate. In this section we extend this result to the super case, using the following result (see [EG2, Lemma A.8] and [B, Proposition 1]). Proposition 7.5. Let D and E be symmetric tensor categories over k, and suppose there exists a surjective6 symmetric tensor functor F : D→E. If D is finitely tensor-generated and (super-)Tannakian, then so is E. We can now state and prove the first main result of this section. Proposition 7.6. Let G be a finite supergroup scheme over k, and let J be a twist for kG. Then J is minimal if and only if it is non- degenerate. Proof. Suppose J is minimal. By Corollary 7.1, there exist a closed supergroup subscheme H ⊂ G and a non-degenerate twist J for kH,

. such that the image of J under the embedding (kH)J ֒→ (kG)J is J Since J is minimal and H ⊂ G, it follows that H = G. −1 Conversely, suppose J is non-degenerate. Let (A, J21 J ) be the J −1 minimal triangular Hopf sub-superalgebra of ((kG) , J21 J ). The restriction functor sRep(G) ։ sRep(A) is a surjective symmetric tensor

6I.e., any object X ∈E is isomorphic to a subquotient of F (V ) for some V ∈ D. MODULE CATEGORIES OVER AFFINE SUPERGROUP SCHEMES 23 functor. Thus by Proposition 7.5, sRep(A) is equivalent to sRep(H,u), as a symmetric tensor category, for some closed supergroup subscheme H ⊂ G. Now, it is a standard fact (see, e.g., [G1]) that such an equivalence functor gives rise to a twist I ∈ (kH)⊗2 and an isomorphism of ∼ I −1 = −1 triangular Hopf superalgebras ((kH) , I21 I) −→ (A, J21 J ). We therefore get an injective homomorphism of triangular Hopf su- I −1 J −1 −1 peralgebras ((kH) , I21 I) ֒→ ((kG) , J21 J ), which implies that J I is a symmetric twist for kG. But by [DM, Theorem 3.2], this implies that J I−1 is gauge equivalent to 1 ⊗ 1. Therefore, the triangular Hopf JI−1 −1 −1 superalgebras ((kG) , I21J21 J I ) and (kG, 1 ⊗ 1) are isomorphic. I −1 J −1 In other words, ((kG) , I21 I) and ((kG) , J21 J ) are isomorphic as triangular Hopf superalgebras, i.e., the pairs (G, J ) and (H, I) are conjugate. We thus conclude from Corollary 7.1 that H = G, and hence that J is a minimal twist, as required.

Remark 7.7. Corollary 7.1 and Proposition 7.6 extend [G2, Corollary 6.3 & Proposition 6.7] to the super case.

7.3. Triangular Hopf algebras. Let (H, R) be a finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebra with the Chevalley property over k. Recall that by [EG2, Corollary 4.1], (H, R) is twist equivalent to a finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebra with R-matrix of rank ≤ 2 (i.e., to a modified supergroup algebra [AEG, Definition 3.3.4]). Hence by [AEG, Corollary 3.3.3], (H, R) corresponds to a unique pair (G, ǫ), where G is a finite supergroup scheme over k (see 2.1). Thus Corollary 7.1 implies the following classification result, which extends [EG2, Theorem 5.1] to arbitrary finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebras with the Chevalley property over k.

Theorem 7.8. The following three sets are in canonical bijection with each other: (1) Isomorphism classes of finite dimensional triangular Hopf algebras (H, R) with the Chevalley property over k. (2) Conjugacy classes of quadruples (G, H, J , ǫ), where G is a finite supergroup scheme over k, H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme, J is a minimal twist for kH, and ǫ ∈ G(k) is a central element of order ≤ 2 acting by −1 on g1. (3) Conjugacy classes of quadruples (G, H, Ψ, ǫ), where G is a finite supergroup scheme over k, H ⊂ G is a closed supergroup subscheme, Ψ is a non-degenerate even 2-cocycle on H with co- efficients in Gm, and ǫ ∈ G(k) is a central element of order ≤ 2 acting by −1 on g1. 24 SHLOMOGELAKI

Remark 7.9. The correspondence between (1) and (2) in Theorem 7.8 is given by (H, R)= ((kG)J , ǫ) (see [AEG, Theorem 3.3.1]; see also 3). A 2-cocycle Ψ on H as in Theorem 7.8(3) determines a module category over sRep(G) of rank 1, i.e., a tensor structure on the forgetful functor sRep(G) → Vect, thus a twist J for kG supported on H. References [AEG] N. Andruskiewitch, P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. Triangular Hopf algebras with the Chevalley property. Michigan Journal of Mathematics 49 (2001), 277–298. [AEGN] E. Aljadeff, P. Etingof, S. Gelaki and D. Nikshych. On twisting of finite- dimensional Hopf algebras. Journal of Algebra 256 (2002), 484–501. [B] R. Bezrukavnikov. On tensor categories attached to cells in affine Weyl groups. Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, 69–90, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 40, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2004. [D] P. Deligne. Categories Tannakiennes. In The Grothendick Festschrift, Vol. II, Prog. Math. 87 (1990), 111–195. [DM] P. Deligne and J. Milne. Tannakian Categories. Lecture Notes in Mathe- matics 900, 101–228, 1982. [EG1] P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. The classification of triangular semisimple and cosemisimple Hopf algebras over an algebraically closed field. Interna- tional Mathematics Research Notices (2000), no. 5, 223–234. [EG2] P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. Finite symmetric integral tensor categories with the Chevalley property, with an Appendix by Kevin Coulembier and Pavel Etingof. International Mathematics Research Notices, rnz093, https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnz093. [EO] P. Etingof and V. Ostrik. Finite tensor categories. Mosc. Math. J. 4 (2004), no. 3, 627–654, 782–783. [EGNO] P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych and V. Ostrik. Tensor Categories. AMS Mathematical Surveys and Monographs book series 205 (2015), 362 pp. [G1] S. Gelaki. On the classification of finite-dimensional triangular Hopf algebras. New directions in Hopf algebras, 69–116, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 43 (2002), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. [G2] S. Gelaki. Module categories over affine group schemes. Quantum Topology 6 (2015), no. 1, 1–37. [Ma] A. Masuoka. The fundamental correspondences in super affine groups and super formal groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 202 (2005), 284–312. [Mo] M. Movshev. Twisting in group algebras of finite groups. Func. Anal. Appl. 27 (1994), 240–244. [MS] A. Masuoka and T. Shibata. On functor points of affine supergroups. [R] D.E. Radford. Minimal quasitriangular Hopf algebras. Journal of Algebra 157 (1993), 285–315. [W] W. Waterhouse. Introduction to affine group schemes. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 66. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1979. xi+164 pp.

Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames IA, USA Email address: [email protected]