Categorical Actions from Lusztig Induction and Re- Striction on finite General Linear Groups
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Categorical actions from Lusztig induction and re- striction on finite general linear groups O. Dudas, M. Varagnolo, E. Vasserot∗ Abstract. In this note we explain how Lusztig’s induction and restriction functors yield categorical actions of Kac-Moody algebras on the derived category of unipotent representations. We focus on the example of finite linear groups and induction/restriction associated with split Levi subgroups, providing a derived analogue of Harish-Chandra induction/restriction as studied by Chuang-Rouquier in [5]. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20C33. Keywords. Finite reductive groups; Deligne-Lusztig theory; Higher representation the- ory. Introduction Let Gn = GLn(q) be the general linear group over a finite field with q elements. In order to construct and study the representations of Gn with coefficients in a field k of positive characteristic ℓ ∤ q, it is common to consider the chain of subgroups {1} = G0 ⊂ G1 ⊂ ··· ⊂ Gn ⊂ · · · together with the Harish-Chandra induction and restriction functors − also called parabolic induction and restriction − F - kGn-mod m kGn+1-mod. E But there is more to it: Chuang-Rouquier showed in [5] that for any m ≥ 1, the functor Fm is endowed with a natural action of an affine Hecke algebra of type Am−1 controlling most of the behaviour of these functors. From this action they defined a family of i-induction and i-restriction functors {Fi} and {Ei} inducing, at the level of Grothendieck groups, an action of a Kac-Moody algebra g. This led to the notion of categorical g-action on the category of (unipotent) representations for various Gn (see [18]). Note that for this construction to exist we need to assume in addition that ℓ ∤ q − 1. The existence of a categorical action has many consequences, among them the description of Harish-Chandra series and the construction of derived equivalences. It was shown in [5, 18] that an abelian category C endowed with a g-action is built from minimal categorifications, each of them corresponding to a composition factor of the g-module K0(C). In addition, these minimal categorifications are unique, as ∗This research was partially supported by the ANR grant number ANR-13-BS01-0001-01. 2 O. Dudas, M. Varagnolo, E. Vasserot they are given by the module category of a Hecke algebra of finite type which can be read off from the highest weight of the corresponding simple g-module. In this note we consider a similar situation, where Harish-Chandra induction and restriction functors are replaced by Lusztig induction and restriction F . b mod b mod D (kGn- ) n D (kGn+1- ). E These functors are defined using the mod-ℓ cohomology of Deligne-Lusztig varieties associated to central elements in the braid monoid (see §2.1 for the definition). They are no longer exact, but triangulated functors between derived categories. Nevertheless, we can show how they fit in a representation datum (see Proposition 2.1). Proposition. Assume ℓ ∤ q − 1. Then there exist endomorphisms X ∈ End(F)× and T ∈ End(F2) satisfing the following relations: (a) 1FT ◦ T 1F ◦ 1FT = T 1F ◦ 1FT ◦ T 1F, (b) (T +1F2 ) ◦ (T − q1F2 )=0, (c) T ◦ (1FX) ◦ T = qX1F. This endows Fm with a natural action of an affine Hecke algebra. Unlike the case of Harish-Chandra induction and restriction, the natural transformations of Fm we consider are of a geometric nature, as they are induced by endomorphisms of the corresponding Deligne-Lusztig varieties. These operators were already consid- ered by Brou´e-Michel [3] and Digne-Michel [7] in order to understand the structure of the endomorphism ring of the cohomology of Deligne-Lusztig varieties. The ad- vantage of their construction is that braid relations are automatically satisfied. Again, we can define a family of i-induction and i-restriction functors {Fi} and {Ei}. However, in order to show that they induce an action of a Kac-Moody algebra on the Grothendieck group of the category of unipotent representations kGn-umod we need to assume some vanishing properties of the cohomology of Deligne-Lusztig varieties which were conjectured by Brou´e-Michel [3] (see §2.2 and more specifically Corollary 2.5 for details). Proposition. Assume that the ℓ-adic cohomology groups of the Deligne-Lusztig variety X(π) vanish outside the even degrees. Let e be the order of q modulo ℓ. If e> 1, then the tuple (E, F,T,X) induces a categorical action of sle on b b b D (kG-umod) := D (kGn-umod). Mn≥0 In that case, the action that we obtain at the level of Grothendieck groups is the same as the one coming from Harish-Chandra induction and restriction, although the functors (and hence the categorical actions) are very different. They should however be intertwined by a perverse equivalence. 3 Our construction provides an example of categorical actions on triangulated categories. It would be interesting to study the consequences of the existence of such categorifications, but we shall not do it here. Our motivation comes from similarities between the representation theory of finite general linear groups and finite general unitary groups, often referred to as Ennola duality. Let GUn be the finite general unitary group over Fq2 . There is no Harish-Chandra induction to GUn+1 but there is a Lusztig induction ′ F . b mod b mod D (kGUn- ) n D (kGUn+1- ) E′ between derived categories, which fits again in the theory of categorical actions. On the other hand, Brou´e-Malle-Michel showed in [2] that there is an isometry between unipotent characters of Gn and unipotent characters of GUn which inter- twines Harish-Chandra induction and restriction with this Lusztig induction and restriction as shown in the following diagram: F [ ] . mod mod K0(kGn- ) n K0(kGn+1- ) [E] ∼ F′ ∼ [ ] . mod mod K0(kGUn- ) n K0(kGUn+1- ) ′ [E ] In other words, the g-representations afforded by the Grothendieck groups of unipo- tent representations of general linear and unitary groups are isomorphic. Since both representations come from a categorical g-action, we hope that this might lead b b the way to a proof that the derived categories D (kGn-mod) and D (kGUn-mod) are equivalent. Note that the g-representations at the level of the Grothendieck groups are not simple, therefore one would need to consider an additional action of a Heisenberg algebra which can also be categorified using Lusztig induction and restriction. We hope to carry out this project in a future work. 1. Parabolic Deligne-Lusztig varieties In this section G is a connected reductive group over Fp and F : G −→ G is a Frobenius endomorphism defining an Fq-structure on G. Given an F -stable subgroup H of G we will denote by H = HF the corresponding finite group. 1.1. Braid groups. Let B be an F -stable Borel subgroup of G and T be an F -stable maximal torus of B. To the pair (B, T) one can associate the Weyl group W = NG(T)/T and the set S ⊂ W of simple reflections. An element s ∈ W lies in S if and only if BsB/B has dimension 1 in G/B. Since B and T are F -stable, F induces an automorphism of W which normalizes S. 4 O. Dudas, M. Varagnolo, E. Vasserot Let B+ be the Artin monoid corresponding to the Coxeter system (W, S). It is generated by a set of elements S which lift the simple reflections of S. The elements in S have infinite order but they satisfy the braid relations. More precisely, if ms,t denotes the order of st in W then B+ is defined by the presentation B+ = hS | sts ··· = tst ··· for s, t ∈ Si. ms,t ms,t | {z } | {z } Since the braid relations are also satisfied in W , there is a well-defined quotient map B+ −→ W sending s ∈ S to s ∈ S. In addition, this map has a canonical section + W −→ B sending w = s1 ··· sr to w = s1 ··· sr where s1 ··· sr is any reduced expression of w. The image of this map will be denoted by W. By convention we will always use bold letters to denote elements of B+. 1.2. Parabolic Deligne-Lusztig varieties. Given a subset I of simple reflec- tions, we denote by PI the standard parabolic subgroup of G containing B, and by UI its unipotent radical. The group PI has a unique Levi complement LI containing T. The parabolic subgroup of W generated by I, denoted by WI , is the Weyl group of LI . Let w ∈ W . Assume that w is I-reduced, which means that w −1 has minimal length in the coset WI w. Equivalently, w maps any simple root of I to a positive root. Assume in addition that w normalizes I. Then w (and w−1) induces a permutation of the simple roots in I. Then the parabolic Deligne-Lusztig variety associated with the pair (I, w) is −1 X(I,wF ) = g ∈ G g F (g) ∈ PI wPI PI . This definition can be extended to pairs (I, b) where I is a subset of S and b ∈ B+ are such that b is I-reduced and normalizes I (see [7, §7.1, 7.2]). The corresponding Deligne-Lusztig variety will be denoted by X(I, bF ) or often X(I, b) if F acts trivially on W . In the particular case where b = w is the lift of an element w ∈ W then X(I, bF ) is canonically isomorphic to X(I,wF ). When I = ∅ is empty, any element b of the braid monoid yields a Deligne-Lusztig variety, which we will simply denote by X(bF ), or even X(b) if in addition F acts trivially on W .