alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Lie algebras in symmetric tensor categories

AI contributions
  • OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.6 Pro
View details

Abstract

We develop the general theory of Lie algebras in symmetric tensor categories. We prove categorical versions of classical results such as Engel's theorem, Cartan's criterion, and that all derivations of a strongly semisimple Lie algebra are inner. For finite-dimensional graded Lie algebras, we construct a graded category O\mathcal{O}, classify its graded-simple objects, and prove the generic graded irreducibility of Verma modules. Lastly, we develop the theory of root systems for contragredient Lie algebras.

Introduction

The guiding question of this paper is how much of the architecture of classical Lie theory survives in symmetric tensor categories over fields of arbitrary characteristic. Many classical arguments depend on properties of vector spaces that need not persist in this setting. For instance, in positive characteristic, a skew-symmetric bracket satisfying the Jacobi identity need not have the PBW property [9]. Thus, extending Lie theory from vector spaces to symmetric tensor categories requires more than a formal translation.

There is a particular reason to ask this question now. Over a field of characteristic zero, Deligne proved that every pre-Tannakian category of moderate growth admits a fiber functor to supervector spaces [6], and hence can be reconstructed from ordinary or super group theory. The direct analogue fails in characteristic pp. The fundamental counterexamples are the Verlinde categories Verp\mathrm{Ver}_p, obtained by semisimplifying the category of tilting modules for SL2\mathrm{SL}_2; for p≥5p \ge5, they admit no symmetric tensor functor to either Vec\mathrm{Vec} or sVec\mathrm{sVec}. Moreover, Verp\mathrm{Ver}_p plays an important role: Ostrik proved that every symmetric fusion category in characteristic pp admits a symmetric tensor functor to Verp\mathrm{Ver}_p [O], and Coulembier, Etingof, and Ostrik subsequently extended this result to semisimple pre-Tannakian categories of moderate growth [4].

The study of algebraic structures in symmetric tensor categories has expanded considerably in recent years. Much of the recent work has focused on the Verlinde categories, including affine group schemes and Harish–Chandra pairs [V2, M2], representations of general linear groups [V1, K, U], categorical Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology [11], and the construction and classification of Lie algebra objects [2, 12 N]. Contragredient Lie algebras have also been defined in arbitrary symmetric tensor categories [3].

The present paper develops some of the general tools needed for this program. Let C\mathcal{C} be a symmetric tensor category over an algebraically closed field kk, and let g\mathfrak{g} be an operadic Lie algebra in C\mathcal{C}. Although the natural map g→U(g)\mathfrak{g} \to U(\mathfrak{g}) need not be injective [9], its kernel is always central. If C\mathcal{C} is quasi-semisimple, meaning that symmetric algebras preserve monomorphisms, then the quotient by this kernel has the PBW property; see Proposition 2.3. In particular, every simple operadic Lie algebra in a quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor category has the PBW property.

Our first main result is a categorical version of Engel’s theorem: if the underlying object of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra g\mathfrak{g} is semisimple and every simple subobject of g\mathfrak{g} acts nilpotently on a finite-dimensional representation VV, then VV admits a finite filtration strictly lowered by g\mathfrak{g}; see Theorem 3.3.

We then study invariant bilinear forms. We call an operadic Lie algebra quadratic if it admits a symmetric invariant nondegenerate form, and strongly semisimple if its Killing form is nondegenerate. We prove that a finite-dimensional quadratic operadic Lie algebra with no non-zero abelian ideals is semisimple. Applied to the Killing form, this yields a categorical Cartan criterion, see Theorem 4.10. We also show that every derivation of a strongly semisimple Lie algebra is inner.

We next establish a rigidity result for Lie algebra homomorphisms. In classical theory, the vanishing of the first Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology gives rigidity only up to conjugation. In C\mathcal{C}, however, a non-zero object XX may be invariantless, meaning that Hom⁡C(1,X)=0\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},X) = 0. For an invariantless a\mathfrak{a}, we prove that the affine scheme of Lie algebra homomorphisms g→a\mathfrak{g} \to\mathfrak{a} is finite and reduced when the relevant first cohomology vanishes. In particular, this holds when g\mathfrak{g} is linearly reductive. This result has no nontrivial analogue in ordinary vector spaces, where the only invariantless object is zero.

We then define a graded category O\mathcal{O} and Verma modules Δ(X,d)\Delta(X,d). As in classical highest-weight theory, every Verma module has a unique graded-simple quotient, and every graded-simple object of O\mathcal{O} arises in this way, see Theorems 6.3 and 6.15. In particular, for g\mathfrak{g} in Verp\mathrm{Ver}_p, we prove U(g)U(\mathfrak{g}) is noetherian and O\mathcal{O} is abelian. The key categorical input is that the symmetric algebra of the nonclassical part of g\mathfrak{g} is finite-dimensional; this is Theorem 6.11.

We also define categorical Shapovalov maps to study the reducibility of Verma modules. In characteristic zero, a nondegenerate grading makes every Shapovalov determinant generically nonzero, which yields generic graded simplicity of Verma modules; see Theorem 6.24. In characteristic pp, central pp-th powers obstruct the corresponding result for ordinary Verma modules. Under a pp-nilpotence hypothesis in Verp\mathrm{Ver}_p, we prove instead that baby Verma modules are graded-simple on a nonempty Zariski open set; see Theorem 6.26. We also construct an example illustrating the category O\mathcal{O} and Shapovalov maps.

The final part of the paper concerns contragredient Lie algebras in quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor categories. In this setting, the Cartan matrix is replaced by representation-theoretic data [3]. We prove a simplicity criterion and show that, whenever the relevant root strings are finite, reflection of the generating data is realized by a Lie algebra isomorphism; see Theorems 7.12 and 7.17. This allows us to develop a root system, see Theorem 7.23. We end this section with the computation of an explicit example.

Lie algebras in symmetric tensor categories

A pseudo-tensor category over k\mathbf{k} is a k\mathbf{k}-linear Karoubian rigid monoidal category whose tensor product is k\mathbf{k}-bilinear, with finite-dimensional Hom spaces and End⁡(1)=k\operatorname{End}(\mathbf{1})=\mathbf{k}. A tensor category is a pseudo-tensor category that is abelian and in which every object has finite length. When a pseudo-tensor category is endowed with a braided structure, we say the category is braided. If the braiding satisfies that the square of the braid is trivial for every pair of objects, we call the category symmetric. For the general theory of tensor categories, we follow [8].

Unless stated otherwise, C\mathcal{C} is a symmetric tensor category with simple unit over the algebraically closed field k\mathbf{k}; it is not assumed semisimple. Tensor product and duality are exact. We suppress associativity constraints and symmetry morphisms, and write Cind\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} for the ind-completion. An object of Cind\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{ind}} is called finite-dimensional if it belongs to C\mathcal{C}.

We call C\mathcal{C} quasi-semisimple if every monomorphism X→YX\to Y induces a monomorphism S(X)→S(Y)S(X)\to S(Y) [9 Definition 7.5]. Every semisimple symmetric tensor category is quasi-semisimple. In characteristic zero, every symmetric tensor category is quasi-semisimple, since symmetric powers are the images of symmetrizer idempotents on tensor powers. In positive characteristic quasi-semisimplicity may fail, although all known counterexamples are in characteristic 2 [9 §7.3].

Schematic notation

We frequently express identities of morphisms using element notation. If X∈CX\in\mathcal{C}, a symbol x∈Xx\in X appearing in such a formula is a placeholder for a tensor factor; it is not assumed to be a classical element 1→X\mathbf{1}\to X. Thus this notation remains meaningful even when Hom⁡C(1,X)=0\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},X)=0.

More precisely, let AA be a commutative algebra object of C\mathcal{C}. The set of AA-valued points of an object XX is

X(A):=Hom⁡C(1,A⊗X)≅Hom⁡A-mod(A,A⊗X).X(A):=\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},A\otimes X)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{A\text{-}\mathrm{mod}}(A,A\otimes X).

A morphism f:X1⊗⋯⊗Xn→Yf:X_1\otimes\cdots\otimes X_n\to Y induces a map fA:X1(A)×⋯×Xn(A)→Y(A)f_A:X_1(A)\times\cdots\times X_n(A)\to Y(A). It is obtained by tensoring the given AA-valued points, using the symmetry to move the copies of AA next to one another, multiplying them in AA, and then applying ff.

At the categorical level, every such formula denotes an equality between morphisms with the same source and target, with the necessary associativity and symmetry morphisms inserted. For example, if b:g⊗g→gb:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} is a Lie bracket, then

[x,y]=−[y,x][x,y]=-[y,x]

denotes the morphism identity

b=−b∘cg,g.b=-b\circ c_{\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}}.

For further examples of this notation, see Definition 4.2 and the proof of Lemma 4.3.

Basic notions

For V∈CV\in\mathcal{C}, write ⋀nV\bigwedge^n V for the ordinary exterior power, i.e., the object of alternating coinvariants, and

ΛnV:=(⋀nV∗)∗\Lambda^n V:=\left(\bigwedge^n V^*\right)^*

for the divided exterior power, i.e., the object of alternating invariants. There is a natural morphism ⋀nV→ΛnV\bigwedge^n V\to\Lambda^n V. It is an isomorphism when n!n! is invertible. It is also an isomorphism for every V∈Ver⁡p+V\in\operatorname{Ver}_p^+ and every nn; see [11 Lemma 2.2].

For V∈CV\in\mathcal{C}, a classical element of VV is a morphism x:1→Vx:1\to V. We set

gl(V):=End⁡(V):=V⊗V∗\mathfrak{gl}(V):=\operatorname{End}(V):=V\otimes V^*

with its associative multiplication and commutator bracket. If A⊆End⁡(V)A\subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) is a subobject, then Ar⊆End⁡(V)A^r\subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) denotes the image of the rr-fold composition map.

Definition 2.1. An operadic Lie algebra in a symmetric pseudo-tensor category is an object g\mathfrak{g} with a skew-symmetric bracket [ , ]:g⊗g→g[\ ,\ ]:\mathfrak{g}\otimes\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{g} satisfying the Jacobi identity. If the category is a symmetric tensor category, its enveloping algebra is schematically

U(g):=T(g)/(x⊗y−y⊗x−[x,y]).U(\mathfrak{g}):=T(\mathfrak{g})/(x\otimes y-y\otimes x-[x,y]).

The tensor-degree filtration gives a natural surjection

S(g)⟶gr⁡U(g).S(\mathfrak{g})\longrightarrow\operatorname{gr}U(\mathfrak{g}).

We call g\mathfrak{g} a Lie algebra if this map is an isomorphism. This is the PBW property.

Definition 2.2. We say that an operadic Lie algebra g\mathfrak{g} is

  • simple if it is nonabelian and has no non-zero proper ideals,

  • semisimple if it is a finite direct sum of simple ideals,

  • perfect if [g,g]=g[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathfrak{g}.

A representation of g\mathfrak{g} on VV is an operadic Lie algebra morphism g→gl(V)\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{gl}(V). We write VgV^{\mathfrak{g}} for the largest subobject of VV annihilated by g\mathfrak{g}; equivalently,

Vg:=ker⁡(V⟶g∗⊗V),V^{\mathfrak{g}}:=\ker\left(V\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}^*\otimes V\right),

where the arrow is adjoint to the action g⊗V→V\mathfrak{g}\otimes V\to V. In particular, the adjoint representation

ad⁡:g⟶End⁡(g)(1)\operatorname{ad}:\mathfrak{g}\longrightarrow\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}) \tag*{(1)}

is a morphism of operadic Lie algebras by the Jacobi identity.

An ideal of g\mathfrak{g} is a subobject stable under the adjoint action.

In characteristic zero the PBW property is automatic [16, 9]. In positive characteristic it is an additional condition. For a finite-dimensional operadic Lie algebra g∈C\mathfrak{g}\in\mathcal{C}, let

I(g):=ker⁡(g⟶U(g)).I(\mathfrak{g}):=\ker\left(\mathfrak{g}\longrightarrow U(\mathfrak{g})\right).

Proposition 2.3. The subobject I(g)I(\mathfrak{g}) is a central ideal of g\mathfrak{g}. If CC is quasi-semisimple, then g/I(g)\mathfrak{g}/I(\mathfrak{g}) is a Lie algebra. In particular, every simple operadic Lie algebra in a quasi-semisimple symmetric tensor category is a Lie algebra.

Proof. The image of the natural map g→U(g)\mathfrak{g} \to U(\mathfrak{g}) lies in the commutator Lie algebra of U(g)U(\mathfrak{g}), so its kernel is an ideal. The adjoint representation (1) extends uniquely to an algebra morphism U(g)→End⁡(g)U(\mathfrak{g}) \to\operatorname{End}(\mathfrak{g}). It follows that I(g)⊆ker⁡(ad⁡)I(\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\ker(\operatorname{ad}).

Assume now that CC is quasi-semisimple. The induced map g/I(g)→U(g)\mathfrak{g}/I(\mathfrak{g}) \to U(\mathfrak{g}) is a monomorphism of operadic Lie algebras. By [9 Proposition 7.7], its source has the PBW property, so it is a Lie algebra in the sense of Definition 2.1. If g\mathfrak{g} is simple, then the central ideal I(g)I(\mathfrak{g}) is zero, since g\mathfrak{g} is nonabelian. The final assertion follows. □

Lemma 2.4. Let j:L↪Aj : L \hookrightarrow A be a monomorphism of operadic Lie algebras in a symmetric tensor category. Suppose that AA has the PBW property and that jj has a retraction as a morphism of underlying objects. Then LL has the PBW property. In particular, this applies when AA is an associative algebra with its commutator bracket.

Proof. Let ηL:S(L)↠gr⁡U(L)\eta_L : S(L) \twoheadrightarrow\operatorname{gr} U(L) and ηA:S(A)↠gr⁡U(A)\eta_A : S(A) \twoheadrightarrow\operatorname{gr} U(A) be the canonical morphisms. Naturality gives

gr⁡U(j)∘ηL=ηA∘S(j).\operatorname{gr} U(j) \circ\eta_L = \eta_A \circ S(j).

The right-hand side is a monomorphism: ηA\eta_A is an isomorphism, and S(j)S(j) is split injective because the symmetric-algebra functor preserves the chosen retraction. Thus ηL\eta_L is a monomorphism, and hence an isomorphism. The last assertion uses [9 Corollary 7.3]. □

For C=Ver⁡pC = \operatorname{Ver}_p, the PBW property is equivalent to the pp-Jacobi condition of [9 Theorem 6.6]. The preceding proposition gives, in particular, that I(g)⊆ker⁡(ad⁡)=Z(g)I(\mathfrak{g}) \subseteq\ker(\operatorname{ad}) = Z(\mathfrak{g}); compare [N, Proposition 2.3].

An object X∈CX \in C is invariantless if Hom⁡C(1,X)=0\operatorname{Hom}_C(1, X) = 0. A finite-dimensional Lie algebra g\mathfrak{g} is linearly reductive if the category of its finite-dimensional modules in CC is semisimple.

If CC is quasi-semisimple, then Proposition 2.3 implies that every simple or semisimple operadic Lie algebra is a Lie algebra. A simple operadic Lie algebra is perfect and has zero center. Distinct simple ideals in a direct sum commute.

Engel's theorem

In this section CC is an arbitrary symmetric tensor category, and k\Bbbk need not be algebraically closed.

Let V∈CV \in C. A subobject U⊆End⁡(V)U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) is nilpotent if Un=0U^n = 0 for some n≥1n \ge1. We will need the following lemmas.

Lemma 3.1. A subobject U⊆End⁡(V)U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) is nilpotent if and only if there is a finite filtration

0=F0V⊆F1V⊆⋯⊆FNV=V0 = F_0V \subseteq F_1V \subseteq\cdots\subseteq F_NV = V

such that

U⋅FiV⊆Fi−1Vfor every 1≤i≤N.U \cdot F_iV \subseteq F_{i-1}V \qquad\text{for every } 1 \leq i \leq N.

Proof. Let ai:U⊗i⊗V→Va_i: U^{\otimes i} \otimes V \to V be the iterated action and let a~i:V→(U⊗i)∗⊗V\widetilde{a}_i: V \to(U^{\otimes i})^* \otimes V be its adjoint. Set FiV:=ker⁡a~iF_iV := \ker\widetilde{a}_i. Then F0V=0F_0V = 0, FNV=VF_NV = V, and U⋅FiV⊆Fi−1VU \cdot F_iV \subseteq F_{i-1}V. Conversely, the inclusions imply that UN⋅V=0U^N \cdot V = 0, and hence UN=0U^N = 0. □\square

Lemma 3.2. If U⊆End⁡(V)U \subseteq\operatorname{End}(V) satisfies UN=0U^N = 0 for some N≥1N \geq1, then the commutator action of UU on End⁡(V)\operatorname{End}(V) satisfies

(ad⁡U)2N−1=0.(\operatorname{ad} U)^{2N-1} = 0.

Proof. Put m=2N−1m = 2N - 1. We expand

(ad⁡u1)⋯(ad⁡um)(T),ui∈U,T∈End⁡(V).(\operatorname{ad} u_1)\cdots(\operatorname{ad} u_m)(T), \qquad u_i \in U,\quad T \in\operatorname{End}(V).

References

  1. [1]N. Anduskiewitsch and I. Angiono, Generalized root systems, contragredient Lie superalgebras and Nichols algebras, in preparation.
  2. [2]I. Angiono, J. Plavnik and G. Sanmarco, Semisimplification of contragredient Lie algebras. Orbita Math. 2 (2025), no. 1, 1–32.DOI
  3. [3]I. Angiono, J. Plavnik and G. Sanmarco, Contragredient Lie algebras in symmetric categories, arXiv:2401.02915, 2024.arxiv.org/abs/2401.02915
  4. [4]K. Coulembier, P. Etingof, and V. Ostrik, On Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories, with Appendix A by A. Kleshchev, Ann. of Math. (2) 197 (2023), no. 3, 1235–1279.arxiv.org/abs/2107.02372
  5. [5]E. Cline, B. Parshall, and L. Scott, Finite-dimensional algebras and highest weight categories, J. Reine Angew. Math. 391 (1988), 85–99.DOI
  6. [6]P. Deligne, Catégories tensorielles, Mosc. Math. J. 2 (2002), no. 2, 227–248.DOI
  7. [7]J. Dieudonné, On semi-simple Lie algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 931–932.DOI
  8. [8]P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, Tensor Categories, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 205, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015.
  9. [9]P. Etingof, Koszul duality and the PBW theorem in symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic, Adv. Math. 327 (2018), 128–160.arxiv.org/abs/1603.08133
  10. [10]P. Etingof, Clifford and Weyl algebras in symmetric tensor categories, arXiv:2607.16910, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2607.16910
  11. [11]P. Etingof and S. Hu, Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology of linearly reductive Lie algebras in the Verlinde category, arXiv:2608.01576, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2608.01576
  12. [12]P. Etingof, A. Kannan, and V. Ostrik, Lie theory in the Verlinde category and weak Jordan algebras, to appear.
  13. [13]I. Heckenberger and H.-J. Schneider, Root systems and Weyl groupoids for Nichols algebras. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 101 (2010), no. 3, 623–654.arxiv.org/abs/0807.0691
  14. [14]I. Heckenberger and H.-J. Schneider, Hopf algebras and root systems. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 247. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2020], ©2020. xix+582 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4704-5232-2.DOI
  15. [15]I. Heckenberger and H. Yamane, A generalization of Coxeter groups, root systems, and Matsumoto’s theorem. Math. Z. 259 (2008), no. 2, 255–276.DOI
  16. [16]J. E. Humphreys, Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 9, Springer-Verlag, New York–Berlin, 1972.DOI
  17. [18]V. G. Kac, Lie superalgebras, Adv. Math. 26 (1977), no. 1, 8–96.

Paper details

vlnc:W_68tw5ufk
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.6 Pro · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents