text:
# Crystal bases and two–sided cells of quantum affine algebras

## 1. Introduction

Let $`𝔤`$ be an affine Kac-Moody Lie algebra. Let $`𝐔=𝐔(𝔤)`$ be its quantum enveloping algebra introduced by Drinfeld and Jimbo, and let $`𝐔^+`$ be its positive part. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we define a basis $`B`$ of $`𝐔^+`$ which is an analog of a PBW basis of $`𝐔`$ for a finite dimensional simple Lie algebra. It has the following properties (see Theorem 3.13):

1. Each element of $`B`$ is a product of a monomial in ‘real root vectors’ and a Schur function in ‘imaginary root vectors’.
2. The transition matrix between $`B`$ and Kashiwara–Lusztig’s global crystal basis (or canonical basis) $`G((\mathrm{}))`$ is upper-triangular with $`1`$’s on the diagonal (with respect to a certain explicitly defined ordering) and with above diagonal entries in $`q_s^1𝐙[q_s^1]`$.

When $`𝔤`$ is symmetric or of type $`A_2^{(2)}`$, our basis coincides with the one constructed by Beck-Chari-Pressley  or Akasaka  respectively, where a property weaker than (2) was established.

Second, we study the global crystal basis $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ of the modified quantum enveloping algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ defined by Lusztig . We obtain a Peter-Weyl like decomposition of the crystal $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ (Theorem 4.18), as well as an explicit description of two-sided cells of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ and the limit algebra of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ at $`q=0`$ (Theorem 6.44). These results had been conjectured by Nakashima , Kashiwara  and Lusztig  respectively. For type $`A_1^{(1)}`$, the former was proved in .

Our results are based on the study of “extremal weight modules” $`V(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda P`$, introduced by Kashiwara . These $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–modules have global crystal bases $`G((\lambda ))`$, and for $`\lambda _{wW}w(P_+)`$ (the Tits cone) are isomorphic to irreducible highest weight modules \[loc. cit.\]. Outside of the Tits cone, or equivalently in the affine case for level zero weights, the structure of these modules has been studied by Akasaka-Kashiwara  and Kashiwara . In particular, Kashiwara made conjectures on the crystal $`(\lambda )`$ \[18, §13\]. The present authors independently proved his conjectures for symmetric $`𝔤`$ . Both proofs used . (The relevance of  to his conjectures was already pointed out in .) In this paper, we first generalize  to the non-symmetric cases modulo sign and then proceed to prove the conjectures on $`(\lambda )`$ modulo sign. Next we remove the sign ambiguity. Finally, the above mentioned properties of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ are established.

The construction of the basis $`B`$ is similar to the previous construction , although there are two new ideas worth remarking on. First, we use the level zero extremal weight modules $`V(\lambda )`$ in an essential way to check that after specializing at $`q=\mathrm{}`$ our basis elements equal canonical basis elements (rather than equal up to sign, which is easier and is also proved here). Note that in  the sign check depends on a positivity result of Lusztig which is available only for the symmetric case. Second, we obtain the fact that our basis $`B`$ is an integral basis (i.e., a basis of the Lusztig $`𝐙[q_s,q_s^1]`$–form of $`𝐔^+`$) in an interesting way. This result follows from the upper triangularity (2) above and uses the canonical basis and the extremal weight modules in an essential way. Our proof is quite different from the proofs  where the result is obtained by explicitly checking commutation relations between root vectors.

Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the integrality property of $`B`$ also gives (when specializing $`q=1`$) a construction of an easily expressed basis of the $`𝐙`$–form of the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$. Such a basis has been constructed , but these results rely on directly examining all possible commutation relations between elements of the monomials forming the basis. Here we obtain this result as a corollary to the existence of the canonical basis of $`𝐔^+`$.

Let us make one more remark regarding $`B`$. Recall that Lusztig used a PBW basis to give an alternative definition of the canonical basis for finite type $`𝔤`$ (an ‘elementary algebraic definition’) . Namely, the canonical basis is characterized as 1) an integral basis, 2) invariant under the bar involution, and 3) upper triangular with respect to the PBW basis. The existence of such a basis is guaranteed by the upper triangular property of the bar involution with respect to the PBW basis. Our definition of elements of $`B`$ is completely elementary and we can prove the upper triangular property without using the global crystal basis. For symmetric or type $`A_2^{(2)}`$,  proved that $`B`$ is a basis of the integral form of $`𝐔^+`$. The same argument as in the finite case then gives us the ‘elementary algebraic definition’ of the global crystal basis. (See Theorem 3.45.) However, when $`B`$ is not a priori known to be an integral basis (i.e., not in the symmetric or $`A_2^{(2)}`$ case), we only show the matrix expressing the bar involution has entries in $`𝐐(q_s)`$, and we do not give an alternative algebraic definition of $`G((\mathrm{}))`$. We hope that we might avoid the integrality requirement completely in the near future. In any case, our basis $`B`$ gives a parametrization of the global crystal basis and serves us here to prove the above mentioned conjectures on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$.

We review the organization of this paper in detail. In §2 we introduce notation and preliminary results from ,  and . Next, in $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ we construct the basis $`B`$ for the integral form $`A𝐔^+`$ with the properties described above (up to sign). In $`\mathrm{\S }4`$ we consider the crystal structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ in more detail. We verify the conjectures of \[18, §13\] (up to sign) which describe the the crystal structure $`(\lambda )`$ of $`V(\lambda )`$. $`(\lambda )`$ decomposes into a product of $`_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$, where for $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _i`$, $`_W(\lambda )`$ denotes the crystal of $`W(\lambda )=_iW(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}`$ and $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ denotes irreducible representations of $`G_\lambda =_iGL_{\lambda _i}(𝐂)`$. This decomposition is then used to give a $`𝔤\times 𝔤`$ bicrystal decomposition of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})_{\lambda P}_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )/\widehat{W}`$, where $`_0(\lambda )`$ denotes the connected component of $`(\lambda )`$ containing the extremal weight vector $`v_\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{W}`$ is the affine Weyl group. In $`\mathrm{\S }5`$ we pause to remove the sign ambiguity in $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ and $`\mathrm{\S }4`$.

In $`\mathrm{\S }6`$ we study the global basis of the level zero modified quantum affine algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0}𝐔a_\lambda `$. To each $`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ we associate a two sided ideal which is the intersection of the annihilators of all $`V(\lambda ^{})`$ for $`\lambda ^{}`$ outside the cone $`\lambda +P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ modulo this same ideal further intersected with the annihilator of $`V(\lambda )`$. We show that these ideals have crystal bases $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ which have globalizations which partition the global basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$. We use this partition to describe the cell structure of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ and to verify the conjectures which appear in .

Lusztig’s conjectures on two-sided cells were based on his conjectures  on cells of an affine Hecke algebra, which as far as the authors know, are still open. In  Lusztig made a deep connection between two–sided cells of the affine Hecke algebra and the geometry of Springer fibers. Our proof is based on extremal weight modules and is purely algebraic. However geometry is in the background, since extremal weight modules are isomorphic  to universal standard modules, which are defined as $`K`$-homology groups of certain quiver varieties introduced by the second author . For example, values of the $`a`$-function introduced in $`\mathrm{\S }6`$ are equal to the dimensions of the quiver varieties, where the corresponding result for the affine Hecke algebra was proved in . It is also worthwhile mentioning that the appearance of $`G_\lambda `$ is quite natural from quiver varieties.

While the authors were preparing this paper, K. McGerty posted an article  to the q-algebra archive where he proves Lusztig’s conjecture for type $`A_n^{(1)}`$. His proof is completely different from our proof.

### Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Ilaria Damiani who sent us a reprint of .

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Affine Kac–Moody Lie algebras

We fix a realization $`𝔤=𝔤(X_N^{(r)})`$. Here $`X_N^{(r)}`$ is a diagram from Table Aff $`r`$ of \[15, Section 4.8\], except in the case of $`X_N^{(r)}=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ ($`n1`$), where we reverse the numbering of the simple roots. Let its Cartan subalgebra be $`𝔥`$. We denote by $`I`$ the index set of simple roots. The numbering gives us an identification $`I=\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Let $`\{\alpha _i\}_{iI}𝔥`$ (resp. $`\{h_i\}_{iI}𝔥^{}`$) denote the set of simple roots (resp. simple coroots), where $`h_i,\alpha _j=a_{ij},`$ where $`a_{ij}`$ is the Cartan matrix of $`𝔤`$. Fix $`d`$ so that $`d,\alpha _j=\delta _{0j}`$. Denote by $`P^{}=_{iI}𝐙h_i𝐙d`$ the dual weight lattice and by $`P=\text{Hom}_𝐙(P^{},𝐙)`$ the weight lattice. Let $`Q=_{iI}𝐙\alpha _iP`$ denote the root lattice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the root system and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}=\mathrm{\Delta }𝐙\delta `$ the set of real roots. Fix the fundamental weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iP`$ defined by $`h_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=\delta _{ij},d,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=0.`$ Denote by $`Q_+`$ the semigroup generated by positive roots $`_{iI}𝐙_0\alpha _i`$; $`P_+=\{\lambda Ph_i,\lambda 0\text{ for all }iI\}`$ the semigroup of integral dominant weights. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }(\pm Q_+)`$ be the set of positive and negative roots respectively.

The center of $`𝔤`$ is $`1`$–dimensional and is spanned by $`c=_{iI}a_i^{}h_i`$, where $`a_i^{}`$ are the labels of the dual diagram to $`X_N^{(r)}`$. $`c`$ is characterized as the positive combination of $`h_i,iI`$, for which $`\{hP^{}h,\alpha _j=0\text{ for all }jI\}=𝐙c`$. Let $`\delta `$ be the unique element $`\delta =_{iI}a_i\alpha _i`$ ($`a_i𝐙_0`$, where $`a_i`$ are the numerical labels of $`X_N^{(r)}`$, and give a linear dependence between the columns of $`a_{ij}`$) satisfying $`\{\lambda Qh_i,\lambda =0\text{ for all }iI\}=𝐙\delta .`$ We denote by $`h`$ the Coxeter number $`_{iI}a_i`$ and by $`h^{}`$ the dual Coxeter number $`_{iI}a_i^{}`$.

Denote the affine Weyl group by $`\widehat{W}O(𝔥^{})`$ ($`=`$ the orthogonal group of $`𝔥^{}`$ with respect to $`(,)`$) generated by the simple reflections $`s_i(\lambda )=\lambda h_i,\lambda \alpha _i,\lambda 𝔥,iI.`$ Note that $`w(\delta )=\delta `$ for $`w\widehat{W}.`$ Denote by $`(,)`$ the non–degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $`𝔥^{}`$ invariant under the Weyl group action, uniquely characterized by $`c,\lambda =(\delta ,\lambda )`$, for $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$. Note that $`(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)=a_i^{}a_i^1a_{ij}`$ for $`i,jI`$.

Let $`\mathrm{cl}:𝔥^{}𝔥^{}/𝐐\delta `$ be the canonical projection. Let $`𝔥^0=\{\lambda 𝔥^{}c,\lambda =0\},`$ and define the level zero weight lattice to be $`P^0=P𝔥^0`$. Let $`𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0=\mathrm{cl}(𝔥^0)`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0=\mathrm{cl}(P^0)`$. Denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{cl}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}})`$. Since $`w(\delta )=\delta `$ and $`c,\lambda =(\delta ,\lambda )`$, the image of $`\widehat{W}O(𝔥^0)`$ in $`O(𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0)`$ is well-defined and denoted $`W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. Then $`W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the Weyl group of the root system $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}},𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0)`$, which is reduced, except in type $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ where it is of type $`BC_n`$. The bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`𝔥^{}`$ descends to a bilinear form on $`𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$, which is denoted also by $`(,)`$. It is nondegenerate.

We fix $`0I`$ so that $`W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is generated by $`\{s_i;iI_0\}`$, where $`I_0=I\{0\}=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. If $`𝔤`$ is not of type $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, the choice of $`0`$ is unique up to a Dynkin diagram automorphism. In the case of $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, there are two choices of $`0`$ (either of the two extremal vertices of the Dynkin diagram), and $`(\alpha _0,\alpha _0)=1`$ or $`4`$, and accordingly $`a_0=2`$ or $`1`$, $`a_0^{}=1`$ or $`2`$. Our choice of $`0`$ is such that $`(\alpha _0,\alpha _0)=4.`$ As mentioned above, this is opposite the numbering convention in , but is natural when constructing $`𝔤=𝔤(A_{2n}^{(2)})`$ as a (twisted) loop algebra. We take $`\{\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _i)iI_0\}`$ as a set of simple roots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, and the corresponding set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^+`$ of positive roots.

Let $`\alpha ^{}=2\alpha /(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. Let $`Q^{}=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}}𝐙\alpha ^{}`$. We set $`Q_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{cl}(Q)`$, $`Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}=\mathrm{cl}(Q^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q_{\mathrm{cl}}Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}`$. We have an exact sequence

(2.2) $`\begin{array}{cccccccccc}1& & \stackrel{~}{Q}& \stackrel{𝑡}{}& \widehat{W}& \stackrel{cl}{}& W_{\mathrm{cl}}& & 1,& \end{array}`$
where $`t`$ is the translation operator given by \[15, (6.5.2)\], and $`\mathrm{cl}`$ is the above projection $`\widehat{W}W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. By abuse of notation we denote $`t(\xi )`$ simply by $`\xi `$. For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ be the element in $`\stackrel{~}{Q}𝐐_{>0}\mathrm{cl}(\alpha )`$ with the smallest length. We set

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha };\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}\}.$$

Then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is a reduced root system, and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is the root lattice of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

An affine Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is either untwisted or the dual of an untwisted affine Lie algebra or $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$:

* If $`𝔤`$ is untwisted, then $`2/(\alpha ,\alpha )𝐙`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}Q_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\mathrm{cl}(\alpha ^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{cl}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}})`$.
* If $`𝔤`$ is the dual of an untwisted algebra, then $`(\alpha ,\alpha )/2𝐙`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q_{\mathrm{cl}}Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\mathrm{cl}(\alpha )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{cl}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}})`$.
* If $`𝔤=𝔤(A_{2n}^{(2)})`$, then $`(\alpha ,\alpha )/2=1/2`$, $`1`$, or $`2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q_{\mathrm{cl}}=Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cl}(\alpha )\hfill & \text{ if }(\alpha ,\alpha )4\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{cl}(\alpha )/2\hfill & \text{ if }(\alpha ,\alpha )=4\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`(\delta \alpha )/2\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}`$ if $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=4`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is of type $`B_n`$.

For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}`$ or $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, we set

(2.3)
$$d_\alpha =\mathrm{max}(1,\frac{(\alpha ,\alpha )}{2}),$$

and $`d_i=d_{\alpha _i}`$. We have $`m\delta +\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{re}}d_\alpha |m`$. If $`X_N^{(r)}A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=d_\alpha \mathrm{cl}(\alpha ^{})`$.

Let $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$ (resp. $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$) be the dual of $`Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}`$ (resp. $`Q_{\mathrm{cl}}`$), considered as a lattice of $`𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$ via $`(,)`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{P}=P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0=(Q_{\mathrm{cl}}+Q_{\mathrm{cl}}^{})^{}`$. The sets $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are invariant under the translation by an element of $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$. We define the extended affine Weyl group by $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\stackrel{~}{P}W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. Let $`𝒯=\{𝓌\stackrel{~}{𝒲}𝓌(\mathcal{\Delta }^+)\mathcal{\Delta }^+\}`$. It is a subgroup of the group of Dynkin diagram automorphisms. We have $`\stackrel{~}{W}=𝒯\widehat{𝒲}`$. The length function $`\mathrm{}:\widehat{W}𝐍`$ extends to $`\mathrm{}:\stackrel{~}{W}𝐍`$ where $`\mathrm{}(\tau w)=\mathrm{}(w)`$ for $`\tau 𝒯,𝓌\widehat{𝒲}.`$

Let us denote by $`\omega _i^{}`$ ($`iI_0`$) the fundamental coweights of the root system $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}},𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0)`$, i.e., $`(\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _i),\omega _j^{})=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`i,jI_0`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i=d_i\omega _i^{}`$. Then $`\{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\}_{iI_0}`$ is a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$. We have

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}s_j\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_is_j(ij),\\ s_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_is_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1=t(d_i\alpha _i^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i^1\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i^2\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n).\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

Set

$$\begin{array}{c}_>=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{cl}(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^+\},_<=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{cl}(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^+\},\\ _0=\{(m\delta ,i)𝐙\delta \times I_0m>0,d_i|m\},\\ =_>_0_<.\end{array}$$

These are sets of positive roots counted with multiplicities.

### 2.2. Quantum affine algebras

We define the quantum affine algebra $`𝐔=𝐔(𝔤)`$ following the normalization in . Let $`q`$ be an indeterminate. For nonnegative integers $`nr`$, define

$$[n]_q=\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1},[n]_q!=\{\begin{array}{cc}[n]_q[n1]_q!\hfill & (n>0),\hfill \\ 1\hfill & (n=0),\hfill \end{array}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right]_q=\frac{[n]_q!}{[r]_q![nr]_q!}.$$

We fix the smallest positive integer $`d`$ such that $`d(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)/2𝐙`$ for any $`iI`$. We set $`q_s=q^{1/d}`$.

Define the quantum affine algebra $`𝐔`$ to be the associative algebra with $`1`$ over $`𝐐(q_s)`$ generated by elements $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ ($`iI`$), $`q^h`$ ($`hd^1P^{}`$), with defining relations.

$$q^0=1,q^hq^h^{}=q^{h+h^{}},$$

$$q^hE_iq^h=q^{h,\alpha _i}E_i,q^hF_iq^h=q^{h,\alpha _i}F_i,$$

$$E_iF_jF_jE_i=\delta _{ij}\frac{t_it_i^1}{q_iq_i^1},$$

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{b}{}}(1)^pE_i^{(p)}E_jE_i^{(bp)}=\underset{p=0}{\overset{b}{}}(1)^pF_i^{(p)}F_jF_i^{(bp)}=0\text{for }ij\text{,}$$

where $`q_i=q^{(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)/2}`$, $`t_i=q^{(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)h_i/2}`$, $`b=1h_i,\alpha _j`$, $`E_i^{(p)}=E_i^p/[p]_{q_i}!`$, $`F_i^{(p)}=F_i^p/[p]_{q_i}!`$.

Let $`𝐔^{}`$ be the quantized enveloping algebra with $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{cl}(P)`$ as a weight lattice. It is the subalgebra of $`𝐔`$ generated by $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ ($`iI`$), $`q^h`$ ($`hd^1_i𝐙h_i`$).

Let $`𝐔^+`$ (resp. $`𝐔^{}`$) be the $`𝐐(q_s)`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔`$ generated by elements $`E_i`$’s (resp. $`F_i`$’s). Let $`𝐔^0`$ be the $`𝐐(q_s)`$-subalgebra generated by elements $`q^h`$ ($`hd^1P^{}`$). We have the triangular decomposition $`𝐔𝐔^+𝐔^0𝐔^{}`$.

For $`\xi Q`$, we define the root space $`𝐔_\xi `$ by

$$𝐔_\xi =\{x𝐔q^hxq^h=q^{h,\xi }x\text{ for all }hP^{}\}.$$

Let $`𝒜=𝐙[𝓆_𝓈,𝓆_𝓈^\mathcal{1}]`$. Let $`A𝐔`$ be the $`𝒜`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔`$ generated by elements $`E_i^{(n)}`$, $`F_i^{(n)}`$, $`q^h`$ for $`iI`$, $`n𝐙_{>0}`$, $`hd^1P^{}`$.

Let us introduce a $`𝐐(q_s)`$-algebra involutive automorphism $``$ and $`𝐐(q_s)`$-algebra involutive anti-automorphisms $``$ and $`\psi `$ of $`𝐔`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}E_i^{}=F_i,F_i^{}=E_i,(q^h)^{}=q^h,\\ E_i^{}=E_i,F_i^{}=F_i,(q^h)^{}=q^h,\\ \psi (E_i)=q_i^1t_i^1F_i,\psi (F_i)=q_i^1t_iE_i,\psi (q^h)=q^h.\end{array}$$

We define a $`𝐐`$-algebra involutive automorphism $`\overline{\text{}}`$ of $`𝐔`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{E_i}=E_i,\overline{F_i}=F_i,\overline{q^h}=q^h,\\ \overline{a(q_s)u}=a(q_s^1)\overline{u}\text{for }a(q_s)𝐐(q_s)\text{ and }u𝐔.\end{array}$$

We define the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`𝐔`$ by

(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }q^h=q^hq^h,\mathrm{\Delta }E_i=E_it_i^1+1E_i\\ \mathrm{\Delta }F_i=F_i1+t_iF_i.\end{array}$$

Let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the $`𝐐`$-algebra anti-automorphism $`\overline{\text{}}`$ of $`𝐔`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(E_i)=F_i,\mathrm{\Omega }(F_i)=E_i,\mathrm{\Omega }(q^h)=q^h,\mathrm{\Omega }(q_s)=q_s^1.$$

A $`𝐔`$-module $`M`$ is called integrable if

1. all $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ ($`iI`$) are locally nilpotent, and
2. it admits a weight space decomposition:

$$M=\underset{\lambda P}{}M_\lambda ,\text{where }M_\lambda =\{uMq^hu=q^{h,\lambda }u\text{ for all }hP^{}\}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ be the modified enveloping algebra \[23, Part IV\]. It is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐔}=\underset{\lambda P}{}𝐔a_\lambda ,𝐔a_\lambda =𝐔/\underset{hP^{}}{}𝐔(q^hq^{h,\lambda }).$$

Here the multiplication is given by

$$a_\lambda x=xa_{\lambda \xi }\text{for }\xi 𝐔_\xi ,a_\lambda a_\mu =\delta _{\lambda \mu }a_\lambda ,$$

where $`a_\lambda `$ is considered as the image of $`1`$ in the above definition of $`𝐔a_\lambda `$.

Let $`\lambda `$, $`\mu P_+`$. Let $`V(\lambda )`$ (resp. $`V(\mu )`$) be the irreducible highest (resp. lowest) weight module of weight $`\lambda `$ (resp. $`\mu `$) \[23, §3.5\]. Then there is a surjective homomorphism

(2.6)
$$𝐔a_{\lambda \mu }uu(u_\lambda u_\mu )V(\lambda )V(\mu ),$$

where $`u_\lambda `$ (resp. $`u_\mu `$) is a highest (resp. lowest) weight vector of $`V(\lambda )`$ (resp. $`V(\mu )`$).

### 2.3. Bilinear Form

In constructing our crystal base a key component is a variant of a bilinear form introduced by Drinfeld which characterizes the global crystal basis of $`A𝐔^+`$. To introduce the form, first define an algebra structure on $`𝐔^+𝐔^+`$ by

$$(x_1x_2)(y_1y_2)=q_s^{(\mathrm{wt}x_2,\mathrm{wt}y_1)}x_1y_1x_2y_2,$$

where $`x_t`$, $`y_t`$ ($`t=1,2`$) are homogeneous. Let $`r:𝐔^+𝐔^+𝐔^+`$ be the $`𝐐(q_s)`$-algebra homomorphism defined by extending $`r(E_i)=E_i1+1E_i`$ ($`iI`$). By \[23, 1.2.5\], the algebra $`𝐔^+`$ has a unique symmetric bilinear form $`(,):𝐔^+\times 𝐔^+𝐐(q_s)`$ satisfying $`(1,1)=1`$ and

$`(E_i,E_j)=\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1q_i^2)}},`$
$`(x,yy^{})=(r(x),yy^{}),(xx^{},y)=(xx^{},r(y)),`$
where the form on $`𝐔^+𝐔^+`$ is defined by $`(x_1y_1,x_2y_2)=(x_1,x_2)(y_1,y_2).`$

For $`iI`$, introduce the unique $`𝐐(q_s)`$-linear map $`r_i:𝐔^+𝐔^+`$ given by $`r_i(1)=0`$, $`r_i(E_j)=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`jI`$, and satisfying $`r_i(xy)=q_s^{(\mathrm{wt}y,\alpha _i)}r_i(x)y+xr_i(y)`$ for all homogeneous $`x,y𝐔^+`$ (\[L3, 1.2.13\]). Similarly, introduce the unique $`𝐐(q_s)`$-linear map $`{}_{i}{}^{}r:𝐔^+𝐔^+`$ given by $`{}_{i}{}^{}r(1)=0`$, $`{}_{i}{}^{}r(E_j)=\delta _{ij}`$, and satisfying $`{}_{i}{}^{}r(xy)={}_{i}{}^{}r(x)y+q_s^{(\mathrm{wt}x,\alpha _i)}x{}_{i}{}^{}r(y)`$ for all homogeneous $`x,y𝐔^+`$.

From the definition the form satisfies

$`(E_iy,x)`$ $`=(1q_i^2)^1(y,{}_{i}{}^{}r(x)),`$
$`(yE_i,x)`$ $`=(1q_i^2)^1(y,r_i(x)).`$
### 2.4. Braid group action

For each $`w\widehat{W}`$, there exists an $`𝐐(q_s)`$-algebra automorphism $`T_w`$ \[23, §39\] (denoted there by $`T_{w,1}^{\prime \prime }`$). Also, for any integrable $`𝐔`$-module $`M`$, there exists $`𝐐(q)`$-linear map $`T_w:MM`$ satisfying $`T_w(xu)=T_w(x)T_w(u)`$ for $`x𝐔`$, $`uM`$ \[23, §5\]. We denote $`T_{s_i}`$ by $`T_i`$ hereafter. By \[23, 39.4.5\] we have

(2.7)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }T_w\mathrm{\Omega }=T_w.$$

The definition of the automorphism $`T_w`$ of $`𝐔`$ can be extended to the case $`w\stackrel{~}{W}`$ by setting

$$\tau E_i=E_{\tau (i)},\tau F_i=F_{\tau (i)},\tau q^{h_i}=q^{h_{\tau (i)}},\tau q^d=q^d.$$

### 2.5. Crystal bases

We briefly recall the notion of crystal bases. For the notion of (abstract) crystals and more details, we refer to .

For $`n𝐙`$ and $`iI`$, let us define an operator acting on any integrable $`𝐔`$-module $`M`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{(n)}=\underset{k\mathrm{max}(0,n)}{}F_i^{(n+k)}E_i^{(k)}a_k^n(t_i),$$

$$\text{where}a_k^n(t_i)=(1)^kq_i^{k(1n)}t_i^k\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{k1}{}}(1q_i^{n+2\nu }).$$

And we set $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i=F_i^{(1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i=F_i^{(1)}`$.

These operators are different from those used for the definition of crystal bases in , but give us the same crystal bases by \[18, Proposition 6.1\].

Let $`𝐀_0=\{f(q_s)𝐐(q_s)f\text{ is regular at }q_s=0\}.`$ Let $`𝐀_{\mathrm{}}=\overline{𝐀_0}`$ be the image of $`𝐀_0`$ under $`\overline{\text{}}`$, that is, the subring of $`𝐐(q_s)`$ consisting of rational functions regular at $`q_s=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Definition 2.8.

Let $`M`$ be an integrable $`𝐔`$-module. A pair $`(,)`$ is called a crystal basis of $`M`$ if it satisfies

1. $``$ is a free $`𝐀_0`$-submodule of $`M`$ such that $`M𝐐(q_s)_{𝐀_0}`$,
2. $`=_{\lambda P}_\lambda `$ where $`_\lambda =M_\lambda `$ for $`\lambda P`$,
3. $``$ is a $`𝐐`$-basis of $`/q𝐐_{𝐀_0}`$,
4. $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ for all $`iI`$,
5. if we denote operators on $`/q`$ induced by $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ by the same symbols, we have $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i\{0\}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i\{0\}`$,
6. for any $`b,b^{}`$ and $`iI`$, we have $`b^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}_ib`$ if and only if $`b=\stackrel{~}{e}_ib^{}`$.

We define functions $`\epsilon _i,\phi _i:𝐙_0`$ by $`\epsilon _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{n0\stackrel{~}{e}_i^nb0\},`$ $`\phi _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{n0\stackrel{~}{f}_i^nb0\}.`$ We set $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\mathrm{max}}b=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\epsilon _i(b)}b,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{\mathrm{max}}b=\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{\phi _i(b)}b.`$

Let $`M`$ be an integrable $`𝐔`$–module with a crystal basis $`(,)`$. Let $`\overline{\text{}}`$ be an involution of an integrable $`𝐔`$–module $`M`$ satisfying $`\overline{xu}=\overline{x}\overline{u}`$ for any $`x𝐔`$, $`uM`$. Let $`AM`$ be a $`A𝐔`$–submodule of $`M`$ such that $`\overline{AM}=AM`$, $`u\overline{u}(q_s1)AM`$ for $`uAM`$. We say that $`M`$ has a global basis $`(,,AM)`$ if the following conditions are satisfied

1. $`M𝐐(q_s)_{𝐙[q_s,q_s^1]}AM𝐐(q_s)_{𝐀_0}𝐐(q_s)_𝐀_{\mathrm{}}\overline{}`$,
2. $`\overline{}AMAM/q_s(AM)`$ is an isomorphism,
3. $`AM/q_s(AM)`$.

As a consequence of the definition, natural homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐀_0_𝐙\left(\overline{}AM\right),𝐀_{\mathrm{}}_𝐙\left(\overline{}AM\right)\overline{},\\ 𝐙[q_s,q_s^1]_𝐙\left(\overline{}AM\right)AM,\end{array}$$

are isomorphisms. We call the triple $`(,\overline{},AM)`$ a balanced triple.

Let $`G`$ be the inverse isomorphism $`AM/q_s(AM)\overline{}AM`$. Then $`\{G(b)b\}`$ is a basis of $`M`$. It is called a global crystal basis of $`M`$. The above conditions imply $`\overline{G(b)}=G(b)`$.

$`𝐔^{}`$ (resp. $`𝐔^+`$) has a global crystal basis $`((\mathrm{}),(\mathrm{}),A𝐔^{})`$ (resp. $`((\mathrm{}),(\mathrm{}),A𝐔^+)`$). (It is not an integrable $`𝐔`$-module. But the above definitions has a modification.) For a dominant weight $`\lambda P_+`$, the irreducible highest weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ has a global crystal basis $`((\lambda ),(\lambda ),AV(\lambda ))`$ . If $`\lambda ,\mu P_+`$, then the tensor product $`V(\lambda )V(\mu )`$ also has a global crystal basis $`((\lambda )(\mu ),(\lambda )(\mu ),AV(\lambda )AV(\mu ))`$, where the bar involution is defined by using the quasi $`R`$-matrix \[23, Part IV\]. Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ has a global crystal basis $`((\stackrel{~}{𝐔}),(\stackrel{~}{𝐔}),A\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ such that the homomorphism (2.6) maps a global basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ to the union of that of $`V(\lambda )V(\mu )`$ and $`0`$ (\[17, Theorem 2.1.2\] and \[23, Part IV\]). Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ is not an integrable $`𝐔`$-module, and operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ are defined only on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})/q_s(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$. In fact, they are defined so that $`(\lambda )(\mu )(𝐔a_{\lambda \mu })(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ is a strict embedding. Furthermore, the global basis is invariant under $``$ \[17, 4.3.2\]. The proof given there also shows $``$ leaves the global basis invariant. We have $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})=_{\lambda P}(𝐔a_\lambda ),`$ the direct sum crystal bases of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}a_\lambda .`$ We define $`\epsilon ^{}`$, $`\phi ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{}`$ by $`\epsilon ^{}(b)=\epsilon (b^{})`$, $`\phi ^{}(b)=\phi (b^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{}(b)=(\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b^{}))^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{}(b)=(\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b^{}))^{}`$. This another crystal structure on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ is called the star crystal structure. Occasionally we denote $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ simply by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

### 2.6. Braid group action and global crystal bases

We will recall results of . Let

$$𝐔^+[i]=\{x𝐔^+T_i(x)𝐔^+\},{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]=\{x𝐔^+T_i^1(x)𝐔^+\}.$$

By \[23, 38.1\] we have direct sum decompositions of vector spaces

$$𝐔^+=𝐔^+[i]E_i𝐔^+,𝐔^+={}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]𝐔^+E_i.$$

Let $`{}_{}{}^{i}\pi :𝐔^+𝐔^+[i]`$, $`\pi ^i:𝐔^+{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]`$ be the natural projections. We have the algebra isomorphism $`T_i:𝐔^+[i]{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]`$. Then \[25, Proposition 1.9\] says

(2.9)
$$T_i({}_{}{}^{i}\pi (\overline{x}))=\pi ^i(\overline{T_i(x)})$$

for $`x𝐔^+[i]`$.

By \[23, 14.3\] $`{}_{}{}^{i}\pi `$ (resp. $`\pi ^i`$) maps the global basis to the union of a basis of $`𝐔^+[i]`$ (resp. $`{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]`$) and $`0`$. Then \[25, Theorem 1.2\] says that $`T_i({}_{}{}^{i}\pi (G(b)))`$, if it is nonzero, is equal to $`\pi ^i(G(b^{}))`$ for some $`b^{}`$, and the map $`bb^{}`$ gives a bijection between $`\{b(\mathrm{}){}_{}{}^{i}\pi (G(b))0\}`$ and $`\{b^{}(\mathrm{})\pi ^i(G(b^{}))0\}.`$ This result is based in part on an earlier result .

### 2.7. Affinization

Let $`M`$ be an integrable $`𝐔^{}`$–module, and let $`M=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}}M_\lambda `$ be its weight decomposition. We define a $`𝐔`$–module $`M_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ by

$$M_{\mathrm{aff}}=\underset{\lambda P}{}M_{\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )}.$$

The action of $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ are defined by restricting to each summand, so that the canonical homomorphism $`\mathrm{cl}:M_{\mathrm{aff}}M`$ is $`𝐔^{}`$–linear. We define the $`𝐔^{}`$–linear automorphism $`z`$ of $`M_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ with weight $`\delta `$ by $`(M_{\mathrm{aff}})_\lambda \stackrel{}{}M_{\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )}=M_{\mathrm{cl}(\lambda +\delta )}\stackrel{}{}(M_{\mathrm{aff}})_{\lambda +\delta }`$.

Choose a section $`s:P_{\mathrm{cl}}P`$ of $`\mathrm{cl}:PP_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ such that $`s(\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _i))=\alpha _i`$ for any $`iI_0=I\{0\}`$. Then $`M`$ is embedded into $`M_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ by $`s`$ as a vector space. We have an isomorphism of $`𝐔^{}`$-modules

(2.10)
$$M_{\mathrm{aff}}𝐐(q_s)[z,z^1]M.$$

Here and $`e_i𝐔^{}`$ and $`f_i𝐔^{}`$ act on the right hand side by $`z^{\delta _{i0}}e_i`$ and $`z^{\delta _{i0}}f_i`$.

Similarly, for a crystal with weights in $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, we can define its affinization $`B_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ by

(2.11) $`B_{\mathrm{aff}}={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda P}{}}B_{\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )}.`$
If an integrable $`𝐔^{}`$-module $`M`$ has a crystal basis $`(L,B)`$, then its affinization $`M_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ has a crystal basis $`(L_{\mathrm{aff}},B_{\mathrm{aff}})`$.

For $`a𝐐(q_s)`$, we define the $`𝐔^{}`$-module $`M_a`$ by

(2.12) $`M_a=M_{\mathrm{aff}}/(za)M_{\mathrm{aff}}.`$
### 2.8. Extremal weight modules

A crystal $``$ over $`𝐔`$ is called regular if, for any $`JI`$, $``$ is isomorphic (as a crystal over $`𝐔(𝔤_J)`$) to the crystal associated with an integrable $`𝐔(𝔤_J)`$-module. (It was called normal in .) Here $`𝐔(𝔤_J)`$ is the subalgebra generated by $`E_j`$, $`F_j`$ ($`jJ`$), $`q^h`$ ($`hd^1P^{}`$). By , the affine Weyl group $`\widehat{W}`$ acts on any regular crystal. The action $`S`$ is given by

$$S_{s_i}b=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{h_i,\mathrm{wt}b}b\hfill & \text{if }h_i,\mathrm{wt}b0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{e}_i^{h_i,\mathrm{wt}b}b\hfill & \text{if }h_i,\mathrm{wt}b0\hfill \end{array}$$

for the simple reflection $`s_i`$. We denote $`S_{s_i}`$ by $`S_i`$ hereafter.

###### Definition 2.13.

Let $`M`$ be an integrable $`𝐔`$-module. A vector $`uM`$ with weight $`\lambda P`$ is called extremal, if the following holds for all $`w\widehat{W}`$:

(2.14)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}E_iT_wu=0\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0,\hfill \\ F_iT_wu=0\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In this case, we define $`S_wu`$ so that

$$S_iS_wu=\{\begin{array}{cc}F_i^{\left(h_i,w\lambda \right)}S_wu\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0,\hfill \\ E_i^{\left(h_i,w\lambda \right)}S_wu\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is well-defined, i.e., $`S_wu`$ depends only on $`w`$.

Similarly, for a vector $`b`$ of a regular crystal $`B`$ with weight $`\lambda `$, we say that $`b`$ is extremal if it satisfies

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{e}_iS_wb=0\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_iS_wb=0\hfill & \text{if }h_i,w\lambda 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 2.15 (\[30, Lemma 2.11\]).

Suppose that an integrable $`𝐔`$-module $`M`$ has a crystal basis $`(,)`$. If $`uM`$ is an extremal vector of weight $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`b=umodq`$, then $`b`$ is an extremal vector, and we have

$$S_wu=(1)^{N_+^{}}q^{N_+}T_wu,S_wb=S_wumodq\text{for all }w\widehat{W},$$

where $`N_+={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _+w^1(_{})}{}}\mathrm{max}((\alpha ,\lambda ),0),`$ and $`N_+^{}`$ is given by replacing $`\alpha `$ by $`\alpha ^{}`$.

For $`\lambda P`$, Kashiwara defined the $`𝐔`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$ generated by $`u_\lambda `$ with the defining relation that $`u_\lambda `$ is an extremal vector of weight $`\lambda `$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1He denoted it by $`V^{\mathrm{max}}(\lambda )`$.. It has a presentation

$$V(\lambda )=𝐔a_\lambda /I_\lambda ,I_\lambda =\underset{b(𝐔a_\lambda )(\lambda )}{}𝐐(q)G(b),$$

where $`(\lambda )=\{b(𝐔a_\lambda )b^{}\text{ is extremal}\}.`$ (Recall that $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ is regular §2.5, so extremal vectors make sense.) $`I_\lambda `$ is a left $`𝐔`$–module and $`V(\lambda )`$ has a crystal base $`((\lambda ),(\lambda ))`$ together with a $`A𝐔`$-submodule $`AV(\lambda )`$ with a global crystal basis, naturally induced from those of $`𝐔a_\lambda `$. We have $`AV(\lambda )=_{b(\lambda )}𝒜𝒢(𝒷)mod_\lambda .`$ By the construction of $`V(\lambda )`$,

$$\{G(b)u_\lambda b(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})\}\{0\}=\{G(b)modI_\lambda b(\lambda )\}.$$

By abuse of notation $`(\lambda )`$ is considered both as the crystal basis of $`V(\lambda )`$ and as the subset of the crystal basis of $`(𝐔a_\lambda )`$.

For any $`wW`$, $`u_\lambda S_{w^1}u_{w\lambda }`$ gives an isomorphism of $`𝐔`$-modules:

$$V(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}V(w\lambda ).$$

This isomorphism sends the global basis to the global basis. Similarly, we have an isomorphism of crystals

$$S_w^{}:(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}(w\lambda ).$$

Here we regard $`(\lambda )`$ as a subcrystal of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$, and $`S_w^{}`$ is the Weyl group action on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ with respect to the star crystal structure. Since $`(\lambda )(𝐔a_\lambda )(\mathrm{})T_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ where $`T_\lambda `$ is the crystal with one element of weight $`\lambda ,`$ we can consider $`(\lambda )`$ as a subcrystal of $`(\mathrm{})T_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$.

If $`\lambda `$ is dominant or anti–dominant, then $`V(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to the highest weight module or the lowest weight module of weight $`\lambda `$, so in this case the notation is consistent. For $`\lambda P^0`$, $`\lambda `$ is in the Tits cone $`_ww(P_+)`$ and so $`V(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to a representation with a dominant or anti–dominant weight.

###### Theorem 2.16 (\[18, Theorem 5.1, Corollary 5.2\]).

(i) For $`\lambda P^0`$, the weight of any extremal vector of $`(\lambda )`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{cl}^1(\mathrm{cl}(\widehat{W}\lambda ))`$.

(ii) For any $`\lambda P`$, the weight of any vector of $`(\lambda )`$ is contained in the convex hull of $`W\lambda `$.

When $`X_N^{(r)}A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, we define the “fundamental weights of level zero” by setting

$$\varpi _i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_ia_i^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0P^0,iI_0.$$

When $`X_N^{(r)}=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ we set

$`\varpi _n=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_0P^0,`$
$`\varpi _i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_0P^0,i=1,\mathrm{},n1.`$
We have $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0=\mathrm{cl}(P^0)=_{iI_0}𝐙\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$. We say that $`\lambda `$ is a “basic weight” if $`\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )`$ is $`W_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ conjugate to $`\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$ for some $`iI_0`$.

In the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ case, our choice of fundamental level zero weights is different than that of . It is a simple check that both choices span the same $`𝐙`$–lattice in $`𝔥`$. It follows that the image of this lattice under $`\mathrm{cl}`$ is independent of the choice. Choosing a basis of $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$ amounts to fixing a Weyl chamber of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}},𝔥_{\mathrm{cl}}^0)`$. Since any two Weyl chambers are conjugate under the Weyl group action, it follows that our choice of $`\varpi _i,iI_0`$ give the same set of basic weights as that in .

In \[18, §5\], Kashiwara describes the structure of level zero fundamental representations corresponding the basic weights $`\varpi _i`$ ($`iI_0`$). Let us note

$$(\varpi _i,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j)=\delta _{ij}d_i,\{n𝐙\varpi _i+n\delta \widehat{W}\varpi _i\}=𝐙d_i,$$

where $`d_i`$ is as in (2.3). We obtain a $`𝐔^{}`$-linear automorphism $`z_i`$ of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ of weight $`d_i\delta `$, which sends $`u_{\varpi _i}`$ to $`u_{\varpi _i+d_i\delta }`$. We define the “fundamental level zero representation” $`𝐔^{}`$–module $`W(\varpi _i)`$ by:

$$W(\varpi _i)=V(\varpi _i)/(z_i1)V(\varpi _i).$$

###### Theorem 2.17 (\[18, Theorem 5.15\]).

(i) $`W(\varpi _i)`$ is a finite–dimensional irreducible integrable $`𝐔^{}`$-module.

(ii) $`W(\varpi _i)`$ has a global crystal basis with a simple crystal, i.e., the weight of any extremal vector of $`(W(\varpi _i))`$ is contained in $`W_{\mathrm{cl}}\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(W(\varpi _i))_{\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)}=1`$.

(iii) For any $`\mu \mathrm{wt}(V(\varpi _i))`$,

$$W(\varpi _i)_{\mathrm{cl}(\mu )}V(\varpi _i)_\mu .$$

(iv) $`dimW(\varpi _i)_{\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)}=1`$.

(v) The weight of any extremal vector of $`W(\varpi _i)`$ belongs to $`\widehat{W}\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$.

(vi) $`\mathrm{wt}(W(\varpi _i))`$ is the intersection of $`\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)+Q_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ and the convex hull of $`\widehat{W}\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$.

(vii) $`𝐐(q_s)[z_i^{1/d_i}]_{𝐐(q_s)[z_i]}V(\varpi _i)W(\varpi _i)_{\mathrm{aff}}`$, where the action of $`z_i^{1/d_i}`$ on the left hand side corresponds to the action of $`z`$ on the right hand side as defined in §2.7.

(viii) $`V(\varpi _i)`$ is isomorphic to the submodule $`𝐐(q_s)[z^{d_i},z^{d_i}]W(\varpi _i)`$ of $`W(\varpi _i)_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ as a $`𝐔`$-module. Here we identify $`W(\varpi _i)_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ with $`𝐐(q_s)[z,z^1]W(\varpi _i)`$ as in (2.10).

(ix) Any irreducible finite-dimensional integrable $`𝐔^{}`$-module with $`\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$ as an extremal weight is isomorphic to $`W(\varpi _i)_a`$ for some $`a𝐐(q_s)\{0\}`$.

### 2.9. Bilinear form characterizing $`V(\lambda )`$

We recall the following properties of $`V(\lambda )`$ with respect to a natural bilinear form.

###### Proposition 2.18 (\[30, Proposition 4.1\]).

The extremal weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ has a unique bilinear form $`(,)`$ satisfying

(2.19)
$$(u_\lambda ,G(b))=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }G(b)=u_\lambda ,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

(2.20)
$$(xu,v)=(u,\psi (x)v)\text{for }xA𝐔\text{}u,vV(\lambda ).$$

The following theorem gives a characterization of the global basis of $`V(\lambda )`$ with respect to the form:

###### Theorem 2.21 (\[30, Theorem 3\]).

(i) $`\{G(b)b(\lambda )\}`$ is almost orthonormal for $`(,)`$, that is, $`(G(b),G(b^{}))\delta _{bb^{}}modq𝐙[q]`$.

(ii) $`\{\pm G(b)b(\lambda )\}=\left\{uAV(\lambda )\right|\overline{u}=u,(u,u)1modq𝐙[q]\}.`$

For fundamental representations this result is due to .

###### Remark 2.22.

By the ensuing discussion in §3, Theorem 2.21 holds in the non–symmetric case also.

## 3. An integral crystal base for $`A𝐔^+`$

In this section we construct an integral basis $`B`$ of $`A𝐔^+`$ such that $`B\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$ and under the natural map $`\pi :\overline{(\mathrm{})}\overline{(\mathrm{})}/q_s^1\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$, $`\pi (B)=(\mathrm{})`$. (In fact, we construct a series of bases parametrized by $`p𝐙`$ with these properties.)

### 3.1. Root Vectors

We introduce root vectors in $`A𝐔^+`$. Recall that we chose $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\stackrel{~}{P}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{W}`$ for each $`iI_0`$ (see §2.1). We choose $`\tau _i𝒯`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\tau _i^1\widehat{W}`$. Choosing a reduced expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\tau _i^1`$ for each $`iI_0`$ we fix a reduced expression of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{n1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$:

(3.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{n1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_N}\tau ,(\tau =\tau _n\mathrm{}\tau _1).$$

We define a doubly infinite sequence

$$𝐡=(\mathrm{},i_1,i_0,i_1,\mathrm{})$$

by setting $`i_{k+N}=\tau (i_k)`$ for $`k𝐙`$. Note that for any integers $`m<p`$, the product $`s_{i_m}s_{i_{m+1}}\mathrm{}s_{i_p}\widehat{W}`$ is a reduced expression. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _>=\{\alpha _{i_0},s_{i_0}(\alpha _{i_1}),s_{i_0}s_{i_1}(\alpha _{i_2}),\mathrm{}\},\\ \hfill _<=\{\alpha _{i_1},s_{i_1}(\alpha _{i_2}),s_{i_1}s_{i_2}(\alpha _{i_3}),\mathrm{}\}.\end{array}$$

###### Remark 3.2.

Our definition of the PBW basis will depend on the sequence $`𝐡`$. In particular, it depends on the choice of the numbering $`I_0=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Almost all of the results in  which we will use are independent of the numbering. But when $`X_N^{(r)}=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, \[12, Corollary 4.2.6\] depends on our choice such that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n`$ corresponding to the short root $`\alpha _n`$ appears first in (3.1). We choose our $`𝐡`$ to agree with that in . (Our vertex $`n`$ is labeled by $`1`$ there.)

Set

(3.3) $`\beta _k`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}s_{i_0}s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_{k+1}}(\alpha _{i_k}),\hfill & \text{if }k0,\hfill \\ s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_{k1}}(\alpha _{i_k}),\hfill & \text{if }k>0.\hfill \end{array}`$
Define a total order on $``$ by setting

(3.4)
$$\beta _0<\beta _1<\beta _2\mathrm{}<\delta ^{(1)}<\mathrm{}<\delta ^{(n)}<2\delta ^{(1)}<\mathrm{}<\beta _3<\beta _2<\beta _1,$$

where $`k\delta ^{(i)}`$ denotes $`(k\delta ,i)_0`$.

We now define root vectors for each element of $`_>_<`$.

(3.5) $`E_{\beta _k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_{i_0}^1T_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_{k+1}}^1(E_{i_k})\hfill & \text{if }k0,\hfill \\ T_{i_1}T_{i_2}\mathrm{}T_{i_{k1}}(E_{i_k})\hfill & \text{if }k>0.\hfill \end{array}`$
By \[23, 40.1.3\] these are in $`𝐔^+`$. As usual, set $`F_\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }(E_\beta )`$ for all $`\beta _>_<`$.

###### Remark 3.6.

We note that the root vectors $`E_{d_ik\delta \pm \alpha _i}`$ are described explicitly by:

$$E_{kd_i\delta +\alpha _i}=T_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i}^kE_i(k0),E_{kd_i\delta \alpha _i}=T_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i}^kT_i^1E_i(k>0).$$

These are the Drinfeld generators for $`𝐔`$.

Having defined real root vectors, we define the imaginary root vectors. For $`k>0`$, $`iI_0`$, set

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i,kd_i}=E_{kd_i\delta \alpha _i}E_{\alpha _i}q_i^2E_{\alpha _i}E_{kd_i\delta \alpha _i},$$

and define elements $`E_{i,kd_i\delta }𝐔^+`$ by the functional equation

$$(q_iq_i^1)\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_{i,kd_i\delta }u^k=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q_iq_i^1)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i,kd_i}u^k\right).$$

We have

$$[E_{i,kd_i\delta },E_{j,ld_j\delta }]=0.$$

(For the untwisted case see . For general case see \[12, Theorem 5.3.2\].)

For each $`iI_0`$ we introduce the “integral” imaginary root vectors (, ) by

(3.7) $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}u^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(_{k1}\frac{E_{n,k\delta }}{[2k]_n}u^k\right)\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left(_{k1}\frac{E_{i,kd_i\delta }}{[k]_i}u^k\right)\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
They satisfy the following recursive identity:

(3.8) $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{[2k]_n}_{s=1}^kq_n^{2(sk)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n,s}\stackrel{~}{P}_{n,ks}\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{[k]_i}_{s=1}^kq_i^{sk}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i,sd_i}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,(ks)d_i}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
These definitions are based on the definition of imaginary root vectors which appeared for type $`A_1^{(1)}`$ in . The $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ case is generalized from  where it appears in the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ case.

Let $`𝐔^+(>)`$ (resp. $`𝐔^+(<)`$, $`𝐔^+(0)`$) be the $`𝐐(q_s)`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔^+`$ generated by the $`E_{\beta _k}`$ for $`k0`$ (resp. $`E_{\beta _k}`$ for $`k>0`$, $`E_{i,kd_i\delta }`$ for $`k>0`$).

The $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ ($`iI_0`$, $`k>0`$) are used to construct a basis of the imaginary part of $`𝐔^+`$ as follows. Let $`𝐜_0=(\rho ^{(1)},\rho ^{(2)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ be an $`n`$–tuple of partitions where each $`\rho ^{(i)}=(\rho _1^{(i)}\rho _2^{(i)}\mathrm{})`$. For a partition $`\rho `$, we denote its transpose by $`\rho ^t`$. For each $`\rho ^{(i)}`$, define the Schur function in the $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ by

$$S_{\rho ^{(i)}}=det(\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,(\rho _{}^{(i)}{}_{k}{}^{t}k+m)d_i})_{1k,mt},$$

where $`tl(\rho _{}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{t})`$. This puts the $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ in the role of elementary symmetric functions. Note that in  the transpose of $`S_{\rho ^{(i)}}`$ is considered, but this make no difference. Denote the product over $`iI_0`$ of $`S_{\rho ^{(i)}}`$ by

$$S_{𝐜_0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{\rho ^{(i)}}.$$

###### Definition 3.9.

Let $`𝐜_+𝐍^{𝐙_0}`$ and $`𝐜_{}𝐍^{𝐙_{>0}}`$ be functions which are almost everywhere $`0`$. Let $`𝐜_0`$ as above. Let $`𝒞`$ denote the set of all such triples $`𝐜=(𝐜_+,𝐜_0,𝐜_{}).`$

For each $`p`$ and $`𝐜𝒞`$ we define:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐜_{+_p}=(𝐜(p),𝐜(p1),𝐜(p2),\mathrm{})\hfill \\ & \text{and}𝐜__p=(𝐜(p+1),𝐜(p+2),𝐜(p+3),\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

where the components $`𝐜(j)`$ are actually $`𝐜_+(j)`$ (resp. $`𝐜_{}(j)`$) when $`j0`$ (resp. $`j>0`$).

Define

$$\begin{array}{cc}& E_{𝐜_{+_p}}=E_{i_p}^{𝐜(p)}T_{i_p}^1(E_{i_{p1}}^{𝐜(p1)})T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1(E_{i_{p2}}^{𝐜(p2)})\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & E_{𝐜__p}=\mathrm{}T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}(E_{i_{p+3}}^{(𝐜(p+3))})T_{i_{p+1}}(E_{i_{p+2}}^{(𝐜(p+2))})E_{i_{p+1}}^{(𝐜(p+1))},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the exponents above are written $`𝐜(j)`$ when they should be $`𝐜_+(j)`$ or $`𝐜_{}(j)`$ for $`j0`$ or $`j>0`$ respectively.

Note that when $`p=0`$, the monomials $`E_{𝐜_{\pm _0}}`$ are formed by multiplying the $`(E_{\beta _k})^{(𝐜_\pm (k))}`$ for real roots $`\beta _k_{}`$ in the order (3.4). Also, in this case we will omit the subindex and write $`𝐜_\pm `$ instead of $`𝐜_{\pm _0}`$—there should be no confusion with the $`𝐜_\pm `$ above.

For $`𝐜𝒞,p𝐙`$ we define (cf. \[23, 40.2.3\]):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L(𝐜,p)=& \left(E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}T_{i_p}^1(E_{i_{p1}}^{(𝐜(p1))})T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1(E_{i_{p2}}^{(𝐜(p2))})\mathrm{}\right)\hfill \\ & \times T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})\hfill \\ & \times \left(\mathrm{}T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}(E_{i_{p+3}}^{(𝐜(p+3))})T_{i_{p+1}}(E_{i_{p+2}}^{(𝐜(p+2))})E_{i_{p+1}}^{(𝐜(p+1))}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& E_{𝐜_{+_p}}\left(T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})\right)E_{𝐜__p},\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`p0`$. For $`p1`$, we replace the middle part by $`T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0}).`$

Note that

(3.10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& L(𝐜,p1)=T_{i_p}L(𝐜,p)\text{ if }𝐜(p)=0,\hfill \\ & L(𝐜,p+1)=T_{i_{p+1}}^1L(𝐜,p)\text{ if }𝐜(p+1)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

When $`p=0`$ we will denote $`L(𝐜,0)`$ by $`B_𝐜`$. In this case, each $`𝐜𝒞`$ indexes an element which we will call of “PBW–type” in $`𝐔^+`$:

(3.11)
$$B_𝐜=E_{𝐜_+}S_{𝐜_0}E_𝐜_{}.$$

We will call $`B_𝐜`$ for $`𝐜𝒞`$ purely imaginary if $`𝐜_+=𝐜_{}=0`$. In this case we may write $`𝐜_0`$ instead of $`𝐜=(0,𝐜_0,0)`$.

For each $`p𝐙`$, we define a partial ordering $`_p`$ on $`\{𝐜|𝐜𝒞\}`$ by letting $`𝐜_p𝐜^{}`$ if and only if

$$𝐜_{+_p}𝐜_{+_p}^{}\text{and}𝐜__p𝐜__p^{}\text{and one of these is strict.}$$

Here both $``$ are the lexicographic ordering from left to right. For example, the first inequality means either $`𝐜=𝐜^{}`$ or $`𝐜(p)=𝐜^{}(p),𝐜(p1)=𝐜^{}(p1),\mathrm{},`$ $`𝐜(pk+1)=𝐜^{}(pk+1)`$ and $`𝐜(pk)<𝐜^{}(pk)`$ for some $`k0`$. Note that

(3.12) if $`𝐜(p)=𝐜^{}(p)=0`$, then $`𝐜_p𝐜^{}𝐜_{p1}𝐜^{}.`$
We now state the main the theorem of this section.

###### Theorem 3.13.

(i) For each $`p𝐙`$, $`\{L(𝐜,p)𝐜𝒞\}`$ is an almost orthonormal basis of the $`𝐐(q_s)`$-vector space $`𝐔^+`$, i.e., $`(L(𝐜,p),L(𝐜^{},p))\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}+q_s^1𝐙[[q_s^1]]𝐐(q_s)`$.

(ii) Let $`p𝐙`$. The transition matrix between $`\{L(𝐜,p)𝐜𝒞\}`$ and the global crystal basis of $`𝐔^+`$ is upper-triangular with $`1`$’s on the diagonal and with above diagonal entries in $`q_s^1𝐙[q_s^1]`$.

The property (i) follows from (ii) and the almost orthonormality of the global crystal base \[23, 14.2.3\]. However, we will use (i) during the proof of (ii) and we prove it independently. Let us also remark that (ii) implies that $`\{L(𝐜,p)𝐜𝒞\}`$ is a basis of the integral form $`A𝐔^+`$. The proof of (i) will be given in §3.3. We postpone that of (ii) until Sect. 5.

### 3.2. Vertex subalgebras

A key part of describing the PBW basis is its reduction to “vertex subalgebras”. The following proposition describes the $`n`$ “vertex” subalgebras of $`𝐔=𝐔(X_N^{(k)})`$:

###### Proposition 3.14.

Let $`iI_0.`$ Let $`𝐔^{(i)}`$ be the $`𝐐(q_i)`$-subalgebra of $`𝐔=𝐔(X_N^{(r)})`$ generated by

$$\{E_i,E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i},F_i,F_{d_i\delta \alpha _i},K_i^{\pm 1},K_{d_i\delta }^{\pm 1}\}.$$

Then $`𝐔^{(i)}`$ is isomorphic as a $`𝐐(q)`$-algebra to $`𝐔(A_1^{(1)})`$ in all cases except when $`X_N^{(r)}=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ and $`i=n`$, i.e., $`(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)=1`$. The isomorphism $`𝐔(A_1^{(1)})𝐔^{(i)}`$ is given by $`E_1E_i,E_0E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}`$, $`F_1F_i,F_0F_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}`$, $`qq_i`$. For $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, $`𝐔^{(i)}`$ is isomorphic as a $`𝐐(q^{1/2})`$-algebra to $`A_2^{(2)}`$, and the isomorphism $`A_2^{(2)}𝐔^{(i)}`$ is given by $`E_0E_{\delta 2\alpha _n}`$, $`F_0F_{\delta 2\alpha _n}`$, $`q^{1/2}q^{1/2}`$. (In particular, $`E_{\delta 2\alpha _n}`$, $`F_{\delta 2\alpha _n}𝐔^{(i)}`$.)

###### Proof.

For the untwisted case see . In the twisted case, the result is due to . Note that in  the quantum algebra of type $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ is normalized differently (the invariant bilinear form on $`𝔥^{}`$ is $`2`$ times the one here). ∎

Next we have:

###### Proposition 3.15.

For $`iI_0,k>0`$ we have $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}A𝐔^+.`$

###### Proof.

This is proved as in \[6, Corollary 2.2\] for the symmetric case. In the $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$ case this follows from Proposition 3.14 and \[1, Corollary 8.6\]. ∎

###### Proposition 3.16.

Let $`𝐜𝒞`$. We have $`L(𝐜,p)A𝐔^+`$.

###### Proof.

By \[12, 6.3.2\] (see  for the untwisted case) we have $`T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})`$, $`T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0})𝐔^+`$. Since $`T_w`$ preserves $`A𝐔`$, they are contained in $`A𝐔𝐔^+=A𝐔^+`$ by Proposition 3.15. We also have $`E_{𝐜_{\pm p}}A𝐔^+`$ by \[23, 41.1.3\]. ∎

Next we cite a key property of the $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$:

###### Proposition 3.17.

Let $`k>0`$.

(3.18) $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}E_i^{(k)}+q_s^1x\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \\ E_{\delta 2\alpha _n}^{(k)}E_n^{(2k)}+q_s^1x\hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`x`$ is a sum of terms $`B_𝐜`$ with coefficients in $`𝐙[q_s^1]`$ where for each term $`𝐜_+,𝐜_{}0`$. Furthermore, for each such $`𝐜𝒞`$, only imaginary root vectors $`P_{i,td_i}`$ with $`0<t<k`$ appear in $`S_{𝐜_0}`$.

###### Proof.

This is derived as in \[6, Proposition 2.2 and eq. (4.9)\], where it appears for the untwisted affine case. For the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ this appears as a special case of \[1, Theorem 8.5\]. ∎

### 3.3. Almost orthonormality

The following proposition is central to our calculations.

###### Proposition 3.19.

For $`i,jI_0`$, $`k,k^{}>0`$ we have

$$(\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i},\stackrel{~}{P}_{j,k^{}d_j})\delta _{k,k^{}}\delta _{ij}(modq_s^1𝐀_{\mathrm{}}).$$

###### Proof.

This result appears in the symmetric case in  and in the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ case it appears in . In general, the proof is analogous to one of the previous cases. In the non–symmetric case where $`ij`$, we may assume $`a_{ij}=1`$ since the condition is symmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$. The result then follows from the following identity:

(3.20) $`r_j(E_{i,kd_i\delta })=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{k+1}q_j^1(1q_j^2)E_{kd_i\delta \alpha _j}\hfill & \text{ if }d_j|kd_i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
which is derived from the following special case of \[12, Theorem 5.3.2\] (just as in the symmetric case the previous identity is derived in ):

(3.21) $`[E_{i,kd_i\delta },F_j]=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{k+1}\frac{[r]_{q_i}}{r}K_{\alpha _j}E_{kd_i\delta \alpha _j}\hfill & \text{ if }d_j|kd_i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Next we need the following result regarding the coproduct formula for the imaginary root vectors. For any algebra $`A`$, let $`A_+`$ denote its augmentation ideal.

###### Proposition 3.22.

Let $`k>0,iI_0`$. Then

$`r(\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i})={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{k}{}}}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,sd_i}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,(ks)d_i}`$
$`+\text{terms in }𝐔^+(<)_+𝐔^+(0)𝐔^+(0)𝐔^+(>)_+.`$
###### Proof.

The proof of this follows from the relation between the braid group action and the coproduct (see \[23, 3.1.5, 37.3.2\]) by using Remark 3.6. In the untwisted case, the argument is given in . In general, the argument is identical. ∎

We have the following result which is proved as in  (see  for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ case):

###### Proposition 3.23.

Let $`𝐜_0,𝐜_0^{}`$ be two $`n`$–tuples of partitions as above. Then

(3.24)
$$(S_{𝐜_0},S_{𝐜_0^{}})\delta _{𝐜_\mathrm{𝟎},𝐜_\mathrm{𝟎}^{}}(modq_s^1𝐀_{\mathrm{}}).$$

###### Proof of Theorem 3.13(i).

Let $`𝐜,𝐜^{}𝒞.`$ Suppose $`p1`$. We have

$`T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0})𝐔^+T_{i_p}^1(𝐔^+).`$
as we already remarked in the proof of Proposition 3.16. By \[23, 38.2.1\] we have

$`\begin{array}{c}(T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0}),T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0^{}}))\\ =(T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0}),T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0^{}})).\end{array}`$
By the induction and Proposition 3.23 these are equal to $`\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}`$ modulo $`q_s^1𝐀_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We have by \[23, 40.2.4\]

(3.25)
$$(L(𝐜,p),L(𝐜^{},p))=(S_{𝐜_0},S_{𝐜_0^{}})\underset{s𝐙}{}(E_{\alpha _{i_s}}^{(𝐜(s))},E_{\alpha _{i_s}}^{(𝐜^{}(s))})\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}modq_s^1𝐀_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Moreover, we know $`(L(𝐜,p),L(𝐜^{},p))𝐙[[q_s^1]]`$ since $`L(𝐜,p)`$, $`L(𝐜^{},p)A𝐔^+`$ by \[23, 14.2.6\]. Hence we get the almost orthonormality.

For $`p<0`$, we have the same result thanks to

$$T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})𝐔^+T_{i_p}^1(𝐔^+).$$

By (3.25) $`\{L(𝐜,p)\}`$ is linearly independent. The PBW theorem says that the dimension of a weight space of $`𝐔^+`$ is equal to the number of $`𝐜`$’s with the given weight. Thus it is a basis. ∎

###### Corollary 3.26.

Let $`(\mathrm{})=\{x𝐔^+(x,x)𝐀_0\}`$. Then it is an $`𝐀_0`$-submodule of $`𝐔^+`$, and $`\{\overline{L(𝐜,p)}𝐜𝒞\}`$ is its $`𝐀_0`$-basis for each $`p𝐙`$.

###### Proof.

The assertion follows from \[23, 14.2.2\]. ∎

Note that our proof of this statement, as well as that of Theorem 3.13(i), is independent of the existence of the global crystal basis. The above definition of $`(\mathrm{})`$ coincides with one in \[23, 17.3.3\], while it was a characterizing property in \[16, 5.1.4\].

###### Proposition 3.27.

For every $`𝐜𝒞,p𝐙`$, there exist $`b=b(𝐜,p)(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,p)=\pm `$ such that

(3.28)
$$L(𝐜,p)\text{sgn}(𝐜,p)G(b(𝐜,p))modq_s^1\overline{(\mathrm{})}.$$

###### Proof.

By \[23, 14.2.2\], we know that if $`xA𝐔^+`$ satisfies $`(x,x)1+q_s^1𝐀_{\mathrm{}}`$, then $`x\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$ and there exists $`b(\mathrm{})`$ such that $`x\pm G(b)modq_s^1\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$. The assertion follows from Theorem 3.13(i). ∎

In Sect. 5 we will show $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,p)=1`$.

Note that the map $`𝒞(\mathrm{})`$ given by $`𝐜b(𝐜,p)`$ is bijective for any $`p`$, since both are bases.

###### Remark 3.29.

For any $`p`$, $`q𝐙`$ there exists a bijection $`𝐜𝒞𝐜^{}𝒞`$ given by $`b(𝐜,p)=b(𝐜^{},q)`$ by Proposition 3.27. It is extremely interesting problem to give an explicit description of the bijection. For finite type $`𝔤`$, the same construction gives the piecewise linear bijections \[23, 42.1.3\], which have been studied by various peoples. Let $`b=b(𝐜,p1)`$ with $`𝐜(p)=0`$. By  we have $`b(𝐜,p)=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\epsilon _i(b)}\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{\phi _i(b)}b`$, where $`i=i_p`$. This is a first step towards this problem.

### 3.4. Upper triangular property of the bar involution

This subsection is a small detour. We give a proof that the bar involution is upper triangular with respect to our basis $`\{L(𝐜,p)\}`$. For symmetric or type $`A_2^{(2)}`$, this together with  gives us the elementary algebraic definition of the global crystal basis as explained in the Introduction. The reader in a hurry may skip the rest of this section.

We will need a “reordering lemma” to prove the upper-triangularity property of the bar action with respect to the ordering $`_p`$.

###### Lemma 3.30.

Let $`p𝐙`$. Let $`𝐜,𝐜^{}𝒞`$. Write

(3.31)
$$L(𝐜,p)L(𝐜^{},p)=\underset{𝐜^{\prime \prime }}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{𝐜^{\prime \prime }}L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p),$$

where $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{𝐜^{\prime \prime }}𝐐(q_s)`$.

(i) Then for each $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }`$ in the above sum, $`𝐜_{+_p}^{\prime \prime }𝐜_{+_p}`$ and $`𝐜__p^{\prime \prime }𝐜__p^{}`$ with respect to the lexicographical ordering.

(ii) Further, if $`L(𝐜,p)=E_{𝐜_{+_p}}`$ (resp. $`E_{𝐜__p}`$) and $`L(𝐜^{},p)=E_{𝐜_{+_p}^{}}`$ (resp. $`E_{𝐜__p^{}}`$), then $`𝐜_{+_p}^{\prime \prime }>𝐜_{+_p}`$ (resp. $`𝐜__p^{\prime \prime }>𝐜__p^{}`$) for each summand.

###### Proof.

We prove this for $`p=0`$, noting that for $`p0`$ the proof is identical. Assume $`L(𝐜,0)=E_{𝐜_+}S_{𝐜_0}E_𝐜_{}`$ and $`L(𝐜^{},0)=E_{𝐜_+^{}}S_{𝐜_0^{}}E_𝐜_{}^{}`$. Write the expression

(3.32)
$$S_{𝐜_0}E_𝐜_{}E_{𝐜_+^{}}S_{𝐜_0^{}}E_𝐜_{}^{}=\underset{𝐛𝒞}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^𝐛E_{𝐛_+}S_{𝐛_0}E_𝐛_{}.$$

Here and for the remainder of the section any structure constants (such as $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^𝐛`$) are assumed to be in $`𝐐(q_s)`$ unless otherwise stated. We have

(3.33)
$$L(𝐜,0)L(𝐜^{},0)=\underset{𝐛}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^𝐛E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+}S_{𝐛_0}E_𝐛_{}.$$

For a given summand, if $`𝐜_+=0`$ then clearly $`𝐜_+^{\prime \prime }=𝐛_+𝐜_+`$ in the Lemma. Assume $`𝐜_+>0`$. For any given $`𝐛`$ in the sum, we may assume $`𝐛_+>0`$ or else that summand also fulfills the requirement of the Lemma. Under the assumption that $`𝐛_+>0`$ and $`𝐜_+>0`$, the $`𝐜_+^{\prime \prime }𝐜_+`$ part in (i) and the $`𝐜_+^{\prime \prime }>𝐜_+`$ part in (ii) follow if we check that for a fixed $`𝐛_+`$ in (3.33),

(3.34)
$$E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝐝_+𝐍^_>\\ 𝐝_+>𝐜_+\end{array}}{}a_{𝐜_+,𝐛_+}^{𝐝_+}E_{𝐝_+}.$$

Let $`k>k^{}>0`$. We have the following useful identity  (it was proved there in the finite type case, but the same proof works here):

(3.35)
$$E_{\beta _k}E_{\beta _k^{}}=q^{(\beta _k,\beta _k^{})}E_{\beta _k^{}}E_{\beta _k}+\underset{𝐝_+^{}}{}a_{𝐝_+^{}}E_{𝐝_+^{}},$$

where $`𝐝_+^{}(j)=0`$ if $`jk`$ or $`jk^{}`$. Note that this condition is equivalent to saying that $`e_k^{}>𝐝_+^{}>e_k`$, where $`e_k`$ is the tuple whose $`j`$-th position is $`\delta _{jk}`$.

Consider the set $`S`$ of all monomials of weight $`\gamma =\mathrm{wt}(E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+})Q_+`$ formed from the real root vectors $`E_{\beta _k},k0`$. $`S`$ is a finite set. We will order this set by a lexicographic order on the monomials, where $`E_{\beta _k^{}}>E_{\beta _k}`$ if $`k>k^{}0`$. In this ordering, a monomial $`M`$ is in the PBW order if and only if it is maximal among all monomials where $`E_{\beta _k}`$ appears for all $`k`$ the same number of times as in $`M`$.

On the left hand side of (3.34), moving from left to right take the first root vector in $`E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+}`$ which is out of PBW order, i.e., the first root vector which is larger than in it’s immediate predecessor. Use (3.35) to reorder these two root vectors. By (3.35), we obtain a linear combination of monomials from $`S`$, each greater in lexicographic order than $`E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+}`$. Repeating this for each summand, and taking into account that $`S`$ is a finite set, we ultimately obtain a linear combination of elements of $`S`$, each of which is maximal among monomials formed from the same root vectors. Thus, each is in PBW form and also larger than $`E_{𝐜_+}`$ in lexicographic order, so that we obtain $`E_{𝐜_+}E_{𝐛_+}`$ in the form of (3.34) as required. ∎

###### Proposition 3.36.

Let $`𝐜𝒞,p𝐙`$. Then

(3.37)
$$\overline{L(𝐜,p)}=L(𝐜,p)+\underset{𝐜_p𝐜^{}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},p),$$

where $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}𝐐(q_s)`$.

###### Proof.

We first prove

Fix $`𝐜_0`$ and $`q`$. Suppose that (3.37) is true for $`T_{i_{q+1}}T_{i_{q+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`q0`$), or $`T_{i_q}^1T_{i_{q1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`q1`$). Let $`pq`$. If $`𝐜`$ satisfies $`𝐜__p=0`$, $`𝐜_{+_q}=0`$ and $`𝐜_0`$ is the given one, (3.37) is also true for $`L(𝐜,p)`$. Furthermore, the condition $`𝐜_p𝐜^{}`$ can be replaced by the stronger condition $`𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+_p}^{}`$. (The other condition $`(0=)𝐜__p𝐜__p^{}`$ is trivially satisfied.)

We are considering

$$\begin{array}{c}L(𝐜,p)=E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}\times T_{i_p}^1(E_{i_{p1}}^{(𝐜(p1))})\times T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1(E_{i_{p2}}^{(𝐜(p2))})\times \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}\times T_{i_p}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_{q+2}}^1(E_{i_{q+1}}^{(𝐜(q+1))})\times T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0}).\end{array}$$

(When $`p1`$, the last part is $`T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0}).`$) We prove the assertion by the induction on $`p`$. When $`p=q`$, (3.37) is true by the assumption.

First assume $`𝐜(p)=0`$. We consider $`L(𝐜,p1)=T_{i_p}L(𝐜,p)`$ (see (3.10)). By the induction hypothesis, we have

$$\overline{T_{i_p}L(𝐜,p)}=\overline{L(𝐜,p1)}=L(𝐜,p1)+\underset{𝐜_{+_{p1}}<𝐜_{+_{p1}}^{}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p1}L(𝐜^{},p1).$$

(We put the superscript $`p1`$ in order to clarify its dependence on $`p1`$ in this part. For the other part, $`p`$ will be fixed, and there will be no confusion.) We apply the composition $`T_{i_p}^1\pi ^{i_p}`$ to both sides. By (2.9), the left hand side becomes $`{}_{}{}^{i_p}\pi (\overline{L(𝐜,p)})`$, which is equal to $`\overline{L(𝐜,p)}`$ modulo $`E_{i_p}𝐔^+`$. For the right hand side, we use (3.10). We get

$$\overline{L(𝐜,p)}L(𝐜,p)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝐜_{+_{p1}}<𝐜_{+_{p1}}^{}\\ 𝐜^{}(p)=0\end{array}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p1}L(𝐜^{},p1)+E_{i_p}𝐔^+.$$

The condition $`𝐜^{}(p)=0`$ comes from $`\pi ^{i_p}(L(𝐜^{},p1))0`$. (Otherwise, $`L(𝐜^{},p1)𝐔^+E_{i_p}`$ and $`\pi ^{i_p}(L(𝐜^{},p1))=0`$.) The part in $`E_{i_p}𝐔^+`$ is a linear combination of $`L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)`$’s with $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }(p)>0`$. They satisfy $`𝐜_{+,p}<𝐜_{+,p}^{\prime \prime }`$ since $`𝐜(p)=0`$. The summation in the second term can be replaced as $`_{𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+_p}^{},𝐜^{}(p)=0}`$ by (3.12). Thus we have the assertion under the assumption $`𝐜(p)=0`$.

Next we assume $`𝐜(p)>0`$. Let us define $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}`$ by setting $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}(p)=0`$ and all other entries are the same as $`𝐜`$. We have

$$L(𝐜,p)=E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p).$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}(p)=0`$, we have just proved

$$\overline{L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)}=L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)+\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}<\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}^{}}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{𝐜},\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}}^pL(\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{},p).$$

Therefore

$$\overline{L(𝐜,p)}=E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}\overline{L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)}=L(𝐜,p)+\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}<\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}^{}}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{𝐜},\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}}^p\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐜(p)+\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}(p)\\ 𝐜(p)\end{array}\right]_{q_i}L(𝐜^{},p),$$

where $`𝐜^{}`$ is defined by setting $`𝐜^{}(p)=\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}(p)+𝐜(p)`$ and other entries are the same as $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}`$. We have $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}<\stackrel{~}{𝐜}_{+_p}^{}𝐜_{+_p}^{}<𝐜_{+_p}`$, and therefore the assertion.

Similarly we have

Fix $`𝐜_0`$ and $`q`$. Suppose that (3.37) is true for $`T_{i_{q+1}}T_{i_{q+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`q0`$), or $`T_{i_q}^1T_{i_{q1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`q1`$). Let $`pq`$. If $`𝐜`$ satisfies $`𝐜_{+_p}=0`$, $`𝐜__q=0`$ and $`𝐜_0`$ is the given one, (3.37) is also true for $`L(𝐜,p)`$. Furthermore, the condition $`𝐜_p𝐜^{}`$ can be replaced by the stronger condition $`𝐜__p<𝐜__p^{}`$. (The other condition $`(0=)𝐜_{+_p}𝐜_{+_p}^{}`$ is trivially satisfied.)

Our next task is to show

Fix $`𝐜_0`$. Suppose that (3.37) is true for $`S_{𝐜_0}`$. Then it is also true for $`L(𝐜,p)`$ with $`𝐜_0`$ is the given one.

By (a), (a’), if (3.37) is true for $`S_{𝐜_0}`$, then it is also true for $`T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`p0`$), or $`T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0})`$ ($`p1`$). (The conditions on $`𝐜_{\pm ,p}`$, $`𝐜_{\pm ,q}`$ are vacuous since $`𝐜_\pm =0`$.) This is a special case of (b). We return back to general $`L(𝐜,p)`$ as in (b). We decompose it as $`L(𝐜,p)=L(𝐜_{+_p},p)L(𝐜_0,p)L(𝐜__p,p)`$ where $`𝐜_{\pm p}`$, $`𝐜_0`$ are understood as elements of $`𝒞`$ by setting other entries as $`0`$. By (a) and the above special case of (b), we have

$$\overline{L(𝐜_{+_p},p)L(𝐜_0,p)}=L(𝐜_{+_p},p)L(𝐜_0,p)+\underset{𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+,p}^{}}{}a_{𝐜_{+_p},𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},p).$$

By (a’) we have

$$\overline{L(𝐜__p,p)}=L(𝐜__p,p)+\underset{𝐜__p<𝐜__p^{\prime \prime }}{}a_{𝐜__p,𝐜^{\prime \prime }}L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p).$$

Note that the assumption of (a’) is trivially satisfied since $`𝐜_0=0`$ in this case. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{L(𝐜,p)}=L(𝐜,p)+\underset{𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+,p}^{}}{}a_{𝐜_{+_p},𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},p)L(𝐜__p,p)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{𝐜__p<𝐜__p^{\prime \prime }}{}a_{𝐜__p,𝐜^{\prime \prime }}L(𝐜_{+_p},p)L(𝐜_0,p)L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)\\ \hfill +\underset{𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+,p}^{},𝐜__p<𝐜__p^{\prime \prime }}{}a_{𝐜_{+_p},𝐜^{}}a_{𝐜__p,𝐜^{\prime \prime }}L(𝐜^{},p)L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p).\end{array}$$

By Lemma 3.30, $`L(𝐜^{},p)L(𝐜__p,p)=_𝐝a_{𝐜^{},𝐜__p}^𝐝L(𝐝,p)`$ where the summation is over $`𝐝`$ satisfying $`𝐜_{+_p}^{}𝐝_{+_p}`$, $`𝐜__p𝐝__p`$. Since $`𝐜_{+_p}<𝐜_{+,p}^{}`$, we have $`𝐜_{+_p}<𝐝_{+_p}`$, and hence $`𝐜_p𝐝`$. (Recall that one of the inequalities must be strict in the definition of $`_p`$.) The other two summations can be handled in the same way, and we have the assertion (b).

Next we replace the inequality $`𝐜_p𝐜^{}`$ by a further stronger inequality in a special case.

Consider the case $`p=0`$. Let $`𝐜_k𝒞`$ be such that $`L(𝐜_k,0)`$ is equal to $`E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}`$ if $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, and $`E_{\delta 2\alpha _n}^{(k)}`$ if $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$. Then (3.37) is true for $`L(𝐜_k,0)`$ with $`𝐜_k_p𝐜^{}`$ replaced by $`(0=)𝐜_{k,+}<𝐜_+^{}`$ and $`𝐜_{k,}<𝐜_{}^{}`$.

Here we have written $`𝐜_{k,}`$ instead of $`(𝐜_k)_{}`$, etc.

We check

(3.38)
$$\overline{L(𝐜_k,0)}=L(𝐜_k,0)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝐜_{k,+}<𝐜_+^{}\\ 𝐜_{k,}<𝐜_{}^{}\end{array}}{}a_{𝐜_k,𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},0).$$

By (a’), we already know $`𝐜_{k,}<𝐜_{}^{}`$. Thus we only need to show $`𝐜_+^{}0`$. Suppose that $`𝐜_+^{}=0`$, and hence $`L(𝐜^{},0)=S_{𝐜_0^{}}E_𝐜_{}^{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{wt}(L(𝐜^{},0))=\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})+\mathrm{wt}(E_𝐜_{}^{}),`$ which is equal to $`k(d_i\delta \alpha _i)`$ if $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, and $`k(\delta 2\alpha _n)`$ if $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$. Since $`\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})𝐍\delta `$, $`E_𝐜_{}^{}`$ must be a product of $`E_{ld_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(c_l)}`$ when $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, and $`E_{(2l1)\delta 2\alpha _n}^{(c_l)},`$ $`E_{m\delta \alpha _n}^{(d_m)}`$ when $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$ (in an appropriate order). When $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, we have $`c_l=k`$ and $`\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})+lc_l=k`$. These equations simultaneously hold only if $`c_1=k`$, $`c_l=0`$ ($`l1`$), and $`\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})=0`$ (i.e., $`𝐜_0^{}=0`$). When $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$, we have $`2c_l+d_m=2k`$, $`(2l1)c_l+md_m+\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})=k`$. Thus $`(2l2)c_l+(m\frac{1}{2})d_m+\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})=0`$, and hence $`c_l=0`$ ($`l2`$), $`d_m=0`$, $`\mathrm{wt}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})=0`$. We get $`c_1=k`$. In both cases, we have $`L(𝐜^{},0)=E_{𝐜_{k,}}`$, which is impossible.

The following together with (b) completes the proof.

(3.37) is true for $`S_{𝐜_0}`$ for any $`𝐜_0`$. Namely $`\overline{S_{𝐜_0}}=S_{𝐜_0}+_{0<𝐜_\pm ^{}}a_{𝐜_0,𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},0)`$

(The inequality $`𝐜_0_p𝐜^{}`$ is equivalent to the above inequalities since $`\mathrm{wt}(L(𝐜^{},0))𝐙\delta `$.)

We prove (d) by the induction on the length of $`𝐜_0`$. When $`\mathrm{}(𝐜_0)=0`$, we understand $`S_{𝐜_0}=1`$, and the assertion is trivial. We assume $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$ now, but the argument works even when $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$ with obvious modifications. By Proposition 3.17 we have

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}=E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}E_{\alpha _i}^{(k)}+\underset{0<𝐜_\pm ^{}}{}a_𝐜^{}L(𝐜^{},0).$$

Taking $`\overline{\text{}}`$ of both sides of this equality we have

$`\overline{\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}}`$ $`=\overline{E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}}E_{\alpha _i}^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \underset{0<𝐜_\pm ^{}}{}}\overline{a_𝐜^{}L(𝐜^{},0)}`$
$`=E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}E_{\alpha _i}^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐜_{k,\pm }<𝐜_\pm ^{\prime \prime }}{}}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{\prime \prime }}L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },0)E_{\alpha _i}^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \underset{0<𝐜_\pm ^{}}{}}\overline{a_𝐜^{}L(𝐜^{},0)},`$
where we have used (c) in the second equality. By Lemma 3.30, $`L(𝐜^{\prime \prime },0)E_{\alpha _i}^{(k)}`$ is a sum of $`L(𝐝,0)`$ with $`𝐜_+^{\prime \prime }𝐝_+`$. (The other inequality $`0𝐝_{}`$ is trivially satisfied.) Since $`(0=)𝐜_{k,+}<𝐜_+^{\prime \prime }`$, we have $`0<𝐝_+`$.

Recall that by Proposition 3.17 the purely imaginary part of $`L(𝐜^{},0)`$ is a polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,td_i}`$ with $`0<t<k`$. By the induction hypothesis, (3.37) is true for this polynomial. Then it is also true for $`L(𝐜^{},0)`$ by (b). Thus (3.37) is true for $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$. By Lemma 3.30, the assertion is also true for $`S_{𝐜_0}`$ if it is a polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,td_i}`$ with $`tk`$. ∎

When $`𝔤`$ is symmetric or type $`A_2^{(2)}`$ we know that the set $`\{L(𝐜,0)𝐜𝒞\}`$ is an $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+`$ from  and . Using this result, we can obtain the more general

###### Lemma 3.39.

For each $`p𝐙`$, the set $`\{L(𝐜,p)𝐜𝒞\}`$ is an $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+`$.

###### Proof.

First note that

(3.40)
$$\{L(𝐜,0)𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\}$$

is an $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+𝐔^+[i_0]`$. To see this take any $`xA𝐔^+𝐔^+[i_0]`$. Since the lemma holds for $`p=0`$, we have $`x=_{𝐜^{}𝒞}a_𝐜^{}L(𝐜^{},0)`$ with $`a_𝐜^{}𝒜`$. Now $`x𝐔^+[i_0]`$ each $`L(𝐜^{},0)𝐔^+[i_0]`$ since $`𝐔^+=𝐔^+[i_0]E_{i_0}𝐔^+`$ and clearly each $`L(𝐜^{},0)`$ is in one of these direct summands. Consider the image of (3.40) under the two maps $`T_{i_0}`$ and $``$ respectively. We have

(3.41)
$$T_{i_0}:\{L(𝐜,0)𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\}\stackrel{11}{}\{L(𝐜,1)𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\},$$

as well as

(3.42)
$$:\{L(𝐜,0)𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\}\stackrel{11}{}\{L(𝐜,0)^{}𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\}.$$

Since both $``$ and $`T_{i_0}`$ leave $`A𝐔^+`$ invariant, and both take $`𝐔^+[i_0]`$ isomorphically to $`{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i_0]`$ we obtain that the two sets

(3.43)
$$\{L(𝐜,1)𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\},\{L(𝐜,0)^{}𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0\},$$

are both $`𝒜`$–bases of $`{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i_0]A𝐔^+`$. This implies that the two sets

(3.44)
$$\{L(𝐜,1)E_{i_0}^{(k)}𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0,k𝐍\},\{L(𝐜,0)^{}E_{i_0}^{(k)}𝐜𝒞,𝐜(0)=0,k𝐍\},$$

span the same $`𝒜`$–submodules of $`A𝐔^+`$. The right hand set is a $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+`$ since it’s the image under $``$ of a $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+`$. Therefore the left hand set is a $`𝒜`$–basis of $`A𝐔^+`$, but this set is exactly $`\{L(𝐜,1)𝐜𝒞\}`$. With the same reasoning, an induction gives the lemma for all $`p<0`$. A similar argument works for $`p>0`$. ∎

From Proposition 3.36 and Lemma 3.39 we deduce using \[23, 24.2.1\]:

###### Theorem 3.45.

Let $`𝔤`$ be affine of symmetric or of type $`A_2^{(2)}`$.

(i) For any $`p𝐙,𝐜𝒞`$ there is a unique $`b(𝐜,p)A𝐔^+`$ such that

1. $`\overline{b(𝐜,p)}=b(𝐜,p),`$
2. $`b(𝐜,p)=L(𝐜,p)+_{𝐜_p𝐜^{},𝐜^{}𝒞}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}L(𝐜^{},p),`$ where $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}q_s^1𝐙[q_s^1]`$.

(ii) The $`𝐙`$–homomorphism

$$(\mathrm{})\overline{(\mathrm{})}A𝐔^+(\mathrm{})A𝐔^+/q_s^1((\mathrm{})A𝐔^+)$$

is an isomorphism.

For $`p,q𝐙`$, there exists a bijection $`𝐜𝒞𝐜^{}𝒞`$ such that $`b(𝐜,p)=\pm b(𝐜^{},q)`$ by the proof of \[23, 14.2.3\]. We will show $`b(𝐜,p)=G(b)`$ for some $`b(\mathrm{})`$ in Sect. 5, but it is desirable to have a proof of $`+`$-sign in the above equality, independent of the existence of the global crystal basis.

## 4. Crystal structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$

Let $`P_+^0=_{iI_0}𝐍\varpi _i`$. Let $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$. Let $`G_\lambda =_iGL_{\lambda _i}(𝐂)`$ and $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ the set of irreducible representations of $`G_\lambda .`$ Let $`\stackrel{˘}{B}(\lambda )`$ be the crystal of $`_iV(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}`$. In \[18, §13\] Kashiwara conjectures a description of the crystal structure of $`V(\lambda )`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{˘}{B}(\lambda ).`$ This conjecture was proved in  in the symmetric affine case. It can now be checked for arbitrary type modulo sign using the results of the previous section. The modification is straightforward, but we recall the proof for the sake of reader. We also give a Peter–Weyl type description of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ which is conjectured in \[18, §13\] (see also ), but not proved in .

The sign ambiguity will be removed in Sect. 5 based on results in this section. Thus returning back to this section again, we get Kashiwara’s conjecture.

###### Remark 4.1.

In the previous section we constructed an integral basis of $`A𝐔^+`$. In this section, for the purposes of calculation we replace the basis elements $`B_𝐜,𝐜𝒞`$ with $`B_𝐜^+=\overline{B_𝐜^{}},𝐜𝒞`$. We also replace the $`F_\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }(E_\alpha ),\alpha ^+`$ which appeared in the previous section, with $`F_\alpha ^{}=\overline{E_\alpha ^{}},\alpha ^+.`$ Additionally, we define the integral basis of $`A𝐔^{}`$ given by $`B_𝐜^{}=\overline{B_𝐜^{}}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}=\overline{\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}^{}}`$. There are two reasons to do this. First, applying the $`\overline{\text{}}`$ operator allows us to work in $`(\pm \mathrm{})`$ rather than $`\overline{(\pm \mathrm{})}.`$ Second, the operators $``$ and $``$ reverse the root orderings in $`B_𝐜^\pm `$ and so we are able to work with highest weight (relative to the map $`\mathrm{cl}`$) level zero representations instead of lowest weight level zero representations.

###### Definition 4.2.

For $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$ let

$$𝐍^_0(\lambda )=\{𝐜_0=(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})\rho ^{(i)}\text{ a partition, }\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)})\lambda _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

This is identified with the set of irreducible polynomial representations of $`G_\lambda `$, and the set of $`n`$-tuples $`(s_{\rho ^{(1)}},\mathrm{},s_{\rho ^{(n)}})`$, where $`s_{\rho ^{(i)}}`$ is a Schur function in variables $`z_{i,1}`$, …, $`z_{i,\lambda _i}`$.

### 4.1. Preparatory results

###### Proposition 4.3.

(i) For any $`\lambda P_+^0`$, any vector in $`(\lambda )`$ is connected to an extremal weight vector of the form $`b_1t_\lambda u_{\mathrm{}},`$ where $`b_1`$ is purely imaginary with respect to the crystal base.

(ii) Furthermore, all such possible $`b_1(\mathrm{})`$ are given by $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_{\mathrm{}}modq_s(\mathrm{})`$ where $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda ).`$

###### Proof.

(i) By \[18, Proof of Theorem 5.1\] any vector is connected to an extremal weight vector of the form $`b_1t_\lambda u_{\mathrm{}},`$ where $`\mathrm{wt}(b_1)=k\delta .`$ Using the basis of §3 to express $`b_1,`$ we take $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,0)B_𝐜^{}=b_1modq_s(\mathrm{}),`$ for some $`𝐜`$. Assume that $`B_𝐜^{}`$ isn’t purely imaginary. Since $`\mathrm{wt}(B_𝐜^{})=k\delta `$, and $`B_{𝐜_+}^{}`$ (resp. $`B_𝐜_{}^{}`$) consists only of terms in root vectors with positive real part (resp. negative real part), it follows $`𝐜_{}0.`$ By Theorem 2.16 we have $`B_𝐜^{}u_\lambda =0`$. However, by assumption $`B_𝐜^{}u_\lambda (\lambda )`$ such that $`B_𝐜^{}u_\lambda 0modq_s(\lambda )`$. This is a contradiction.

(ii) From Proposition 3.17 we have

(4.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}u_\lambda =\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(k)}F_i^{(k)}u_\lambda \hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n),\hfill \\ F_{\delta 2\alpha _n}^{(k)}F_n^{(2k)}u_\lambda \hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n).\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`u_\lambda `$ generates $`V(\lambda )`$. Since the weights of $`V(\lambda )`$ are in the convex hull of $`W\lambda `$ (see Theorem 2.16), this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}u_\lambda =0`$ for $`k>\lambda _i`$. Note that for any $`i`$, $`\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)})\lambda _i\rho _{}^{(i)}{}_{1}{}^{t}\lambda _i.`$ Since the $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ all commute, considering the top row of the determinant $`S_{𝐜_0}^{}`$, we have $`S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda =0`$ for $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda ).`$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ as in §2.1 and let $`S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}`$ be the corresponding operator in Definition 2.13.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$. Let $`V(\lambda )`$ be the extremal weight module generated by $`u_\lambda `$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}u_\lambda & =\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}F_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda \hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)\hfill \\ F_{\delta 2\alpha _n}^{(\lambda _n)}F_{\alpha _n}^{(2\lambda _n)}u_\lambda \hfill & \text{if }(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,\lambda _id_i}u_\lambda \hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The second equality follows from the first equality and (4.4). We prove the first equality after applying $`\overline{\text{}}.`$ (See the above remark.)

First consider the case $`(X_N^{(r)},i)(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$. We have an identity $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i=s_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}s_i=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_is_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1s_i`$ in the affine Weyl group (see (2.4)), where $`s_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}`$ is the reflection with respect to $`d_i\delta \alpha _i`$. Then

$`S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}u_\lambda `$ $`=S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i}S_iS_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1}S_iu_\lambda =S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}S_iS_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda \text{ where }\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_is_i`$
$`=S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda =q^{N_+}(1)^{N_+^{}}T_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}(E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)})T_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}(S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda )`$
$`=q^{M_+}(1)^{M_+^{}}q^{N_+}(1)^{N_+^{}}T_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}(E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)})S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}}S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda `$
$`=q^{M_+}(1)^{M_+^{}}q^{N_+}(1)^{N_+^{}}E_{d_i\delta \alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}E_{\alpha _i}^{(\lambda _i)}u_\lambda `$
by Lemma 2.15. Here

$`M_+=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}`$ $`\mathrm{max}((\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1s_i(\lambda )),0)`$
$`\text{and }N_+=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}\mathrm{max}((\alpha ,s_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1s_i(\lambda )),0)`$
and $`M_+^{}`$, $`N_+^{}`$ are defined by replacing $`\alpha `$ by $`\alpha ^{}`$. We have used Remark 3.6 in the last equality.

We set $`\alpha ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}\alpha `$. Then $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha ,s_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1s_i(\lambda ))=(\alpha ^{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\lambda )=(\alpha ^{},\lambda ),\\ (\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^1s_i(\lambda ))=(\alpha ^{},s_i\lambda ).\end{array}$$

For $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, let us denote by $`\beta ^{}`$ the unique element of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`\mathrm{cl}(\beta ^{})=\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}n\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ for any $`n>0`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\{\beta ^{}+nd_\beta \delta \beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}},n𝐙,0n<(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\beta )/d_\beta \}.$$

Therefore,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}(\alpha _i)\}`$
$`=\{\beta ^{}+nd_\beta \delta \beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}},n𝐙,0n<(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\beta )/d_\beta \}\{d_i\delta \alpha _i\},`$
where we have used $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _i))=d_i`$. If $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^+`$, then $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\beta )0`$ and there are no corresponding terms in the summation of $`M_+`$, $`N_+`$. If $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}`$, then $`(\alpha ^{},\lambda )0`$ for $`\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}+nd_\beta \delta `$ and $`(\alpha ^{},s_i\lambda )0`$ except possibly when $`\beta =\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _i)`$, i.e., $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha _i+nd_i\delta `$. However, there are no such roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$. Therefore $`M_+=N_+=0`$. By the same reason, we also have $`M_+^{}=N_+^{}=0`$.

Next consider the case $`(X_N^{(r)},i)=(A_{2n}^{(2)},n)`$. We have an identity $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n=s_{\delta 2\alpha _n}s_n`$. Following \[12, §4.2\], we set

$$w=s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n\widehat{W}.$$

(Our numbering is different from one in \[loc. cit.\]) We have $`w^{n1}(\alpha _0)=\delta 2\alpha _n`$. We can repeat the above calculation replacing the identity by $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n=w^{n1}s_0w^{1n}s_n.`$ We have

$$S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n}u_\lambda =q^{M_+}(1)^{M_+^{}}q^{N_+}(1)^{N_+^{}}T_{w^{n1}}(E_{\alpha _0}^{(\lambda _n)})E_{\alpha _n}^{(2\lambda _n)}u_\lambda ,$$

where

$`M_+={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+w^{n1}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}{}}\mathrm{max}((\alpha ^{},s_n(\lambda )),0),`$
$`N_+={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+w^{n1}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}{}}\mathrm{max}((\alpha ^{},\lambda ),0),`$
and $`N_+^{}`$, $`M_+^{}`$ are similar.

We have $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+w^{n1}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\mathrm{cl}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^+)=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore the above summations are over $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+w^{n1}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\mathrm{cl}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^{})`$. Then $`(\alpha ^{},\lambda )0`$ for any such $`\alpha ^{}`$, and $`(\alpha ^{},s_n(\lambda ))0`$ except possibly when $`\mathrm{cl}(\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{cl}(\alpha _n)`$ or $`2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}(\alpha _n)`$, i.e., $`\alpha ^{}=m\delta \alpha _n`$ or $`(2m1)\delta 2\alpha _n`$ for some $`m𝐙_{>0}`$. However we have

$$w^{1n}(\alpha _n)=\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n$$

by \[12, 4.2.3\], which means that such $`\alpha ^{}`$ cannot be in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+w^{n1}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$. Therefore $`M_+=M_+^{}=N_+=N_+^{}=0`$.

Finally we have $`T_{w^{n1}}(E_{\alpha _0})=E_{\delta 2\alpha _n}`$ by \[12, 4.2.6\]. ∎

Let $`z_i`$ be the $`𝐔^{}`$-module automorphism of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ defined in §2.6.

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`iI_0`$. Then on $`V(\varpi _i)`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,d_i}u_{\varpi _i}=\overline{\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,d_i}u_{\varpi _i}}=z_i^1u_{\varpi _i},\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}u_{\varpi _i}=0,\text{for }k>1.$$

###### Proof.

The statement for $`k>1`$ was already observed in the proof of Proposition 4.3(ii). Lemma 4.5 (with $`\lambda =\varpi _i`$, $`\lambda _i=1`$) says $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,d_i}u_{\varpi _i}=S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}u_{\varpi _i}`$. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,d_i}u_{\varpi _i}`$ is an element of the global basis. On the other hand, $`V(\varpi _i)`$ has a unique global basis element of weight $`\varpi _id_i\delta `$ (see Theorem 2.17), which by definition equals $`S_wu_{\varpi _i}=z_i^1u_{\varpi _i},`$ where $`w=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i.`$ The assertion follows. ∎

### 4.2. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ and Kashiwara’s conjecture

Let $`\lambda =_{iI_0}\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$. The module

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\underset{iI_0}{}V(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}$$

has a crystal base $`(_i(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i},_i(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}).`$ Let $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda =_iu_{\varpi _i}^{\lambda _i}.`$

For each $`i`$, and each of the $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},\lambda _i`$ factors of $`V(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}`$, we let $`z_{i,\nu }`$ be the commuting automorphisms defined in \[18, §4.2\]. By \[18, Theorem 8.5\], the submodule

(4.7)
$$\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )=A𝐔[z_{i,\nu }^{\pm 1}]_{1in,1\nu \lambda _i}\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )$$

has a global crystal basis $`(\stackrel{˘}{},\stackrel{˘}{})`$ such that $`\stackrel{˘}{}_i(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i},`$ $`\stackrel{˘}{}=_i(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}.`$ Since $`\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )`$ contains the extremal vector $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$ of weight $`\lambda `$ we have a unique $`𝐔`$-linear morphism

(4.8)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda :V(\lambda )\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ),$$

sending $`u_\lambda `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda ,`$ and which commutes with the crystal operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$.

For each $`n`$–tuple of partitions $`𝐜_0=(\rho ^{(1)},\rho ^{(2)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ we consider the product of Schur functions in the variables $`z_{i,\nu }^{\pm 1}`$ (see ):

(4.9)
$$s_{𝐜_0}(z_{i,\nu }^{\pm 1})=\underset{iI_0}{}s_{\rho ^{(i)}}(z_{i,1}^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},z_{i,\lambda _i}^{\pm 1}).$$

Note that for each $`i`$, $`s_{\rho ^{(i)}}(z_{i,\nu }^{\pm 1})`$ acts as the $`0`$ map if $`\lambda _i<\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)}).`$ We will omit the indices $`i,\nu `$ and write $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^{\pm 1}).`$

Using Lemma 4.6 we have:

###### Proposition 4.10.

Let $`𝐜_0=(\rho ^{(1)},\rho ^{(2)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})`$ be an $`n`$–tuple of partitions:

(4.11)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda )=s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda .$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`\sigma (^{}\times ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\mathrm{\Delta }(a^{})`$ for $`a𝐔`$. Here $`\sigma `$ is the exchange of two factors of the tensor product. Since our $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ $`(k>0)`$ are those given in Sect. 3 after applying $``$ we have by Proposition 3.22 and \[23, 3.1.5\] (after noting the difference between our coproduct and the one there)

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i})=\underset{s=0}{\overset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,sd_i}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,(sk)d_i}\hfill \\ \hfill +\text{terms acting as }0\text{ on }v_{\varpi _{j_1}}v_{\varpi _{j_2}}\text{ for }j_1,j_2I_0.\end{array}$$

This and Lemma 4.6 imply that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\lambda _i}(\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i})`$ acts as $`e_k(z_{i,1}^1,\mathrm{},z_{i,\lambda _i}^1)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ where $`e_k`$ is the $`k`$–th elementary symmetric function. Since polynomials in the $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,kd_i}`$ (resp. elementary symmetric functions) generate the Schur functions $`S_{𝐜_0}^{}`$ (resp. $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)`$), we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda )=s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda .`$

Next we consider the image of $`(\lambda )`$ under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda .`$ By Proposition 4.3 every element of $`(\lambda )`$ is connected to an extremal vector of the form $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_{\mathrm{}}t_\lambda u_{\mathrm{}}modq_s(\lambda ).`$ Therefore we have,

(4.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}(\lambda )=\{X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n(\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda ))\hfill \\ \hfill X_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_i\text{ or }\stackrel{~}{f}_i,𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )\}\{0\}.\end{array}$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ commutes with crystal operators, and the $`z_{i,\nu }`$ induce automorphisms of the $`𝐔^{}`$–crystal of $`V(\varpi _i)`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ((\lambda ))\stackrel{˘}{}`$ by Proposition 4.10. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}`$ the induced map $`(\lambda )/q_s(\lambda )\stackrel{˘}{}/q_s\stackrel{˘}{}`$.

###### Proposition 4.13.

Let $`_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$ be the connected component of $`\stackrel{˘}{}`$ containing $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda .`$ Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}:\{bb(\lambda )\}\{\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b^{}𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda ),b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}$$

is a bijection.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}((\lambda ))\{0\}`$ is equal to the right hand side of the above. Using (4.12), we check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}((\lambda ))`$ does not contain $`0`$ and is injective. Let $`b(\lambda )`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b)=0`$. Since $`b`$ is connected by crystal operators to $`b_1t_\lambda u_{\mathrm{}},`$ where $`b_1=\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_{\mathrm{}}modq_s(\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )`$, this implies $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda ))=0`$. This contradicts Proposition 4.10. Now let $`b_1,b_2(\lambda ),b_1b_2`$ and assume $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b_2)`$. By applying crystal operators we may assume $`b_1=\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda )`$ is extremal and purely imaginary, and where $`b_2`$ is of the same weight as $`b_1`$. For $`wW`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda |_{q=0}(X_iS_wb_1)=X_iS_w\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda |_{q=0}(b_1)=X_iS_w\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda |_{q=0}(b_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda |_{q=0}(X_iS_wb_2)=0,$$

where $`X_i`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. Since $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda |_{q=0}(\lambda )=\mathrm{}`$, we have $`X_iS_wb_2=0`$. Therefore, $`b_2`$ is also extremal. Applying a sequence of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$’s (since $`b_2`$ is extremal, this is equivalent to the Weyl group action) we may assume $`b_2=\text{sgn}(𝐜^{},0)S_{𝐜_0^{}}^{}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda )`$ (as in \[18, Theorem 5.1\]). Then we have that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (b_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (b_2)0`$ and also that $`b_1=\text{sgn}(𝐜^{\prime \prime },0)S_{𝐜_0^{\prime \prime }}^{}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda )`$ for some $`𝐜_0^{\prime \prime }`$ purely imaginary in $`𝒞`$ by Proposition 4.3 (ii). But by Proposition 4.10 it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (\text{sgn}(𝐜_0^{},0)S_{𝐜_0^{}}^{}u_\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (\text{sgn}(𝐜_0^{\prime \prime },0)S_{𝐜_0^{\prime \prime }}^{}u_\lambda )`$ only if $`S_{𝐜_0^{}}^{}u_\lambda =S_{𝐜_0^{\prime \prime }}^{}u_\lambda .`$

###### Lemma 4.14.

(i) Let $`𝐜_0`$, $`𝐜_0^{}𝐍^_0(\lambda )`$ and $`b`$, $`b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$. Then $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b=s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)b^{}`$ if and only if $`s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)=s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)p(z)`$ and $`b^{}=p(z)^1b`$ for some $`p(z)=_i(z_{i,1}\mathrm{}z_{i,\lambda _i})^{r_i}`$ ($`r_i𝐙`$).

(ii) For $`b_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$ and $`p(z)`$ as above, we have $`p(z)b_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Recall that for fundamental representations $`V(\varpi _i)`$, we have an isomorphism $`V(\varpi _i)𝐐(q_s)[z_i^\pm ]W(\varpi _i)`$, where $`W(\varpi _i)`$ is the finite dimensional representation (see §2.8). For general $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$, we put

$$W(\lambda )=\underset{iI_0}{}W(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}.$$

This is irreducible and has a global crystal basis $`_W(\lambda )`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )𝐐(q_s)[z_{i,\nu }^\pm ]_{1in,1\nu \lambda _i}W(\lambda ),\\ \stackrel{˘}{}\{\text{monomials in }z_{i,\nu }^\pm \}\times _W(\lambda ).\end{array}$$

Therefore

$$s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b=s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)m(z)b_W,s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)b^{}=s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)m^{}(z)b_W^{},$$

for some monomials $`m`$, $`m^{}`$ and $`b_W`$, $`b_W^{}_W(\lambda )`$. These two are equal if and only if $`b_W=b_W^{}`$ and $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)m(z)=s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)m^{}(z)`$. Then $`p(z)=m(z)/m^{}(z)`$ is a symmetric function which is also a monomial. Therefore it must be of the above form.

(ii) Since $`p(z)`$ commutes with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, we may assume $`b=\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$. For $`w\widehat{W}`$, let $`S_w`$ denote the corresponding crystal operator. Then we have

$$S_w\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda =\underset{i}{}(S_wu_{\varpi _i})^{\lambda _i}$$

by \[2, Lemma 1.6\] since $`(V(\varpi _i))`$ is the affinization of a simple crystal. Let us take $`w=t(_ir_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i)`$. By Lemmas 4.5, 4.6 we get

$$S_w\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda =\underset{i,\nu }{}(z_{i,\nu })^{r_i}\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda =p(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda .$$

Thus $`p(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$ is connected to $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$ in the crystal graph. ∎

Let

$$𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}=\{(\rho ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\rho ^{(n)})\rho ^{(i)}\text{ a partition, }\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)})<\lambda _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

This can be identified with the set of irreducible representations of $`_iSL_{\lambda _i}(𝐂)`$. Any $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )`$ decomposes uniquely as $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)=s_{𝐜_0^{}}(z^1)p(z)`$ with $`𝐜_0^{}𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}`$ and a monomial $`p(z)`$ as in the above lemma. Therefore Proposition 4.13 can be strengthened as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}:(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}\{& \text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b^{}𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{},b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}\hfill \\ & 𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}\times _0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )).\hfill \end{array}$$

A connected component of $`(\lambda )`$ is mapped to $`\{𝐜_0\}\times _0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$ for some $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}`$. In particular, each connected component is isomorphic to each other as a $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}`$-crystal.

###### Corollary 4.15.

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda :V(\lambda )\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )`$ is injective.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}:(\lambda )/q_s(\lambda )\stackrel{˘}{}/q_s\stackrel{˘}{}`$ maps the crystal basis $`(\lambda )`$ bijectively to $`\{\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b^{}𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{},b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}`$, which is linearly independent. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}`$ is injective. Write an element $`v\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ,v0,`$ in terms of the global basis $`\{G(b)b(\lambda )\}`$ as $`v=_bc_b(q_s)G(b).`$ Multiplying by a power of $`q`$ we may assume that each $`c_b(q_s)`$ is regular at $`q=0,`$ so that $`vmodq_s(\lambda )0`$. This implies $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(vmodq_s(\lambda ))0`$, which is a contradiction. ∎

We now state a main result in this subsection:

###### Theorem 4.16.

(i) We have an isomorphism of crystals

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}:(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}\{& \text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b^{}𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{},b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}\hfill \\ & 𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}\times _0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )).\hfill \end{array}$$

A connected component of $`(\lambda )`$ is mapped to $`\{𝐜_0\}\times _0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$ for some $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}`$. Also, any two connected components are isomorphic to each other as $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}`$-crystals.

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ induces a bijection between the sets

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda :G((\lambda ))\{\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)G(b^{})𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{},b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}.$$

(iii) A vector $`b(\lambda )`$ is extremal if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b)=\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)S_w\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda $$

for some $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )^{}`$, $`w\widehat{W}`$.

###### Proof.

(i) is proved already. Let us show (ii). By Proposition 4.13, for each $`b(\lambda )`$ there exist $`b^{}_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$ and $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (b)=s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)b^{}modq_s\stackrel{˘}{}`$. Let $`G(b)`$, $`G(b^{})`$ be the respective globalizations of $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b))s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)G(b^{})modq_s\stackrel{˘}{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ commutes with the bar involution, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b))s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)G(b^{})modq_s^1\overline{\stackrel{˘}{}}`$. We get the assertion.

Let us prove (iii). It is enough to consider the case when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b)_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))`$. As in the proof of Lemma 4.14, we can write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b)=p(z)b_W`$ where $`p(z)=_i(z_{i,1}\mathrm{}z_{i,\lambda _i})^{r_i}`$ ($`r_i𝐙`$) and $`b_W_W(\lambda )`$. Then $`b`$ is extremal if and only if $`b_W`$ is so. Furthermore, $`b_W`$ is extremal if and only if $`b_W=S_{w_0}\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$ for $`w_0W_{\mathrm{cl}}.`$ This follows from \[2, Lemma 1.6\], after noting that (\[18, Theorem 5.15\]) $`W(\varpi _i)`$ has a simple crystal such that the weight of any extremal vector belongs to $`\widehat{W}\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$. Now we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}(b)=p(z)b_W=S_w\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$ for some $`w\widehat{W}`$ as in the proof of Lemma 4.14. ∎

###### Remark 4.17.

Taken together the results of this section and $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)=1`$, which will be proved in the next section, give the conjectures \[18, 13.1, 13.2\]. To obtain 13.1 (iii), consider that the crystal $`_{iI_0}(\lambda _i\varpi _i)`$ is by Proposition 4.13 in bijective correspondence with $`\{s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)_0(\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda ))\}`$, and note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ factors through $`_{iI_0}V(\lambda _i\varpi _i)`$.

### 4.3. A Peter–Weyl type decomposition theorem

Let $`_0(\lambda )`$ be the connected component of $`(\lambda )`$ containing $`u_\lambda `$. Consider $`_{\lambda P}_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )`$ as a crystal over $`𝔤𝔤`$. Here for $`uv_0(\lambda )(\lambda )`$, $`X_i(uv)=X_iuv`$ and $`X_i^{}(uv)=uX_iv`$ where ($`X_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$). The Weyl group $`\widehat{W}`$ acts on $`_{\lambda P}_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )`$ by $`S_w^{}\times S_w^{}:_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )_0(w\lambda )\times (w\lambda )`$.

Consider the map $`_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )(𝐔a_\lambda )`$, which sends $`u_\lambda b_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )`$ to $`b^{}(𝐔a_\lambda )`$. We will show that this is well-defined later. It is a map between crystals over $`𝔤𝔤`$ where the usual crystal structure on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ corresponds to the one on $`_0(\lambda )`$ and the star crystal structure on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ corresponds to the one on $`(\lambda )`$. We have

###### Theorem 4.18.

$`\left(_{\lambda P}_0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )\right)/\widehat{W}\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ as crystals over $`𝔤𝔤`$.

###### Proof.

When $`c,\lambda 0`$, the $`(𝐔a_\lambda )`$ part of the crystal decomposition in Theorem 4.18 appears as \[17, Proposition 10.2.2\]. Therefore, it is sufficient to check the map in Theorem 4.18 for $`\lambda P^0`$, where the image on the right hand side is in $`(𝐔a_\lambda ).`$

The following proof is a modification of a result of Nakashima \[31, Proposition 4.4\]. We give it for the sake of the reader.

We first prove

For any extremal vector $`b(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$, there exists a crystal embedding:

$$_0(\mathrm{wt}(b))(\stackrel{~}{𝐔}),$$

given by $`u_{\mathrm{wt}(b)}b`$.

Let $`b(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ be extremal of weight $`\lambda `$ and $`B^{}`$ be connected component containing $`b`$. We want to prove $`B^{}_0(\mathrm{wt}(b))`$. By \[17, Corollary 9.3.4\] the connected component $`B^{}`$ of $`b`$ can be embedded into some $`(\mu )`$ for some $`\mu P^0.`$ For each $`w\widehat{W}`$, we have $`S_w^{}((\mu ))\stackrel{}{}(w\mu )`$. Using this Weyl group action, and noting that for $`\mathrm{cl}(\mu )=\mathrm{cl}(\mu ^{}),(\mu )\stackrel{}{}(\mu ^{})`$ as $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ crystals, we may assume $`\mu =_{i=1}^nm_i\varpi _iP_0^+`$. By Theorem 4.16(iii), (i), we have that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (b)=\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)S_w\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu `$ for fixed $`𝐜_0𝒞,w\widehat{W}`$, and $`B^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`B_0(\mu )`$ as a $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}`$–crystal, so that $`b`$ is mapped to $`S_wu_\mu `$. This is further isomorphic to $`B_0(\lambda )`$ so that $`b`$ is mapped to $`u_\lambda `$. But since $`\mathrm{wt}(b)=\mathrm{wt}(u_\lambda )=\lambda `$ this is also an isomorphism of $`P`$–crystals. This completes the proof of $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟏})`$.

We now define a map $`\phi :_\lambda _0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ by

$$\phi (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nu_\lambda b)=X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nb^{},$$

where $`X_j=\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. By $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟏})`$ this is well-defined, i.e., (a) if $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nu_\lambda =0`$, then $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nb^{}=0`$, and (b) if $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nu_\lambda =X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}u_\lambda `$, then $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nb^{}=X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}b^{}`$. $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟏})`$ is applicable since $`b^{}`$ is extremal of weight $`\lambda `$ for $`b(\lambda )`$.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{}`$ commute with $`\stackrel{~}{e}_j`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_j`$ on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ (\[17, Theorem 5.1.1\]), $`\phi `$ is a morphism of bi-crystal. Since any connected component of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$ contains an extremal vector (\[17, Corollary 9.3.3\]), the map $`\phi `$ is surjective.

Finally we show that $`\phi `$ becomes injective if we divide $`_\lambda _0(\lambda )\times (\lambda )`$ by $`\widehat{W}`$. Suppose $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nb^{}=X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}b^{}`$ where each $`X_j,X_j^{}^{}=\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, $`b(\lambda )`$, $`b^{}(\lambda ^{})`$. Then $`b^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are in the same connected component of $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔})`$, which is isomorphic to $`_0(\lambda )`$ by $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟏})`$. By Theorem 4.16(iii), we have $`b^{}=S_wb^{}`$ for some $`w\widehat{W}`$. In particular, $`\lambda ^{}=w\lambda `$. We have $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nb^{}=X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}S_wb^{}.`$ $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟏})`$ implies $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nu_\lambda =X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}S_wu_\lambda .`$ The isomorphism $`S_w^{}:_0(\lambda )_0(w\lambda )`$ sends $`u_\lambda `$ to $`S_w^1u_{w\lambda }=S_w^1u_\lambda ^{}`$. Therefore

$$X_1^{}X_2^{}\mathrm{}X_N^{}^{}u_\lambda ^{}b^{}=(S_w^{}\times S_w^{})(X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_Nu_\lambda b).$$

###### Remark 4.19.

In  a condition labeled $`(\mathrm{𝐂𝟐})`$ requiring $`_0(\lambda )_\lambda =\{u_\lambda \}`$ is used. This is false in general. A counter-example for type $`A_2^{(1)}`$ can be found in \[18, 5.10\].

## 5. The proof of Theorem 3.13(ii)

In this section we will complete the proof of Theorem 3.13. The proof uses results in the previous section, in particular extremal weight modules.

###### Remark 5.1.

Since we are working with generators in $`𝐔^+`$ we will need to consider the extremal weight modules $`V(\lambda )`$, $`\lambda P_+^0`$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`\lambda P_+^0`$ and $`𝐜_0𝐍^_0(\lambda )`$. Then $`S_{𝐜_0}u_\lambda G((\lambda )).`$

###### Proof.

We have $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)S_{𝐜_0}u_\lambda G((\lambda ))`$ by Proposition 4.10 and Theorem 4.16. So we only need to show $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)=1`$. Therefore it is enough to show $`S_{𝐜_0}u_\mu G((\mu ))`$ for some $`\mu `$. We check this by induction on $`_i|\rho ^{(i)}|`$. Take $`\mu =_i\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)})\varpi _i`$. Fix an $`i`$ and consider $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ obtained by removing the last box in each row of $`\rho ^{(i)}`$. Let $`𝐜_0^{}`$ be the set of partitions we get by replacing $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ by $`\rho ^{(i)}.`$

By Lemma 4.5 and the Pieri rules for symmetric functions \[26, p. 73\],

$$S_{𝐜_0^{}}S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}u_\mu =S_{𝐜_0^{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,\mu _id_i}u_\mu =S_{𝐜_0}u_\mu ,$$

where $`\mu _i=\mathrm{}(\rho ^{(i)})`$. A priori, the right hand side is a sum over all $`S_{𝐜_0}u_\mu `$ such that $`𝐜_0`$ is an $`n`$–tuple of partitions which are identical to $`𝐜_0^{}`$ in factors different than $`i`$, and for $`i`$ we have $`\rho ^{(i)}\rho ^{(i)}`$ is a vertical $`\mu _i`$ strip. But there is only one such summand. (Under the identification between Schur functions and irreducible representations of $`G_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{i,\mu _id_i}`$ is identified with a power of the determinant representation. So the tensor product of it with an irreducible representation remains irreducible.)

Let us note the following fact: If $`\lambda ^{}P^0`$ and $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _iP_+^0`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{cl}(\lambda ^{})=\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )`$ then $`u_{\mathrm{}}t_\lambda b_2(\lambda )u_{\mathrm{}}t_\lambda ^{}b_2(\lambda ^{})`$ (see \[18, Appendix\]). In other words, $`S_{𝐜_0}u_\lambda modq_s(\lambda )(\lambda )S_{𝐜_0}u_\lambda ^{}modq_s(\lambda ^{})(\lambda ^{})`$. Then by the inductive assumption, $`S_{𝐜_0^{}}u_{\mu _id_i\delta \mu }`$ is an element of the global crystal basis. Therefore $`S_{𝐜_0}u_\mu =S_{𝐜_0^{}}S_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}u_\mu `$ is also in the global basis, since the isomorphism $`V(\mu _id_i\delta \mu )\stackrel{}{}V(\mu )`$ sends the global basis to the global basis (see \[17, Prop. 8.2.2 (iv)\]). ∎

###### Proof of $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,p)=1`$ in Proposition 3.27.

Let $`𝐜_0𝒞`$ be purely imaginary. In the proof of Lemma 5.2 we have shown $`\text{sgn}(𝐜_0,0)=1.`$ From \[25, Proposition 8.3(a)\] we have $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,0)=1`$ for an arbitrary $`𝐜`$. The general case now follows from \[25, Theorem 1.2\] (see §2.6). ∎

Let $`b(𝐜,p)`$ as in Proposition 3.27. We denote $`G(b(𝐜,p))`$ by $`G(𝐜,p)`$. By the same argument in the proof of \[23, 42.1.12\], we have

(5.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _{i_p}(b(𝐜,p))=𝐜(p)\text{(hence }G(𝐜,p)E_{i_p}^{𝐜(p)}𝐔^+\text{)},\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_{i_p}(b(𝐜,p))=b(𝐜^+,p),\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_{i_p}(b(𝐜,p))=b(𝐜^{},p)\text{if }𝐜(p)>0,\end{array}$$

where $`𝐜^+`$ (resp. $`𝐜^{}`$) is defined by setting $`𝐜^+(p)=𝐜(p)+1`$ (resp. $`𝐜^{}(p)=𝐜(p)1`$) and other entries are the same as $`𝐜`$. We have similar formulas for $`\phi _{i_{p+1}}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{i_{p+1}}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_{p+1}}^{}`$.

Let $`𝐔^+[i]`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i]`$, $`{}_{}{}^{i}\pi `$, $`\pi ^i`$ be as in §2.6. By (5.3) we have

(5.4)
$${}_{}{}^{i_p}\pi (G(𝐜,p))0𝐜(p)=0\pi ^{i_p}(G(𝐜,p1))0,$$

and

(5.5)
$$T_{i_p}({}_{}{}^{i_p}\pi (G(𝐜,p)))=\pi ^{i_p}(G(𝐜,p1)).$$

The latter follows from (3.10) (see \[25, §6.2\] for detail).

Let us define $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^p𝐐(q_s)`$ by

$$L(𝐜,p)=\underset{𝐜^{}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^pG(𝐜^{},p).$$

The sum is over a finite set of $`𝐜^{}𝒞`$ indexing all elements $`G(𝐜,p)𝐔^+`$ having the same weight with $`L(𝐜,p)`$. Since the global basis is an integral base of $`A𝐔^+`$ and $`(\mathrm{})`$ we have $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}𝒜𝐀_{\mathrm{}}=𝐙[𝓆_𝓈^\mathcal{1}]`$. We also have $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}|_{q=\mathrm{}}=\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}`$ by Proposition 3.27 together with $`\text{sgn}(𝐜,p)=1`$. Theorem 3.13(ii) follows from

###### Lemma 5.6.

The transition matrix $`(a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}})`$ between the global basis and the $`L(𝐜,p)`$, $`𝐜𝒞,p𝐙`$ is upper triangular with respect to the ordering $`_p`$, and the diagonal entries are $`1`$.

###### Proof.

We first consider the case $`𝐜_+=0=𝐜_{}`$, so that

$$L(𝐜,p)=T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0})\text{or}T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0}).$$

In this case, by Lemma 5.2 we know that $`L(𝐜,p)u_\lambda `$ is in the global basis of $`V(\lambda )`$ for any sufficiently large $`\lambda P_+^0`$. Therefore $`(L(𝐜,p)G(𝐜,p))u_\lambda =0`$ for any sufficiently large $`\lambda P_+^0`$, i.e.,

$$\underset{𝐜^{}𝐜}{}(a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^p\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}})G(𝐜^{},p)u_\lambda =0.$$

By the construction of $`V(\lambda )`$, $`\{G(𝐜^{},p)u_\lambda 𝐜^{}𝒞\}`$ is mapped to the union of the global basis of $`V(\lambda )`$ and $`0`$. Hence

$$a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^p=\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}\text{or}G(𝐜^{},p)u_\lambda =0.$$

If $`𝐜_+^{}=0=𝐜_{}^{}`$, then

$$G(𝐜^{},p)u_\lambda =T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0^{}})u_\lambda \text{or}T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1\mathrm{}T_{i_2}^1T_{i_1}^1(S_{𝐜_0^{}})u_\lambda $$

is nonzero for sufficiently large $`\lambda `$. This means that $`a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^p=\delta _{𝐜,𝐜^{}}`$ for such $`𝐜^{}`$. By the definition of the ordering, the remaining $`𝐜^{}`$’s have $`𝐜^{}_p𝐜`$. We have the assertion in this case.

Next consider the case $`𝐜(p+1)=𝐜(p+2)=\mathrm{}=0`$, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L(𝐜,p)=& \left(E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}T_{i_p}^1(E_{i_{p1}}^{(𝐜(p1))})T_{i_p}^1T_{i_{p1}}^1(E_{i_{p2}}^{(𝐜(p2))})\mathrm{}\right)\hfill \\ & \times T_{i_{p+1}}T_{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}T_{i_0}(S_{𝐜_0}).\hfill \end{array}$$

We prove the assertion by the induction on $`q`$ such that $`𝐜(pq)=𝐜(pq1)=\mathrm{}=0`$. When $`q=0`$, we have $`𝐜_+=0=𝐜_{}`$, which we have checked already.

First assume $`𝐜(p)=0`$. We consider $`L(𝐜,p1)=T_{i_p}L(𝐜,p)`$ (see (3.10)). By the induction hypothesis, we have

$$L(𝐜,p1)=G(𝐜,p1)+\underset{𝐜_{p1}𝐜^{}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p1}G(𝐜^{},p1).$$

We apply the composition $`T_{i_p}^1\pi ^{i_p}`$ to both sides. We have $`L(𝐜,p1){}_{}{}^{}𝐔_{}^{+}[i_p]`$, so the left hand side becomes $`L(𝐜,p)`$. Therefore

$$L(𝐜,p)=T_{i_p}^1(\pi ^{i_p}(G(𝐜,p1)))+\underset{𝐜_{p1}𝐜^{}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p1}T_{i_p}^1(\pi ^{i_p}(G(𝐜^{},p1))).$$

By (5.5) the right hand side is contained in

$$G(𝐜,p)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝐜_{p1}𝐜^{}\\ 𝐜^{}(p)=0\end{array}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p1}G(𝐜^{},p)+E_{i_p}𝐔^+.$$

The condition $`𝐜^{}(p)=0`$ comes from $`{}_{}{}^{i_p}\pi (G(𝐜^{},p1))0`$ (see (5.4)). The part in $`E_{i_p}𝐔^+`$ is a linear combination of $`G(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)`$’s with $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }(p)>0`$. Each such $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }`$ is greater than $`𝐜`$ with respect to $`_p`$. The summation in the second term can be replaced as $`_{𝐜_p𝐜^{},𝐜^{}(p)=0}`$ by (3.12). Thus we have the assertion under the assumption $`𝐜(p)=0`$.

Next we assume $`𝐜(p)>0`$. Let us define $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}`$ by setting $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}(p)=0`$ and all other entries are the same as $`𝐜`$. We have

$$L(𝐜,p)=E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p).$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}(p)=0`$, we have just proved

(5.7)
$$L(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)=G(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)+\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}_p\stackrel{~}{𝐜}}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{𝐜},\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}}^pG(\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{},p).$$

By \[23, 14.3\], $`E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}G(\stackrel{~}{𝐜},p)=G(𝐜,p)`$ plus an element in $`E_{i_p}^{𝐜(p)+1}𝐔^+`$. If we write the element in a linear combination of $`G(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)`$’s, all elements appearing satisfy $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }_p𝐜`$ by (5.3). Next consider $`E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}G(\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{},p),`$ obtained from (5.7) by multiplication by $`E_{i_p}^{(𝐜(p))}`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}(p)>0`$, then this is an element in $`E_{i_p}^{𝐜(p)+1}𝐔^+`$. Otherwise, it is equal to $`G(𝐜^{},p)`$ plus an element in $`E_{i_p}^{𝐜(p)+1}𝐔^+`$, where $`𝐜^{}`$ is defined by setting $`𝐜^{}(p)=𝐜(p)`$ and all other entries are the same as $`\stackrel{~}{𝐜}^{}`$. In either cases, it is a linear combination of elements $`G(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)`$ with $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }_p𝐜`$. Thus we have the assertion for $`G(𝐜,p)`$.

Finally we consider the general case. We first remark

(5.8)
$$(𝐜(p),𝐜(p1),𝐜(p2),\mathrm{})(𝐜^{}(p),𝐜^{}(p1),𝐜^{}(p2),\mathrm{}).$$

This is proved by the induction on $`q`$ such that $`𝐜(pq)=𝐜(pq1)=\mathrm{}=0`$. When $`q=0`$, the left hand side is $`(0,0,\mathrm{})`$, so the inequality trivially holds. The remaining argument of the induction is exactly the same as above.

Now we can prove the assertion of the lemma by the induction on $`q`$ such that $`𝐜(p+q)=𝐜(p+q+1)=\mathrm{}=0`$. When $`q=1`$, we are reduced to the case studied above, and have the assertion. The remaining argument is almost the same as above. When $`𝐜(p+1)=0`$, we apply the induction hypothesis to $`L(𝐜,p+1)`$ and consider $`T_{i_{p+1}}{}_{}{}^{i_{p+1}}\pi L(𝐜,p+1)`$. We use (5.5) to get

$$L(𝐜,p)G(𝐜,p)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}𝐜_{p+1}𝐜^{}\\ 𝐜^{}(\beta _{p+1})=0\end{array}}{}a_{𝐜,𝐜^{}}^{p+1}G(𝐜^{},p)+𝐔^+E_{i_{p+1}}.$$

The summation in the second part can be replaced as $`_{𝐜_p𝐜^{},𝐜^{}(p+1)=0}`$ by (3.12). The part in $`𝐔^+E_{i_{p+1}}`$ is a linear combination of $`G(𝐜^{\prime \prime },p)`$’s with $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }(p+1)>0`$. Since we already have (5.8) (with $`𝐜^{}`$ replaced by $`𝐜^{\prime \prime }`$), we have $`𝐜_p𝐜^{\prime \prime }`$. We have the assertion in the case $`𝐜(p+1)=0`$. The case $`𝐜(p+1)>0`$ can be reduced to the case $`𝐜(p+1)=0`$ as above with use of (5.8). ∎

## 6. Cell structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$.

In this section we prove Lusztig’s conjecture  on two–sided cells of the modified quantum affine algebra of level $`0`$. Our strategy follows the same line as his proof of the corresponding conjecture for finite type cases. However, here we need to show that a certain bi-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ has a global crystal basis, whereas for finite type cases this assertion is a direct consequence of the definition. In defining $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$, our earlier results on extremal weight modules play a key role. Their role is analogous to the role that dominant highest weight representations play in the finite type case.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ be the level $`0`$ modified quantum affine algebra, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0}𝐔a_\lambda .`$ Unfortunately this contradicts the notation in Sect. 4, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ was $`_{\lambda P}𝐔a_\lambda `$, but we do not want to introduce new notation. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be its crystal lattice, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be its crystal base.

Throughout this section, $`\lambda `$ is a dominant classical level $`0`$ weight, i.e., $`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0=_{iI_0}𝐙_0\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)`$, except in the proof of Theorem 6.29. Let $`V(\lambda )`$ be the extremal weight module of weight $`\lambda `$. A priori, it is defined for $`\lambda P^0`$, but its $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-module structure depends only on $`\mathrm{cl}(\lambda )`$.

### 6.1. A bi-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$

###### Definition 6.1.

For $`b(\lambda )`$, we denote by $`G_\lambda (b)`$ the corresponding element in the global basis of $`V(\lambda )`$. If we consider $`b`$ as an element of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, we denote by $`G(b)`$ the corresponding element in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$.

Denote $`\mathrm{\#}=`$. It is an involutive anti-automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$. By \[17, 4.3.2\] it leaves the global crystal basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ invariant. (The result was proved for $``$, but the same proof works for $``$.) We have

###### Lemma 6.2 (\[23, 19.1.1\], \[24, 3.7\]).

Let $`xa_\lambda \stackrel{~}{𝐔}a_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\nu =\lambda \lambda ^{}`$. Then

(6.3)
$$\psi (x)=q^{(\nu ,\lambda +\lambda ^{})/2}x^\mathrm{\#}.$$

We denote by $``$ the dominance partial order on the level $`0`$ classical weights relative to the fundamental level zero weights $`\mathrm{cl}(\varpi _i)P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ defined in $`\mathrm{\S }2.6`$.

Let us give a slightly different parametrization of $`(\lambda )`$ from that of Sect. 4. Let $`W(\lambda )`$, $`_W(\lambda )`$ be as in the proof of Lemma 4.14. We have maps

$$_0(\lambda )\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda |q=0}}{}\{\text{monomials in }z_{i,\nu }^\pm \}\times _W(\lambda )\stackrel{\text{projection}}{}_W(\lambda ).$$

The composition is surjective since $`_W(\lambda )`$ is connected by \[2, Lemmas 1.9, 1.10\]. By Lemma 4.14 each fiber is identified with the set of monomials $`p(z)=_i(z_{i,1}\mathrm{}z_{i,\lambda _i})^{r_i}`$ ($`r_i𝐙`$). We choose and fix a section $`_W(\lambda )_0(\lambda )`$. (We do not require that it respect the crystal structure.) Then we have an identification (of sets, not of crystals)

(6.4)
$$(\lambda )\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda ),$$

where $`G_\lambda =_iGL_{\lambda _i}(𝐂)`$, and $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ is the set of irreducible representations of $`G_\lambda `$. We identify $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ with the set of Schur Laurent polynomials in $`\{z_{i,\nu }^\pm \}`$. We denote by $`s(z)`$ the polynomial corresponding to $`s`$.

###### Definition 6.5.

For $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ we define $`SG((\lambda ))`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (Su_\lambda )=s(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$. The existence and uniqueness are guaranteed in Theorem 4.16(ii). If $`s`$ is the dual of a polynomial representation and corresponds to $`𝐜_0`$, we have $`S=S_{𝐜_0}^{}u_\lambda `$ by Proposition 4.10. We also regard $`S`$ as an element in $`G((𝐔a_\lambda ))`$.

We will use the correspondence between $`sS`$ hereafter.

###### Definition 6.6.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$) be the two–sided ideal of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ consisting of all elements $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ acting on $`V(\lambda ^{})`$ by $`0`$ for any $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$ (resp. $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$). Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$. We define $`{}_{𝒜}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$, $`{}_{𝒜}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ and $`{}_{𝒜}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ in an analogous manner.

For $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}P_+`$ let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$) be the image of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$) under the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})`$ given by $`xx(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}/\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$.

###### Lemma 6.7.

(i) $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ is invariant under $`\overline{\text{}}`$.

(ii) For any $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}P_+`$, the $`𝐔`$-submodules $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ of $`V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})`$ are invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{(n)}`$ defined in §2.5.

###### Proof.

(i) The bar involution $`\overline{\text{}}`$ on $`V(\lambda )`$ satisfies $`\overline{xu}=\overline{x}\overline{u}`$ for $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$, $`uV(\lambda )`$. The assertion follows.

(ii) Let $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. We have

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{(n)}x(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})=\underset{k}{}F_i^{(n+k)}E_i^{(k)}a_k^n(t_i)x(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}),$$

where all but finitely many terms of the sum are $`0`$. Since each $`F_i^{(n+k)}E_i^{(k)}a_k^n(t_i)x`$ is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$, we have the assertion. ∎

###### Lemma 6.8 (cf. \[24, 4.5\]).

(i) $`𝐔a_\lambda ,a_\lambda 𝐔\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$.

(ii) For $`b(𝐔a_\lambda )`$, $`G(b)\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ if and only if $`b(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Let $`xa_\lambda 𝐔a_\lambda `$. If $`xa_\lambda `$ acts on $`V(\lambda ^{})`$ by a nonzero map, then so does $`a_\lambda `$. Since $`a_\lambda `$ is a projector to the weight space with weight $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda `$ is a weight of $`V(\lambda ^{})`$. Therefore we have $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$. Similarly, we have $`a_\lambda 𝐔\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$.

(ii) Let us first remark that $`V(\lambda )_\lambda `$ has a basis $`\{Su_\lambda s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$. This follows from results in Sect. 4. Note that $`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$ in this section, and the weight space is a direct sum of weight spaces $`V(\lambda )_\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{cl}(\mu )=\lambda `$.

Let $`b(𝐔a_\lambda )`$. Then $`G(b)=0`$ as an operator on $`V(\lambda )`$ if and only if $`G(b)Su_\lambda =0`$ for any $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$. This is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b)Su_\lambda )=s(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b)u_\lambda )=0`$, and in particular $`G(b)u_\lambda =0`$. If $`b(\lambda )`$, then $`G(b)u_\lambda `$ is nothing but $`G_\lambda (b)`$. In particular, it is nonzero. If $`b(\lambda )`$, then $`G(b)u_\lambda =0`$ by the definition of $`V(\lambda )`$. ∎

Let $`(,)_\lambda `$ be the bilinear form on $`V(\lambda )`$ satisfying $`(xu,v)_\lambda =(u,\psi (x)v)_\lambda `$ for $`u,vV(\lambda )`$, $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ and $`(u_\lambda ,G_\lambda (b))_\lambda =1`$ or $`0`$ according to $`G_\lambda (b)=u_\lambda `$ or not (see Proposition 2.18).

###### Proposition 6.9.

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ is invariant under $`\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ is a direct sum of its intersection with $`a_\lambda ^{}𝐔a_{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}`$, by (6.3) it is enough to show that $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ if and only if $`\psi (x)\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. The global crystal basis is almost orthonormal, that is $`(G_\lambda (b),G_\lambda (b^{}))_\lambda \delta _{bb^{}}+q_s𝐀_0.`$ (see Theorem 2.21). In particular, it is non-degenerate on $`V(\lambda )`$. Therefore, $`x\mathrm{Ann}V(\lambda )(xG_\lambda (b),G_\lambda (b^{}))`$ for all $`b,b^{}(\lambda )(G_\lambda (b),\psi (x)G_\lambda (b^{}))=0\psi (x)\mathrm{Ann}V(\lambda ).`$ It follows $`x\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ if and only if $`\psi (x)\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.10.

Since Proposition 6.9 implies $`x\mathrm{Ann}V(\lambda )`$ if and only if $`x^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Ann}V(\lambda )`$, Lemma 6.8 implies that $`b(\lambda )`$ if and only if $`G(b)^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ for $`b(𝐔a_\lambda )`$.

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ is integrable as a $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-module by Theorem 2.16. In particular, the operators $`T_w`$ are defined.

###### Lemma 6.11.

Let $`b(\lambda )`$. Then $`G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ is an extremal vector in the $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$.

###### Proof.

We show that $`S_{i_1}\mathrm{}S_{i_N}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ is $`i`$-extremal for all $`iI`$ by induction on $`N`$.

If $`N=0`$, we need to show that $`e_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}`$ or $`f_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}`$ acts on $`V(\lambda )`$ by $`0`$ for each $`iI`$. In other words if and only if $`e_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}`$ or $`f_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$. Note that $`G(b)^\mathrm{\#}=a_\lambda G(b)^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`a_\lambda `$ is a projector to the weight space of weight $`\lambda `$. Since $`V(\lambda )_\lambda `$ has a basis $`\{Su_\lambda s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$ consisting of extremal vectors, we are done. Moreover, we have $`S_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=a_{s_i\lambda }S_iG(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$.

We show the statement for $`N`$ assuming the statement for $`N1`$. By the induction hypothesis and the last part of the above argument, $`S_{i_2}\mathrm{}S_{i_N}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ is $`i`$-extremal for $`iI`$ and

$$S_{i_1}\mathrm{}S_{i_N}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=a_{s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_N}\lambda }S_{i_1}\mathrm{}S_{i_N}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ].$$

Since $`V(\lambda )_{s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_N}\lambda }`$ is spanned by extremal vectors, we are done. ∎

By Lemma 6.11, for each $`b(\lambda )`$ we have a unique $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_b:V(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ],$$

which sends $`u_\lambda `$ to $`G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$. By definition, we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_b(G_\lambda (b_1))=G(b_1)G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ].$$

###### Lemma 6.12.

Let $`b_1,b_2(\lambda )`$. Then

$$G(b_1)^\mathrm{\#}G(b_2)q^n\underset{s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}(G_\lambda (b_2),G(b_1)Su_\lambda )_\lambda Sa_\lambda mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],$$

where $`n=(\mathrm{wt}b_1,2\lambda +\mathrm{wt}b_1)/2`$ and $`S`$ is an element corresponding to $`s`$ by Definition 6.5.

###### Proof.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ is a two-sided ideal of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$, both sides are in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. Therefore it is enough to show that both sides define the same operator on $`V(\lambda )`$. Since we have $`G(b_1)^\mathrm{\#}G(b_2)u_\lambda =a_\lambda G(b_1)^\mathrm{\#}G(b_2)u_\lambda `$, it is contained in the weight space $`V(\lambda )_\lambda `$. We have a basis $`\{Su_\lambda \}`$ which is orthonormal by \[30, Proposition 4.10\]. Hence we have

$$G(b_1)^\mathrm{\#}G(b_2)u_\lambda =\underset{s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}(G(b_1)^\mathrm{\#}G(b_2)u_\lambda ,Su_\lambda )_\lambda Su_\lambda .$$

Now the assertion follows from (6.3). ∎

###### Lemma 6.13.

Let $`S`$ correspond to $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ as in Definition 6.5. We consider it as an element in $`G((𝐔a_\lambda ))`$. Then $`S^\mathrm{\#}`$ corresponds to the dual representation of $`s`$, which will be denoted by $`s^\mathrm{\#}`$ hereafter.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6.2 we have $`(S^\mathrm{\#}u_\lambda ,S_1u_\lambda )=(u_\lambda ,SS_1u_\lambda )`$ for any $`s_1\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$. By \[30, 4.10\] we have $`(u_\lambda ,SS_1u_\lambda )=(\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (Su_\lambda ),\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (SS_1u_\lambda ))=(\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda ,s(z)s_1(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda )^{}`$, where $`(,)^{}`$ is a bilinear form on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ defined in \[loc.cit. §4\]. By a property of $`(,)^{}`$, we have

$$(\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda ,s(z)s_1(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda )^{}=(s(z^1)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda ,s_1(z)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda )^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }s(z^1)=s_1(z),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

(See an equation in the middle of \[loc.cit., Proof of 4.9\] and \[loc.cit., Proof of 4.10\]). Since $`\{Su_\lambda \}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`V(\lambda )_\lambda `$, this means $`S^\mathrm{\#}u_\lambda `$ corresponds to the Schur Laurent polynomial $`s(z^1)`$, which corresponds to the dual representation of $`s`$ in turn. ∎

###### Lemma 6.14.

Let $`(s,b)\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ be the corresponding element in $`B(\lambda )`$ under the identification (6.4). We have

$$G(b)SG(\stackrel{~}{b})mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],S^\mathrm{\#}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}G(\stackrel{~}{b})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ].$$

###### Proof.

By the construction of (6.4), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(\stackrel{~}{b})u_\lambda )=s(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G_\lambda (b))=s(z)G(b)\stackrel{~}{u}_\lambda `$. By Definition 6.5, this is equal to $`G(b)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (Su_\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b)Su_\lambda )`$. Therefore we have $`G(b)Su_\lambda =G(\stackrel{~}{b})u_\lambda `$.

Let us consider the first equation of the assertion. Since both sides of the equation are in $`𝐔a_\lambda `$, the result follows from Lemma 6.8(ii) if we prove that they define the same operators on $`V(\lambda )`$. Since $`V(\lambda )_\lambda `$ is spanned by $`\{S_1u_\lambda s_1\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$, it is enough to show $`G(b)SS_1u_\lambda =G(\stackrel{~}{b})S_1u_\lambda `$ for every $`S_1`$. Consider the embedding $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda :V(\lambda )\stackrel{˘}{V}(\lambda )`$ as in Corollary 4.15. By Proposition 4.10 and the fact that $`s_{𝐜_0}(z^1)`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-linear, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b)SS_1u_\lambda )=s_1(z^1)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(b)Su_\lambda )=s_1(z^1)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(\stackrel{~}{b})u_\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (G(\stackrel{~}{b})S^{}u_\lambda ).$$

We get the assertion by the injectivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$.

The second equation follows from the first together with Proposition 6.9. ∎

###### Lemma 6.15.

Let $`s_1,s_2\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$. Let $`S_1`$, $`S_2G((𝐔a_\lambda ))`$ be the corresponding elements by Definition 6.5. We have

$$S_1S_2\underset{s}{}c_{s_1s_2}^sSmod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],$$

where $`s_1s_2=_sc_{s_1s_2}^ss`$.

###### Proof.

Since both sides are in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$, it is enough to show that they define the same operator on $`V(\lambda )`$. As in the proof of Lemma 6.14, it follows from $`S_1S_2u_\lambda =_sc_{s_1s_2}^sSu_\lambda `$. But this follows directly from Definition 6.5. ∎

###### Definition 6.16.

For $`b,b^{}_W(\lambda )`$, $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ we set

$$G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})=G(b)SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(G(b)Su_\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ].$$

The following is a direct consequence of Lemma 6.12.

###### Lemma 6.17.

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G_\lambda (b_1,s_1,b_1^{})G_\lambda (b_2,s_2,b_2^{})\hfill \\ \hfill =& q^n\underset{s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}(G(b_2)S_2u_\lambda ,G(b_1^{})S^{\prime \prime }u_\lambda )_\lambda G(b_1)S_1S^{\prime \prime }G(b_2^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`n=(\mathrm{wt}b_1^{},2\lambda +\mathrm{wt}b_1^{})/2`$.

###### Lemma 6.18.

$`\left\{G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})\right|b,b^{}_W(\lambda ),s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$ is linearly independent.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`_{b,b^{},s}a_{b,b^{},s}G(b)SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}`$ acts on $`V(\lambda )`$ by $`0`$. Then for any $`b_1(\lambda )`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =\underset{b,b^{},s}{}a_{b,b^{},s}G(b)SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}G_\lambda (b_1)\hfill \\ & =\underset{b,b^{},s}{}a_{b,b^{},s}G(b)\left(G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}\right)^\mathrm{\#}G_\lambda (b_1)\hfill \\ & =\underset{b,b^{},s,s^{}}{}a_{b,b^{},s}q^{n(b^{})}(G_\lambda (b_1),G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}S^{}u_\lambda )_\lambda G(b)S^{}u_\lambda ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`n(b^{})=(\mathrm{wt}b^{},2\lambda +\mathrm{wt}b^{})/2`$. Here we have used Lemma 6.12 in the third equality. Since $`\{G(b)S^{}u_\lambda b_W(\lambda ),s^{}\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$ is linearly independent, we have

$$\underset{b^{},s}{}a_{b,b^{},s}q^{n(b^{})}(G_\lambda (b_1),G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}S^{}u_\lambda )_\lambda =0$$

for any $`b`$, $`b_1`$, $`s^{}`$. This equality for $`s^{}=1`$, together with the nondegeneracy of $`(,)_\lambda `$ and linearly independence of $`\{G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}u_\lambda \}`$ imply $`a_{b,b^{},s}=0`$. ∎

###### Definition 6.19.

For $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=((\xi )(\xi ^{}))\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=((\xi )(\xi ^{}))\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}/\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ be the $`𝐀_0`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ consisting of elements whose images under $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ are in $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ for any $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ be the $`𝐀_0`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ consisting of elements whose images under $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ are in $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ for any $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$. By the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ (see \[23, Part IV\]), this is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ in the similar way.

###### Lemma 6.20.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}((\lambda ))\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ for $`b^{}_W(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

The homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}:V(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ intertwines the operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ (see Lemma 6.7(ii)), it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(Su_\lambda )\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ].`$ This follows from Lemma 6.14 as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(Su_\lambda )=SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$. ∎

Most importantly, we have $`G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. Also more generally, Lemma 6.20 holds for $`b^{}(\lambda )`$ thanks to Lemma 6.15.

###### Definition 6.21.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ be the subset of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ consisting of elements which are connected to $`(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$ in the crystal graph. It has an induced bi-crystal structure from $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. By Theorem 4.16 $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]=\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]`$ if $`\mu \widehat{W}\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]=\mathrm{}`$ otherwise. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ ($`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$) are mutually disjoint.

###### Remark 6.22.

We will see that this definition coincides with a more obvious definition of $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$, i.e., the set of all elements $`b\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that $`G(b)\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ and such that $`G(b)`$ acts on $`V(\lambda )`$ non–trivially. We will show, in fact, that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ has a bi-crystal basis given by $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$.

As a first step we have

###### Proposition 6.23.

There exists an isomorphism of bi-crystals

$$\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^\mathrm{\#}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^\mathrm{\#}`$ of the right hand side are defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b,s,b^{})=(\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b,s),b^{}),\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b,s,b^{})=(\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b,s),b^{}),\\ \stackrel{~}{e}_i^\mathrm{\#}(b,s,b^{})=(b,(\mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{\#})\stackrel{~}{e}_i(\mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{\#})(b^{},s)),\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_i^\mathrm{\#}(b,s,b^{})=(b,(\mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{\#})\stackrel{~}{f}_i(\mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{\#})(b^{},s)),\end{array}$$

where we use the identification $`(\lambda )B_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ of (6.4). Here $`s^\mathrm{\#}`$ denotes the dual representation of $`s`$.

###### Proof.

There is a set-theoretical bijection between the right hand side and the subset

(6.24)
$$\{G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})modq_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]b,b^{}_W(\lambda ),s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ].$$

The $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$-module structure on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ defines operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. If we write

$$G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})=G(\stackrel{~}{b})G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(G_\lambda (\stackrel{~}{b})),$$

with $`\stackrel{~}{b}=(b,s)(\lambda )`$ defined by (6.4), then

$$X_iG_\lambda (b,s,b^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(X_iG_\lambda (\stackrel{~}{b}))\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(G_\lambda (X_i\stackrel{~}{b}))modq_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ],$$

for $`X_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. Here we have used Lemma 6.20 for the second equality. This shows that the bijection respects the crystal structure. The identification of $`\mathrm{\#}`$-crystal structure follows from the above discussion and

$$G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})^\mathrm{\#}=G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],$$

together with Lemma 6.13. We identify $`_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ with (6.24) hereafter.

Consider the natural $`𝐐`$-linear map

$$\pi :\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ],$$

induced by the projection $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$. Recall that the Kashiwara operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}/q_s\stackrel{~}{}`$ are defined so that they are compatible with projections $`\stackrel{~}{}/q_s\stackrel{~}{}(\xi )(\xi ^{})/q_s((\xi )(\xi ^{}))`$ induced from $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})`$ for all $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$ (see \[17, Theorem 2.1.2\] and \[23, Part IV\]). Since $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{(n)}`$ by Lemma 6.7(ii), the subspace $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{}/q_s\stackrel{~}{}`$ is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. The map $`\pi `$ intertwines $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ does so. It also intertwines $`\mathrm{\#}`$, and hence $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^\mathrm{\#}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^\mathrm{\#}`$.

Since $`G(b)^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ for $`b(\lambda )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$ as it is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. We have $`\pi (b^\mathrm{\#})=(u_\lambda ,s,b^{})`$, where $`b=(s^\mathrm{\#},b^{})`$ under (6.4). Therefore we have

$$\pi (\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )\{0\}.$$

Consider $`\text{Ker}\pi \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. It is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, so every connected component contains an extremal vector, and in particular an element in $`(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$. But $`(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$ is mapped bijectively to $`\{u_\lambda \}\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ as we mentioned already. So $`\text{Ker}\pi \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is the empty set. Thus we have a map

$$\pi |_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}:\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda ).$$

It is enough to show that this map is bijective since it is clear that bi-crystal operators are intertwined.

Note that any element of $`_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ can be connected to a point in $`\{u_\lambda \}\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ in the crystal graph, since the assertion is so for $`(\lambda )`$ (Theorem 4.16). Since $`\{u_\lambda \}\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ is equal to $`\pi ((\lambda )^\mathrm{\#})`$, the map $`\pi |_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ is surjective.

Suppose that $`b,b^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ satisfy $`\pi (b)=\pi (b^{})`$. We may assume that $`b(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$. The condition $`\pi (b)=\pi (b^{})`$ and $`\text{Ker}\pi \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]=\mathrm{}`$ imply $`b^{}`$ is an extremal vector with the weight $`\mathrm{wt}b^{}=\mathrm{wt}b`$. This means $`b^{}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$. Since $`\pi `$ is bijective on $`(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$, we have $`b=b^{}`$. ∎

Hereafter, we identify $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ with $`_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \times _W(\lambda )`$ by Proposition 6.23.

###### Lemma 6.25.

$`\stackrel{~}{}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^{0,+}}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$.

###### Proof.

Each connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ contains an extremal vector \[17, 9.3.4\]. By definition, the set of extremal vectors is equal to $`_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0}(\lambda )^{}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}.`$ Furthermore, we have an isomorphism of crystals $`S_w^{}:(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}(w\lambda )`$ for $`w\widehat{W}`$. Therefore each component contains a vector in $`(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$ with $`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl}}^{0,+}}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. By the remark in Definition 6.21, this is a disjoint union. ∎

For $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$, the kernel of the surjective homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}a_{\xi \xi ^{}}V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})`$ is the left ideal generated by $`f_i^{\xi ,h_i+1}a_{\xi \xi ^{}}`$ and $`e_i^{\xi ^{},h_i+1}a_{\xi \xi ^{}}`$. Let $`P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ be the set of $`\mu P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ such that all $`f_i^{\xi ,h_i+1}a_{\xi \xi ^{}}`$ and $`e_i^{\xi ^{},h_i+1}a_{\xi \xi ^{}}`$ act by $`0`$ on $`V(\mu ^{})`$ for any $`\mu ^{}P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ satisfying $`\mu ^{}\mu `$. Therefore a homomorphism $`V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})\text{End}V(\mu )`$ is well-defined if $`\mu P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$. Moreover, any $`\mu P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$ is contained in $`P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ for sufficiently large $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]((\xi )(\xi ))`$. Then we have $`(\xi )(\xi ^{})=_\mu \stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ by Lemma 6.25.

Let $`(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. We have $`G_\mu (b,s,b^{})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ by Lemma 6.20. We choose lifts $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. (Note that we do not have $`G(b)SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{}`$ in general.) Then

$$\underset{\mu P_{\mathrm{cl}}^{0,+}}{}\left\{\stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b,s,b^{})\right|(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}\}$$

is a $`𝐀_0`$-basis of $`(\xi )(\xi ^{})`$, as it induces a $`𝐐`$-basis of $`(\xi )(\xi ^{})/q_s((\xi )(\xi ^{}))`$. (The transition matrix between this basis and $`(\xi )(\xi ^{})`$ is upper triangular with $`1`$’s on the diagonal with respect to the block decomposition induced by $`\mu `$ and the order $``$.)

###### Lemma 6.26.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ as above. If

$$x=\underset{\mu P_{\mathrm{cl}}^{0,+}}{}\underset{(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}}{}a_{b,s,b^{}}^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}},$$

then $`a_{b,s,b^{}}^\mu =0`$ if $`\mu \lambda `$ and $`\mu P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We take any minimal element $`\mu _0`$ with respect to $``$ among $`\mu `$’s with $`a_{b,s,b^{}}^\mu 0`$ for some $`(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]`$. Assume $`\mu _0\lambda `$ and $`\mu _0P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$. Then $`V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})\text{End}V(\mu _0)`$ is well-defined, and the image of $`x`$ is $`0`$ by the assumption. On the other hand, any $`\mu `$ with $`a_{b,s,b^{}}^\mu 0`$ for some $`(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]`$ satisfies $`\mu \mu _0`$ by the minimality condition. Therefore among terms in $`x`$, only those summands with $`\mu =\mu _0`$ act nontrivially on $`V(\mu _0)`$. Therefore, as operators on $`V(\mu _0)`$, we have

$$x|_{V(\mu _0)}=\underset{(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu _0]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}}{}a_{b,s,b^{}}^{\mu _0}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu _0}(b,s,b^{})|_{V(\mu _0)}=0.$$

However the operator $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu _0}(b,s,b^{})|_{V(\mu _0)}`$ does not depend on the choice of the lift $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu _0}(b,s,b^{})`$ of $`G_{\mu _0}(b,s,b^{})`$, and we have $`a_{b,s,b^{}}^{\mu _0}=0`$ for $`(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu _0]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$, as $`G_{\mu _0}(b,s,b^{})`$ are linearly independent (Lemma 6.18). This is a contradiction. Thus we have $`\mu _0\lambda `$ or $`\mu _0P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$. Since $`\mu _0`$ is any minimal element, this completes the proof. ∎

###### Proposition 6.27.

Let $`\beta =(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. Considering $`\beta `$ as an element of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, let $`G(\beta )`$ be the corresponding element of the global crystal basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$. Then we have

$$G(\beta )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ],G(\beta )mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=G_\lambda (b,s,b^{}).$$

###### Proof.

We will show the assertion by showing

1. $`G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ acts by $`0`$ on $`V(\mu )`$ if $`\mu \lambda `$ and $`\mu P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$.
2. $`G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ and $`G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ define the same operator on $`V(\lambda )`$ if $`\lambda P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$,

for any $`\xi ,\xi ^{}P_+`$. We fix $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ hereafter.

Let $`(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. We choose and fix a lift $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$ of $`G_\mu (b_1,s_1,b_1^{})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ as in Lemma 6.26. We write

(6.28)
$$G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})=\underset{\mu P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0}{}\underset{(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}}{}a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\mu \stackrel{~}{G}_\mu (b_1,s_1,b_1^{})$$

for some $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\mu 𝐀_0`$.

###### Claim.

(i) If $`\mu \lambda `$ and $`\mu P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, then $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\mu q_s𝐀_0`$ for $`(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$.

(ii) If $`\lambda P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, then $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\lambda \delta _{(b,s,b^{}),(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})}+q_s𝐀_0`$ for $`(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$.

We can replace $`G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ by an element which is equal to it modulo $`q_s((\xi )(\xi ^{}))`$ in showing (i) and (ii). Let us write

$$(b,s)=X_1\mathrm{}X_N(u_\lambda ,s_0)$$

for some $`X_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_j`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_j`$. Then $`G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ is equal to $`X_1\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$ modulo $`q_s((\xi )(\xi ^{}))`$. We show the assertion for this element. By Lemma 6.7, it is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}`$. By Lemma 6.26 we have (i).

To show (ii), suppose $`\lambda P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ and $`V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})\text{End}V(\lambda )`$ is well-defined. If $`\mu P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, then $`\lambda \mu `$ by the assumption. We combine this with the above discussion to have $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\mu =0`$ unless $`\lambda \mu `$. Therefore among terms in (6.28), only those summands with $`\mu =\lambda `$ act nontrivially on $`V(\lambda )`$. Thus we have

$$\begin{array}{c}X_1\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}}{}a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\lambda \stackrel{~}{G}_\lambda (b_1,s_1,b_1^{})mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}.\end{array}$$

On the other hand, we have

$$X_1\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]=\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_NS_0u_\lambda ).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{}(\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda ))\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ by Lemma 6.20, this is equal to $`G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})`$ modulo $`q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. This completes the proof of the claim.

We take any minimal element $`\mu _0`$ with respect to $``$ among $`\mu `$’s with $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\mu 0`$ for some $`(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]`$. We obtain a contradiction under the assumption $`\mu _0\lambda `$ and $`\mu _0P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$. As in the proof of Lemma 6.26, only summands with $`\mu =\mu _0`$ act nontrivially on $`V(\mu _0)`$. Hence, for $`b^{\prime \prime }(\mu _0)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G(\beta )G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime })& =\underset{(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu _0]}{}a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu _0}(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime })\hfill \\ & =\underset{(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu _0]}{}a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}G(b_1)S_1G(b_1^{})^\mathrm{\#}G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime }).\hfill \end{array}$$

From $`\overline{G(\beta )G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime })}=G(\beta )G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime })`$, we have

$$0=\underset{(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\mu _0]}{}\left(a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}\overline{a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}}\right)G(b_1)S_1G(b_1^{})^\mathrm{\#}G_{\mu _0}(b^{\prime \prime }).$$

Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 6.18, we get

$$a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}=\overline{a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}}.$$

However, by the assumption $`\mu _0\lambda `$ and $`\mu _0P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, we have $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}q_s𝐀_0`$ using Claim (i). Thus this equality is impossible unless $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^{\mu _0}=0`$. This is a contradiction, and we get (a).

Similarly, if $`\lambda P(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, we have $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\lambda =\overline{a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\lambda }.`$ Then Claim (ii) implies $`a_{b_1,s_1,b_1^{}}^\lambda =\delta _{(b,s,b^{}),(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})}.`$ We get (b). ∎

Now we have

###### Theorem 6.29.

(i) $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ has a crystal base $`(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ],\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is identified with a subset of $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]/q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ as in the proof of Proposition 6.23.

(ii) $`(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ],\overline{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]},{}_{𝒜}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ])`$ is a balanced triple of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ and $`\{G(b)mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]b\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\}`$ is its global crystal basis.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 6.27, we can take $`G(\beta )(u_\xi u_\xi )`$ for the lift $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\lambda (b,s,b^{})`$ in Lemma 6.26. Therefore Lemma 6.26 implies that $`_{\mu \lambda }\{G(\beta )\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\mu ]\}`$ is a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$. Hence $`G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ is a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$. Other axioms of the global crystal basis obviously hold. ∎

### 6.2. Cell structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$

We recall  the definition of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ with respect to the global basis $`G(\stackrel{~}{})=\{G(\beta )\beta \stackrel{~}{}\}.`$ Let $``$ be the collection of all subsets $`K\stackrel{~}{}`$ with the property: the $`𝐐(q_s)`$–subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ spanned by $`G(K)`$ is a two–sided ideal of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}.`$ If $`\beta ,\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$, we say that $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ if $`\beta _{K,\beta ^{}K}K`$. We say that $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ if $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ and $`\beta ^{}\beta .`$ The equivalence classes of $``$ are called two–sided cells. Similarly, by considering left ideals or right ideals above, we define $`_L`$ or $`_R`$. The equivalence classes are then called left cells or right cells respectively. Another equivalent definition of $``$ is as follows: Let

$$G(\beta )G(\beta ^{})=\underset{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{}c_{\beta \beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}(q_s)G(\beta ^{\prime \prime })$$

define the structure constants $`c_{\beta \beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}(q_s)𝒜`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ with respect to the global basis. For $`\beta ,\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ we say $`\beta _L\beta ^{}`$ (resp. $`_R`$) if there is a sequence $`\beta _1=\beta ^{},\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _N=\beta `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and a sequence $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{N1}\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that $`c_{\gamma _s,\beta _s}^{\beta _{s+1}}0`$ (resp. $`c_{\beta _s,\gamma _s}^{\beta _{s+1}}0`$) for $`s=1,\mathrm{},N1.`$ We write $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ if either of the above structure constants is non–zero for all $`\beta _s,\gamma _s,\beta _{s+1},s=1,\mathrm{},N1.`$

###### Proposition 6.30.

(i) $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is a two–sided cell of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

(ii) For any $`b_2_W(\lambda )`$, $`\{(b_1,s,b_2)\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda ,b_1_W(\lambda )\}`$ is a left cell.

(iii) For any $`b_1_W(\lambda )`$, $`\{(b_1,s,b_2)\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda ,b_2_W(\lambda )\}`$ is a right cell.

###### Proof.

(i) Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$ are two–sided ideals of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ is a union of two–sided cells. Let $`b\stackrel{~}{}`$. By \[17, 6.4.3\], $`f_iG(\beta )`$ is equal to $`\left[\epsilon _i(\beta )+1\right]G(\stackrel{~}{f}_i\beta )`$ plus a linear combination of elements in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ different from $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i\beta `$. Therefore $`G(\stackrel{~}{f}_i\beta )_LG(\beta )`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i\beta 0`$. Similarly we have $`G(\stackrel{~}{e}_i\beta )_LG(\beta )`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i\beta 0`$. Thus if $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are in the same connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, we have $`G(\beta )_LG(\beta ^{})`$. Taking $`\mathrm{\#}`$, we conclude that if $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are in the same connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ as $`\mathrm{\#}`$–crystal, we have $`G(\beta )_RG(\beta ^{})`$. By Theorem 4.16 we have the assertion if $`a_\lambda Sa_\lambda `$ for $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$. This follows from a consideration of two–sided cells of the based ring $`(R(G_\lambda ),\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda )`$, where $`R(G_\lambda )`$ is the representation ring of $`G_\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ is considered as its basis. By using the Pieri formula, we can easily check that it consists of a single two–sided cell, and hence our assertion. The proofs of (ii), (iii) are contained in the above proof. ∎

Remark $`\stackrel{~}{}=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ by Lemma 6.25. Therefore the above proposition gives a complete description of two–sided, left, right cells of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

Next we define a function on $`G(\stackrel{~}{})`$ which will allow us construct a limit algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}_0=_{\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ as $`q0`$.

###### Definition 6.31.

Let $`\beta =(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. Define $`a(\beta )=(\mathrm{wt}(b^{}),2\lambda +\mathrm{wt}(b^{}))/2.`$

###### Remark 6.32.

$`a(\beta )`$ is equal to the half of the dimension of the quiver variety $`𝔐(𝐯,𝐰)`$ (or the dimension of the lagrangian subvariety $`𝔏(𝐯,𝐰)`$), where $`𝐯=\mathrm{wt}(b^{})`$, $`𝐰=\lambda `$. (See e.g. \[29, 2.3.2(4)\].) The inner product $`(,)`$ induced on $`P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$ is equal to the standard inner product for the untwisted $`ADE`$ case (see \[15, Corollary 6.4\]), which is the only case for which quiver varieties are defined.

###### Lemma 6.33 (cf. \[24, 1.4, 4.11\]).

Let $`\beta =(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. The following holds:

(i) $`(q^{a(\beta )}\beta )\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ and for each $`\beta `$, $`a(\beta )0`$ is smallest integer with this property.

(ii) for a two–sided cell $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ and any $`\lambda _1P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0`$, the restriction of $`a`$ to $`\{\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]G(\beta )𝐔a_{\lambda _1}\}`$ is constant.

###### Proof.

First note that using Lemmas 6.15, 6.17 and Proposition 6.27 we have the following equalities in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]/\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$:

$`G(b,s,b^{})G(b_1,s_1,b_1^{})mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$
$`=`$ $`q^{a(\beta )}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}}(G(b_1)S_1u_\lambda ,G(b^{})S^{}u_\lambda )_\lambda G(b)SS^{}G(b_1^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$
$`=`$ $`q^{a(\beta )}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{},s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}}c_{s,s^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}(G(b_1)S_1u_\lambda ,G(b^{})S^{}u_\lambda )_\lambda G(b)S^{\prime \prime }G(b_1^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$
where $`ss^{}=_{s^{\prime \prime }}c_{ss^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}s^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`c_{ss^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}𝐙_0.`$ By Theorem 2.21 (and Lemma 6.14) this is contained in $`q^{a(\beta )}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. (i) now follows by multiplying both sides by $`q^{a(\beta )}`$. Note that when $`b_1^{}=b_2`$ the product is in $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]q_s\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ by Theorem 2.21 and so $`a(\beta )`$ is the smallest integer with this property. We check that $`a(\beta )`$ is positive. We have $`G(b,s,b^{})G(b^{},1,b)=q^{a(\beta )}G(b,s,b)mod(\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]+q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ])`$ by Theorem 2.21. It follows $`c(q_s)=c_{\beta ,(b^{},1,b)}^{(b,s,b)}(q_s)=q^{a(\beta )}modq_s𝐙[q_s].`$ Taking $`\overline{\text{}}`$ of both sides and using the $`\overline{\text{}}`$ invariance of the global basis we also have $`c(q_s)=q^{a(\beta )}modq_s^1𝐙[q_s^1].`$ This implies $`a(\beta )0.`$ (ii) is clear from the definition: If $`\beta =(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ satisfies $`G(\beta )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}a_{\lambda _1}`$, we have $`\mathrm{wt}(b^{})=\lambda _1\lambda `$. ∎

Using Lemma 6.33 for any two–sided cell, we define the ring $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ which is a “limit as $`q0`$.” For $`\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ define $`\widehat{\beta }=q^{a(\beta )}G(\beta ).`$ Then $`\{\widehat{\beta }\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\}`$ is a $`𝐐(q_s)`$–basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ].`$ For $`\beta ,\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ such that $`G(\beta ^{})𝐔a_{\lambda _1}`$, we have $`\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\beta }^{}=_{\widehat{\beta }^{\prime \prime }}q^{a(\beta )}c_{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}\widehat{\beta }^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ].`$ (This follows from $`a(\beta ^{})=a(\beta ^{\prime \prime })`$, which follows from Lemma 6.33(ii) above, since the only non–zero coefficients $`c_{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}`$ are those for which $`G(\beta ^{\prime \prime })𝐔a_{\lambda _1}`$). Since $`q^{a(\beta )}c_{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}𝐙[q_s]`$ by Lemma 6.33(i), the $`𝐙[q_s]`$–submodule $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ generated by $`\{\widehat{\beta }\beta G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])\}`$ is a $`𝐙[q_s]`$–subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]^{}/q_s\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]^{}`$. Define $`t_\beta `$ to be the image of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0.`$ Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ is a ring with a $`𝐙`$–basis $`\{t_\beta \beta G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])\}.`$ If we denote by $`\{\gamma _{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}\beta ,\beta ^{},\beta ^{\prime \prime }G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])\}`$ the structure constants of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ then $`q^{a(\beta )}c_{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}\gamma _{\beta ,\beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}modq_s𝐙[q_s].`$ We define $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}_0=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ to be the direct sum of these rings.

###### Lemma 6.34.

$`G(b,s,b^{})^\mathrm{\#}=G(b^{},s^\mathrm{\#},b)`$ for $`(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$.

###### Proof.

Note $`\left(G(b)SG(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}\right)^\mathrm{\#}=G(b^{})S^\mathrm{\#}G(b)^\mathrm{\#}`$. By Lemma 6.13 $`S^\mathrm{\#}`$ corresponds to the dual representation $`s^\mathrm{\#}`$ modulo $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$. We have $`G_\lambda (b,s,b^{})^\mathrm{\#}=G_\lambda (b^{},s^\mathrm{\#},b)`$ by the definition, then the assertion follows by Proposition 6.27. ∎

###### Definition 6.35.

Let $`\lambda P_{\mathrm{cl},+}^0.`$ Let $`𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}=\{(b,1,b)b_W(\lambda )\}`$. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)`$ the subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ generated by $`a_\lambda xa_\lambda `$ for $`x𝐔`$.

###### Remarks 6.36.

(i) By the definition and Lemma 6.34, it is clear that $`G(\beta )^\mathrm{\#}=G(\beta )`$ for $`\beta 𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$. It is also clear that $`G(\beta )`$ is in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)`$.

(ii) It is not true that $`G(\beta )^\mathrm{\#}=G(\beta )`$ implies $`\beta 𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$. Consider $`(b,s,b)`$ with $`s^\mathrm{\#}=s`$ and $`s1`$, e.g. $`s(z)=(z_1^2+z_1z_2+z_2^2)/z_1z_2`$.

(iii) The identification (6.4) depends on the choice of the section $`_W(\lambda )_0(\lambda )`$. But the ambiguity of monomials $`p(z)=_i(z_{i,1}\mathrm{}z_{i,\lambda _i})^{r_i}`$ cancels in $`G(\beta )=G(b,1,b)`$. Therefore the bijection $`_W(\lambda )𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ is independent of the section.

The following gives a characterization of $`𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$:

###### Proposition 6.37 (cf. \[24, Conj. 5.3(b)\]).

Let $`\lambda _1P_{\mathrm{cl}}^0`$. If $`G(\beta )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$, then $`q^{a(\beta )}(a_{\lambda _1},G(\beta ))1modq_s𝐙[q_s]`$ if $`\beta 𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

###### Proof.

By definition, $`a`$ takes the constant $`(\lambda \lambda _1,\lambda +\lambda _1)/2`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$. We denote this constant by $`a_0`$. If $`\mu >\lambda `$, then

$$(\mu \lambda _1,\mu +\lambda _1)(\lambda \lambda _1,\lambda +\lambda _1)=(\mu \lambda ,\mu +\lambda )>0.$$

Thus our assertion is equivalent to saying that if $`G(\beta )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}_{\mu \lambda }G(\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ])`$, then $`q^{a_0}(a_{\lambda _1},G(\beta ))1modq_s𝐙[q_s]`$ if $`\beta 𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. We will check this.

In this proof we replace $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$ by $`_{\lambda P}𝐔a_\lambda `$ the modified quantum enveloping algebra defined for $`P`$. Then by \[23, 26.2.3\], $`(,)`$ is the limit of the inner product on $`V(\xi )V(\xi ^{})`$ (denoted also by $`(,)`$), where $`\xi \xi ^{}=\lambda _1`$ and $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$.

For each $`G(\beta )=G(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}_{\mu \lambda }G(\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ])`$, we choose and fix an expression $`(b,s)=X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_N(u_\lambda ,s_0)`$ where $`s_0\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$, $`X_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}& q^{a(\beta )}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{},X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill =& ((X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_NS_0)^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}),G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill & (G(\stackrel{~}{b})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}),G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}))modq_s𝐙[q_s]\hfill \\ \hfill & \delta _{(b,s),(b^{},1)}modq_s𝐙[q_s],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{b}=(b,s)`$ by (6.4). Here we have used (6.3) in the first equality, and the almost orthonomal property of the global crystal basis (\[23, 26.3.1\]) in the second and third equalities. Since $`\{G(\beta )=G(b,s,b^{})\}=\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}_{\mu \lambda }G(\stackrel{~}{}[\mu ])`$ is a $`𝐀_0`$-basis of $`\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]`$, the set of corresponding elements $`\{X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})\}`$ spans $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}\stackrel{~}{}({}_{}{}^{}\lambda ))(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})`$. Therefore the above together with our previous remark $`a(\beta )a_0`$ implies

$$q^{a_0}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{},(\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(0)a_{\lambda _1}\stackrel{~}{}({}_{}{}^{}\lambda ))(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}))𝐙[q_s].$$

Since $`G(b,s,b^{})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_NS_0G(b^{})^\mathrm{\#}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{})mod\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ](u_\xi u_\xi ^{}),`$ the above shows

$$q^{a_0}(u_\xi u_\xi ^{},G(b,s,b^{})(u_\xi u_\xi ^{}))\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }\delta _{(b,s),(b^{},1)}modq_s𝐙[q_s].$$

Taking limit $`\xi ,\xi ^{}\mathrm{}`$, we get the assertion. ∎

###### Lemma 6.38 (cf. \[24, 1.5\]).

Let $`d_1=G(b_1,1,b_1),d_2=G(b_2,1,b_2)`$ be in $`𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$. Let $`\beta =G(b_3,s,b_3^{}).`$ Then in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$, $`t_{d_1}t_\beta t_{d_2}=\delta _{b_1,b_3}\delta _{b_3^{},b_2}t_\beta .`$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6.17 we have

$`G(b_1,1,b_1)`$ $`G(b_3,s,b_3^{})`$
$`q^{a(d_1)}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}}(G(b_3)Su_\lambda ,G(b_1)S^{\prime \prime }u_\lambda )_\lambda G(b_1)S^{\prime \prime }G(b_3^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$
$`q^{a(d_1)}\delta _{b_1,b_3}G(b_1)SG(b_3^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod(\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]+q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]).`$
The second equivalence follows from Theorem 2.21. A similar calculation shows

$$G_\lambda (b_3,s,b_3^{})G_\lambda (b_2,1,b_2)q^{a(\beta )}\delta _{b_3^{},b_2}G(b_3,s,b_3^{})mod(\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]+q_s\stackrel{~}{}[{}_{}{}^{}\lambda ]).$$

Since $`a(\beta )=a(d_2)`$ if $`b_3^{}=b_2`$ the result follows by multiplying both sides by $`q^{2a(d_2)}`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.39.

Lemma 6.38 says that the $`𝐙`$–ring $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ has a generalized unit which is compatible with the basis $`t_\beta ,\beta G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]).`$ In particular, the ring $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ has an identity, $`1=_{b_1B_W(\lambda )}t_{G(b_1,1,b_1)}`$.

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ is both a left $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–module and a right $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–module where the respective module structures are given by:

(6.40)
$$G(\beta )G(\beta ^{})=\underset{\beta ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}c_{\beta \beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}(q_s)G(\beta ^{\prime \prime }),$$

when $`\beta \stackrel{~}{},\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ in the first case and when $`\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ],\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the second case.

We define $`M_{\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]}`$ to be the vector space spanned over $`𝐐(q_s,q_s^{})`$ by $`\{G(\beta )\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\}`$. $`M_{\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]}`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–bimodule where the left action is given by (6.40) and the right action is given by (6.40) where $`c_{\beta \beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}(q_s)`$ is replace by $`c_{\beta \beta ^{}}^{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}(q_s^{})`$. We now show that the left and right module structures commute, i.e., $`G(\beta _1)(G(\beta _2)G(\beta _3))=(G(\beta _1)G(\beta _2))G(\beta _3)`$ where $`\beta _2\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ and $`\beta _1,\beta _3\stackrel{~}{}`$. In terms of the structure constants this is equivalent to

###### Lemma 6.41 (cf. \[24, 1.7, 4.15\]).

Let $`\beta _4,\beta _2\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$. Let $`\beta _1,\beta _3\stackrel{~}{}.`$ Then

$$\underset{\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}c_{\beta _1,\beta }^{\beta _4}(q_s)c_{\beta _2,\beta _3}^\beta (q_s^{})=\underset{\beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}c_{\beta _1,\beta _2}^\beta (q_s)c_{\beta ,\beta _3}^{\beta _4}(q_s^{}).$$

###### Proof.

We fix $`\beta _i=(b_i,s_i,b_i^{})`$ for $`i=2,4`$. For $`\beta _j\stackrel{~}{}`$ ($`j=1,3`$) and $`b_iB_W(\lambda )`$ ($`i=2,4`$), we define $`g_{\beta _j,b_i}^{(s,b)}𝒜`$ by

(6.42)
$$G(\beta _j)G_\lambda (1,b_i)=\underset{(s,b)(\lambda )}{}g_{\beta _j,b_i}^{(s,b)}G_\lambda (s,b).$$

We check that

1. $`G(\beta _j)G(b_i,s_i,b_i^{}){\displaystyle \underset{(s,b)(\lambda )}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}}c_{ss_i}^s^{}g_{\beta _j,b_i}^{(s,b)}G(b,s^{},b_i^{})mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],`$
2. $`G(b_i,s_i,b_i^{})G(\beta _j){\displaystyle \underset{(s,b)(\lambda )}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}}c_{ss_i^\mathrm{\#}}^{s^\mathrm{\#}}g_{\beta _j^\mathrm{\#},b_i^{}}^{(s,b)}G(b_i,s^{},b)mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ],`$

where $`c_{}^{}`$ are structure constants of $`(R(G_\lambda ),\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda )`$ as before.

We consider the $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}:V(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}(u_\lambda )=S_iG(b_i^{})^\mathrm{\#}mod\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[{}_{}{}^{>}\lambda ]`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_i=(s_i^\mathrm{\#},b_i^{})`$ by (6.4). (The existence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}`$ is guaranteed by Lemma 6.11.) The image of (6.42) under $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}`$ gives

$$G(\beta _j)G(b_i,s_i,b_i^{})\underset{(s,b)}{}g_{\beta _j,b_i}^{(s,b)}G(b)SS_iG(b_i^{})^\mathrm{\#}.$$

Now (a) follows. (b) follows from (a) by taking $`\mathrm{\#}`$.

By (a) and (b) we have

$`c_{\beta _1,\beta _2}^\beta (q_s)={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}\delta _{b_2^{},b^{}}c_{s^{}s_2}^sg_{\beta _1,b_2}^{(s^{},b)}(q_s),`$
$`c_{\beta ,\beta _3}^{\beta _4}(q_s^{})={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}\delta _{b,b_4}c_{s^{}s^\mathrm{\#}}^{s_4^\mathrm{\#}}g_{\beta _3^\mathrm{\#},b^{}}^{(s^{},b_4^{})}(q_s^{}),`$
$`c_{\beta _1,\beta }^{\beta _4}(q_s)={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}\delta _{b_4^{},b^{}}c_{s^{}s}^{s_4}g_{\beta _1,b}^{(s^{},b_4)}(q_s),`$
$`c_{\beta _2,\beta _3}^\beta (q_s^{})={\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}\delta _{b,b_2}c_{s^{}s_2^\mathrm{\#}}^{s^\mathrm{\#}}g_{\beta _3^\mathrm{\#},b_2^{}}^{(s^{},b^{})}(q_s^{}),`$
where $`\beta =G(b,s,b^{})`$. This makes the identity of the lemma equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}\underset{s^{},s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}\delta _{b_2^{},b^{}}c_{s^{}s_2}^sg_{\beta _1,b_2}^{(s^{},b)}(q_s)\delta _{b,b_4}c_{s^{\prime \prime }s^\mathrm{\#}}^{s_4^\mathrm{\#}}g_{\beta _3^\mathrm{\#},b^{}}^{(s^{\prime \prime },b_4^{})}(q_s^{})\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{(b,s,b^{})\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}\underset{s^{},s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}\delta _{b_4^{},b^{}}c_{s^{}s}^{s_4}g_{\beta _1,b}^{(s^{},b_4)}(q_s)\delta _{b,b_2}c_{s^{\prime \prime }s_2^\mathrm{\#}}^{s^\mathrm{\#}}g_{\beta _3^\mathrm{\#},b_2^{}}^{(s^{\prime \prime },b^{})}(q_s^{}).\end{array}$$

Note that

$$\underset{s}{}c_{s^{}s_2}^sc_{s^{\prime \prime }s^\mathrm{\#}}^{s_4^\mathrm{\#}}=\underset{s}{}c_{s^{}s_2}^sc_{s^{\prime \prime \mathrm{\#}}s}^{s_4}\text{and}\underset{s}{}c_{s^{}s}^{s_4}c_{s^{\prime \prime }s_2^\mathrm{\#}}^{s^\mathrm{\#}}=\underset{s}{}c_{s^{}s}^{s_4}c_{s^{\prime \prime \mathrm{\#}}s_2}^s$$

are equal, since both are the multiplicity of $`s_4`$ in $`s^{}s_2s^{\prime \prime \mathrm{\#}}`$. Now the above identity is immediate. ∎

Fix a two–sided cell $`G(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$. We define a $`𝐐(q_s)`$–linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{𝐔}𝐐(q_s)\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta ))=\underset{d𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]},\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}{}c_{\beta ,d}^\beta ^{}(q_s)t_\beta ^{},(\beta \stackrel{~}{})$$

which is well-defined since $`𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ is finite and for a fixed $`\beta ,d`$ there are only finitely many $`c_{\beta ,d}^\beta ^{}0`$.

We have the following description of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ due to \[24, Prop. 1.9\]

###### Proposition 6.43.

(i) $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an algebra homomorphism.

(ii) Let $`P(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$ be the set of $`\lambda P`$ such that $`a_\lambda d=d`$ for some $`d𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_{\lambda P(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])}a_\lambda )=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a_\lambda ^{})=0`$ for $`\lambda P(\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ])`$. ∎

Next we describe an explicit realization of the ring structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$. As usual, $`\lambda =_i\lambda _i\varpi _i`$. Let $`T_\lambda `$ be the set of triples $`(d,d^{},s)`$ where $`d,d^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ and $`s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$. Let $`J_\lambda `$ be the free abelian group on $`T_\lambda `$ with a ring structure defined by

$$(d_1,d_1^{},s)(d_2,d_2^{},s^{})=\delta _{d_1^{},d_2}\underset{s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}c_{ss^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}(d_1,d_2^{},s^{\prime \prime }),$$

where $`c_{ss^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}`$ is the multiplicity of $`s^{\prime \prime }`$ in the tensor product $`ss^{}`$ as above. We have:

###### Theorem 6.44.

(i) There exists a ring isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0\stackrel{}{}J_\lambda `$ which gives a bijection between $`\{t_\beta \beta \stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]\}`$ and $`\{(d,d^{},s)d,d^{}𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]},s\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda \}`$.

(ii) For any $`d_0𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$, the subset of $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ corresponding to $`\{(d,d^{},s)T_\lambda d^{}=d_0\}`$ under the bijection in (i) is a left cell.

(iii) For any $`d_0𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$, the subset of $`\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ corresponding to $`\{(d,d^{},s)T_\lambda d=d_0\}`$ under the bijection in (i) is a right cell.

###### Proof.

By definition, the elements $`b_W(\lambda )`$ are in $`1`$$`1`$ correspondence with the elements of $`t_b=t_{(b,1,b)}D_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$. The map which sends $`t_{(b_1,s,b_1^{})}(t_{b_1},t_{b_1^{}},s)`$ is a bijection. Using Lemma 6.17 as in the proof of Lemma 6.33 we have

(6.45)
$$t_{(b_1,s,b_2)}t_{(b_1^{},s^{},b_2^{})}=\delta _{b_2,b_1^{}}\underset{s_1\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}c_{s,s^{}}^{s_1}t_{(b_1,s_1,b_2^{})}.$$

This implies (i). (ii) and (iii) follow from Proposition 6.30. ∎

The following proposition partly explains why our approach to the limit algebra $`J_\lambda `$ via $`V(\lambda )`$ is natural.

###### Proposition 6.46.

Let $`V(\lambda )_0`$ be the free $`𝐙`$-module with basis $`(\lambda )𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$ endowed with a $`J_\lambda `$-module structure by

$$(d_1,d_2,s)(d^{},s^{})=\delta _{d_2,d^{}}\underset{s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda }{}c_{ss^{}}^{s^{\prime \prime }}(d_1,s^{\prime \prime }).$$

Then $`V(\lambda )_0_𝐙𝐐(q_s)`$, pulled back by the composition of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}\stackrel{\Phi }{}\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0\stackrel{}{}J_\lambda `$, is isomorphic to $`V(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

For $`b=(b_W,s)(\lambda )_W(\lambda )\times \mathrm{Irr}G_\lambda `$, we define $`\beta _b\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]`$ by $`\beta _b=(b_W,s,u_\lambda )`$. For $`\beta \stackrel{~}{}`$, we have

$$G(\beta )G_\lambda (b)=\underset{b^{}(\lambda )}{}c_{\beta \beta _b}^{\beta _b^{}}G_\lambda (b^{}).$$

In fact, $`G_\lambda (b)=G(\beta _b)u_\lambda `$ implies $`G(\beta )G_\lambda (b)=_{\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}}c_{\beta \beta _b}^\beta ^{}G(\beta ^{})u_\lambda `$ and $`G(\beta ^{})u_\lambda `$ is $`G_\lambda (\beta ^{})`$ if $`\beta ^{}(\lambda )`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. On the other hand, the $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}[\lambda ]_0`$-module structure on $`V(\lambda )_0`$ is given by

$$t_\beta ^{}b=\underset{b^{}(\lambda )}{}\gamma _{\beta ^{}\beta _b}^{\beta _b^{}}b^{}\text{for }\beta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ].$$

We define a $`𝐐(q_s)`$–linear map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:V(\lambda )V(\lambda )_0_𝐙𝐐(q_s)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(G_\lambda (b))=\underset{d𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]},b^{}(\lambda )}{}c_{\beta _bd}^{\beta _b^{}}b^{},(b(\lambda )).$$

Then we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }(G_\lambda (b))=\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta _b))u_\lambda ,`$ since $`t_\beta ^{}u_\lambda =b^{}`$ if $`\beta ^{}=\beta _b^{}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise by Theorem 6.44. We get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(G(\beta )G_\lambda (b))=\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta )G(\beta _b))u_\lambda =\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta ))\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta _b))u_\lambda =\mathrm{\Phi }(G(\beta ))\mathrm{\Psi }(G_\lambda (b)).$$

This shows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}`$–linear.

Let $`(\lambda )_0`$ be the $`𝐀_0`$-submodule of $`V(\lambda )_0_𝐙𝐐(q_s)`$ generated by $`q^{a(\beta _b)}b`$ ($`b(\lambda )`$). Note that $`a(\beta _b)`$ is independent of $`b`$ by Lemma 6.33(ii). Since $`q^{a(\beta _b^{})}c_{\beta _bd}^{\beta _b^{}}=q^{a(\beta _b)}c_{\beta _bd}^{\beta _b^{}}𝐙[q_s]`$ by Lemma 6.33(i), we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }((\lambda ))(\lambda )_0`$. The induced homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0:(\lambda )/q_s(\lambda )(\lambda )_0/q_s(\lambda )_0`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(b)=\underset{d𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]},b^{}(\lambda )}{}\gamma _{\beta _bd}^{\beta _b^{}}b^{},$$

where $`b^{}(\lambda )`$ is identified with $`q^{a(\beta _b^{})}b^{}modq_s(\lambda )_0`$. By Theorem 6.44 we have $`\gamma _{\beta _bd}^{\beta _b^{}}=\delta _{bb^{}}\delta _{\beta _b,\beta _bd}`$, hence the right hand side is equal to $`b`$. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an isomorphism as in the proof of Corollary 4.15. ∎

###### Proposition 6.47.

For $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(A_n^{(1)})`$ we have $`\mathrm{\#}𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}=_{i=1}^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}\right)^{\lambda _i}`$.

###### Proof.

We check the dimension of $`W(\lambda )=_iW(\varpi _i)^{\lambda _i}.`$ The result follows if we show the dimension of $`W(\varpi _i)`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}\right)`$. By considering the Drinfeld polynomials of $`W(\varpi _i)`$ \[30, Remark 3.3\], each is an evaluation module where the underlying finite dimensional representation of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐔}(A_n)`$ is $`V(\omega _i)`$ where the $`\omega _i`$ are the fundamental weights of type $`A_n`$ \[7, Prop. 12.2.13\]. These are of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}\right)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.48.

The above argument shows that the number of $`𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{}[\lambda ]}`$ can be given if we know $`dimW(\varpi _i)`$ for all $`iI_0`$. They are known for untwisted affine Lie algebras for classical groups and some exceptional groups . The second author writes a computer program for them (for untwisted cases) by using Frenkel-Mukhin’s algorithm . The program gives us answers except one fundamental representation for $`E_8`$, corresponding to the triple node.