format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The cosmological constant problem is considered to be the most severe hierarchy problem in modern physics . We shall propose a quantum gravity solution to the problem, based on a nonlocal, finite quantum field theory and quantum gravity theory .

We can define an effective cosmological constant

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}=\lambda _0+\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _0`$ is the ‘bare’ cosmological constant in Einstein’s classical field equations, and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is the contribution that arises from the vacuum density $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}=8\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$. Already at the standard model electroweak scale $`10^2`$ GeV, a calculation of the vacuum density $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$, based on local quantum field theory results in a discrepancy with the observational bound

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}10^{47}(\mathrm{GeV})^4,$$
(2)
of order $`10^{55}`$, resulting in a a severe fine tuning problem, since the virtual quantum fluctuations giving rise to $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ must cancel $`\lambda _0`$ to an unbelievable degree of accuracy. The bound on $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}10^{84}\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(3)
If we choose the quantum gravity scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV, then our nonlocal quantum gravity theory leads to a damping of the gravitational quantum corrections to $`\lambda _0`$ for $`q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2`$, where $`q`$ is the Euclidean internal loop momentum. This suppresses $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ below the observational bound (3). Since the graviton tree graphs are identical to the standard point like, local tree graphs of perturbative gravity, we retain classical, causal GR and Newtonian gravity theory, and the measured value of the gravitational constant $`G`$. Only the quantum gravity loop graphs are suppressed above energies $`10^3`$ eV.

The scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ are determined by the quantum non-localizable nature of the standard model (SM) particles as compared to the graviton. The SM particle radiative corrections have a nonlocal scale at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}>110`$ TeV or a length scale $`\mathrm{}_{SM}<10^{16}`$ cm, whereas the graviton radiative corrections are localizable down to an energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV or a length scale $`\mathrm{}_G<1`$ cm. Thus, the fundamental energy scales in the theory are determined by the underlying physical nature of the particles and fields and do not correspond to arbitrary cut-offs, which destroy the gauge invariances of the field theory. The underlying explanation of these physical scales must be sought in a more fundamental theory.

The ‘fuzziness’ of the SM particles and the graviton, due to the nonlocal nature of the quantum field theory, gives rise to the ‘composite’ nature of the particles. An attempt to incorporate a composite graviton in a toy model field theory was made by Sundrum . In this model, the ‘stringy’ graviton was coupled to a stringy halo surrounding the SM particles in the loop coupled to external gravitons.

In Section 2, we describe the local action of the theory and in Section 3, we provide a review of the basic properties of the finite quantum field theory as a perturbative scheme. In Section 4, we develop the formalism for quantum gravity, while in Section 5, we analyze the results of gluon and gravitational vacuum polarization calculations. In Section 6, we use the quantum gravity theory to resolve the cosmological constant problem and in Section 7, we end with concluding remarks.

## 2 The Action

We begin with the four-dimensional action

$$W=W_{\mathrm{grav}}+W_{YM}+W_\mathrm{H}+W_{\mathrm{Dirac}}+W_M,$$
(4)
where

$$W_{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}(R+2\lambda _0),$$
(5)
$$W_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{Tr}(F^2),$$
(6)
$$W_\mathrm{H}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \varphi ^iD^\mu \varphi ^i+V(\varphi ^2)\right],$$
(7)
$$W_{\mathrm{Dirac}}=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^ae_a^\mu [_\mu \psi \omega _\mu \psi 𝒟(A_{i\mu })\psi ]+h.c.$$
(8)
Here, we use the notation: $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$, $`g=\mathrm{det}(g_{\mu \nu })`$ and the metric signature of Minkowski spacetime is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1,+1)`$. The Riemann tensor is defined such that

$$R_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}=_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }.$$
(9)
Moreover, h.c. denotes the Hermitian conjugate, $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma ^0`$, and $`e_a^\mu `$ is a vierbein, related to the metric by

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{ab}e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^b,$$
(10)
where $`\eta _{ab}`$ is the four-dimensional Minkowski metric tensor associated with the flat tangent space with indices a,b,c… Moreover, $`F^2=F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{i\mu \nu }`$, $`R`$ denotes the scalar curvature and

$$F_{i\mu \nu }=_\nu A_{i\mu }_\mu A_{i\nu }ef_{ikl}A_{k\mu }A_{l\nu },$$
(11)
where $`A_{i\mu }`$ are the gauge fields of the Yang-Mills group with generators $`f_{ikl}`$, $`e`$ is the coupling constant and $`\kappa ^2=32\pi G`$ with $`c=1`$. We denote by $`D_\mu `$ the covariant derivative operator

$$D_\mu \varphi ^i=_\mu \varphi ^i+ef^{ikl}A_\mu ^k\varphi ^l.$$
(12)
The Higgs potential $`V(\varphi ^2)`$ is of the form leading to spontaneous symmetry breaking

$$V(\varphi ^2)=\frac{1}{4}g(\varphi ^i\varphi ^iK^2)^2+V_0,$$
(13)
where $`V_0`$ is an adjustable constant and the coupling constant $`g>0`$.

The spinor field is minimally coupled to the gauge potential $`A_{i\mu }`$, and $`𝒟`$ is a matrix representation of the gauge group $`SO(3,1)`$. The spin connection $`\omega _\mu `$ is

$$\omega _\mu =\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]`$ is the spinor matrix associated with the Lorentz algebra $`SO(3,1)`$. The components $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ satisfy

$$_\mu e_a^\sigma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }e_a^\nu \omega _{\mu a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }e_\rho ^\sigma =0,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$ is the Christoffel symbol. The field equations for the gravity-Yang-Mills-Higgs-Dirac sector are

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu },$$
(16)
$$g^{\rho \mu }_\rho F_{\mu \nu }^i=g^{\rho \mu }\left(_\rho F_{\mu \nu }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }F_{\sigma \nu }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }F_{\mu \sigma }^i+[A_\rho ,F_{\mu \nu }]^i\right)=0,$$
(17)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}D_\mu [\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }D_\nu \varphi ^i]=\left(\frac{V}{\varphi ^2}\right)\varphi ^i,$$
(18)
$$\gamma ^ae_a^\mu [_\mu \omega _\mu 𝒟(A_\mu )]\psi =0.$$
(19)
The energy-momentum tensor is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{YMH}}+T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{Dirac}}+T_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{M},$$
(20)
where

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{YMH}}=F_{\mu \sigma }^iF_\nu ^{i\sigma }+D_\mu \varphi ^iD_\nu \varphi ^i$$

$$\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)+D_\sigma \varphi ^iD^\sigma \varphi ^i+V(\varphi ^2)\right],$$
(21)
$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{Dirac}}=\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu [_\nu \omega _\nu 𝒟(A_{i\nu })]\psi ,$$
(22)
and $`T_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{M}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of non-field matter.

## 3 Finite Quantum Field Theory Formalism

An important development in nonlocal quantum field theory was the discovery that gauge invariance and unitarity can be restored by adding series of higher interactions. The resulting theory possesses a nonlinear, field representation dependent gauge invariance which agrees with the original local symmetry on-shell but is larger off-shell. Quantization is performed in the functional formalism using an analytic and convergent measure factor which retains invariance under the new symmetry. An explicit calculation was made of the measure factor in QED , and it was obtained to lowest order in Yang-Mills theory . Kleppe and Woodard  obtained an ansatz based on the derived dimensionally regulated result when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, which was conjectured to lead to a general functional measure factor in nonlocal gauge theories.

In contrast to string theory, we can achieve a genuine quantum field theory, which allows vertex operators to be taken off the mass shell. The finiteness draws from the fact that factors of $`\mathrm{exp}[𝒦(p^2)/2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2]`$ are attached to propagators which suppress any ultraviolet divergences in Euclidean momentum space, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an energy scale factor. An important feature of the field theory is that only the quantum loop graphs have nonlocal properties; the classical tree graph theory retains full causal and local behavior.

We shall consider the 4-dimensional spacetime to be approximately flat Minkowski spacetime. Let us denote by $`f`$ a generic local field and write the standard local Lagrangian as

$$[f]=_F[f]+_I[f],$$
(23)
where $`_F`$ and $`_I`$ denote the free part and the interaction part of the action, respectively, and

$$_F[f]=\frac{1}{2}f_i𝒦_{ij}f_j.$$
(24)
In a gauge theory the action would be the Becchi, Rouet, Stora, Tyutin (BRST) gauge-fixed action including ghost fields in the invariant action required to fix the gauge. The kinetic operator $`𝒦`$ is fixed by defining a Lorentz-invariant distribution operator

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝒦}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)$$
(25)
and the operator:

$$𝒪=\frac{^21}{𝒦}=_0^1\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\tau \frac{𝒦}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right).$$
(26)
The regularized interaction Lagrangian takes the form

$$\widehat{}_I=\underset{n}{}(g)^nf[^n,𝒪^{(n1)})]f,$$
(27)
where $`g`$ is a coupling constant and $``$ is a vertex function form factor. The decomposition of $``$ in order $`n=2`$ is such that the operator $`𝒪`$ splits into two parts $`^2/𝒦`$ and $`1/𝒦`$. For Compton amplitudes the first such term cancels the contribution from the corresponding lower order channel, while the second term is just the usual local field theory result for that channel. The action is then invariant under an extended nonlocal gauge transformation. The precise results for QED were described in ref. .

The regularized action is found by expanding $`\widehat{}_I`$ in an infinite series of interaction terms. Since $``$ and $`𝒪`$ are entire function of $`𝒦`$ the higher interactions are also entire functions of $`𝒦`$. This is important for preserving the Cutkosky rules and unitarity, for an entire function does not possess any singularities in the finite complex momentum plane.

The regulated action is gauge invariant under the transformation

$$\delta f=igd^4yd^4z𝒯[f](x,y,z)\theta (y)f,$$
(28)
where $`\theta `$ is the infinitesimal gauge parameter and $`𝒯`$ is a spinorial matrix for $`f(x)=\psi (x)`$ as well as a function of a gauge potential. An explicit construction for QED  was given using the Cutkosky rules as applied to the nonlocal field theory, whose propagators have poles only where $`𝒦=0`$ and whose vertices are entire functions of $`𝒦`$. The regulated action satisfies these requirements which guarantees unitarity on the physical space of states. The local action is gauge fixed and then a regularization is performed on the BRST theory.

Quantization is performed using the definition

$$0|T^{}(O[f])|0_{}=[Df]\mu [f](\mathrm{gauge}\mathrm{fixing})O[f]\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{W}[f]).$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{W}`$ is the regulated action. On the left-hand side we have the regulated vacuum expectation value of the $`T^{}`$-ordered product of an arbitrary operator $`O[f]`$ formed from the local fields $`f`$. The subscript $``$ signifies that a regulating Lorentz distribution has been used. Moreover, $`\mu [f]`$ is a gauge invariant measure factor and there is a gauge fixing factor, both of which are needed to maintain perturbative unitarity in gauge theories.

The new Feynman rules for are obtained as follows: Every leg of a diagram is connected to a local propagator,

$$D(q^2)=\frac{i}{𝒦(q^2)+iϵ}$$
(30)
and every vertex has a form factor $`^k(q^2)`$, where $`q`$ is the momentum attached to the propagator $`D(q^2)`$, which has the form

$$^k(q^2)^k(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝒦}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}\right),$$
(31)
where $`k`$ denotes the particle nature of the external leg in the vertex. The formalism is set up in Minkowski spacetime and loop integrals are formally defined in Euclidean space by performing a Wick rotation. This facilitates the analytic continuation; the whole formalism could from the outset be developed in Euclidean space.

Renormalization is carried out as in any other field theory. The bare parameters are calculated from the renormalized ones and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, such that the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ is finite for all noncoincident Green’s functions, and the bare parameters are those of the local theory. The regularizing interactions are determined by the local operators.

The regulating Lorentz distribution function $``$ must be chosen to perform an explicit calculation in perturbation theory. We do not know the unique choice of $``$. However, once a choice for the function is made, then the theory and the perturbative calculations are uniquely fixed. A standard choice in early papers is :

$$_m=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{^2m^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right).$$
(32)
In the tree order, Green’s functions remain local except for external lines which are unity on-shell. It follows immediately that since on-shell tree amplitudes are unchanged by the regularization, the Lagrangian preserves all symmetries on-shell. Also all loops contain at least one regularizing vertex function and therefore are ultraviolet finite.

The on-shell tree amplitudes agree with the local, unregulated action, while the loop amplitudes disagree. This seems to contradict the Feynman tree theorem , which states that loop amplitudes of local field theory can be expressed as sums of integrals of tree diagrams. If two local theories agree at the tree level, then the loop amplitudes agree as well. However, the tree theorem does not apply to nonlocal field theories. The tree theorem is proved by using the propagator relation

$$D_F=D_R+D^+$$
(33)
to expand the Feynman propagator $`D_F`$ into a series in the on- shell propagator $`D^+`$. This decomposes all terms with even one $`D^+`$ into trees. The term with no $`D^+s`$ is a loop formed with the retarded propagator and vanishes for local interactions. But for nonlocal interactions, this term generally survives and new physical effects occur in loop amplitudes, which cannot be predicted from the local on-shell tree graphs.

## 4 Finite Perturbative Quantum Gravity

As is well-known, the problem with perturbative quantum gravity based on a point-like graviton and a local field theory formalism is that the theory is not renormalizable . Due to the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, it can be shown that the one-loop graviton calculation is renormalizable but two-loop is not . Moreover, gravity-matter interactions are not renormalizable at any loop order.

We shall now formulate the gravitational sector in more detail. This problem has been considered previously in the context of four-dimensional GR . We expand the gravity sector about flat Minkowski spacetime. In fact, our quantum gravity theory can be formulated as a perturbative theory by expanding around any fixed, classical metric background

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu },$$
(34)
where $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is any smooth background metric field, e.g. a de Sitter spacetime metric. For the sake of simplicity, we shall only consider expansions about flat spacetime. Since the gravitational field is weak up to the Planck energy scale, this expansion is considered justified; even at the standard model energy scale $`E_{\mathrm{SM}}10^2`$ GeV, the curvature of spacetime is very small. However, if we wish to include the cosmological constant, then we cannot strictly speaking expand about flat spacetime. This is to be expected, because the cosmological constant produces a curved spacetime even when the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Therefore, we should use the expansion (34) with a curved background metric. But for energy scales encountered in particle physics, the curvature is very small, so we can approximate the perturbation caculation by using the flat spacetime expansion and trust that the results are valid in general for curved spacetime backgrounds including the cosmological constant.

Let us define $`𝐠^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }`$. It can be shown that $`\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{𝐠}`$, where $`𝐠=\mathrm{det}(𝐠^{\mu \nu })`$ and $`_\rho 𝐠=𝐠_{\alpha \beta }_\rho 𝐠^{\alpha \beta }𝐠`$. We can then write the local gravitational action $`W_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ in the form :

$$W_{\mathrm{grav}}=d^4x_{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}d^4x[(𝐠^{\rho \sigma }𝐠_{\lambda \mu }𝐠_{\kappa \nu }$$

$$\frac{1}{2}𝐠^{\rho \sigma }𝐠_{\mu \kappa }𝐠_{\lambda \nu }2\delta _\kappa ^\sigma \delta _\lambda ^\rho 𝐠_{\mu \nu })_\rho 𝐠^{\mu \kappa }_\sigma 𝐠^{\lambda \nu }$$

$$\frac{1}{\alpha \kappa ^2}_\mu 𝐠^{\mu \nu }_\kappa 𝐠^{\kappa \lambda }\eta _{\nu \lambda }+\overline{C}^\nu ^\mu X_{\mu \nu \lambda }C^\lambda ],$$
(35)
where we have added a gauge fixing term with the parameter $`\alpha `$, $`C^\mu `$ is the Fadeev-Popov ghost field and $`X_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is a differential operator.

We expand the local interpolating graviton field $`𝐠^{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$𝐠^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\kappa \gamma ^{\mu \nu }+O(\kappa ^2).$$
(36)
Then,

$$𝐠_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }\kappa \gamma _{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2\gamma _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\gamma _{\alpha }^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}+O(\kappa ^3).$$
(37)
The gravitational Lagrangian density is expanded as

$$_{\mathrm{grav}}=^{(0)}+\kappa ^{(1)}+\kappa ^2^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
We obtain

$$^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}_\sigma \gamma _{\lambda \rho }^\sigma \gamma ^{\lambda \rho }_\lambda \gamma ^{\rho \kappa }_\kappa \gamma _\rho ^\lambda \frac{1}{4}_\rho ^\rho \gamma $$

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }_\rho \gamma _\lambda ^\rho _\kappa \gamma ^{\kappa \lambda }+\overline{C}^\lambda _\sigma ^\sigma C_\lambda ,$$
(39)
$$^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4}(4\gamma _{\lambda \mu }^\rho \gamma ^{\mu \kappa }_\rho \gamma _\kappa ^\lambda +2\gamma _{\mu \kappa }^\rho \gamma ^{\mu \kappa }_\rho \gamma $$

$$+2\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \gamma _{\lambda \nu }_\sigma \gamma ^{\lambda \nu }\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \gamma _\sigma \gamma +4\gamma _{\mu \nu }_\lambda \gamma ^{\mu \kappa }_\kappa \gamma ^{\nu \lambda })$$

$$+\overline{C}^\nu \gamma _{\kappa \mu }^\kappa ^\mu C_\nu +\overline{C}^\nu ^\mu \gamma _{\kappa \mu }^\kappa C_\nu \overline{C}^\nu ^\lambda ^\mu \gamma _{\mu \nu }C_\lambda \overline{C}^\nu ^\mu \gamma _{\mu \nu }^\lambda C_\lambda ,$$
(40)
$$^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}(4\gamma _{\kappa \alpha }\gamma ^{\alpha \nu }^\rho \gamma ^{\lambda \kappa }_\rho \gamma _{\nu \lambda }+(2\gamma _{\lambda \mu }\gamma _{\kappa \nu }\gamma _{\mu \kappa }\gamma _{\nu \lambda })^\rho \gamma ^{\mu \kappa }_\rho \gamma ^{\nu \lambda }$$

$$2\gamma _{\lambda \alpha }\gamma _\nu ^\alpha ^\rho \gamma ^{\lambda \nu }_\rho \gamma 2\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\gamma _\nu ^\kappa _\rho \gamma _{\lambda \kappa }_\sigma \gamma ^{\nu \lambda }$$

$$+\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\gamma ^{\nu \lambda }_\sigma \gamma _{\nu \lambda }_\rho \gamma 2\gamma _{\mu \alpha }\gamma ^{\alpha \nu }^\lambda \gamma ^{\mu \kappa }_\kappa \gamma _{\nu \lambda }),$$
(41)
where $`\gamma =\gamma _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$.

In the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, the Lagrangian density $`_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation

$$\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }=X_{\mu \nu \lambda }\xi ^\lambda ,$$
(42)
where $`\xi ^\lambda `$ is an infinitesimal vector quantity and

$$X_{\mu \nu \lambda }=\kappa (_\lambda \gamma _{\mu \nu }+2\eta _{(\mu \lambda }\gamma _{\kappa \nu )}^\kappa )+(\eta _{(\mu \lambda }_{\nu )}\eta _{\mu \nu }_\lambda ).$$
(43)
However, for the quantized theory it is more useful to require the BRST symmetry. We choose $`\xi ^\lambda =C^\lambda \sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is a global anticommuting scalar. Then, the BRST transformation is

$$\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }=X_{\mu \nu \lambda }C^\lambda \sigma ,\delta \overline{C}^\nu =_\mu \gamma ^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{2\sigma }{\alpha }\right),\delta C_\nu =\kappa C^\mu _\mu C_\nu \sigma .$$
(44)
We now substitute the operators

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }\widehat{\gamma }_{\mu \nu },C_\lambda \widehat{C}_\lambda ,\overline{C}_\nu \widehat{\overline{C}}_\nu ,$$
(45)
where

$$\widehat{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=^1\gamma _{\mu \nu },\widehat{C}_\lambda =^1C_\lambda ,\widehat{\overline{C}}_\lambda =^1C_\lambda .$$
(46)
The regularized Lagrangian density up to order $`\kappa ^2`$ is invariant under the extended BRST transformations :

$$\widehat{\delta }_0\gamma _{\mu \nu }=X_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(0)}C^\lambda \sigma =(_\nu C_\mu +_\mu C_\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }_\lambda C^\lambda )\sigma ,$$
(47)
$$\widehat{\delta }_1\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\kappa _0^2X_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(1)}C_\sigma ^\lambda =\kappa _0^2(2\gamma _{\rho (\mu }^\rho C_{\nu )}_\lambda \gamma _{\mu \nu }C^\lambda \gamma _{\mu \nu }_\lambda C^\lambda )\sigma ,$$
(48)
$$\widehat{\delta }_0\overline{C}^\nu =2_\mu \gamma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma ,$$
(49)
$$\widehat{\delta }_1C_\nu =\kappa _0^2C^\mu _\mu C_\nu \sigma .$$
(50)
The order $`\kappa ^2`$ transformations are

$$\widehat{\delta }_2\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2_0^2[2^\rho C_{(\nu }\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu )\rho \kappa \lambda }(B^{\kappa \lambda }+H^{\kappa \lambda })$$

$$C^\rho \stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }(_\rho B^{\kappa \lambda }+_\rho H^{\kappa \lambda })_\rho C^\rho \stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }(B^{\kappa \lambda }+H^{\kappa \lambda })$$

$$+2\gamma _{\rho (\mu }\stackrel{~}{D}_{\nu )\kappa }^{\mathrm{ghost}}^\rho H^\kappa _\rho \gamma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{D}^{\mathrm{ghost}\rho \kappa }H_\kappa \gamma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{D}^{\mathrm{ghost}\rho \kappa }_\rho H_\kappa ]\sigma ,$$
(51)
$$\widehat{\delta }_2C_\nu =\kappa ^2_0^2(_\mu C_\nu \stackrel{~}{D}^{\mathrm{ghost}\mu \kappa }H_\kappa +C_\mu \stackrel{~}{D}_{\mathrm{ghost}\nu \kappa }^\mu H^\kappa )\sigma .$$
(52)
Here, we have

$$H^{\alpha \beta }=(^{(\alpha }\overline{C}_\rho ^{\beta )}C^\rho +^\rho \overline{C}^{(\alpha }^{\beta )}C_\rho +^\rho ^{(\beta }\overline{C}^{\alpha )}C_\rho ),$$
(53)
$$H^\rho =\gamma _{\lambda \kappa }^\lambda ^\kappa C^\rho +^\kappa \gamma _{\lambda \kappa }^\lambda C^\rho _\kappa _\lambda \gamma ^{\rho \kappa }C^\lambda _\kappa \gamma ^{\rho \kappa }_\lambda C^\lambda ,$$
(54)
$$\overline{H}^\rho =^\lambda \overline{C}^\rho ^\kappa \gamma _{\lambda \kappa }+^\lambda ^\kappa \overline{C}^\rho \gamma _{\lambda \kappa }+^\rho \overline{C}^\lambda ^\kappa \gamma _{\lambda \kappa }.$$
(55)
Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ is the “stripping” propagator for the graviton in the gauge $`\alpha =1`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(p)=\frac{1}{2}(\eta _{\alpha \mu }\eta _{\beta \nu }+\eta _{\alpha \nu }\eta _{\beta \mu }\eta _{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\mu \nu })𝒪_0(p),$$
(56)
while the ghost stripping propagator is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{ghost}}(p)=\eta _{\mu \nu }𝒪_0(p),$$
(57)
where

$$𝒪_0(p)=\frac{_0^21}{p^2}.$$
(58)
We see that the local propagator can be obtained from the nonlocal propagator minus the stripping propagator

$$\frac{1}{p^2}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2)}{p^2}𝒪_0(p).$$
(59)
The stripping propagators are used to guarantee that the tree-level graviton-graviton scattering amplitudes are identical to the local, point-like tree-level amplitudes, which couple only to physical gravitons.

The graviton propagator in the fixed de Donder gauge $`\alpha =1`$  in momentum space is given by

$$D_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p)=\frac{\eta _{\mu \rho }\eta _{\nu \sigma }+\eta _{\mu \sigma }\eta _{\nu \rho }\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\rho \sigma }}{p^2iϵ},$$
(60)
while the graviton ghost propagator in momentum space is

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{ghost}}(p)=\frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{p^2iϵ}.$$
(61)
As in the case of the Yang-Mills sector, the on-shell vertex functions are unaltered from their local antecedents, while virtual particles are attached to nonlocal vertex function form factors. This destroys the gauge invariance of e.g. graviton-graviton scattering and requires an iteratively defined series of “stripping” vertices to ensure the decoupling of all unphysical modes. Moreover, the local gauge transformations have to be extended to nonlinear, nonlocal gauge transformations to guarantee the over-all invariance of the regularized amplitudes. Cornish has derived the primary graviton vertices and the BRST symmetry relations for the regularized $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ , using the nonlinear, nonlocal extended gauge transformations suitable for the perturbative gravity equations.

Because we have extended the gauge symmetry to nonlinear, nonlocal transformations, we must also supplement the quantization procedure with an invariant measure

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐠,\overline{C},C)D[𝐠_{\mu \nu }]D[\overline{C}_\lambda ]D[C_\sigma ]$$
(62)
such that $`\delta =0`$.

As we have demonstrated, the quantum gravity perturbation theory is invariant under generalized, nonlinear field representation dependent transformations, and it is finite to all orders. At the tree graph level all unphysical polarization states are decoupled and nonlocal effects will only occur in graviton and graviton-matter loop graphs. Because the gravitational tree graphs are purely local there is a well-defined classical GR limit. The finite quantum gravity theory is well-defined in four real spacetime dimensions or in any higher D-dimensional spacetime.

We quantize by means of the path integral operation

$$0|T^{}(O[𝐠])|0_{}=[D𝐠]\mu [𝐠](\mathrm{gauge}\mathrm{fixing})O[𝐠]\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{grav}}[𝐠]).$$
(63)
The quantization is carried out in the functional formalism by finding a measure factor $`\mu [𝐠]`$ to make $`[D𝐠]`$ invariant under the classical symmetry. To ensure a correct gauge fixing scheme, we write $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{grav}}[𝐠]`$ in the BRST invariant form with ghost fields; the ghost structure arises from exponentiating the Faddeev-Popov determinant . The algebra of extended gauge symmetries is not expected to close off-shell, so one needs to introduce higher ghost terms (beyond the normal ones) into both the action and the BRST transformation. The BRST action will be regularized directly to ensure that all the corrections to the measure factor are included.

## 5 Standard Model and Gravitational Vacuum Polarization

A basic feature of our regularized field theory is that the vertex function form factors $`^k(q^2)`$ in momentum space are determined by the nature of the vertex function. For a SM gauge boson, such as the $`W`$ or $`Z`$ boson connected to a standard model particle and anti-particle, the vertex function form factor in Euclidean momentum space is

$$^{\mathrm{SM}}(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2\right),$$
(64)
while for a vertex with a graviton attached to a standard model particle and an anti-particle, the vertex function form factor will be

$$^G(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2\right).$$
(65)
Thus, when two vertices are drawn together to make a loop graph, the energy scale dependence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be determined by the external legs attached to the loop. If we ignore the weak effects of gravity in SM calculations, then the graviton scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ can be ignored, as is usually the case in SM calculations.

A calculation of the one-loop gluon vacuum polarization gives the tensor in D-dimensions :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ik}^{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{e^2}{2^D\pi ^{D/2}}f_{ilm}f_{klm}(p^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2),$$
(66)
where $`p`$ is the gluon momentum and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)=2_0^{1/2}𝑑y\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2,yp^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}^2)[y(1y)p^2]^{D/22}$$

$$\times [2(D2)y(1y)\frac{1}{2}(D6)].$$
(67)
We observe that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ik\mu }^\mu (0)=0`$ a result that is required by gauge invariance and the fact that the gluon has zero mass.

The dimensionally regulated gluon vacuum polarization result is obtained by the replacement

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2,yp^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2)$$
(68)
and choosing $`p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}^2`$. In four-dimensions we get

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)=2_0^{1/2}𝑑yE_i(yp^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}^2)[4y(1y)+1],$$
(69)
where we have used the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,z)E_i(z)=_z^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{exp}(t)t^1.$$
(70)
The lowest order contributions to the graviton self-energy will include the standard graviton loops, the ghost field loop contribution and the measure loop contribution. In the regularized perturbative gravity theory the first order vacuum polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ must satisfy the Slavnov-Ward identities :

$$p_\mu p_\rho D^{G\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(p)D^{G\gamma \delta \rho \sigma }(p)=0.$$
(71)
By symmetry and Lorentz invariance, the vacuum polarization tensor must have the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(p)=\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p^2)p^4\eta _{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\gamma \delta }+\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p^2)p^4(\eta _{\alpha \gamma }\eta _{\beta \delta }+\eta _{\alpha \delta }\eta _{\beta \gamma })$$

$$+\mathrm{\Pi }_3(p^2)p^2(\eta _{\alpha \beta }p_\gamma p_\delta +\eta _{\gamma \delta }p_\alpha p_\beta )+\mathrm{\Pi }_4(p^2)p^2(\eta _{\alpha \gamma }p_\beta p_\delta +\eta _{\alpha \delta }p_\beta p_\gamma $$

$$+\eta _{\beta \gamma }p_\alpha p_\delta +\eta _{\beta \delta }p_\alpha p_\gamma )+\mathrm{\Pi }_5(p^2)p_\alpha p_\beta p_\gamma p_\delta .$$
(72)
The Slavnov-Ward identities impose the restrictions

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_2+\mathrm{\Pi }_4=0,4(\mathrm{\Pi }_1+\mathrm{\Pi }_2\mathrm{\Pi }_3)+\mathrm{\Pi }_5=0.$$
(73)
The basic lowest order graviton self-energy diagram is determined by :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^1(p)=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2d^4q𝒰_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(p,q,qp)^G(q^2)D^{G\alpha \beta \kappa \lambda }(q)$$

$$\times D^{G\gamma \delta \tau \xi }(pq)𝒰_{\kappa \lambda \tau \xi \rho \sigma }(q,pq,p)^G((qp)^2),$$
(74)
where $`𝒰`$ is the three-graviton vertex function

$$𝒰_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \delta \tau }(q_1,q_2,q_3)=\frac{1}{2}[q_{2(\mu }q_{3\nu )}(2\eta _{\rho (\delta }\eta _{\tau )\sigma }\frac{2}{D2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\delta \tau })$$

$$+q_{1(\rho }q_{3\sigma )}(2\eta _{\mu (\delta }\eta _{\tau )\nu }\frac{2}{D2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\delta \tau })+\mathrm{}],$$
(75)
and the ellipsis denotes similar contributions.

To this diagram, we must add the ghost particle diagram contribution $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2`$ and the measure diagram contribution $`\mathrm{\Pi }^3`$. The dominant finite contribution to the graviton self-energy will be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p)\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4Q_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2)$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4}{M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}Q_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2),$$
(76)
where $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ is the reduced Planck mass and $`Q(p^2)`$ is a finite remaining part.

For renormalizable field theories such as quantum electrodynamics and Yang-Mills theory, we will find that the loop contributions are controlled by the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function. If we adopt an ‘effective’ quantum gravity theory expansion in the energy , then we would expect to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p)\kappa ^2𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2,p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2)Q_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2),$$
(77)
where $`𝒢`$ denotes the functional dependence on the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function. By making the replacement

$$𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2),p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2)𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma }(2D/2)),$$
(78)
we would then obtain the second order graviton loop calculations using dimensional regularization . The dominant behavior will now be $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2/q^2)`$ and not $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4`$. However, in a nonrenormalizable theory such as quantum gravity, the dimensional regularization technique may not provide a correct result for the dominant behavior of the loop integral and we expect the result to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4`$. Indeed, it is well known that dimensional regularization for massless particles removes all contributions from tadpole graphs and $`\delta ^4(0)`$ contact terms. On the other hand, our regularized field theory takes into account all leading order contributions and provides a complete account of all counterterms. Because all the scattering amplitudes are finite, then renormalizability is no longer an issue.

The function

$$Q_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \sigma }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(p^2)p^4$$
(79)
as $`p^20`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(p)`$ vanishes at $`p^2=0`$, as it should from gauge invariance and for massless gravitons. We now find that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^G(p^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4}{M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}.$$
(80)
Thus, the pure graviton self-energy is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4`$. We shall choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G<10^3`$ eV, so that the pure gravitational quantum corrections to the bare cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$ are cut off for energies above $`10^3`$ eV.

In contrast to recent models of branes and strings in which the higher-dimensional compactification scale is lowered to the TeV range , we retain the classical tree graph GR gravitation picture and its Newtonian limit. It is perhaps a radical notion to entertain that quantum gravity becomes weaker as the energy scale increases towards the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ Gev, but there is, of course, no known experimental reason why this should not be the case in nature. However, we do not expect that our weak gravity field expansion is valid at the Planck scale when $`GE^21`$, although the damping of the quantum gravity loop graphs could still persist at the Planck scale. This question remains unresolved until a nonperturbative solution to quantum gravity is found.

## 6 Resolution to the Cosmological Constant Problem

Zeldovich  showed that the zero-point vacuum fluctuations must have a Lorentz invariant form

$$T_{\mathrm{vac}\mu \nu }=\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}g_{\mu \nu },$$
(81)
consistent with the equation of state $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=p_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. Thus, the vacuum within the framework of particle quantum physics has properties identical to the cosmological constant. In quantum theory, the second quantization of a classical field of mass $`m`$, treated as an ensemble of oscillators each with a frequency $`\omega (k)`$, leads to a zero-point energy $`E_0=_k\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega (k)`$. The experimental confirmation of a zero-point vacuum fluctuation was demonstrated by the Casimir effect . A simple evaluation of the vacuum density obtained from a summation of the zero-point energy modes gives

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_0^{M_c}𝑑kk^2(k^2+m^2)^{1/2}\frac{M_c^4}{16\pi ^2},$$
(82)
where $`M_c`$ is the cutoff. Already at the level of the standard model, we get $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}(10^2\mathrm{GeV})^4`$ which is $`55`$ orders of magnitude larger than the bound (2). To agree with the experimental bound (2), we would have to invoke a very finely tuned cancellation of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ with the ‘bare’ cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$, which is generally conceded to be theoretically unacceptable.

We shall consider initially the basic lowest order vacuum fluctuation diagram computed from the matrix element in flat Minkowski spacetime

$$M_{(2)}^{(0)}e^2d^4pd^4p^{}d^4k\delta (k+pp^{})\delta (k+pp^{})$$

$$\times \frac{1}{k^2+m^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{i\gamma ^\sigma p_\sigma m_f}{p^2+m_f^2}\gamma ^\mu \frac{i\gamma ^\sigma p_\sigma ^{}m_f}{p^{}_{}{}^{}2+m_f^2}\gamma _\mu \right)$$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{p^2+m_f^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2}\right)\left(\frac{p^2+m_f^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2}\right)\left(\frac{k^2+m^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2}\right)\right],$$
(83)
where $`e`$ is a coupling constant associated with the standard model. We have considered a closed loop made of a SM fermion of mass $`m_f`$, an antifermion of the same mass and an internal SM boson propagator of mass $`m`$; the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}10^210^3`$ GeV. This leads to the result

$$M_{(2)}^{(0)}16\pi ^4g^2\delta ^4(a)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pp^3_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p^{}p^{}_{}{}^{}3\left[\frac{P^2+p^2+p^{}_{}{}^{}2+4m_f^2}{(P+a)(Pa)}\right]$$

$$\times \frac{1}{(p^2+m_f^2)(p^2+m_f^2)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(p^2+p^2+2m_f^2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2}\frac{P^2+m^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2}\right],$$
(84)
where $`P=pp^{}`$ and $`a`$ is an infinitesimal constant which formally regularizes the infinite volume factor $`\delta ^4(0)`$. We see that $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}M_{(2)}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}^4`$. To maintain gauge invariance and unitarity, we must add to this result the contributions from the ghost diagram and the measure diagram.

In flat Minkowski spacetime, the sum of all disconnected vacuum diagrams $`C=_nM_n^{(0)}`$ is a constant factor in the scattering S-matrix $`S^{}=SC`$. Since the S-matrix is unitary $`|S^{}|^2=1`$, then we must conclude that $`|C|^2=1`$, and all the disconnected vacuum graphs can be ignored. This result is also known to follow from the Wick ordering of the field operators. However, due to the equivalence principle gravity couples to all forms of energy, including the vacuum energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$, so we can no longer ignore these virtual quantum fluctuations in the presence of a non-zero gravitational field.

We can view the cosmological constant as a non-derivative coupling of the form $`\lambda _0\sqrt{g}`$ in the Einstein-Hilbert action (5). This classical tree-graph coupling has the effect of de-stabilizing Minkowski spacetime. Quantum corrections to $`\lambda _0`$ come from loops formed from massive SM states, coupled to external graviton lines at essentially zero momentum. The massive SM states are far off-shell. Experimental tests of the standard model involving gravitational couplings to the SM states are very close to being on-shell. Important quantum corrections to $`\lambda _0`$ are generated by a huge extrapolation to a region in which gravitons couple to SM particles which are far off-shell.

Let us now consider the dominant contributions to the vacuum density arising from the graviton loop corrections. As explained above, we shall perform the calculations by expanding about flat spacetime and trust that the results still hold for an expansion about a curved metric background field, which is strictly required for a non-zero cosmological constant. Since the scales involved in the final answer, including the predicted smallness of the cosmological constant, correspond to a very small curvature of spacetime, we expect that our approximation is justified.

We shall adopt a simple model consisting of a massive vector meson $`V_\mu `$, which has the standard model mass $`m_V10^2`$ GeV. We have for the vector field Lagrangian density

$$_V=\frac{1}{4}(𝐠)^{1/2}𝐠^{\mu \nu }𝐠^{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }+m_V^2V_\mu V^\mu ,$$
(85)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\nu V_\mu _\mu V_\nu .$$
(86)
We include in the Lagrangian density an additional piece $`\frac{1}{2}(_\mu V^\mu )^2`$, and the vector field propagator has the form

$$D_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{V}=\frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{p^2+m_V^2iϵ}.$$
(87)
The graviton-V-V vertex in momentum space is given by

$$𝒱_{\alpha \beta \lambda \sigma }(q_1,q_2)=\eta _{\lambda \sigma }q_{1(\alpha }q_{2\beta )}\eta _{\sigma (\beta }q_{1\alpha )}q_{2\lambda }\eta _{\lambda (\alpha }q_{1_\sigma }q_{2\beta )}$$

$$+\eta _{\sigma (\beta }\eta _{\alpha )\lambda }q_1q_2\frac{1}{D2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }(\eta _{\lambda \sigma }q_1q_2q_{1\sigma }q_{2\lambda }),$$
(88)
where $`q_1,q_2`$ denote the momenta of the two $`Vs`$ connected to the graviton with momentum $`p`$. We use the notation $`A_{(\alpha }B_{\beta )}=\frac{1}{2}(A_\alpha B_\beta +A_\beta B_\alpha )`$.

The lowest order correction to the graviton vacuum loop will have the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{GV}}(p)=\kappa ^2d^4q𝒱_{\mu \nu \lambda \alpha }(p,q,qp)^G(q^2)D^{V\lambda \delta }(q)$$

$$\times 𝒱_{\rho \sigma \kappa \delta }(p,pq,q)^G((qp)^2)D^{V\alpha \kappa }(qp).$$
(89)
We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{GV}}(p)=\kappa ^2\frac{d^4q}{(q^2+m_V^2)[(qp)^2+m_V^2]}K_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p,q)$$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(q^2+m_V^2)/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{[(qp)^2+m_V^2]/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2\right\},$$
(90)
where in D-dimensions

$$K_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p,q)=p_\alpha p_\beta p_\rho p_\sigma +q_\alpha p_\beta p_\rho p_\sigma q_\alpha q_\beta p_\rho p_\sigma +(1D)q_\alpha q_\beta q_\rho p_\sigma $$

$$(1+D)p_\alpha q_\beta q_\rho q_\sigma +(D1)p_\alpha q_\beta p_\rho q_\sigma +Dq_\alpha q_\beta q_\rho q_\sigma .$$
(91)
As usual, we must add to (6) the contributions from the fictitious ghost particle diagrams and the invariant measure diagram.

We observe that from power counting of the momenta in the integral (6), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{GV}}(p)\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2)$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4}{M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2),$$
(92)
where $`N(p^2)`$ is a finite remaining part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{GV}}(p)`$. We have as $`p^20`$:

$$N_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(p^2)p^4.$$
(93)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu }^{\mathrm{GV}}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(p)`$ vanishes at $`p^2=0`$, as it should because of gauge invariance and the massless graviton.

We now have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{GV}}(p^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^4}{M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}.$$
(94)
If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV, then the quantum correction to the bare cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$ is suppressed sufficiently to satisfy the bound (3), and it is protected from large unstable radiative corrections. This provides a solution to the cosmological constant problem at the energy level of the standard model and possible higher energy extensions of the standard model. The universal fixed gravitational scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ corresponds to the fundamental length $`\mathrm{}_G1`$ cm at which virtual gravitational radiative corrections are cut off.

The vector field vertex form factor, when coupled to SM gauge bosons, will have the form

$$^{\mathrm{SM}}(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[(q^2+m_V^2)/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}^2\right].$$
(95)
If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SM}>110`$ TeV, then we will reproduce the SM experimental results, including the running of the SM coupling constants, and $`^{\mathrm{SM}}(p^2)`$ becomes $`^{\mathrm{SM}}(0)=1`$ on the mass shell $`q^2=m_V^2`$.

We observe that the required suppression of the vacuum diagram loop contribution to the cosmological constant, associated with the vacuum energy momentum tensor at lowest order, demands a low gravitational energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV, which controls the quantum gravity loop contributions. This is essentially because the external graviton momenta are close to the mass shell, requiring a low energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$. This seems at first sight a radical suggestion that quantum gravity corrections are weak at energies higher than $`10^3`$ eV, but this is clearly not in contradiction with any known gravitational experiment. Indeed, as has been stressed in recent work on large higher dimensions, there is no experimental knowlege of gravitational forces below 1 mm. In fact , we have no experimental knowledge at present about the strength of graviton radiative corrections. The SM experimental agreement is achieved for SM particle states close to the mass shell. However, we expect that the dominant contributions to the vacuum density arise from SM states far off the mass shell. In our perturbative quantum gravity theory, the tree graphs involving gravitons are identical to the tree graphs in local point graviton perturbation theory, retaining classical, causal GR and Newtonian gravity. In particular, we do not decrease the strength of the classical gravity force.

In order to solve the severe cosmological constant hierarchy problem, we have been led to the surprising conclusion that, in contrast to the conventional folklore, quantum gravity corrections to the classical GR theory are negligible at energies above $`10^3`$ eV, a result that will continue to persist if our perturbative calculations can be extrapolated to near the Planck energy scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV. Since the cosmological constant problem already results in a severe crisis at the energies of the standard model, our quantum gravity resolution based on perturbation theory can resolve the crisis at the standard model energy scale and well beyond this energy scale.

## 7 Conclusions

The ultraviolet finiteness of perturbative quantum field theory in four-dimensions is achieved by applying the nonlocal field theory formalism. The nonlocal quantum loop interactions reflect the quantum, non-point-like nature of the field theory. Thus, as with string theories, the point-like nature of particles is ‘fuzzy’ for energies greater than the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One of the features of superstrings is that they provide a mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity, which is ultraviolet finite and unitary. Our nonlocal theory focuses on the basic mechanism behind string theory’s finite ultraviolet behavior by invoking a suppression of bad vertex behavior at high energies, without compromising perturbative unitarity and gauge invariance. It provides a mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity at the perturbative level. If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV, then quantum radiative corrections to the classical tree graph gravity theory are perturbatively negligible to all energies greater than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$, provided that the perturbative regime is valid.

The important gauge hierarchy problem, associated with the Higgs sector, can also be resolved in our nonlocal field theory. It can be shown that an exponential damping of the Higgs self-energy in the Euclidean $`p^2`$ domain occurs for $`p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2`$, and for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ scale in the electroweak range $`10^210^3`$ GeV.

A damping of the vacuum polarization loop contributions to the vacuum energy density-gravity coupling at lowest order can resolve the cosmological constant hierarchy problem, if the gravity loop scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G10^3`$ eV, by suppressing virtual gravitational radiative corrections above the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$. We expect that the SM energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ to be much larger than the electroweak scale $`10^210^3`$ Gev, and it could be as large as grand unification theory (GUT) scale $`10^{16}`$ Gev, allowing for possible GUT unification schemes.

Recently, new supernovae data have strongly indicated a cosmic acceleration of the present universe . This has brought the status of the cosmological constant back into prominence, since one possible explanation for this acceleration of the expansion of the universe is that the cosmological constant is non-zero but very small. We can, of course, accomodate a small non-zero cosmological constant by choosing carefully the gravity scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$. Indeed, this new observational data can be viewed as a means of determining the size of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$.

Acknowledgments

I thank Michael Clayton, George Leibbrandt and Michael Luke for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# On tensor categories attached to cells in affine Weyl groups II

## 1. Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a root system. Let $`W`$ be the corresponding affine Weyl group, and let $`\widehat{W}`$ be an extended affine Weyl group. Let $``$ (respectively $`\widehat{}`$) be the corresponding Hecke algebras. George Lusztig defined an asymptotic version of the Hecke algebra, the ring $`J`$, see . By definition the ring $`J`$ is a direct sum $`J=_𝐜J_𝐜`$ where summation is over the set of two-sided cells in the affine Weyl group. Further, G. Lusztig proved that the set of two-sided cells in $`W`$ is bijective to the set of unipotent conjugacy classes in an algebraic group over $``$ with root system $`R`$, see  IV. Moreover, he proposed a Conjecture describing rings $`J_𝐜`$ in terms of convolution algebras, see  IV, 10.5 (a), (b). This Conjecture was verified in many cases by Nanhua Xi, see . In this note we give a more conceptual proof of all previously known results. Our proof also works in some new cases. In general, we prove a statement (see Theorem 4 below) which is weaker than Lusztig’s Conjecture.

The proof relies on many results of G.Lusztig in . Our new essential tool is the theory of central sheaves on affine flag manifold due to A. Beilinson, D. Gaitsgory, R. Kottwitz, see . One of us used this theory to prove a part of Lusztig’s Conjecture, see .

We would like to thank George Lusztig for useful conversations.

## 2. Recollections

### 2.1. Notations

Let $`G`$ be an algebraic reductive connected group over the field of $`l`$adic numbers $`\overline{}_l`$. Let $`X`$ denote the weight lattice of $`G`$ and let $`RX`$ denote the root system of $`G`$. Let $`W_f`$ denote the Weyl group of $`G`$ and let $`\widehat{W}`$ be the extended Weyl group, that is the semidirect product of $`W_f`$ and $`X`$. Let $`l:\widehat{W}`$ be the length function. Let $`W\widehat{W}`$ be the affine Weyl group, that is subgroup generated by $`W_f`$ and $`RX`$. Let $`S=\{sW|l(s)=1\}`$ be the set of simple reflections. It is well known that pair $`(W,S)`$ is a Coxeter system.

It is well known that any right $`W_f`$coset in $`\widehat{W}`$ contains unique shortest element. Let $`\widehat{W}^f\widehat{W}`$ denote the subset of such representatives, so the set $`\widehat{W}^f`$ is in natural bijection with $`\widehat{W}/W_f`$.

### 2.2. Affine Hecke algebra

Let $`𝒜=[v,v^1]`$. The affine Hecke algebra $`\widehat{}`$ is a free $`𝒜`$module with basis $`H_w(w\widehat{W})`$ with an associative $`𝒜`$algebra structure defined by $`H_wH_w^{}=H_{ww^{}}`$ if $`l(ww^{})=l(w)+l(w^{})`$ and $`(H_s+v^1)(H_sv)=0`$ if $`sS`$. The algebra $`\widehat{}`$ is endowed with the Kazhdan-Lusztig basis $`C_w,w\widehat{W}`$, see e.g.  IV 1.1. Let $`h_{x,y,z}𝒜`$ be the structure constants of $`\widehat{}`$ with respect to this basis, that is

$$C_xC_y=\underset{zW}{}h_{x,y,z}C_z.$$

We say that (left, right or two-sided) ideal $`I\widehat{}`$ is KL-ideal if it admits an $`𝒜`$basis consisting of some elements $`C_x`$. For $`x,y\widehat{W}`$ we write $`x_Ly`$ (resp. $`x_Ry,x_{LR}y`$) if left (resp. right, two-sided) KL-ideal generated by $`x`$ is contained in left (resp. right, two-sided) KL-ideal generated by $`y`$, cf. . The relations $`_L,_R,_{LR}`$ are preorders. Let $`_L,_R,_{LR}`$ be the associated equivalence relations. The corresponding equivalence classes are called left, right and two-sided cells, see loc. cit. Each two-sided cell is a union of left (resp. right) cells. The map $`ww^1`$ induces a bijection of the set of left cells to the set of right cells. This map induces identity on the set of two-sided cells.

A deep Theorem due to G. Lusztig (see  IV 4.8) states that the set of two-sided cells is bijective to the set of unipotent orbits in $`G`$.

### 2.3. Asymptotic Hecke algebra $`J`$

There are well defined functions $`a:\widehat{W},\gamma :\widehat{W}\times \widehat{W}\times \widehat{W}`$ such that

$$v^{a(z)}h_{x,y,z}\gamma _{x,y,z^1}v[v]\text{for all}x,y,z\widehat{W}$$

and such that for any $`z\widehat{W}`$ there exist $`x,y\widehat{W}`$ with $`\gamma _{x,y,z}0`$. The function $`a`$ is constant on two-sided cells, see  I 5.4.

Let $`J`$ be a free $``$module with basis $`t_x,x\widehat{W}`$. It has a unique structure of an associative $``$algebra such that $`t_xt_y=_{z\widehat{W}}\gamma _{x,y,z}t_{z^1}`$, see  II. It has a unit element $`_{t𝒟}t_d`$ where the summation is over the set $`𝒟W`$ of distinguished involutions, see loc. cit. Each left (resp. right) cell contains exactly one element of $`𝒟`$. For any two-sided cell $`𝐜`$ let $`J_𝐜J`$ be the $``$submodule generated by $`t_x,x𝐜`$. The submodule $`J_𝐜`$ is in fact a subalgebra; moreover $`J_𝐜J_𝐜^{}=0`$ for $`𝐜𝐜^{}`$, see  II, hence $`J=_𝐜J_𝐜`$.

We will use many times the following characterization of cells due to G. Lusztig: $`w_Lw^{}`$ if and only if $`t_wt_{w_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}0`$, see  3.1 (k).

Algebras $`J_𝐜`$ are examples of based algebras, that is algebras over $``$ endowed with a basis over $``$ such that the structure constants in this basis are nonnegative integers. Another example of a based algebra can be constructed as follows: let $`F`$ be a reductive algebraic group acting on the finite set $`X`$; then the Grothendieck group $`K_F(X\times X)`$ of the category of $`F`$equivariant coherent sheaves on $`X\times X`$ is a based algebra with the basis given by classes of irreducible $`F`$bundles and multiplication given by convolution, see  IV 10.2.

Assume for a moment that group $`G`$ is simply connected. For any two-sided cell $`𝐜`$ let $`u_𝐜`$ be the unipotent element in $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝐜`$ under Lusztig’s bijection  IV 4.8. Let $`F_𝐜`$ be the Levi factor of the centralizer $`Z_G(u_𝐜)`$ of $`u_𝐜`$ in $`G`$. In  IV 10.5 G. Lusztig conjectured that there exists a finite set $`𝐗`$ endowed with an action of $`F_𝐜`$ such that the based algebras $`J_𝐜`$ and $`K_{F_𝐜}(𝐗\times 𝐗)`$ are isomorphic as based algebras, that is the isomorphism respects bases. The aim of this note is to prove a weak form of this Conjecture; more precisely, we replace finite $`F_𝐜`$set by a somewhat more general object — finite $`F_𝐜`$set of centrally extended points, see below.

### 2.4.

We will need the following well known

Lemma. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ be two left cells lying in the same two-sided cell. Then the intersection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)^1`$ is non empty.

Proof. Let $`w\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`w^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^1`$. By  3.1 (l) $`w_{LR}w^{}`$ if and only if there exists $`y\widehat{W}`$ such that $`t_wt_yt_w^{}0`$. We see from the characterization of left cells above that $`w_Ly^1`$ and $`y_Lw_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. Thus $`y^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Affine flags

### 3.1. Notations

Let $`{}_{}{}^{L}G`$ be a split reductive algebraic group over $``$ which is Langlands dual to $`G`$. To $`{}_{}{}^{L}G`$ one associates the following “loop objects” defined over $``$: the (inifinite type) group schemes $`𝐊_{}`$ of maps from a formal disc to $`{}_{}{}^{L}G`$, and the Iwahori group $`𝐈_{}`$ of maps whose value at the origin lies in a fixed Borel; and ind-schemes $`𝔉l_{}`$ (the affine flag variety), and $`𝔊r_{}`$ (the affine Grassmanian). For a field $`𝔨`$ we have $`𝐊(𝔨)={}_{}{}^{L}G(O)`$, $`𝐈(𝔨)=I`$, $`𝔊r(𝔨)={}_{}{}^{L}G(F)/{}_{}{}^{L}G(O)`$ and $`𝔉l(𝔨)={}_{}{}^{L}G(F)/I`$ where $`F=𝔨((t))`$, $`O=𝔨[[t]]`$, and $`I{}_{}{}^{L}G(O)`$ is an Iwahori subgroup.

We fix a field $`𝔨`$ which is either $`\overline{𝔽}_p`$ or complex numbers; we change scalars from $``$ to $`𝔨`$ (and drop the subscript $``$). By the (derived) category of sheaves we will mean either the (derived) category of $`l`$-adic sheaves, $`lchar(𝔨)`$, or the (derived) category of constructible sheaves on the complex variety for $`𝔨=`$. We will denote $`\overline{}_l`$ by $``$ in the first case.

The orbits of $`𝐈`$ on $`𝔉l`$, $`𝔊r`$ are finite dimensional and isomorphic to affine spaces; it is well known that orbits (called Schubert cells) are labelled by elements of $`\widehat{W}`$ for $`𝔉l`$ and $`\widehat{W}/W_f`$ for $`𝔊r`$. For $`w\widehat{W}`$ (respectively $`w\widehat{W}/W_f`$) let $`𝔉l_w`$, $`𝔊r_w`$ be the corresponding Schubert cells.

Let $`D^I`$ be the $`𝐈`$equivariant derived category of sheaves on $`𝔉l`$, and let $`𝒫^ID^I`$ be the full subcategory of perverse sheaves. The convolution product defines a functor $`:D^I\times D^ID^I`$; moreover, $``$ is equipped with a natural associativity constraint (cf. e.g. , §1.1.2-1.1.3, or , §7.6.1, p. 260).

Let $`j_w:𝔉l_w𝔉l`$ be the natural inclusion and let $`L_w=j_{w!}(\underset{¯}{_l}[dim𝔉l_w])`$, where $`_l`$ is the constant sheaf. Simple objects in $`𝒫^I`$ are exhausted by $`L_w,w\widehat{W}`$.

Remark. Following the standard yoga one can consider the “graded” versions of $`D_{mix}^I`$, $`𝒫_{mix}^I`$ of $`D^I`$, $`𝒫^I`$; here $`D_{mix}^I`$, $`𝒫_{mix}^I`$ are subcategories in the derived category of mixed $`l`$-adic sheaves if $`𝔨`$ is of finite characteristic, and they are objects of the (derived) category of mixed Hodge $`D`$-modules if $`𝔨=`$. The convolution on $`D_{mix}^I`$ is defined. It provides $`D_{mix}^I`$ with the structure of a monoidal category, and thus equips the Grothendieck group $`K(D_{mix}^I)`$ with an algebra structure; this algebra is isomorphic to $``$.

We will not use this theory below; however, it underlies the relation between the categories considered in this note and affine Hecke algebras. Also, since the set of representations of an affine Hecke algebra injects into the set of representations of the corresponding $`p`$-adic group $`{}_{}{}^{L}G\left(𝔽_q((t))\right)`$, appearance of the Langlands dual group in the statements below is a manifestation of the geometric Langlands duality.

Notice also that mixed sheaves are used in  (in the proof of Theorem 2); the results of this note are based on those of .

### 3.2. Central sheaves

Recall the following definition, see e.g.

Definition. Let $`𝒜`$ be a monoidal category, and $``$ be a tensor (symmetric monoidal) category. A central functor from $``$ to $`𝒜`$ is a monoidal functor $`F:𝒜`$ together with a functorial isomorphism

$$\sigma _{X,Y}:F(X)YYF(X)$$

fixed for all $`X,Y𝒜`$ subject to the following compatibilities:

(i) For $`X,X^{}`$ the isomorphism $`\sigma _{X,F(X^{})}`$ coincides with the isomorphism induced by commutativity constraint in $``$.

(ii) For $`Y_1,Y_2𝒜`$ and $`X`$ the composition

$$F(X)Y_1Y_2\stackrel{\sigma _{X,Y_1}id}{}Y_1F(X)Y_2\stackrel{id\sigma _{X,Y_2}}{}Y_1Y_2F(X)$$

coincides with $`\sigma _{X,Y_1Y_2}`$.

(iii) For $`Y𝒜`$ and $`X_1,X_2`$ the composition

$$F(X_1X_2)YF(X_1)F(X_2)Y\stackrel{id\sigma _{X_2,Y}}{}F(X_1)YF(X_2)\stackrel{\sigma _{X_1,Y}id}{}$$

$$YF(X_1)F(X_2)YF(X_1X_2)$$

coincides with $`\sigma _{X_1X_2,Y}`$.

Let $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$ be the category of $`𝐊`$ equivariant perverse sheaves on $`𝔊r`$. The convolution endows $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$ with monoidal structure and this structure naturally extends to a structure of a commutative rigid tensor category with a fiber functor, and this category is equivalent to $`Rep(G)`$, see ; , §5.3, pp 199–215. We will identify $`Rep(G)`$ with $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$.

In  a functor $`Z:Rep(G)=𝒫_{𝔊r}𝒫^I(𝔉l)`$ was constructed. It enjoys the following properties:

(i) We have a natural isomorphism of functors $`\pi _{}Zid`$, where $`\pi :𝔉l𝔊r`$ is the projection.

(ii) For $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$, $`𝒢𝒫^I`$ we have $`𝒢Z()𝒫^I`$.

(iii) $`Z`$ is endowed with a natural structure of a central functor from the tensor category $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$ to the monoidal category $`D^I`$.

(iv) A unipotent automorphism (monodromy) $`𝔐`$ of the tensor functor $`Z`$ is given; centrality isomorphism from (iii) commutes with $`𝔐`$.

### 3.3. Monoidal category $`𝒜_𝐜`$

For a subset $`SW`$ let $`𝒫_S^I`$ denote the Serre subcategory of $`𝒫^I`$ with simple objects $`L_w,wS`$. Let $`\widehat{W}_𝐜=_{𝐜^{}_{LR}𝐜}𝐜^{}`$ and $`\widehat{W}_{<𝐜}=_{𝐜^{}<_{LR}𝐜}𝐜^{}`$. We abbreviate $`𝒫_𝐜^I=𝒫_{\widehat{W}_𝐜}^I`$ and $`𝒫_{<𝐜}=𝒫_{\widehat{W}_{<𝐜}}`$. Let $`𝒫_𝐜^I`$ denote the Serre quotient category $`𝒫_𝐜^I/𝒫_{<𝐜}^I`$.

For any object $`XD^I`$ and integer $`i`$ let $`H^i(X)𝒫^I`$ denote $`i`$th perverse cohomology. For any $`X,Y𝒫_𝐜^I`$ let us define truncated convolution $`XY𝒫_𝐜^I`$ by $`XY=H^{a(𝐜)}(XY)mod𝒫_{<𝐜}^I`$. Let $`_𝐜`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝒫_𝐜^I`$ consisting of semisimple objects. It follows from the Decomposition Theorem  that the functor $``$ preserves category $`_𝐜`$. The fact the convolution of pure perverse sheaves is pure implies (see , 2.6) that the Grothendieck group $`K(_𝐜)`$ with the multiplication induced by $``$ is isomorphic to the algebra $`J_𝐜`$. In  a natural associativity constraint was constructed for $``$. Let $`𝕀_𝐜=_{d𝐜𝒟}L_d_𝐜`$ (recall that $`𝒟`$ is the set of distinguished involutions). It is clear that $`𝕀_𝐜XX𝕀_𝐜X`$ for any $`X_𝐜`$. Thus a choice of an isomorphism $`𝕀_𝐜𝕀_𝐜𝕀_𝐜`$ defines a structure of a monoidal category on $`_𝐜`$, see . We will fix such a choice for the rest of this paper.

Let $`𝒜_𝐜`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝒫_𝐜^I`$ consisting of all subquotients of $`L_wZ()mod𝒫_{<𝐜}^I`$ where $`w𝐜`$ and $`𝒫_{𝔊r}`$. The following Proposition is proved in , Proposition 2.

Proposition. Restriction of $``$ to $`𝒜_𝐜`$ takes values in $`𝒜_𝐜`$, is exact in each variable, and it equips $`𝒜_𝐜`$ with a structure of a monoidal category with unit object $`𝕀_𝐜`$.

It is clear from the definitions that Lusztig’s category $`_𝐜`$ is a monoidal subcategory of $`𝒜_𝐜`$ consisting of semisimple objects in $`𝒜_𝐜`$.

### 3.4. Some results from

Let $`d𝐜`$ be a Duflo involution. Let $`𝒜_d𝒜_𝐜`$ be the full subcategory consisting of all subquotients of $`L_dZ(),𝒫_{𝔊r}`$. This category is endowed with a functor $`\text{Res}_d:Rep(G)𝒜_d`$ defined by $`\text{Res}_d()=L_dZ()mod𝒫_{<𝐜}^I`$. The functor $`\text{Res}_d`$ has natural automorphism $`𝔐_d`$ induced by the automorphism $`𝔐`$ of monodromy. The following Theorem is proved in  Theorems 1 and 2:

Theorem. (a) The category $`𝒜_d`$ has a natural structure of a tensor category with unit object $`L_d`$, functor $`\text{Res}_d`$ has a natural structure of a tensor functor and $`𝔐_d`$ is an automorphism of the tensor functor $`\text{Res}_d`$.

(b) Moreover, there exists a subgroup $`H_dG`$, a unipotent element $`N_dG`$ commuting with $`H_d`$, an equivalence of tensor categories $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d:Rep(H_d)𝒜_d`$, and a natural transformation of functors $`\text{Res}_{H_d}^G\mathrm{\Phi }_d\text{Res}_d`$ which interwines the tensor automorphism $`𝔐_d`$ with the action of $`N_d`$. The pair $`(H_d,N_d)`$ is unique up to a simultaneous conjugacy. The element $`N_d`$ is conjugate to $`u_𝐜`$.

It is proved in  that the intersection $`𝐜\widehat{W}^f`$ consists of a unique canonical left cell which we will denote $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐜`$ (recall that $`\widehat{W}^f`$ is a set of shortest representatives of right $`W_f`$cosets in $`\widehat{W}`$). In particular, there exists a unique distinguished involution $`d=d^f𝐜\widehat{W}^f`$. We call $`d^f`$ a canonical distinguished involution.

Theorem. (see  Theorem 3) (a) The set of irreducible objects of $`𝒜_{d^f}`$ is $`\{L_w|w\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐜(\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐜)^1\}`$.

(b) The subgroup $`H_{d^f}`$ contains a maximal reductive subgroup of the centralizer $`Z_G(u_𝐜)`$.

### 3.5. Central action of $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$

Consider the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}:Rep(G)=𝒫_{𝔊r}𝒜_𝐜`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{F}()=Z()𝕀_𝐜mod𝒫_{<𝐜}^I`$. It is easy to see from 3.2 that the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ has a natural structure of a central functor. Moreover, this functor has a canonical tensor unipotent automorphism $`𝔐`$ (monodromy) commuting with the centrality isomorphism.

Theorem 1. There exists a central functor $`F:Rep(Z_G(u_𝐜))𝒜_𝐜`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F\text{Res}_{Z_G(u_𝐜)}^G`$. Moreover, automorphism $`𝔐`$ is induced by the action of $`u_𝐜`$ on $`\text{Res}_{Z_G(u_𝐜)}^G`$.

Proof. Let $`𝒟(𝒜_𝐜)`$ denote the Drinfeld double of the monoidal category $`𝒜_𝐜`$, see e. g. . By the universal property of double the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ can be factorized as

where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0`$ is again a central functor. Recall that the unit object of $`𝒟(𝒜_𝐜)`$ is $`𝕀_𝐜`$ endowed with the centrality isomorphism induced by the unity isomorphisms:

$$𝕀_𝐜XXX𝕀_𝐜.$$

We remark that $`𝕀_𝐜`$ considered as an object of $`𝒟(𝒜_𝐜)`$ is irreducible: it is easy to see from Lemma 2.4 that any subobject of $`𝕀_𝐜`$ in $`𝒜_𝐜`$ does not lie in the center of $`𝒜_𝐜`$ even on the level of $`K`$theory. Now consider the full subcategory $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}𝒟(𝒜_𝐜)`$ consisting of all subquotients of objects $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0(X),XRep(G)`$. Then the conditions of Proposition 1  are satisfied for the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒟},\stackrel{~}{F}_0)`$. Consequently, the functor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0`$ factors through the restriction functor $`\text{Res}_H^G`$

for some subgroup $`HG`$ and the action of $`𝔐`$ is given by some unipotent element $`uZ_G(H)`$. Theorem 2 of  identifies $`u`$ with $`u_𝐜`$. Hence the subgroup $`H`$ is contained in $`Z_G(u_𝐜)`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`H=Z_G(u_𝐜)`$. We set the functor $`F`$ to be equal to the composition

$$Rep(Z_G(u_𝐜))\stackrel{F_0}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}𝒟(𝒜_𝐜)𝒜_𝐜.$$

The Theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us restrict $`F`$ to the semisimple part of the category $`Rep(Z_G(u_𝐜))`$, that is to the category $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$ where $`F_𝐜`$ is the maximal reductive factor of $`Z_G(u_𝐜)`$.

Proposition. For any $`XRep(F_𝐜)`$ the object $`F(X)𝒜_𝐜`$ is semisimple.

Proof. We can assume that $`X`$ is simple. Let $`YRep(G)`$ be an object such that $`X`$ is a subquotient of $`\text{Res}_{F_𝐜}^G(Y)`$. The object $`\stackrel{~}{F}(Y)`$ carries the monodromy filtration; by Gabber’s Theorem (see , Theorem 5.1.2) it coincides with the weight filtration, so the associated graded object $`gr\stackrel{~}{F}(Y)`$ is semisimple by , 5.4.6. By the Theorem 1 we get the same filtration from the action of $`u_𝐜`$ on $`F(\text{Res}_{Z_G(u_𝐜)}^G)`$. But the object $`X`$ is a direct summand of $`gr\text{Res}_{Z_G(u_𝐜)}^G(Y)`$ with respect to this filtration. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a corollary we get

Theorem 2. The functor $`F`$ restricts to a central functor $`F:Rep(F_𝐜)_𝐜`$.

## 4. Canonical cell

### 4.1. Module categories

In this subsection we review basic theory of module categories. A more detailed exposition will appear in . We will work over a fixed field $`k`$.

Let $`𝒞`$ be an abelian monoidal category with biexact tensor product and with unit object $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Definition. A module category $``$ over $`𝒞`$ is an abelian category $``$ endowed with

1) An exact bifunctor $`:Rep(H)\times 𝒞𝒞`$,

2) Functorial associativity isomorphisms $`V(V^{}M)(VV^{})M`$ for any $`V,V^{}𝒞,M`$,

3) Functorial unit isomorphisms $`\mathrm{𝟏}MM`$ for any $`M`$

subject to the usual pentagon and triangle axioms: the following diagrams where all arrows are associativity and unit isomorphisms commute:

The notions of module functors, and, in particular, equivalences of module categories is defined in the obvious way.

Remark. Module categories over general monoidal categories were considered by L. Crane and I. Frenkel, see . The name comes from considering the notion of a monoidal category as categorification of the notion of a ring. Module categories seem to be of importance in Conformal Field Theory where they are implicitly considered in the context of Boundary Conformal Field Theory.

Of course the category $`𝒞`$ is a module category over itself with associativity and unit isomorphisms induced by ones in tensor category $`𝒞`$. Another example can be obtained as follows. Let $`A𝒞`$ be an associative algebra with unit, that is associative multiplication $`AAA`$ is defined and there is an inclusion $`\mathrm{𝟏}A`$ satisfying unit axioms. Then category $`Mod_𝒞(A)`$ of right $`A`$modules in the category $`𝒞`$ has an obvious structure of a module category.

We will say that a module category $``$ is generated by objects $`M_1,M_2,\mathrm{}`$ over $`𝒞`$ if any object of $``$ is a subquotient of $`VM_i`$ for some $`V𝒞`$. We will say that $``$ is finitely generated over $`𝒞`$ if there exists finitely many (equivalently one) objects $`M_1,\mathrm{}`$ such that $``$ is generated by them over $`𝒞`$.

Assume from now on that the category $`𝒞`$ is rigid. Then there exists a canonical isomorphism $`Hom(VM,N)Hom(M,V^{}N)`$ for any $`V𝒞,M,N`$.

Now assume that both categories $`𝒞`$ and $``$ are semisimple. For any two objects $`M,N`$ the functor $`𝒞Vec_k,VHom(VM,N)`$ is representable by an ind-object $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,N)`$ of $`𝒞`$. By Yoneda’s Lemma $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}`$ is a bifunctor $`^{op}\times `$ ind-objects of $`𝒞`$.

Lemma. Assume that $`\omega :𝒞`$ is an exact faithful tensor functor. Then for any $`M,N\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,N)𝒞`$.

Proof. It is clear that the map $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,N)\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(\omega (M),\omega (N))`$ is an imbedding. $`\mathrm{}`$

Assume that for any $`M,N`$ the ind-object $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,N)`$ is an object of $`𝒞`$. For any three objects $`M,N,K`$ a functorial and associative multiplication $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(N,K)\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,N)\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,K)`$ is defined (note that the order of factors is opposite to the intuitive one). In particular, for any object $`M𝒞`$ the object $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,M)`$ has a natural structure of an associative algebra in $`𝒞`$. Assume that $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,X)0`$ for any $`X`$, that is the category $``$ is generated by $`M`$ over $`𝒞`$. It is easy to see that the functor $`F_M:Mod_𝒞(A),F_M(X)=\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,X)`$ is a tensor functor. Moreover, we claim that this functor is an equivalence of categories. The proof is straightforward: first one shows that the functor $`F_M`$ induces an isomorphism on Hom’s for objects of the form $`VM,V𝒞`$, and then one uses the fact that any object of $``$ admits a resolution by objects of the form $`VM`$. Summarizing we get the following

Proposition. Let $`𝒞`$ be a semisimple rigid monoidal category and let $``$ be a semisimple module category over $`𝒞`$. Assume that there exists an exact faithful module functor $`\omega :𝒞`$. Then the category $``$ is equivalent to the category $`Mod_𝒞(A)`$ for some associative algebra $`A`$. Moreover one can choose $`A=\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(M,M)`$ for any object $`M𝒞`$ generating $``$ over $`𝒞`$.

Let $`=Mod_𝒞(A)`$ be a module category. Consider the category $`Fun(,)`$ consisting of module functors $``$. It is clear that the category $`Fun(,)`$ is a monoidal category with tensor product induced by the composition of functors and identity functor as unit object. One shows easily that the monoidal category $`Fun(,)`$ is equivalent to the category of $`AA`$ bimodules in $`𝒞`$ with the obvious monoidal structure.

### 4.2. Module categories over $`Rep(H)`$

In this subsection we specialize ourselves to the case when $`𝒞=Rep(H)`$ for some reductive group $`H`$ over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero.

Examples. (i) $`Rep(H)`$ with the associativity and unit isomorphisms induced from those in the monoidal category $`Rep(H)`$ is of course a module category over $`Rep(H)`$.

(ii) More generally, let $`X`$ be a variety endowed with an $`H`$action. The category $`Coh_H(X)`$ of coherent $`H`$equivariant sheaves on $`X`$ is a module category. We get example (i) by letting $`X=`$point.

(iii) Let $`1𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}H1`$ be a central extension of $`H`$ whose kernel is identified with the multiplicative group $`𝔾_m`$ (we will call such a data just “a central extension”); of course, such an extension is necessarily the pushforward if a central extension $`1C\stackrel{~}{H}^{}H1`$ under a homomorphism $`C𝔾_m`$ for a finite cyclic group $`C`$. Then the category $`Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H})`$ of representations $`V`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ such that $`𝔾_m`$ acts on $`V`$ via identity character is a module category over $`Rep(H)`$. We will also consider the category $`Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H})`$ of representations of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ on which $`𝔾_m`$ acts via character $`xx^1`$.

We will say that a module category $`𝒞`$ has a quasifiber functor if there exists a faithful exact module functor $`\omega :𝒞Rep(H)`$. The quasifiber functor if it exists is not unique: for any $`VRep(H)`$ and quasifiber functor $`\omega `$ the functor $`M\omega (M)V`$ is again a quasifiber functor.

Example. (iv) Let $`H^{}H`$ be a subgroup of finite index. Let $`1𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}^{}H^{}1`$ be a central extension. The category $`Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}^{})`$ is a module category over $`Rep(H)`$ with the $`Rep(H)`$action which factors through the restriction functor $`Rep(H)Rep(H^{})`$. Let $`V_0Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}^{})`$ be a fixed object. It is easy to see that the functor $`VInd_H^{}^H(VV_0),VRep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}^{})`$ is a quasifiber functor ($`𝔾_m`$ acts trivially on $`VV_0`$ so $`VV_0`$ can be considered as a representation of $`H^{}`$).

Example (iv) reduces to the example (i) with $`X=H/H^{}`$ if the central extension splits.

Example. (iv) Finite sums of categories considered in Example (iv) admit the following invariant description.

A finite $`H`$-set of centrally extended points is the following collection of data:

(a) A finite set $`X`$ with an $`H`$ action;

(b) For any $`xX`$ a central extension $`𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}(x)H(x)`$ of the stabilizer $`H(x)=Stab_H(x)`$. These should be equivariant under the action of $`H`$, i.e. for every $`gG`$ an isomorphism of $`i_x^g:\stackrel{~}{H}(x)\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{H}(gx)`$ identical on $`𝔾_m`$ and covering the map $`C_g:H(x)H(g(x))`$ (conjugation by $`x`$) should be given. $`i_g^x`$ should coincide with the conjugation by $`g`$ when $`gH(x)`$ and should satisfy $`i_{g_1g_2}^x=i_{g_1}^{g_2(x)}i_{g_2}^x`$.

Let $`𝐗`$ be a finite set of centrally extended points. An equivariant sheaf on $`𝐗`$ is a sheaf $``$ of finite dimensional $``$-vector spaces on the underlying set $`X`$ together with

(a) a projective $`H`$-equivariant structure on $``$.

(b) For every $`xX`$ an action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x)`$ on the stalk $`_x`$, comprising an object of $`Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}(x))`$.

The data (a) and (b) should be compatible, i.e. (b) should be $`H`$-equivariant, and the projective action of $`H(x)`$ arising from (b) must coincide with the one arising from (a).

Equivariant sheaves on $`𝐗`$ obviously form a category, which we denote by $`Coh_H(𝐗)`$.

Choosing a set of representatives $`x_i`$ for $`H`$-orbits on $`X`$ we see that the data of a centrally extended set with underlying equivariant set $`X`$ is equivalent to a collection $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ of central extensions $`𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}_iH_i=H(x_i)`$. The category $`Coh_H(𝐗)`$ is then canonically equivalent to the direct sum $`_iRep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}_i)`$.

Theorem 3. Let $``$ be a semisimple module category over $`Rep(H)`$ finitely generated over $`Rep(H)`$. Assume that $``$ admits a quasifiber functor. Then $``$ is equivalent to $`Coh_H(𝐗)`$ for some centrally extended finite $`H`$-set $`𝐗`$ (i.e. to a finite direct sum of some categories of the type described in Example (iv) above).

Proof. By Proposition 4.1 the module category $``$ is equivalent to the module category $`Mod_{Rep(H)}(A)`$ for some finite dimensional $`H`$algebra $`A`$.

Lemma. Semisimplicity of $``$ implies semisimplicity of $`A`$ as an algebra in the category of vector spaces.

Proof. Consider the regular representation $`A_{reg}`$ of $`A`$ as an object of $`Mod_{Rep(H)}(A)`$. Let $`r(A)`$ be the Jacobson radical of $`A`$. It is clear that $`r(A)`$ is $`H`$invariant, hence $`r(A)`$ is subobject of $`A_{reg}`$ in $`Mod_{Rep(H)}(A)`$. Suppose $`A_{reg}=r(A)A_1`$ for some $`A_1Mod_{Rep(H)}(A)`$. Applying the forgetful functor $`Mod_{Rep(H)}(A)Mod(A)`$ to $`A_{reg}`$ we would get a complement to $`r(A)`$, which is impossible unless $`r(A)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let $`A1=e_i`$ is the decomposition of $`1`$ in the sum of minimal central orthogonal idempotents. The group $`H`$ acts on the set $`\{e_i\}`$. We may assume that this action is transitive. Let $`H_1H`$ be the stabilizer of $`e_1`$, the subgroup of finite index in $`H`$. The algebra $`e_1Ae_1`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra and the group $`H_1`$ acts on $`e_1Ae_1`$. We can choose a projective representation $`V`$ of $`H_1`$ and an isomorphism $`e_1Ae_1End(V)`$. It is clear that $`AInd_{H_1}^H(e_1Ae_1)=Ind_{H_1}^HEnd(V)`$.

The projective action of $`H_1`$ on $`V`$ comes from an action of a central extension $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$ of $`H_1`$. Let us consider the corresponding category from example (iv) $`Rep^1(\stackrel{~}{H}_1)`$. The representation $`V`$ can be viewed as an object of this category and one easily calculates $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(V,V)=Ind_{H_1}^HEnd(V)`$. The Theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3. Module category corresponding to the canonical cell

For any subset $`S𝐜`$ let $`_S_𝐜`$ denote the full Serre subcategory with simple objects $`L_w,wS`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐜`$ be the canonical right cell, see . Let $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐜`$ be the corresponding subcategory. By the definition of a right cell we have $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐜_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Define on $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a structure of a module category over $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$ by the formula $`VM=F(V)M`$ where $`F`$ is a functor from Theorem 2. Note that due to the centrality of functor $`F`$ we have $`F(Rep(F_𝐜))_\mathrm{\Gamma }=_\mathrm{\Gamma }F(Rep(F_𝐜))_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so this is well defined. We claim that this category admits a quasifiber functor. Indeed, let $`\{w_1,w_2,\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ be a set of representatives of all right cells contained in $`𝐜`$ (such a set exists by the Lemma 2.4 and is finite since Lusztig proved (see  II 2.2) that the number of cells in an affine Weyl group is finite). Consider the functor $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1},XX(L_{w_i})`$. Recall that in  the monoidal category $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}`$ was identified with $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$, see 3.4. It is a simple exercise to check that this functor is module functor with the module structure induced by the associativity isomorphism in $`_𝐜`$, and it is clear that it is exact and faithful. So this is quasifiber functor, and we can apply Theorem 3. We get

Proposition. The category $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a module category over $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$ is equivalent to the category $`Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)`$ of coherent sheaves on a finite $`F_𝐜`$set $`𝐗`$ of possibly centrally extended points.

Note that the inclusion $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives us a distinguished point $`\mathrm{𝟎}𝐗`$ which is just a usual (not centrally extended) point fixed by the $`F_𝐜`$action.

## 5. Square of a finite set

### 5.1. Monoidal category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$

Consider the category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ consisting of all module functors $`Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)`$. It is a monoidal category with the tensor product induced by the composition of functors and unit object equal to the identity functor. Since the category $`Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)`$ is semisimple, any functor $`FFun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ has left and right adjoint functors $`F^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$. Observe that adjoint of tensor functor has a natural structure of a module functor and hence $`F^{},{}_{}{}^{}FFun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$. Standard properties of adjoint functors show that $`F^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$ are right and left duals of $`F`$ in the monoidal category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$. So the category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ is rigid.

Lemma. The category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ is semisimple.

Proof. Let us choose an $`F_𝐜`$algebra $`A`$ and an equivalence $`Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)Mod_{Rep(F_𝐜}(A)`$. Then the category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ is equivalent to the category of $`AA`$ bimodules in $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$, or to the category of $`AA^{op}`$modules in $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$ where $`A^{op}`$ is $`A`$ with the opposite multiplication. The latter category is clearly semisimple since $`AA^{op}`$ is a semisimple algebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that in semisimple monoidal category left and right duals coincide, so in the future we will not distinguish left and right duals.

Remark. For an $`H`$-set $`X`$ it is easy to construct an equivalence $`Fun_H(X,X)Coh_H(X\times X)`$. Let us spell out a generalization of this statement to centrally extended $`H`$-sets.

Recall that for two central extensions $`1𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}_iH1`$, $`i=1,2`$ their product is defined by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{12}=\stackrel{~}{H}_1\times _H\stackrel{~}{H}_2/𝔾_m`$, where $`𝔾_m`$ is embedded antidiagonally; also for a central extension $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ the opposite central extension $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}`$ is the same group with the same homomorphism to $`H`$ but with the identification of its kernel with $`𝔾_m`$ replaced by the opposite one (composition of the original one with the map $`xx^1`$).

Now for two centrally extended $`H`$-sets $`𝐗`$, $`𝐘`$ one can define their product in the obvious manner: the underlying equivariant set is $`X\times Y`$, where $`X,Y`$ are equivariant sets underlying $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$; the central extension $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x,y)`$ is the product of restrictions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x)`$ and of $`\stackrel{~}{H}(y)`$ to $`H(x,y)`$. For a centrally extended $`H`$-set $`𝐗`$ we obtain the opposite centrally extended set $`𝐗^{}`$ replacing each of the central extensions $`𝔾_m\stackrel{~}{H}(x)H(x)`$ by the opposite one.

If $`𝐗`$, $`𝐘`$, $`𝐙`$ are centrally extended $`H`$-sets with underlying $`H`$-sets $`X,Y,Z`$, then for $`Coh_H(X\times Y^{})`$, $`𝒢Coh_H(Y\times Z)`$ the sheaf $`\underset{¯}{}\underset{¯}{}𝒢`$ on $`X\times Y\times Z`$ carries a natural structure of an equivariant sheaf on $`𝐗\times 𝐘_0\times 𝐙`$ (here $`𝐘_0`$ is $`Y`$ equipped with the trivial (split) centrally extended structure). Thus the convolution $`𝒢=\mathrm{pr}_{13}(\underset{¯}{}\underset{¯}{}𝒢)`$ (where $`\mathrm{pr}_{13}:X\times Y\times ZX\times Z`$ is the projection) carries the structure of an equivariant sheaf on $`𝐗\times 𝐙`$. In particular, for $`𝐗=𝐘=𝐙`$ we get a monoidal structure on $`Coh_H(𝐗\times 𝐗^{})`$; and for $`𝐗=𝐘`$, and $`𝐙`$ being the point with the split central extension we get a monoidal functor of $`Coh_H(𝐗\times 𝐗^{})Fun_H(𝐗)`$. It is easy to see that this functor is an equivalence.

### 5.2. Monoidal functor $`G`$

We have a monoidal functor $`G:_𝐜^{op}Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗),`$ $`G(X)=\mathrm{?}X`$ where $`_𝐜^{op}`$ is $`_𝐜`$ with the opposite tensor product. It is clear that $`G`$ is exact and faithful.

The main result of this section is the following

Theorem 4. The functor $`G`$ is a tensor equivalence $`_𝐜^{op}Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$.

Corollary. Suppose that any subgroup of finite index in $`F_𝐜`$ has no nontrivial projective representations. Then Lusztig’s Conjecture holds for the cell $`𝐜`$.

### 5.3. A result of G. Lusztig

The following result cited from  II Proposition 1.4 is cruicial for the proof of Theorem 4.

Proposition. (a) Assume that $`L_xL_y,x,y𝐜`$ contains as a direct summand $`L_d,d𝒟`$. Then $`x=y^1`$ and the multiplicity of $`L_d`$ in $`L_xL_y`$ is one.

(b) For any $`x𝐜`$ the truncated convolution $`L_xL_{x^1}`$ contains $`L_d`$ for a uniquely defined $`d𝒟𝐜`$.

### 5.4. Proof of the Theorem 4.

Since the category $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ is semisimple it is enough to prove the following statements:

(i) Any functor from $`Fun_{F_𝐜}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ appears as a direct summand of $`G(L),L_𝐜^{op}`$.

(ii) For any $`w𝐜`$ the functor $`G(L_w)`$ is irreducible.

(iii) For $`w,w^{}𝐜`$ an isomorphism $`G(L_w)=G(L_w^{})`$ implies $`w=w^{}`$.

#### 5.4.1.

We begin with the following

Lemma. (a) For any $`w\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the functor $`G(L_w)`$ is irreducible. Moreover $`G`$ induces an equivalence $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ { module functors $`Rep(F_𝐜)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$} .

(b) For any $`w\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ the functor $`G(L_w)`$ is irreducible. Moreover, $`G`$ induces an equivalence $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}`$ { module functors $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }Rep(F_𝐜)`$} .

Proof. (a) It is clear that $`L_vL_w=0`$ for any $`w\mathrm{\Gamma },v\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. So the functor $`G(L_w)`$ can be considered as a functor $`Rep(F_𝐜)=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For any module category $``$ over $`Rep(F_𝐜)`$ the map $`ff(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ defines an equivalence of categories $`Fun_{Rep(F_𝐜)}(Rep(F_𝐜),)`$. In our case $`G(L_w)(\mathrm{𝟏})=L_{d^f}L_w=L_w`$ and (a) is proved.

(b) Let us first check that for $`w\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ we have

$`()`$
$$G(L_w)^{}G(L_{w^1}),$$

where $`G(L_w)^{}`$ is the functor adjoint to $`G(L_w)`$.

For $`w\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ the functor $`G(L_w)`$ maps $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}=Rep(F_𝐜)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus $`G(L_w)^{}`$ sends $`L_v`$ to zero unless $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$; hence part (a) of the Lemma implies that $`G(L_w)^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`G(L)`$ for some $`L_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To see that $`LL_{w^1}`$ it is enough to check that for $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the space $`Hom((G(L_v),G(L_w)^{}))`$ is one dimensional if $`v=w^1`$, and is zero otherwise. We have $`Hom((G(L_v),G(L_w)^{}))=Hom(G(L_w)G(L_v),Id__\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Notice that $`G(L_w)G(L_v)`$ preserves the direct summand $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and is zero on its complement. It follows that

$$Hom(G(L_w)G(L_v),Id__\mathrm{\Gamma })=Hom(G(L_w)G(L_v)|_{_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1},Id_{_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}).$$

Since $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}Rep(F_𝐜)`$ by 3.4, and the category of module functors from $`Rep(H)`$ to $`Rep(H)`$ (considered as the free module over itself) is equivalent to $`Rep(H)`$, we see that

$$Hom(G(L_w)G(L_v),Id_{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}})=Hom_{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}}(L_wL_v,L_{d^f}),$$

thus $`()`$ follows from Proposition 5.3.

Irreducibility of $`G(L_w)`$ follows from $`()`$ and part (a), because the dual object of an irreducible object (in the category of functors) is irreducible. It remains to check that any module functor $`\varphi :_\mathrm{\Gamma }Rep(F_𝐜)`$ is isomorphic to the one coming from some $`L_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}`$. Consider $`\varphi `$ as an endofunctor $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (i.e. take its composition with the imbedding $`Rep(F_𝐜)=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^1}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$); then by (a) the adjoint functor $`\varphi ^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`G(L)`$ for $`L_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so this statement also follows from $`()`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove (i).

Corollary. Any irreducible functor from $`Fun_{Rep(F_𝐜)}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ appears as a direct summand of $`G(L_w^{}L_w),w\mathrm{\Gamma },w^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$.

Proof. We need to prove that any irreducible functor $`fFun_{Rep(F_𝐜)}(𝐗,𝐗)`$ is a direct summand of a composite functor $`Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)Rep(F_𝐜)Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)`$. For this we choose any functor $`g:Coh_{F_𝐜}(𝐗)Rep(F_𝐜)`$ such that the composition $`gf`$ is nonzero. Let $`g^{}`$ be the adjoint functor to $`g`$. Then $`f`$ is evidently a direct summand of $`(g^{}g)f`$ which admits the required factorisation $`g^{}(gf)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 5.4.2.

Lemma. For any $`w𝐜𝒟`$ we have $`Hom(G(L_w),id)=0`$.

Proof. We note that $`L_w`$ as an object of $`_𝐜`$ is a direct summand of $`L_uL_v`$ where $`u\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (this follows easily for the example from Theorem 1.8 in  II). Assume that $`Hom(G(L_w),id)0`$ and hence $`Hom(G(L_uL_v),id)0`$. Then we get a nonzero transformation $`G(L_u)G(L_v)^{}`$; since both functors are irreducible by Lemma 5.4.1 they are actually isomorphic. On the other hand, Proposition 5.3 provides a non-zero transformation $`G(L_u)G(L_u^1)Id`$, which also yields an isomorphism $`G(L_u)^{}G(L_{u^1})`$. Thus $`G(L_{u^1})G(L_v)`$, and by Lemma 5.4.1 this yields $`L_{u^1}L_v`$, so $`v=u^1`$. Furthermore, $`dimHom(G(L_uL_v),id)=dimHom(G(L_v),G(L_u)^{})=1`$; and by Proposition 5.3 the object $`L_uL_v`$ contains $`L_d`$ for a uniquely defined $`d𝒟`$. Since $`Hom(G(L_d),id)0`$ we have that $`Hom(L_w,id)=0`$ if $`wd`$. The Lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we can prove (ii)

Corollary. For any $`w𝐜`$ the functor $`G(L_w)`$ is irreducible.

Proof. Consider the adjoint functor $`G(L_w)^{}`$. By Lemma 5.4.1 any summand of $`G(L_w)^{}`$ appears as a direct summand of $`G(L_w^{})`$. For such $`w^{}`$ we have a non-zero transformation $`G(L_w^{})G(L_w)=G(L_wL_w^{})Id`$, and by Lemma 5.4.2 and Proposition 5.3 this is possible only when $`w^{}=w^1`$. If $`G(L_w)`$ is reducible this implies that $`dimHom(G(L_w)G(L_{w^1}),id)>1`$. On the other hand $`dimHom(G(L_w)G(L_{w^1}),id)=dimHom(G(L_{w^1}L_w),id)=1`$ by Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 5.4.2, and we get a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 5.4.3.

We can now prove (iii). Assume that $`G(L_w)=G(L_w^{})`$. Then $`G(L_w)G(L_{w^1})=G(L_w^{})G(L_{w^1})`$. Since $`Hom(G(L_w)G(L_{w^1}),id)0`$ we have that $`Hom(G(L_w^{})G(L_{w^1}),id)0`$ and by the Proposition 5.3 $`w^{}=(w^1)^1=w`$.

Since we proved (i) (ii) and (iii) the Theorem 4 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.5. Examples

The Corollary 5.2 can be applied in the following cases:

(a) Let $`G`$ be a simply connected group and let $`𝐜`$ be the lowest cell. In this case $`u_𝐜=eG`$ and $`F_𝐜=G`$. In this case Corollary 5.2 is a result of .

(b) Let $`G=GL_n`$. In this case all groups $`F_𝐜`$ are connected and have no nontrivial projective representations (these groups are products of various $`GL_m`$). In this case we get a result of .

(c) Let $`G`$ be a simply connected group of rank 2. In this case one easily verifies that the condition of Corollary 5.2 is satisfied and we get a result of .

(d) Let $`G`$ be a simple simply connected group. Let $`𝐜`$ be the subregular cell, that is the cell corresponding to the subregular nilpotent orbit. Again one easily verifies that the condition of Corollary 5.2 is satisfied except if $`G`$ is of type $`C_n`$. In the latter case $`F_𝐜=/2\times /2`$ where one of the factors comes from the center of $`G`$. One can exlude centrally extended points in this case by considering a reductive group $`G_1=G\times T/(z,1)`$ where $`T`$ is the one dimensional torus, $`zG`$ is the unique nontrivial central element and $`1T`$ is the unique nontrivial involutive element. So we get another result of .

Finally note that centrally extended points naturally appear in the description of truncated convolution categories for simple non simply-connected groups, see in  8.3 example with $`G=PSL_2`$.