text:
# 1 The allowed regions for M_A [left] and Mₕ [right] from LEP2 searches as a function of tanβ (colored regions) in the case of no mixing (up) and maximal mixing (down). The red regions indicate where 114 GeV 0.9, and the green regions indicate where 114 GeV 0.9.

1 Introduction
The Higgs sector of the MSSM consists of five physical Higgs states, two CP–even Higgs bosons, $`h`$ and $`H`$, a CP–odd $`A`$ and two charged $`H^\pm `$ bosons . Supersymmetric relations imply that at least the lightest one, $`h`$, has a mass below $`130`$ GeV after including radiative corrections  and will therefore be accessible at future $`pp`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. In the decoupling regime , the $`H,A`$ and $`H^\pm `$ bosons are very heavy and degenerate, and the light $`h`$ state behaves Standard Model (SM) like. Being of $`𝒪`$(1 TeV) the heavy Higgs particles might escape detection so that the MSSM cannot be disentangled from the SM. A much more interesting scenario would be the opposite non–decoupling regime where all Higgs bosons are rather light and have comparable masses. In the case of large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ one of the CP–even bosons will be almost degenerate in mass with $`A`$ and have almost the same couplings as the pseudoscalar Higgs boson, while the other CP–even Higgs boson behaves SM–like. In this situation all Higgs bosons will be accessible at the next generation of colliders in a plethora of production and decay processes with rates that can be very different from the SM case. Since the Higgs bosons are almost degenerate, several production channels have to be considered at the same time in order to detect the particles individually.

In the following, we discuss this intense–coupling regime taking into account direct and indirect experimental constraints. The various decay branching ratios will be presented, and the production at future colliders, the Tevatron Run II , the LHC  and $`e^+e^{}`$ machines , will be analyzed.
2 The MSSM Higgs sector in the intense–coupling regime
The properties of the MSSM Higgs bosons are defined by their four masses, the ratio $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$, introduced to diagonalize the Higgs boson mass matrix in the CP–even sector. Due to supersymmetry (SUSY), at tree level there are only two independent parameters, in general taken to be the $`A`$ boson mass, $`M_A`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Radiative corrections introduce a further dependence on other soft SUSY breaking parameters . The intense–coupling regime is characterized by rather light, almost degenerate Higgs bosons and large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Taking into account the leading radiative corrections in the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for the Higgs boson masses and the couplings to fermions and gauge bosons, rather simple and accurate formulae can be derived, from which the features of the Higgs boson sector in this non-decoupling scenario can be read off : The Higgs states are almost degenerate in mass, with

$`90<M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`<`$$``$ $`130\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Phi }=h,H,A`$
$`M_{H^\pm }`$ $`<`$$``$ $`150\mathrm{GeV}`$ (1)
For large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ one of the CP–even Higgs bosons, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ in the following, is degenerate in mass with $`A`$ and has large couplings to $`b`$ quarks and $`\tau `$ leptons, i.e. it behaves like a $`A`$ boson, whereas the other CP–even Higgs boson, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$, behaves SM–like with maximal couplings to gauge bosons and strong couplings to top quarks. Depending on whether the $`A`$ boson mass value is below or above a critical mass value $`M_C`$, the respective role is taken over by $`h`$ or $`H`$:

$`M_AM_C:M_H=M_A\mathrm{and}H=\mathrm{\Phi }_AM_h=M_C\mathrm{and}h=\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$
$`M_AM_C:M_h=M_A\mathrm{and}h=\mathrm{\Phi }_AM_H=M_C\mathrm{and}H=\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ (2)
The critical mass $`M_C`$ is approximatively given by

$`M_C`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{M_Z^2+ϵ}\mathrm{with}`$ (3)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3G_F}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_t^4}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}\left[t+{\displaystyle \frac{X_t}{2}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_t^2M_Z^2t}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_t^4}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}(X_tt+t^2)\right]\right\}`$ (4)
where

$`t=\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_S^2}{m_t^2}}\mathrm{and}X_t={\displaystyle \frac{2A_t^2}{M_S^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{A_t^2}{12M_S^2}}\right)`$ (5)
$`G_F`$ denotes the Fermi constant, $`\overline{m}_t`$ the running $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ top quark mass at the scale $`M_t=175`$ GeV, to account for the leading QCD corrections, $`\alpha _s`$ the strong coupling constant at $`M_t`$, $`A_t`$ the stop trilinear coupling and $`M_S`$ the common SUSY breaking mass scale. For $`M_AM_C`$, the decoupling limit is reached and $`h`$ behaves SM–like, cf. (2).
3 Experimental constraints on the intense–coupling regime
3.1 Direct constraints
The search for Higgs bosons at LEP2 in the Higgs–strahlung process, $`e^+e^{}ZH^0`$, has set a lower bound on the SM Higgs boson mass, $`M_{H^0}>114.4`$ GeV at the 95% confidence level . In the MSSM, this bound is valid for the lighter CP–even Higgs boson $`h`$ if its coupling to $`Z`$ bosons is SM–like, $`g_{ZZh}^2/g_{ZZH^0}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )1`$, or for the heavier CP–even state $`H`$ in the case of a SM–like $`ZZH`$ coupling, $`g_{ZZH}^2/g_{ZZH^0}^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )1`$.

In addition, the search for Higgs bosons in the associated production process $`e^+e^{}Ah`$ sets the limits $`M_h>91.0`$ GeV and $`M_A>91.9`$ GeV at the 95% confidence level . In order to derive a bound on $`M_h`$ for arbitrary values of $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we have fitted the exclusion plots for $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ versus $`M_h`$ and $`M_A+M_h`$, respectively, given in , and delineated the regions allowed by the LEP2 data up to $`\sqrt{s}=209`$ GeV in the \[$`M_A,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$\] and \[$`M_h,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$\] planes . Fig. 1 shows the domains allowed by the LEP2 constraints for the no–mixing scenario, i.e. the trilinear soft SUSY breaking coupling in the stop sector $`A_t=0`$ TeV, and the maximal mixing scenario, $`A_t\sqrt{6}`$ TeV. In the maximal mixing scenario, the allowed region is larger, since the large stop mixing increases the maximal $`M_h`$ value to the level where it exceeds the discovery limit, $`M_h>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}114}`$ GeV.

The red and the green regions show the implication of the 2.1$`\sigma `$ evidence for a SM–like Higgs boson with a mass $`M_{\mathrm{\Phi }_H}=115.6`$ GeV . Considering the theoretical and experimental uncertainties, this result has been interpreted as favoring the mass range $`114`$ GeV $`<M_{\mathrm{\Phi }_H}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}117}`$ GeV. Since this Higgs boson should be SM–like, the additional constraint $`g_{ZZ\mathrm{\Phi }_H}^2/g_{ZZH^0}^20.9`$ has been imposed. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the $`H`$ boson can be the “observed” Higgs boson only in the case of zero mixing. For large stop mixing, the $`H`$ boson mass always exceeds 117 GeV.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that the intense–coupling regime, where $`90`$ GeV $`<M_\mathrm{\Phi }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}130}`$ GeV \[$`\mathrm{\Phi }=h,H,A`$\] and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, is still allowed by the LEP2 searches.

Further constraints can be obtained from the Higgs boson searches at the Tevatron . The search for the top decay mode into a $`b`$-quark and a charged Higgs boson, $`tbH^+`$, sets the limits $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}50}`$ for $`M_{H^\pm }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}150}`$ GeV (i.e. $`M_A<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}130}`$ GeV). The data on $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}+2`$ jets can be exploited to derive limits from the process $`ppb\overline{b}A`$, leading to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}80}`$ for $`M_A<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}130}`$ GeV. In summary, the intense–coupling regime is not excluded by the Tevatron data.
3.2 Indirect constraints
Indirect constraints on the parameters of the MSSM Higgs sector come from high precision data . We examined the contributions of the MSSM Higgs sector in the intense–coupling regime  and found that they do not violate the experimental constraints on the $`\rho `$ parameter (the new physics contribution is limited to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{NP}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.1}10^3`$), the anomalous magnetic moment ($`a_\mu =11659202(20)10^{10}`$), the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ vertex (the forward-backward asymmetry of the decay $`Zb\overline{b}`$ is $`A_{FB}^b=0.099\pm 0.002`$) and the $`bs\gamma `$ decay (the branching ratio is given by $`BR(bs\gamma )=(3.37\pm 0.37\pm 0.34\pm 0.24_{0.16}^{+0.35}\pm 0.38)10^4`$).
4 Branching ratios and total widths
Fig. 2 shows the branching ratios of the neutral Higgs bosons $`A,h,H`$ as a function of their respective mass for $`90<M_A<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}130}`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$.

As can be inferred from the figure, the $`A`$ boson decays with a ratio of 90% into $`b\overline{b}`$ and of 10% into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, the other branching ratios being below $`10^3`$. The pattern for the branching ratios of the CP–even Higgs bosons is similar to that of the $`A`$ boson if their masses are close to $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, unless $`h`$ and $`H`$ have masses close to $`M_C`$, where they behave SM–like. In practice, however, this limit is not reached, especially for $`h`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}50}`$. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the $`h`$ branching ratios are all below $`10^3`$ except for the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states. This is because the $`h`$ coupling to gauge bosons does not reach the SM limit, while the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling is still enhanced for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In the case of $`H`$ and $`M_H>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}125}`$ GeV the branching ratios into $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`WW`$ and $`gg`$ are much smaller than in the SM. They approach the SM values near the critical mass. For larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, however, a new feature occurs. The $`H`$ coupling to down type fermions becomes strongly suppressed and at some stage nearly vanishes, so that the branching ratios into $`WW,gg`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ become larger than in the SM case in this pathological region , cf. Fig. 3.

Finally, the total decay widths of $`h,H`$ are SM–like for masses near $`M_C`$ and therefore rather small. Otherwise, the total width of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$–like boson, dominated by the decays in $`b`$ and $`\tau `$, being proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$, can become rather large for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values \[e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^H7`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`M_A=130`$ GeV\], cf. Fig. 4.
5 Production at Future Colliders
5.1 Production at $`pp`$ colliders.
The neutral MSSM Higgs bosons can be produced in a plethora of processes at Tevatron
Run II and the LHC. Fig. 5 shows the main production processes at the LHC for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, i.e. gluon–gluon fusion, $`gg\mathrm{\Phi }`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Phi }=h,H,A`$\], associated production, $`gg,q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Phi }+b\overline{b}/t\overline{t}`$, and $`WW/ZZ`$ fusion, $`VVh,H`$ \[$`V=W,Z`$\]. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`gg`$ fusion process is dominated by the $`b`$ quark loop contributions, which are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ factors, leading to cross sections of up to 1500 pb for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$–like bosons. Due to the large QCD backgrounds, only the $`\gamma \gamma `$ final states can be probed.

In the intense–coupling regime there can be situations, however, where the rates $`\sigma (gg\mathrm{\Phi })\times BR(\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma \gamma )`$ are small for all three Higgs bosons, due to small cross sections, cf. Fig. 5, or small branching ratios into $`\gamma \gamma `$ in the case, where the SM limit is not yet reached, cf. Fig. 2. The $`A,\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ production processes in association with $`b`$ quarks are strongly enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ factors, reaching rates similar to the $`gg`$ fusion process, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Hb\overline{b}`$ cross section is much smaller due to a tiny Yukawa coupling. The detection of $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$, however, is promising, since the additional two $`b`$ quarks in the final state can be exploited to reduce the QCD backgrounds and one does not have to rely on the decays into photons or massive gauge bosons. The associated production cross sections with $`t`$ quark pairs are suppressed due to the smaller phase space and a not enhanced Higgs–$`t\overline{t}`$ coupling. To the contrary, the $`A/\mathrm{\Phi }_At\overline{t}`$ process is strongly suppressed by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ factors. Only the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Ht\overline{t}`$ production reaches cross sections at the level of $`0.3`$ pb. For the detection, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and the $`b\overline{b}`$ final states can be exploited. The latter being more promising due to slightly enhanced branching ratios compared to the SM case, cf. Fig. 2. The vector boson fusion processes are two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the $`gg\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`b\overline{b}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ processes, reaching $`5`$ pb only for the SM–like Higgs boson with maximal coupling to the gauge bosons. In this case the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states would allow for the detection by taking advantage of the energetic quark jets in the forward and backward directions . The corresponding cross sections at the Tevatron show the same pattern being a factor 30 to 150 smaller depending on the process .
5.2 Production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.
The main production processes at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders  are the bremsstrahlung process, $`e^+e^{}Z+h,H`$, the associated production process, $`e^+e^{}A+h,H`$, the vector boson fusion, $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e/e^+e^{}+h,H`$, and the radiation off top and $`b`$ quarks, respectively, $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}/b\overline{b}+\mathrm{\Phi }`$, cf. Fig. 6. Since the cross sections for Higgs-strahlung and Higgs pair production as well as the cross sections for the $`h`$ and $`H`$ production are mutually complementary to each other, and in view of the high luminosity that can be reached at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider  as well as the efficient $`b`$-quark tagging, all neutral Higgs bosons can be discovered at $`e^+e^{}`$ machines in the intense–coupling regime. Furthermore, in the associated production processes with quark pairs, the $`t\overline{t}\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ and for large enough $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`b\overline{b}A,`$ $`b\overline{b}\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ Yukawa couplings can be measured.

6 Summary
The preceding discussion has demonstrated that the phenomenology of the MSSM Higgs bosons in the intense–coupling regime is extremely rich. Being rather light, all Higgs bosons will be accessible at future colliders in various and complementary production channels. New features occurring in this scenario demand in some cases other techniques for the search of these particles than in the SM case and in the MSSM case close to the decoupling limit. Since the Higgs bosons are close in mass, it might be difficult to separate them, and several production channels have to considered at the same time. In addition, the large total widths for the pseudoscalar and pseudoscalar–like Higgs boson lead to broader signals. Finally, the clean $`\gamma \gamma `$ final state signatures used for the Higgs boson searches at the LHC, might be much less frequent than in the SM case. Having summarized the main features of the intense–coupling regime in this note, more detailed Monte-Carlo studies are needed to assess at which extent these Higgs particles can be discovered and their properties can be measured at future colliders.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my collaborators E. Boos, A. Djouadi and A. Vologdin for the fruitful collaboration on this project. This work has been supported by the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.


format: text

text:
# A new proof of the Mullineux conjecture

## 1. Introduction

Let $`S_n`$ be the symmetric group on $`n`$ letters, $`k`$ be a field of characteristic $`p`$ and $`D^\lambda `$ be the irreducible $`kS_n`$-module corresponding to a $`p`$-regular partition $`\lambda `$ of $`n`$, as in . By tensoring $`D^\lambda `$ with the $`1`$-dimensional sign representation we obtain another irreducible $`kS_n`$-module. If $`p=0`$, $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}D^\lambda ^{}`$, where $`\lambda ^{}`$ is the conjugate of the partition $`\lambda `$, and if $`p=2`$, we obviously have that $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}D^\lambda `$. In all other cases, it is surprisingly difficult to describe the partition labeling the irreducible module $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}`$ combinatorially. In 1979, Mullineux  gave an algorithmic construction of a bijection $`𝙼`$ on $`p`$-regular partitions, and conjectured that $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}D^{𝙼(\lambda )}`$.

Mullineux’s conjecture was finally proved in 1996. The key breakthrough leading to the proof was made in , when Kleshchev discovered an alternative algorithm, quite different in nature to Mullineux’s, and proved that it computes the label of $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}`$. Then Ford and Kleshchev  proved combinatorially that Kleshchev’s algorithm was equivalent to Mullineux’s, hence proving the Mullineux conjecture. Since then, different and easier approaches to the combinatorial part of the proof, i.e. that Kleshchev’s algorithm equals Mullineux’s algorithm, have been found by Bessenrodt and Olsson  and by Xu . Also Lascoux, Leclerc and Thibon  have used Ariki’s theorem  to give a different proof of the results of .

The purpose of the present article is to explain a completely different proof of the Mullineux conjecture. In , Xu discovered yet another algorithm, and gave a short combinatorial argument to show that it was equivalent to Mullineux’s original algorithm. We will show directly from representation theory that Xu’s algorithm computes the label of $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}`$. In this way, we obtain a relatively direct proof of the Mullineux conjecture that bypasses Kleshchev’s algorithm altogether.

The idea behind our approach is a simple one. There is a superalgebra analogue of Schur-Weyl duality relating representations of $`S_n`$ to representations of the supergroup $`GL(n|n)`$. Moreover, there is an involution on representations of $`GL(n|n)`$ induced by twisting with its natural outer automorphism, which corresponds under Schur-Weyl duality to tensoring with the sign representation. Ideas of Serganova  give an easy-to-prove algorithm for computing this involution, hence by Schur-Weyl duality we obtain an algorithm for computing $`D^\lambda \mathrm{sgn}`$. Actually, we obtain a whole family of algorithms, one of which turns out to be the same as Xu’s algorithm.

The remainder of the article is arranged as follows. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$2, we review some generalities concerning the supergroup $`G=GL(m|n)`$. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$3, we introduce the superalgebra $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ of distributions on $`G`$ and explain how integrable representations of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ can be lifted to $`G`$ itself. Serganova’s algorithm is derived in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 using some highest weight theory. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$5, we review some known results about polynomial representations and Schur-Weyl duality, allowing us to descend to the symmetric group. Finally in $`\mathrm{\S }`$6 we put it all together with some combinatorics to obtain the proof of the Mullineux conjecture. At the end of $`\mathrm{\S }`$6, we also solve a related question concerning the classification of the irreducible polynomial representations of $`GL(m|n)`$ in positive characteristic, extending work of Donkin . The answer is a natural generalization of the “hook theorem” of Berele and Regev  and Sergeev  in characteristic $`0`$.

Ackowledgements. The idea that $`GL(n|n)`$ could be used to prove the Mullineux conjecture was inspired by a paper of A. Regev . We are especially grateful to V. Serganova for explaining the material in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 to us during a visit to the University of Oregon. We would also like to thank A. Kleshchev for pointing out the reference .

## 2. The supergroup $`GL(m|n)`$

Throughout, let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic $`p2`$. All objects (superalgebras, supergroups, …) will be defined over $`k`$. A *commutative superalgebra* is a $`_2`$-graded associative algebra $`A=A_{\overline{0}}A_{\overline{1}}`$ with $`ab=(1)^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}ba`$ for all homogeneous $`a,bA`$, where $`\overline{x}_2`$ denotes the parity of a homogeneous vector $`x`$ in a vector superspace. For an account of the basic language of superalgebras and supergroups adopted here, we refer the reader to , see also , , \[19, ch.I\] and \[20, ch.3, $`\mathrm{\S }\mathrm{\S }`$1–2, ch.4, $`\mathrm{\S }`$1\].

The supergroup $`G=GL(m|n)`$ is the functor from the category of commutative superalgebras to the category of groups defined on a commutative superalgebra $`A`$ by letting $`G(A)`$ be the group of all invertible $`(m+n)\times (m+n)`$ matrices of the form

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}W\hfill & X\hfill \\ & \\ Y\hfill & Z\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(2.1)
where $`W`$ is an $`m\times m`$ matrix with entries in $`A_{\overline{0}}`$, $`X`$ is an $`m\times n`$ matrix with entries in $`A_{\overline{1}}`$, $`Y`$ is an $`n\times m`$ with entries in $`A_{\overline{1}}`$, and $`Z`$ is an $`n\times n`$ matrix with entries in $`A_{\overline{0}}`$. If $`f:AB`$ is a superalgebra homomorphism, then $`G(f):G(A)G(B)`$ is the group homomorphism defined by applying $`f`$ to the matrix entries.

Let $`Mat`$ be the affine superscheme with $`Mat(A)`$ consisting of all (not necessarily invertible) $`(m+n)\times (m+n)`$ matrices of the above form. For $`1i,jm+n`$, let $`T_{i,j}`$ be the function mapping a matrix to its $`ij`$-entry. Then, the coordinate ring $`k[Mat]`$ is the free commutative superalgebra on the generators $`\{T_{i,j}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}i,jm+n\}`$. Writing $`\overline{i}=\overline{0}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ and $`\overline{i}=\overline{1}`$ for $`i=m+1,\mathrm{},m+n`$, the parity of the generator $`T_{i,j}`$ is $`\overline{i}+\overline{j}`$. By \[19, I.7.2\], a matrix $`gMat(A)`$ of the form (2.1) is invertible if and only if $`detWdetZA^\times `$. Hence, $`G`$ is the principal open subset of $`Mat`$ defined by the function $`det:gdetWdetZ`$. In particular, the coordinate ring $`k[G]`$ is the localization of $`k[Mat]`$ at $`det`$.

Just like for group schemes \[13, I.2.3\], the coordinate ring $`k[G]`$ has the naturally induced structure of a Hopf superalgebra. Explicitly, the comultiplication and counit of $`k[G]`$ are the unique superalgebra maps satisfying

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_{i,j})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}}T_{i,h}T_{h,j},`$ (2.2)
$`\epsilon (T_{i,j})`$ $`=\delta _{i,j}`$ (2.3)
for all $`1i,jm+n`$. The subalgebra $`k[Mat]`$ of $`k[G]`$ is a subbialgebra but not a Hopf subalgebra, as it is not invariant under the antipode.

It is sometimes convenient to work with an alternative set of generators for the coordinate ring $`k[G]`$: define

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j}=(1)^{\overline{i}(\overline{i}+\overline{j})}T_{i,j}.$$
(2.4)
In terms of these new generators, (2.2) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}}(1)^{(\overline{i}+\overline{h})(\overline{h}+\overline{j})}\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,h}\stackrel{~}{T}_{h,j}.`$ (2.5)
A representation of $`G`$ means a natural transformation $`\rho :GGL(M)`$ for some vector superspace $`M`$, where $`GL(M)`$ is the supergroup with $`GL(M)(A)`$ being equal to the group of all even automorphisms of the $`A`$-supermodule $`MA`$, for each commutative superalgebra $`A`$. Equivalently, as with group schemes \[13, I.2.8\], $`M`$ is a right $`k[G]`$-comodule, i.e. there is an even structure map $`\eta :MMk[G]`$ satisfying the usual comodule axioms. We will usually refer to such an $`M`$ as a $`G`$-supermodule. For example, we have the *natural representation* $`V,`$ the $`m|n`$-dimensional vector superspace with canonical basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m,v_{m+1},\mathrm{},v_{m+n}`$ where $`\overline{v}_i=\overline{i}`$. Identify elements of $`VA`$ with column vectors via

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}v_ia_i\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{m+n}\end{array}\right).$$

Then, the $`G(A)`$-action on $`VA`$ is the usual one by left multiplication. The induced comodule structure map $`\eta :VVk[G]`$ is given explicitly by

$$\eta (v_j)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}v_iT_{i,j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}(1)^{\overline{i}(\overline{i}+\overline{j})}v_i\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j}.$$
(2.6)
The underlying purely even group $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ of $`G`$ is by definition the functor from superalgebras to groups with $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}(A):=G(A_{\overline{0}})`$. Thus, $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}(A)`$ consists of all invertible matrices of the form (2.1) with $`X=Y=0`$, so $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}GL(m)\times GL(n)`$. Let $`T`$ be the usual maximal torus of $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ consisting of diagonal matrices. The character group $`X(T)=\mathrm{Hom}(T,𝔾_m)`$ is the free abelian group on generators $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _m,\epsilon _{m+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{m+n}`$, where $`\epsilon _i`$ picks out the $`i`$th diagonal entry of a diagonal matrix. Put a symmetric bilinear form on $`X(T)`$ by declaring that

$$(\epsilon _i,\epsilon _j)=(1)^{\overline{i}}\delta _{i,j}.$$
(2.7)
Let $`WS_m\times S_n`$ be the Weyl group of $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ with respect to $`T`$, identified with the subgroup of $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ consisting of all permutation matrices.

A *full flag* $`F=(F_1\mathrm{}F_{m+n})`$ in the vector superspace $`V`$ means a chain of subsuperspaces of $`V`$ with each $`F_i`$ having dimension $`i`$ as a vector space. If $`(u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_{m+n})`$ is an ordered homogeneous basis for $`V`$, we write $`F(u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_{m+n})`$ for the full flag with $`F_i=u_1,\mathrm{},u_i`$. By definition, a Borel subgroup $`B`$ of $`G`$ is the stabilizer of a full flag $`F`$ in $`V`$, i.e. $`B(A)`$ is the stabilizer in $`G(A)`$ of the canonical image of $`F`$ in $`VA`$ for each commutative superalgebra $`A`$. Since $`GL(m)`$ (resp. $`GL(n)`$) acts transitively on the bases of $`V_{\overline{0}}`$ (resp. $`V_{\overline{1}}`$), it is easy to see two full flags $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ in $`V`$ are conjugate under $`G`$ if and only if the superdimension of $`F_i`$ equals the superdimension of $`F_i^{}`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m+n`$. Consequently there are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+n}{n}\right)`$ different conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups.

View the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`G`$ as the parabolic subgroup $`S_m\times S_n`$ of the symmetric group $`S_{m+n}`$ in the obvious way. Let $`D_{m,n}`$ be the set of all minimal length $`S_m\times S_n\backslash S_{m+n}`$-coset representatives, i.e.

$$D_{m,n}=\{wS_{m+n}|w^11<\mathrm{}<w^1m,w^1(m+1)<\mathrm{}<w^1(m+n)\}.$$

For $`wS_{m+n}`$, let $`B_w`$ be the stabilizer of the full flag $`F(v_{w1},v_{w2},\mathrm{},v_{w(m+n)})`$. Then, the Borel subgroups $`\{B_w|wD_{m,n}\}`$ give a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of Borel subgroup in $`G`$ (cf. \[15, Proposition 1.2(a)\]). We point out that for $`wD_{m,n}`$, the underlying even subgroup of $`B_w`$ is always the usual upper triangular Borel subgroup $`B_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ of $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$.

The root system of $`G`$ is the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\epsilon _i\epsilon _j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}i,jm+n,ij\}`$. There are even and odd roots, the parity of the root $`\epsilon _i\epsilon _j`$ being $`\overline{i}+\overline{j}`$. Choosing $`wS_{m+n}`$ fixes a choice $`B_w`$ of Borel subgroup of $`G`$ containing $`T`$, hence a set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+=\{\epsilon _{wi}\epsilon _{wj}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}i<jm+n\}$$
(2.8)
of positive roots. The corresponding dominance ordering on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is denoted $`_w`$, defined by $`\lambda _w\mu `$ if $`\mu \lambda _0\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+`$.

For examples, first take $`w=1`$. Then, $`B_1=\mathrm{stab}_GF(v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_{m+n})`$ is the Borel subgroup with $`B_1(A)`$ consisting of all upper triangular invertible matrices of the form (2.1). This is the standard choice of Borel subgroup, giving rise to the standard choice of positive roots $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^+`$ and the standard dominance ordering $`_1`$ on $`X(T)`$. Instead, let $`w_0`$ be the longest element of $`S_m\times S_n`$ and $`w_1`$ be the longest element of $`D_{m,n}`$, so that $`w_0w_1`$ is the longest element of the symmetric group $`S_{m+n}`$. Then, $`B_{w_1}=\mathrm{stab}_GF(v_{m+1},\mathrm{},v_{m+n},v_1,\mathrm{},v_m)`$ is the Borel with $`B_{w_1}(A)`$ consisting of all invertible matrices of the form (2.1) with $`X=0`$ and $`W,Z`$ upper triangular. Finally, $`B_{w_0w_1}=w_0B_{w_1}w_0^1`$ is the Borel subgroup of all lower triangular matrices.

## 3. The superalgebra of distributions

We next recall the definition of the superalgebra of distributions $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ of $`G`$, following \[6, $`\mathrm{\S }`$4\]. Let $`_1`$ be the kernel of the counit $`\epsilon :k[G]k`$, a superideal of $`k[G]`$. For $`r0`$, let

$`\mathrm{Dist}_r(G)`$ $`=\{xk[G]^{}|x(_1^{r+1})=0\}(k[G]/_1^{r+1})^{},`$
$`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}\mathrm{Dist}_r(G).`$
There is a multiplication on $`k[G]^{}`$ dual to the comultiplication on $`k[G]`$, defined by $`(xy)(f)=(x\overline{}y)(\mathrm{\Delta }(f))`$ for $`x,yk[G]^{}`$ and $`fk[G]`$. Note here (and later on) we are implicitly using the superalgebra rule of signs: $`(x\overline{}y)(fg)=(1)^{\overline{y}\overline{f}}x(f)y(g)`$. One can check that $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is a subsuperalgebra of $`k[G]^{}`$ using the fact that for $`f_1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(f)1f+f1+_1_1,$$

or, more generally,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(f_1\mathrm{}f_r)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1f_i+f_i1)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}_1^j_1^{r+1j}$$
(3.1)
for all $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_r_1`$. In fact, since $`_1^{r+1}_1^r`$, we have $`\mathrm{Dist}_r(G)\mathrm{Dist}_{r+1}(G)`$ and (3.1) shows that $`\mathrm{Dist}_r(G)\mathrm{Dist}_s(G)\mathrm{Dist}_{r+s}(G)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is a filtered superalgebra. By (3.1) again, the subspace

$$T_1(G)=\{x\mathrm{Dist}_1(G)|x(1)=0\}(_1/_1^2)^{}$$

is closed under the superbracket $`[x,y]:=xy(1)^{\overline{x}\overline{y}}yx`$, giving $`T_1(G)`$ the structure of Lie superalgebra, denoted $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$. Finally, given a $`G`$-supermodule $`M`$ with structure map $`\eta :MMk[G]`$, we can view $`M`$ as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule by $`x.m=(1\overline{}x)(\eta (m))`$. In particular, this makes $`M`$ into a $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$-supermodule.

To describe $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ explicitly in our case, recall the alternative generators $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j}`$ of $`k[G]`$ from (2.4). The superideal $`_1`$ is generated by $`\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j}\delta _{i,j}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}i,jm+n\}.`$ So $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ has a unique basis $`\{e_{i,j}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}i,jm+n\}`$ such that $`e_{i,j}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{h,l})=\delta _{i,h}\delta _{j,l}`$. The parity of $`e_{i,j}`$ is $`\overline{i}+\overline{j}`$, while (2.2) implies that the multiplication satisfies

$$[e_{i,j},e_{h,l}]=\delta _{j,h}e_{i,l}(1)^{(\overline{i}+\overline{j})(\overline{h}+\overline{l})}\delta _{i,l}e_{h,j}.$$
(3.2)
Thus $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ is identified with the Lie superalgebra $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ over $`k`$, see , so that $`e_{i,j}`$ corresponds to the $`ij`$-matrix unit. By (2.6), the induced action of $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ on the natural representation $`V`$ of $`G`$ is given by $`e_{i,j}v_h=\delta _{j,h}v_i`$, i.e. $`V`$ is identified with the natural representation of $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$.

To describe $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ explicitly, first note that over $``$, $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is simply the universal enveloping superalgebra of $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$. To construct $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ in general, let $`U_{}`$ be the universal enveloping superalgebra of the Lie superalgebra $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ over $``$. By the PBW theorem for Lie superalgebras (see ), $`U_{}`$ has basis consisting of all monomials

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}1i,jm+n\\ \overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{0}\end{array}}{}e_{i,j}^{a_{i,j}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}1i,jm+n\\ \overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{1}\end{array}}{}e_{i,j}^{d_{i,j}}$$

where $`a_{i,j}_0`$, $`d_{i,j}\{0,1\}`$, and the product is taken in any fixed order. We shall write $`h_i=e_{i,i}`$ for short.

Define the *Kostant $``$-form* $`U_{}`$ to be the $``$-subalgebra of $`U_{}`$ generated by elements $`e_{i,j}(1i,jm+n,\overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{1})`$, $`e_{i,j}^{(r)}(1ijm+n,\overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{0},r1)`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r}\right)(1im+n,r1)`$. Here, $`e_{i,j}^{(r)}:=e_{i,j}^r/(r!)`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r}\right):=h_i(h_i1)\mathrm{}(h_ir+1)/(r!)`$. Following the proof of \[27, Th.2\], one verifies the following:

###### Lemma 3.1.

The superalgebra $`U_{}`$ is a $``$-free $``$-module with basis being given by the set of all monomials of the form

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}1i,jm+n\\ \overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{0}\end{array}}{}e_{i,j}^{(a_{i,j})}\underset{1im+n}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r_i}\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}1i,jm+n\\ \overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{1}\end{array}}{}e_{i,j}^{d_{i,j}}$$

for all $`a_{i,j},r_i_0`$ and $`d_{i,j}\{0,1\}`$, where the product is taken in any fixed order.

The enveloping superalgebra $`U_{}`$ is a Hopf superalgebra in a canonical way, hence $`U_{}`$ is a Hopf superalgebra over $``$. Finally, set $`U_k=k_{}U_{},`$ naturally a Hopf superalgebra over $`k`$. We will abuse notation by using the same symbols $`e_{i,j}^{(r)},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r}\right)`$ etc… for the canonical images of these elements of $`U_{}`$ in $`U_k`$. Now the basic fact is the following:

###### Theorem 3.2.

$`U_k`$ and $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ are isomorphic as Hopf superalgebras.

###### Proof.

In the case when $`k=`$, the isomorphism $`i:U_{}\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is induced by the Lie superalgebra isomorphism mapping the matrix unit $`e_{i,j}𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ to the element with the same name in $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$. For arbitrary $`k`$, the isomorphism $`i:U_k\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is obtained by reducing this one modulo $`p`$. ∎

In view of the theorem, we will henceforth *identify* $`U_k`$ with $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. It is also easy to describe the superalgebras of distributions of our various natural subgroups of $`G`$ as subalgebras of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. For example, $`\mathrm{Dist}(T)`$ is the subalgebra generated by all $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r}\right)(1im+n,r1)`$, $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ is the subalgebra generated by $`\mathrm{Dist}(T)`$ and all $`e_{i,j}^{(r)}(1i<jm+n,\overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{0},r1)`$, and for $`wD_{m,n}`$, $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$ is the subalgebra generated by $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ and all $`e_{i,j}(1i,jm+n,\overline{i}+\overline{j}=1,w^1i<w^1j).`$

For $`\lambda =_{i=1}^{m+n}\lambda _i\epsilon _iX(T)`$ and a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule $`M`$, define the $`\lambda `$-weight space of $`M`$ to be

$$M_\lambda =\left\{mM\right|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h_i}{r}\right)m=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i}{r}\right)m\text{ for all }i=1,\mathrm{},m+n,r1\}.$$
(3.3)
We call a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule $`M`$ integrable if it is locally finite over $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ and satisfies $`M=_{\lambda X(T)}M_\lambda `$. If $`M`$ is a $`G`$-supermodule viewed as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule in the natural way, then $`M`$ is integrable. The goal in the remainder of the section is to prove conversely that any integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule can be lifted in a unique way to $`G`$.

Let $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ denote the *restricted dual* of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$, namely, the set of all $`f\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ such that $`f(I)=0`$ for some two-sided superideal $`I\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ (depending on $`f`$) with $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)/I`$ being a finite dimensional integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule. If $`M`$ is an integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule with homogenous basis $`\{m_i\}_{iI}`$, its *coefficent space* $`cf(M)`$ is the subspace of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ spanned by the *coefficient functions* $`f_{i,j}`$ defined by

$$um_j=(1)^{\overline{u}\overline{m}_j}\underset{iI}{}f_{i,j}(u)m_i$$
(3.4)
for all homogeneous $`u\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. Note that this definition is independent of the choice of homogenous basis. As in the purely even case \[8, (3.1a)\], we have the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.3.

$`f\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ if and only if $`fcf(M)`$ for some integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule $`M`$.

If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodules, then $`MN`$ is also an integrable supermodule and $`cf(MN)=cf(M)cf(N)`$. Consequently, Lemma 3.3 implies $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ is a subsuperalgebra of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$. Indeed, $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ has a natural Hopf superalgebra structure dual to that on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$, cf. the argument after \[6, Lemma 5.2\].

###### Theorem 3.4.

The map $`\iota :k[G]\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ defined by $`\iota (f)(u)=(1)^{\overline{f}\overline{u}}u(f)`$ for all homogeneous $`fk[G]`$ and $`u\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is an isomorphism of Hopf superalgebras.

###### Proof.

Note $`\iota `$ is automatically a Hopf superalgebra homomorphism, since the Hopf superalgebra structure on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ is dual to that on $`k[G]`$ and the Hopf superalgebra structure on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ is dual to that on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. Furthermore if $`\iota (f)=0`$ then $`u(f)=0`$ for all $`u\mathrm{Dist}_r(G)`$, so $`f_1^{r+1}`$. Since $`r`$ was arbitrary we deduce $`f_{r0}_1^{r+1}`$, hence $`f=0`$. This shows that $`\iota `$ is injective. It remains to prove that $`\iota `$ is surjective.

Fix an order for the products in the monomials in the PBW basis for $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ from Lemma 3.1 so that all monomials are of the form $`mu`$ where $`m`$ is a monomial in the $`e_{i,j}`$ with $`\overline{i}+\overline{j}=1`$ and $`u\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(i,j):1i,jm+n,\overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{1}\}`$. For each $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`m_I`$ denote the PBW monomial given by taking the product of the $`e_{i,j}`$’s for $`(i,j)I`$ in the fixed order. By Lemma 3.1 we have the vector space decomposition

$$\mathrm{Dist}(G)=\underset{I\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}m_I\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}}).$$

For $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`\eta _I\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ be the linear functional given by $`\eta _I(m_I)=1`$ and $`\eta _I(m)=0`$ for any other ordered PBW monomial different from $`m_I`$.

Claim 1. For any $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have that $`\eta _I\iota (k[G])\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$.

To prove this, let $`N=m^2+n^2`$. Let $`M`$ denote $`^N(VV^{})`$ viewed as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule in the natural way. Since $`M`$ is in fact a $`G`$-supermodule, we have that $`cf(M)\iota (k[G])`$. Therefore to prove Claim 1, it suffices to show that $`\eta _Icf(M)`$ for any $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{m+n}`$ be the basis for $`V^{}`$ dual to the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{m+n}`$ of $`V`$. Let $`z_{i,j}=v_if_jVV^{}`$. Fix a total order on the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},m+n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ and in this order let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the set of all weakly increasing sequences $`S=((i_1,j_1)\mathrm{}(i_N,j_N))`$ of length $`N`$ such that $`(i_k,j_k)<(i_{k+1},j_{k+1})`$ whenever $`\overline{i}_k+\overline{j}_k=\overline{0}`$. For $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`z_S=z_{i_1,j_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_N,j_N}`$, so that $`\{z_S\}_{S\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is a basis for $`M`$. In particular, let $`z=z_S`$ for the sequence $`S`$ containing all $`(i,j)`$ with $`\overline{i}+\overline{j}=\overline{0}`$. Then $`z`$ spans $`^N((VV^{})_{\overline{0}})=^N(V_{\overline{0}}V_{\overline{0}}^{}V_{\overline{1}}V_{\overline{1}}^{})`$, which is a 1-dimensional trivial $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-submodule of $`M`$.

Observe now that $`\{m_Iz\}_{I\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a linearly independent set of homogeneous vectors, because they are related to the basis elements $`\{z_S\}_{S\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in a unitriangular way. Extend this set to a homogeneous basis $``$ of $`M`$. For $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`u\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ define $`g_I(u)`$ to be the $`m_Iz`$ coefficent of $`uz`$ when expressed in the basis $``$. Then $`g_I(m_J)=\delta _{I,J}`$ for all $`I,J\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Furthermore, since $`z`$ spans a trivial $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-module, $`uz=0`$ for all monomials in our ordered PBW basis for $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ not of the form $`m_J`$, i.e. $`g_I(u)=0`$ for all such monomials. Therefore $`\eta _I=g_Icf(M)`$, proving the claim.

Claim 2. For any $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})^{}`$, we have that $`(\eta _If)(m_Iu)=f(u)`$ and $`(\eta _If)(m_Ju)=0`$ for all $`u\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ and $`JI`$.

Indeed, by the definition of multiplication in $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$, we have $`(\eta _If)(m_Ju)=(\eta _I\overline{}f)(\delta (m_Ju))`$, where $`\delta `$ is the comultiplication on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. Recalling that $`\delta (e_{i,j})=e_{i,j}1+1e_{i,j}`$, we see that, when expressed in the ordered PBW basis of $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$, the $`(m_I)`$-component of $`\delta (m_Ju)`$ is equal to $`m_Iu`$ if $`J=I`$ and $`0`$ if $`JI`$. This implies the claim.

Claim 3. For any $`f\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ and $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, there is a function $`f_I\iota (k[G])`$ such that $`f_I=f`$ on $`m_I\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ and $`f_I=0`$ on $`_{JI}m_J\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$.

To prove this, we need to appeal to the analogous theorem for the underlying even group $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$. Just as for $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$ we can define integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-supermodules, coefficent space, the restricted dual $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})^{}`$, etc… By the purely even theory, the natural map $`\iota _{\mathrm{ev}}:k[G_{ev}]\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})^{}`$ (the analogue of the map $`\iota :k[G]\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ being considered here) is an isomorphism, see e.g. \[8, (3.1c)\] for the proof. An integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule is integrable over $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ too, so restriction gives us a Hopf superalgebra homomorphism $`\vartheta :\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})^{}`$ such that $`\vartheta \iota =\iota _{\mathrm{ev}}\phi `$, where $`\phi :k[G]k[G_{\mathrm{ev}}]`$ is the canonical map induced by the inclusion of $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ into $`G`$.

Now take $`f\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$ and write $`\delta (f)=_jf_jg_j`$. By the previous paragraph, we can find even elements $`h_j\iota (k[G])`$ such that $`\vartheta (g_j)=\vartheta (h_j)`$ for each $`j`$. For $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`f_I=_jf_j(m_I)\eta _Ih_j`$, an element of $`\iota (k[G])`$ by Claim 1. By Claim 2, we have $`f_I=f`$ on $`m_I\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ and $`f_I=0`$ on $`_{JI}m_J\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$, as required to prove the claim.

Now we can complete the proof. Fix $`f\mathrm{Dist}(G)^{}`$. For $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},2mn`$ define $`f^{(i)}`$ recursively by

$`f^{(0)}=ff_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`f^{(i)}=f^{(i1)}{\displaystyle \underset{I\mathrm{\Gamma },|I|=i}{}}(f^{(i1)})_I,`$
invoking Claim 3. An easy induction on $`i`$ using Claim 3 shows that $`f^{(i)}=0`$ on $`_{J\mathrm{\Gamma },|J|i}m_J\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$. In particular, $`f^{(2mn)}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$. This implies the surjectivity of $`\iota `$, since $`f`$ is obtained from $`f^{(2mn)}`$ by adding elements of $`\iota (k[G])`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.5.

The category of $`G`$-supermodules is isomorphic to the category of integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodules.

###### Proof.

Say $`M`$ is an integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule with homogenous basis $`\{m_i\}_{iI}`$. Let $`f_{i,j}`$ be the corresponding coefficent functions defined according to (3.4). By Theorem 3.4, there are unique $`g_{i,j}k[G]`$ such that $`\iota (g_{i,j})=f_{i,j}`$. Define a structure map $`\eta :MMk[G]`$ making $`M`$ into a $`G`$-supermodule by

$$\eta (m_j)=\underset{iI}{}m_ig_{i,j}.$$

Conversely, as discussed at the beginning of the section, any $`G`$-supermodule can be viewed as an integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule in a natural way. One can verify that these two constructions give mutually inverse functors between the two categories. ∎

In view of the corollary, we will not distinguish between $`G`$-supermodules and integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodules in the rest of the article.

## 4. Highest weight theory

Now we describe the classification of the irreducible representations of $`G`$ by their highest weights. It seems to be more convenient to work first in the category $`𝒪`$ of all $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodules $`M`$ that are locally finite over $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ and satisfy $`M=_{\lambda X(T)}M_\lambda `$. Fix a choice of $`wD_{m,n}`$, hence a Borel subgroup $`B_w`$ and dominance ordering $`_w`$ on $`X(T)`$. By Lemma 3.1, $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$ is a free right $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-module of finite rank. So the condition that $`M`$ is locally finite over $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$ in the definition of category $`𝒪`$ is equivalent to $`M`$ being locally finite over $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$. For $`\lambda X(T)`$, we have the Verma module

$$M_w(\lambda ):=\mathrm{Dist}(G)_{\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)}k_\lambda ,$$

where $`k_\lambda `$ denotes $`k`$ viewed as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$-supermodule of weight $`\lambda `$. We say that a vector $`v`$ in a $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule $`M`$ is a $`w`$-primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$ if $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)vk_\lambda `$ as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$-supermodule. Familiar arguments exactly as for semisimple Lie algebras over $``$ show:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`wD_{m,n}`$ and $`\lambda X(T)`$.

* The $`\lambda `$-weight space of $`M_w(\lambda )`$ is $`1`$-dimensional, and all other weights of $`M_w(\lambda )`$ are $`<_w\lambda `$.
* Any non-zero quotient of $`M_w(\lambda )`$ is generated by a $`w`$-primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$, unique up to scalars.
* Any $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule generated by a $`w`$-primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $`M_w(\lambda )`$.
* $`M_w(\lambda )`$ has a unique irreducible quotient $`L_w(\lambda )`$, and the $`\{L_w(\lambda )\}_{\lambda X(T)}`$ give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducibles in $`𝒪`$.

In this way, we get a parametrization of the irreducible objects in $`𝒪`$ by their highest weights with respect to the ordering $`_w`$. Of course, the parametrization depends on the initial choice of $`wD_{m,n}`$. To translate between labelings arising from different choices $`w,w^{}D_{m,n}`$, it suffices to consider the situation that $`w,w^{}`$ are adjacent with respect to the usual Bruhat ordering on $`D_{m,n}`$. In that case the following theorem of Serganova , see also \[23, Lemma 0.3\], does the job. For the statement, recall the definition of the form $`(.,.)`$ on $`X(T)`$ from (2.7).

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`\lambda X(T)`$. Suppose that $`w,w^{}D_{m,n}`$ are adjacent in the Bruhat ordering, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }_w^{}^+=\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+\{\alpha \}\{\alpha \}`$ for some odd root $`\alpha =\epsilon _i\epsilon _j\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then,

$$L_w(\lambda )\{\begin{array}{cc}L_w^{}(\lambda )\hfill & \text{if }(\lambda ,\alpha )0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \\ L_w^{}(\lambda \alpha )\hfill & \text{if }(\lambda ,\alpha )0(modp)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`v`$ be a $`w`$-primitive vector in $`L_w(\lambda )`$ of weight $`\lambda `$, cf. Lemma 4.1. We claim first that $`e_{r,s}e_{j,i}v=0`$ for all $`1r,sm+n`$ with $`\epsilon _r\epsilon _s\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+\mathrm{\Phi }_w^{}^+`$. We know that $`e_{r,s}v=0`$ as $`v`$ is $`w`$-primitive. So we are done immediately if $`[e_{r,s},e_{j,i}]=0`$. In view of (3.2), this just leaves the possibilities $`s=j`$ or $`r=i`$. Suppose first that $`s=j`$. Noting that $`w^{}=(ij)w`$, the assumption that $`\epsilon _r\epsilon _j\mathrm{\Phi }_w^{}^+`$ implies by (2.8) that $`\epsilon _r\epsilon _i\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+`$, hence $`e_{r,i}v=0`$. Therefore $`e_{r,j}e_{j,i}v=e_{r,i}v=0`$. The remaining case when $`r=i`$ is similar.

Now suppose that $`e_{j,i}v0`$. Since $`e_{j,i}^2=0`$, we get from the previous paragraph that $`e_{j,i}v`$ is $`w^{}`$-primitive of weight $`\lambda \alpha `$. Hence, $`L_w(\lambda )L_w^{}(\lambda \alpha )`$. On the other hand, if $`e_{j,i}v=0`$, then $`v`$ itself is already $`w^{}`$-primitive of weight $`\lambda `$ so $`L_w(\lambda )L_w^{}(\lambda )`$. Thus, to complete the proof of the lemma, it suffices to show that $`e_{j,i}v0`$ if and only if $`(\lambda ,\alpha )0(modp)`$. But $`e_{j,i}v0`$ if and only if there is some element $`x\mathrm{Dist}(B_w)`$ such that $`xe_{j,i}v`$ is a non-zero multiple of $`v`$. In view of the first paragraph, the only $`x`$ that needs to be considered is $`e_{i,j}`$. Finally, $`e_{i,j}e_{j,i}v=(\lambda ,\alpha )v`$. ∎

Recall that $`w_1`$ denotes the longest element of $`D_{m,n}`$. For $`\lambda X(T)`$, define $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }X(T)`$ from the isomorphism

$$L_1(\lambda )L_{w_1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }).$$
(4.1)
Lemma 4.2 implies the following algorithm for computing $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$:

###### Theorem 4.3.

Pick an ordering $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{mn}`$ of the roots $`\{\epsilon _i\epsilon _j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}im,m+1jm+n\}`$ such that $`\beta _i_1\beta _j`$ implies $`ij`$. Set $`\lambda ^{(0)}=\lambda `$, and inductively define

$$\lambda ^{(i)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^{(i1)}\hfill & \text{if }(\lambda ^{(i1)},\beta _i)0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \\ \lambda ^{(i1)}\beta _i\hfill & \text{if }(\lambda ^{(i1)},\beta _i)0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},mn`$. Then, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda ^{(mn)}`$.

We refer to the algorithm for $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ given by the theorem as Serganova’s algorithm. For an example, suppose $`m=n=2,p=3`$ and $`\lambda =\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+2\epsilon _3`$. Taking $`\beta _1=\epsilon _2\epsilon _3,\beta _2=\epsilon _2\epsilon _4,\beta _3=\epsilon _1\epsilon _3,\beta _4=\epsilon _1\epsilon _4`$, we get successively $`\lambda ^{(1)}=\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+2\epsilon _3,\lambda ^{(2)}=\epsilon _1+2\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4,\lambda ^{(3)}=\epsilon _1+2\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4,\lambda ^{(4)}=2\epsilon _3+2\epsilon _4`$. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=2\epsilon _3+2\epsilon _4`$.

Now we pass from $`𝒪`$ to the finite dimensional irreducible representations of $`G`$. We will work now just with the standard choice of Borel subgroup $`B_1`$ and the corresponding standard dominance ordering $`_1`$ on $`X(T)`$. Let

$$X^+(T)=\{\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}\lambda _i\epsilon _iX(T)|\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _m,\lambda _{m+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{m+n}\}$$

denote the set of all dominant integral weights. The proof of the first part of the following lemma goes back to Kac , while the second part is due to Serganova.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Given any $`\lambda X(T)`$, $`L_1(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional if and only if $`\lambda X^+(T)`$. Moreover, for $`\lambda X^+(T)`$, the $`_1`$-lowest weight of $`L_1(\lambda )`$ is $`w_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose first that $`L_1(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional for $`\lambda X(T)`$. Then, it contains a $`\mathrm{Dist}(B_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$, hence by the purely even theory we must have that $`\lambda X^+(T)`$. Conversely, suppose that $`\lambda X^+(T)`$. Then, there is a finite dimensional irreducible $`\mathrm{Dist}(G_{\mathrm{ev}})`$-supermodule $`L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda )`$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$. Let $`P`$ be the closed subgroup of $`G`$ with $`P(A)`$ consisting of all invertible matrices of the form (2.1) with $`Y=0`$. We can view $`L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda )`$ as a $`\mathrm{Dist}(P)`$-supermodule so that all $`e_{i,j}`$ for $`1im,m+1jm+n`$ act as zero. Consider the induced supermodule

$$\mathrm{Dist}(G)_{\mathrm{Dist}(P)}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda ).$$

It is a finite dimensional module generated by a $`1`$-primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$. Hence, $`M_1(\lambda )`$ has a finite dimensional quotient. This shows that $`L_1(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional. Finally, by (4.1), $`L_1(\lambda )L_{w_1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$. Hence, all its weights are $`_{w_1}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. Since $`L_1(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional, the Weyl group $`W`$ acts by permuting weights. Hence we can act with $`w_0`$ to get that all its weights are $`_1w_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. ∎

Lemmas 4.1 and 4.4 show that $`\{L_1(\lambda )\}_{\lambda X^+(T)}`$ is a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible integrable $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodules. In view of Corollary 3.5, we can lift the $`\mathrm{Dist}(G)`$-supermodule $`L_1(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda X^+(T)`$ uniquely to $`G`$. We will denote the resulting irreducible $`G`$-supermodule simply by $`L(\lambda )`$ from now on. To summarize, using the second part of Lemma 4.4 for the statement about $`L(\lambda )^{}`$, we have shown:

###### Theorem 4.5.

The supermodules $`\{L(\lambda )\}_{\lambda X^+(T)}`$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $`G`$-supermodules. Moreover, for $`\lambda X^+(T)`$, $`L(\lambda )^{}L(w_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$.

###### Remark 4.6.

(i) The second part of Theorem 4.5 implies that the restriction of the map $``$ from Theorem 4.3 gives a bijection $`:X^+(T)X^+(T)`$.

(ii) A weight $`\lambda =_{i=1}^{m+n}\lambda _i\epsilon _iX^+(T)`$ is called restricted if either $`p=0`$ or $`p>0`$ and $`\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}<p`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1,m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1`$. Assuming now that $`p>0`$, let $`X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$ denote the set of all restricted $`\lambda X^+(T)`$. Let $`F:GG_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ be the Frobenius morphism defined on $`gG(A)`$ by raising all the matrix entries of $`g`$ to the power $`p`$, for each commutative superalgebra $`A`$. Let $`G_1=\mathrm{ker}F`$ be the Frobenius kernel. By a similar argument to \[5, 6.4\], the restriction of $`L(\lambda )`$ to $`G_1`$ remains irreducible for all $`\lambda X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$, see .

(iii) Again for $`p>0`$, there is an analogue for $`G`$ of the Steinberg tensor product theorem. Given (ii), the proof is essentially the same as in \[6, $`\mathrm{\S }`$9\], see  for the details. To state the result, let $`L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda )`$ denote the irreducible $`G_{\mathrm{ev}}`$-supermodule of highest weight $`\lambda X^+(T)`$ as in the proof of Lemma 4.4. Inflating through the Frobenius morphism $`F:GG_{\mathrm{ev}}`$, we obtain an irreducible $`G`$-supermodule $`F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda )L(p\lambda )`$. In general, for $`\lambda X^+(T)`$, we can write $`\lambda =\mu +p\nu `$ where $`\mu X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\nu X^+(T)`$. Steinberg’s tensor product theorem shows that

$$L(\lambda )L(\mu )F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\nu ).$$
(4.2)
(iv) Note for any $`\lambda X^+(T)`$, $`F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\lambda )`$ is trivial over $`G_1`$. So (ii), (iii) show in particular that $`L(\lambda )`$ is irreducible over $`G_1`$ if and only if $`\lambda X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$. Given this, the second part of Theorem 4.5 implies that the set $`X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$ is stable under the map $``$. Finally, take $`\lambda =\mu +p\nu `$ where $`\mu X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\nu X^+(T)`$, as in (iii). Then,

$`L(w_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ $`L(\lambda )^{}L(\mu )^{}F^{}(L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\nu )^{})`$
$`L(w_0\stackrel{~}{\mu })F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(w_0\nu )L(w_0(\stackrel{~}{\mu }+p\nu )).`$
Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\mu }+p\nu `$. This reduces the problem of computing $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ to the special case that $`\lambda `$ is restricted.

## 5. Polynomial representations

In this section, we discuss polynomial representations of $`G`$ in the spirit of Green’s monograph . Let $`A(m|n)`$ denote the subbialgebra $`k[Mat]`$ of $`k[G]`$, so $`A(m|n)`$ is the free commutative superalgebra on the generators $`\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,j}\}_{1i,jm+n}`$ from (2.4). Obviously, $`A(m|n)`$ is $``$-graded by degree,

$$A(m|n)=\underset{d0}{}A(m|n,d).$$
(5.1)
The subspace $`A(m|n,d)`$ is a finite dimensional subcoalgebra of $`A(m|n)`$. A representation $`M`$ of $`G`$ is called a *polynomial representation* (resp. a polynomial representation of degree $`d`$) if the comodule structure map $`\eta :MMk[G]`$ has image contained in $`MA(m|n)`$ (resp. in $`MA(m|n,d)`$). For example, the $`d`$th tensor power $`V^d`$ of the natural representation of $`G`$ is polynomial of degree $`d`$. In general, a $`G`$-supermodule $`M`$ is polynomial of degree $`d`$ if it is isomorphic to a direct sum of subquotients of $`V^d`$.

By \[7, Lemma 5.1\], the decomposition (5.1) induces a decomposition of any polynomial representation into a direct sum of homogeneous polynomial representations. Moreover, the category of polynomial representations of degree $`d`$ is isomorphic to the category of supermodules over the Schur superalgebra

$$S(m|n,d):=A(m|n,d)^{},$$
(5.2)
where the superalgebra structure on $`S(m|n,d)`$ is the one dual to the coalgebra structure on $`A(m|n,d)`$. Thus, the polynomial representation theory of $`G`$ reduces to studying representations of the finite dimensional superalgebras $`S(m|n,d)`$ for all $`d0`$. The latter has been investigated recently over a field of positive characteristic by Donkin , see also .

Let $`I(m|n,d)`$ denote the set of all functions from $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ to $`\{1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$. We usually view $`𝒊I(m|n,d)`$ as a $`d`$-tuple $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$ with entries in $`\{1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$. In order to write down the various signs that will arise, introduce the notation $`ϵ_𝒊=(\overline{i}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{i}_d)_2^d`$, for any $`𝒊I(m|n,d)`$. For tuples $`ϵ=(ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_d),\delta =(\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _d)_2^d`$ and $`wS_d`$, let

$`\alpha (ϵ,\delta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{1s<td}{}}(1)^{\delta _sϵ_t},`$ (5.3)
$`\gamma (ϵ,w)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}1s<td\\ w^1s>w^1t\end{array}}{}}(1)^{ϵ_sϵ_t}.`$ (5.4)
The symmetric group $`S_d`$ acts on the right on $`I(m|n,d)`$ by composition of functions, i.e. $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)w=(i_{w1},\mathrm{},i_{wd})`$. We will write $`(𝒊,𝒋)(𝒌,𝒍)`$ if $`(𝒊,𝒋)`$ and $`(𝒌,𝒍)`$ lie in the same orbit for the associated diagonal action of $`S_d`$ on $`I(m|n,d)\times I(m|n,d)`$. We say that a double index $`(𝒊,𝒋)I(m|n,d)\times I(m|n,d)`$ is strict if $`(\overline{i_r}+\overline{j_r})(\overline{i_s}+\overline{j_s})=\overline{0}`$ whenever $`(i_r,j_r)=(i_s,j_s)`$ for $`1r<sd`$. Let $`I^2(m|n,d)`$ denote the set of all strict double indexes. Note $`(𝒊,𝒋)`$ is strict if and only if the element

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒊,𝒋}:=\stackrel{~}{T}_{i_1,j_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{i_d,j_d}A(m|n,d)$$

is non-zero. Moreover, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }(m|n,d)`$ is a fixed set of orbit representatives for the action of $`S_d`$ on $`I^2(m|n,d)`$, then the elements $`\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒊,𝒋}\}_{(𝒊,𝒋)\mathrm{\Omega }(m|n,d)}`$ give a basis for $`A(m|n,d)`$. Given $`(𝒊,𝒋),(𝒌,𝒍)I^2(m|n,d)`$ with $`(𝒊,𝒋)(𝒌,𝒍)`$, we define a sign $`\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)`$ by

$$\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)=\gamma (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,w)$$
(5.5)
if $`w`$ is any element of $`S_d`$ with $`(𝒊,𝒋)w=(𝒌,𝒍)`$. Note $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒌,𝒍}=\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒊,𝒋}`$.

For $`(𝒊,𝒋)I^2(m|n,d)`$, let $`\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}S(m|n,d)`$ be the unique element satisfying

$$\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒊,𝒋})=\alpha (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋),\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒌,𝒍})=0\text{ for all }(𝒌,𝒍)\sim ̸(𝒊,𝒋).$$

The elements $`\{\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\}_{(𝒊,𝒋)\mathrm{\Omega }(m|n,d)}`$ give a basis for $`S(m|n,d)`$. Given $`𝒊I(m|n,d)`$, let $`v_𝒊=v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_d}V^d,`$ giving us a basis $`\{v_𝒊\}_{𝒊I(m|n,d)}`$ for the tensor space $`V^d`$. Since $`V^d`$ is a polynomial representation of degree $`d`$, there is a naturally induced representation

$$\rho _d:S(m|n,d)\mathrm{End}_k(V^d).$$
(5.6)
Also let $`e_{𝒊,𝒋}=e_{i_1,j_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_d,j_d}\mathrm{End}_k(V)^d\mathrm{End}_k(V^d)`$, so $`e_{𝒊,𝒋}v_𝒌=\delta _{𝒋,𝒌}\alpha (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,ϵ_𝒌)v_𝒊`$ for $`𝒊,𝒋,𝒌I(m|n,d)`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

The representation $`\rho _d:S(m|n,d)\mathrm{End}_k(V^d)`$ is faithful and satisfies

$$\rho _d(\xi _{𝒊,𝒋})=\underset{(𝒌,𝒍)(𝒊,𝒋)}{}\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)e_{𝒌,𝒍}$$

for each $`(𝐢,𝐣)I^2(m|n,d)`$. Moreover, for $`(𝐢,𝐣),(𝐤,𝐥)I^2(m|n,d)`$,

$$\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\xi _{𝒌,𝒍}=\underset{(𝒔,𝒕)\mathrm{\Omega }(m|n,d)}{}a_{𝒊,𝒋,𝒌,𝒍,𝒔,𝒕}\xi _{𝒔,𝒕}$$

where $`a_{𝐢,𝐣,𝐤,𝐥,𝐬,𝐭}=\sigma (𝐢,𝐣;𝐬,𝐡)\sigma (𝐤,𝐥;𝐡,𝐭)\alpha (ϵ_𝐡+ϵ_𝐭,ϵ_𝐬+ϵ_𝐡)`$, summing over all $`𝐡I(m|n,d)`$ with $`(𝐬,𝐡)(𝐢,𝐣),(𝐡,𝐭)(𝐤,𝐥)`$.

###### Proof.

We first observe that the structure map $`\eta :V^dV^dA(m|n,d)`$ satisfies

$$\eta (v_𝒋)=\underset{𝒊I(m|n,d)}{}(1)^{\overline{𝒊}(\overline{𝒊}+\overline{𝒋})}\alpha (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,ϵ_𝒊)v_𝒊\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒊,𝒋},$$

where $`\overline{𝒊}=\overline{i}_1+\mathrm{}+\overline{i}_d,\overline{𝒋}=\overline{j}_1+\mathrm{}+\overline{j}_d`$. Using this we calculate from the definition of the action:

$`\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}v_𝒍`$ $`=(1\overline{}\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}){\displaystyle \underset{𝒌I(m|n,d)}{}}(1)^{\overline{𝒌}(\overline{𝒌}+\overline{𝒍})}\alpha (ϵ_𝒌+ϵ_𝒍,ϵ_𝒌)v_𝒌\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒌,𝒍}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝒌I(m|n,d)}{}}\alpha (ϵ_𝒌+ϵ_𝒍,ϵ_𝒌)\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{𝒌,𝒍})v_𝒌`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(𝒌,𝒍)(𝒊,𝒋)}{}}\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)\alpha (ϵ_𝒌+ϵ_𝒍,ϵ_𝒍)v_𝒌.`$
This prove the formula for $`\rho _d(\xi _{𝒊,𝒋})`$. Hence, $`\rho _d`$ is injective since the elements $`\{\rho _d(\xi _{𝒊,𝒋})\}_{(𝒊,𝒋)\mathrm{\Omega }(m|n,d)}`$ are clearly linearly independent. Finally, to derive the product rule, note that $`e_{𝒊,𝒋}e_{𝒌,𝒍}=\delta _{𝒋,𝒌}\alpha (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,ϵ_𝒌+ϵ_𝒍)e_{𝒊,𝒍}`$. Using this it is easy to compute the product $`\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\xi _{𝒌,𝒍}`$ working in the representation $`\rho _d`$. ∎

We next define a right action of the symmetric group $`S_d`$ on $`V^d`$ by letting

$$v_𝒊(jj+1)=(1)^{\overline{i}_j\overline{i}_{j+1}}v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_{j+1}}v_{i_j}\mathrm{}v_{i_d}$$
(5.7)
for each $`𝒊=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)I(m|n,d)`$ and each $`1j<d`$. For arbitrary $`wS_d`$, we have that

$$v_𝒊w=\gamma (ϵ_𝒊,w)v_{𝒊w}.$$
(5.8)
Note the right action of $`S_d`$ is by even $`G`$-supermodule automorphisms, so it automatically commutes with the left action of $`S(m|n,d)`$ on $`V^d`$. The following theorem is well-known, see for example .

###### Theorem 5.2.

$`\rho _d:S(m|n,d)\mathrm{End}_{kS_d}(V^d)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

We have already shown in Lemma 5.1 that $`\rho _d`$ is injective and that it maps $`S(m|n,d)`$ into $`\mathrm{End}_{kS_d}(V^d)`$. For surjectivity, take an arbitrary $`\theta :V^dV^d`$ commuting with the right action of $`S_d`$. Write

$$\theta =\underset{𝒊,𝒋I(m|n,d)}{}a_{𝒊,𝒋}e_{𝒊,𝒋}$$

for some coefficients $`a_{𝒊,𝒋}`$. Since $`\theta `$ commutes with each $`wS_d`$, we have that $`(\theta v_𝒋)w=\theta (v_𝒋w)`$. A computation using (5.8) gives that

$$\gamma (ϵ_𝒋,w)\alpha (ϵ_{𝒊w}+ϵ_{𝒋w},ϵ_{𝒋w})a_{𝒊w,𝒋w}=\alpha (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,ϵ_𝒋)\gamma (ϵ_𝒊,w)a_{𝒊,𝒋}$$

for each $`𝒊,𝒋`$. Simplifying this using the definitions of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ then gives that

$$a_{𝒊w,𝒋w}=a_{𝒊,𝒋}\gamma (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,w)$$

Now note that if $`(𝒊,𝒋)`$ is not strict, we can choose a transposition $`wS_d`$ so that $`𝒊w=𝒊,𝒋w=𝒋`$ and $`\gamma (ϵ_𝒊+ϵ_𝒋,w)=1`$. Hence, $`a_{𝒊,𝒋}=0`$ in that case. Otherwise, if $`(𝒊,𝒋)`$ is strict and $`(𝒌,𝒍)(𝒊,𝒋)`$, we have shown that $`a_{𝒌,𝒍}=\sigma (𝒊,𝒋;𝒌,𝒍)a_{𝒊,𝒋}`$. It follows easily that $`\theta `$ is a linear combination of the elements $`\rho _d(\xi _{𝒊,𝒋})`$ computed in Lemma 5.1. Hence, $`\rho _d`$ is onto. ∎

We call a weight $`\lambda =_{i=1}^{m+n}\lambda _i\epsilon _iX(T)`$ a polynomial weight if $`\lambda _i0`$ for all $`i`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$ denote the set of all such polynomial weights satisfying in addition $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{m+n}=d`$. Note this is exactly the set of weights arising in the $`G`$-supermodule $`V^d`$. For $`𝒊I(m|n,d)`$, let $`\mathrm{wt}(𝒊)\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$ denote the weight of the vector $`v_𝒊`$, so $`\mathrm{wt}(𝒊)=_{i=1}^{m+n}\lambda _i\epsilon _i`$ where there are $`\lambda _1`$ $`1`$’s, $`\lambda _2`$ $`2`$’s, …appearing in the tuple $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$. Conversely, given $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$, let $`𝒊_\lambda `$ denote the tuple $`(1,\mathrm{},1,2,\mathrm{},2,\mathrm{})I(m|n,d)`$ with $`\lambda _i`$ $`i`$’s for each $`i`$. Let

$$\xi _\lambda =\xi _{𝒊_\lambda ,𝒊_\lambda }S(m|n,d).$$
(5.9)
We note that if $`M`$ is a polynomial representation of $`G`$ of degree $`d`$ then, by the argument in \[11, 3.2\], the subspace $`\xi _\lambda M`$ is exactly the $`\lambda `$-weight space $`M_\lambda `$ of $`M`$ as defined in (3.3). An elementary calculation using the product rule from Lemma 5.1 shows:

###### Lemma 5.3.

For $`(𝐢,𝐣)I^2(m|n,d)`$,

$`\xi _\lambda \xi _{𝒊,𝒋}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{wt}(𝒊)=\lambda ,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}`$ $`\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\xi _\lambda `$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{wt}(𝒋)=\lambda ,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
In particular, $`\{\xi _\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)}`$ is a set of mutally orthogonal even idempotents whose sum is the identity in $`S(m|n,d)`$.

Now we turn to the problem of classifying the irreducible polynomial representations of $`G`$, or equivalently, the irreducible $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodules for all $`d0`$. Suppose for some $`\lambda X^+(T)`$ that the irreducible $`G`$-supermodule $`L(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial representation of degree $`d`$. Since all its weights are polynomial weights, $`\lambda `$ must belong to the set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d):=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)|\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _m,\lambda _{m+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{m+n}\}$$

of dominant polynomial weights of degree $`d`$. However,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d):=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)|L(\lambda )\text{ is a polynomial representation}\}$$

will in general be a proper subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$, unlike the purely even case. The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.5 and the general remarks made at the beginning of the section.

###### Lemma 5.4.

The supermodules $`\{L(\lambda )\}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)}`$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodules.

Of course the main problem now is to describe the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ combinatorially! Over fields of characteristic $`0`$, the answer is well-known, see  or . In positive characteristic, Donkin has given a combinatorial description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ under the assumption that $`dm`$, see \[9, 2.3(4)\]. We give here an alternative proof of Donkin’s result, and describe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ in general in Theorem 6.5 in the next section.

###### Theorem 5.5.

Assume $`dm`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)|\lambda _{m+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{m+n}0(modp)\}.$$

###### Proof.

We first recall the argument of Donkin from \[9, 2.3(4)\] to show that all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$ with $`\lambda _{m+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{m+n}0(modp)`$ belong to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$, i.e. that $`L(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial representation for all such $`\lambda `$. Let $`\omega _i=\epsilon _1+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _i`$. For any $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_m0`$, the polynomial representation

$$V^{r_1}\left(\stackrel{2}{}V\right)^{r_2}\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{m}{}V\right)^{r_m}$$

has unique highest weight $`r_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+r_m\omega _m`$. Hence $`L(r_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+r_m\omega _m)`$ is a composition factor of a polynomial representation, so polynomial. Now given an arbitrary $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ with $`\lambda _{m+1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{m+n}0(modp)`$, we can write $`\lambda =\mu +p\nu `$ where $`\mu X^+(T)_{\mathrm{res}}`$ is a restricted polynomial weight in the sense of Remark 4.6(ii) satisfying $`\mu _{m+1}=\mathrm{}=\mu _{m+n}=0`$, and $`\nu X^+(T)`$ is an arbitrary polynomial weight. Then, the $`G`$-supermodule

$$L(\mu )F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\nu )$$

has unique highest weight $`\lambda `$ so contains $`L(\lambda )`$ as a composition factor (actually it equals $`L(\lambda )`$ by Remark 4.6(iii), though we do not need this stronger result). Since $`\mu `$ can be expressed in the form $`r_1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+r_m\omega _m`$ for $`r_i0`$, $`L(\mu )`$ is polynomial and $`L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\nu )`$, hence $`F^{}L_{\mathrm{ev}}(\nu )`$, is polynomial by the classical theory. So $`L(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial representation, and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$.

Conversely, suppose that $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$ has $`\lambda _{m+i}0(modp)`$ for some $`1in`$. Pick the minimal such $`i`$, and observe by the assumption $`dm`$ that $`\lambda _m=0`$. Let $`wD_{m,n}`$ be the permutation $`(mm+1\mathrm{}m+i)`$, so

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+=\mathrm{\Phi }_1^+\{\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+i}\}\{\epsilon _{m+1}\epsilon _m,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{m+i}\epsilon _m\}.$$

Applying Lemma 4.2 using the sequence $`\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+i}`$ of roots, we see that $`L(\lambda )L_w(\lambda \epsilon _m+\epsilon _{m+i})`$. Thus, $`\lambda \epsilon _m+\epsilon _{m+i}`$ is a weight of $`L(\lambda )`$. Since this is not a polynomial weight, $`L(\lambda )`$ cannot be a polynomial representation, i.e. $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$. ∎

We now explain how to descend from the Schur superalgebra $`S(m|n,d)`$ to the symmetric group $`S_d`$, assuming still that $`dm`$. We need the following basic fact about functors defined by idempotents, cf. \[11, 6.2\] or \[7, Corollary 2.13\]. Recall that if $`\xi S(m|n,d)`$ is an even idempotent and $`M`$ is an $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodule, we can view $`\xi M`$ naturally as a supermodule over the subalgebra $`\xi S(m|n,d)\xi `$ of $`S(m|n,d)`$.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Let $`\xi S(m|n,d)`$ be an even idempotent. For $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$, $`\xi L(\lambda )`$ is either zero or it is an irreducible $`\xi S(m|n,d)\xi `$-supermodule. Moreover, the non-zero $`\xi L(\lambda )`$’s give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $`\xi S(m|n,d)\xi `$-supermodules.

One checks the following lemma using the product rule from Lemma 5.1.

###### Lemma 5.7.

Assume $`dm`$ and let $`\omega =_{i=1}^d\epsilon _i\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$. Then, for any $`𝐢I(m|n,d)`$ and any $`xS_d`$, $`\xi _{𝐢,𝐢_\omega }\xi _{𝐢_\omega x,𝐢_\omega }=\gamma (ϵ_𝐢,x)\xi _{𝐢x,𝐢_\omega }.`$

Continue with $`dm`$ and $`\omega `$ as in Lemma 5.7. By Lemma 5.3, the subalgebra $`\xi _\omega S(m|n,d)\xi _\omega `$ of $`S(m|n,d)`$ has basis $`\{\xi _{𝒊_\omega x,𝒊_\omega }\}_{xS_d}`$. Lemma 5.7 implies that the map

$$kS_d\xi _\omega S(m|n,d)\xi _\omega ,x\xi _{𝒊_\omega x,𝒊_\omega }$$
(5.10)
is a superalgebra isomorphism. ¿From now on, we will identify $`kS_d`$ with the subalgebra $`\xi _\omega S(m|n,d)\xi _\omega `$ of $`S(m|n,d)`$ in this way. Then, we can define the Schur functor

$$f_\omega :S(m|n,d)\text{-mod}kS_d\text{-mod}.$$
(5.11)
On an $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodule $`M`$, $`f_\omega M`$ is the $`\omega `$-weight space $`\xi _\omega M`$ of $`M`$ viewed as a $`kS_d`$-supermodule via the identification (5.10). On a morphism, the functor $`f_\omega `$ is defined by restriction.

###### Remark 5.8.

(i) Recalling the definition of the action of $`S_d`$ on $`V^d`$ from (5.8), Lemma 5.7 also shows that the map $`V^dS(m|n,d)\xi _\omega ,v_𝒊\xi _{𝒊,𝒊_\omega }`$is an isomorphism of $`S(m|n,d),kS_d`$-bimodules.

(ii) An immediate consequence of (i) is that the Schur functor $`f_\omega `$ can be defined alternatively by $`f_\omega M=\mathrm{Hom}_G(V^d,M)`$ for a polynomial $`G`$-supermodule $`M`$ of degree $`d`$, where the $`S_d`$ action on $`f_\omega M`$ is induced by the natural right action of $`S_d`$ on $`V^d`$ from (5.7).

(iii) Another well-known consequence of (i) is the double centralizer property: for $`dm`$, $`\mathrm{End}_{S(m|n,d)}(V^d)=kS_d`$. Indeed, by (i) and properties of idempotents,

$$\mathrm{End}_{S(m|n,d)}(V^d)\mathrm{End}_{S(m|n,d)}(S(m|n,d)\xi _\omega )\xi _\omega S(m|n,d)\xi _\omega kS_d.$$

One can extend this result to the case $`dm+n`$ by similar arguments.

Recall now that a partition of $`d`$ is a sequence $`\lambda =(\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{})`$ of non-negative integers satisfying $`|\lambda |:=\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}=d`$. We usually identify $`\lambda `$ with its Young diagram

$$\lambda =\{(i,j)_{>0}\times _{>0}|j\lambda _i\}$$

and refer to $`(i,j)\lambda `$ as the node in the $`i`$th row and $`j`$th column. We say that a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{})`$ is restricted if either $`p=0`$ or $`p>0`$ and $`\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}<p`$ for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (cf. Remark 4.6(ii)). Let $`𝒫(d)`$ denote the set of all partitions of $`d`$, and $`𝒫(d)𝒫(d)`$ denote the set of all restricted partitions of $`d`$.

Assuming still that $`dm`$, we define an embedding

$$x:𝒫(d)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d),\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\epsilon _i.$$
(5.12)
By Theorem 5.5, we actually have that $`x(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ for $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$. So it makes sense to define

$$D_\lambda =f_\omega L(x(\lambda )).$$
(5.13)
The following theorem shows in particular that the $`D_\lambda `$’s are non-zero $`kS_d`$-modules.

###### Theorem 5.9.

Assume $`dm`$. For $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$, $`f_\omega L(\lambda )0`$ if and only if $`\lambda =x(\mu )`$ for some $`\mu 𝒫(d)`$. Hence, the $`kS_d`$-modules $`\{D_\lambda \}_{\lambda 𝒫(d)}`$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $`kS_d`$-modules.

###### Proof.

Take $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$. By Theorem 5.5, if $`\lambda x(𝒫(d))`$, we can decompose $`\lambda =\mu +p\nu `$ for polynomial weights $`\mu ,\nu X^+(T)`$ with $`\mu `$ restricted in the sense of Remark 4.6(ii) and with $`\nu 0`$. But then $`L(\mu )F^{}L(\nu )`$ has unique highest weight $`\lambda `$, so has $`L(\lambda )`$ as a composition factor (actually it equals $`L(\lambda )`$ by Remark 4.6(iii)). Since the $`\omega `$-weight space of $`L(\mu )F^{}L(\nu )`$ is zero, this shows that $`f_\omega L(\lambda )=0`$. Finally, by Lemma 5.6, the non-zero $`f_\omega L(\lambda )`$ with $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ must give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $`kS_d`$-modules. It is well-known that the number of isomorphism classes of the latter is $`|𝒫(d)|`$, hence we must have that $`f_\omega L(\lambda )0`$ for all $`\lambda x(𝒫(d))`$. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 5.10.

The $`p`$-regular partitions from the introduction are the conjugates of the restricted partitions. However, we will work from now on with the parametrization of the irreducible $`kS_d`$-modules by restricted partitions according to Theorem 5.9, though this is not the usual convention made in the literature. The relationship between our labeling and the standard labeling of James  is given by

$$D_\lambda D^\lambda ^{}\mathrm{sgn}.$$
(5.14)
One can see this as follows. Embedding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m,d):=\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|0,d)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$ as the set of all weights with $`\lambda _{m+1}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{m+n}=0`$, let $`\xi =_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(m,d)}\xi _\lambda .`$ Then, $`\xi S(m|n,d)\xi `$ can be identified with the classical Schur superalgebra $`S(m,d):=S(m|0,d)`$ of , see the proof of Theorem 6.5 below for a similar construction. Moreover, given $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m,d):=\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|0,d)`$, $`\xi L(\lambda )`$ is the irreducible $`S(m,d)`$-module with highest weight $`\lambda `$. Notice that for $`\omega `$ as in Lemma 5.7, $`\xi _\omega \xi =\xi _\omega `$. Hence, our Schur functor $`f_\omega `$ from representations of $`S(m|n,d)`$ to representations of $`kS_d`$ factors through the Schur functor in \[11, 6.4\] from representations of $`S(m,d)`$ to representations of $`kS_d`$. So \[11, 6.4\] implies that $`D_\lambda =L(x(\lambda ))D^\lambda ^{}\mathrm{sgn}`$ for each $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$.

## 6. The Mullineux conjecture

Let $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$ be a partition of $`d`$. The rim of $`\lambda `$ is defined to be the set of all nodes $`(i,j)\lambda `$ such that $`(i+1,j+1)\lambda `$. The $`p`$-rim is a certain subset of the rim, defined as the union of the $`p`$-segments. The first $`p`$-segment is simply the first $`p`$ nodes of the rim, reading along the rim from left to right. The next $`p`$-segment is then obtained by reading off the next $`p`$ nodes of the rim, but starting from the column immediately to the right of the rightmost node of the first $`p`$-segment. The remaining $`p`$-segments are obtained by repeating this process. Of course, all but the last $`p`$-segment contain exactly $`p`$ nodes, while the last may contain less. For example, let $`\lambda =(5,4,3^2,1^2),p=5`$. The nodes of the $`p`$-rim (which consists of two $`p`$-segments) are colored in black in the following picture.

Let $`a(\lambda )`$ denote the number of nodes in the $`p`$-rim of $`\lambda `$.

We now define Mullineux conjugation

$$𝙼:𝒫(d)𝒫(d),$$

which is actually the transpose of the original definition from  since we are working with restricted rather than regular partitions. Given $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$, set $`\lambda ^{(1)}=\lambda `$, and define $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ to be $`\lambda ^{(i1)}\{\text{the }p\text{-rim of }\lambda ^{(i1)}\}`$. Let $`m`$ be the largest number such that $`\lambda ^{(m)}0`$. The Mullineux symbol of $`\lambda `$ is defined to be the array

$$G(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_m\\ r_1& r_2& \mathrm{}& r_m\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a_i=a(\lambda ^{(i)})`$ is the number of the nodes in the $`p`$-rim of $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ and $`r_i=\lambda _1^{(i)}`$ is the first part of $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$. The partition $`\lambda `$ can be uniquely reconstructed from its Mullineux symbol, see . Now, $`𝙼(\lambda )`$ is defined to be the unique restricted partition with

$$G(𝙼(\lambda ))=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_m\\ s_1& s_2& \mathrm{}& s_m\end{array}\right)$$

where

$$s_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_ir_i\hfill & \text{if }a_i0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \\ a_i+1r_i\hfill & \text{if }a_i0(modp)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.1)
Note in particular that the first part of $`𝙼(\lambda )`$ equals $`s_1`$.

As explained in the introduction, we will be concerned here with an equivalent formulation of the Mullineux algorithm discovered by Xu . For $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$, let $`𝙹(\lambda )`$ be the partition obtained from $`\lambda `$ by deleting every node in the $`p`$-rim that is at the rightmost end of a row of $`\lambda `$ but that is not the $`p`$th node of a $`p`$-segment. Let $`j(\lambda )=|\lambda ||𝙹(\lambda )|`$ be the total number of nodes deleted. For example, with $`\lambda =(5,4,3^2,1^2),p=5`$ as above, $`𝙹(\lambda )`$ is obtained by deleting the double-circled nodes:

Hence $`j(\lambda )=4`$. Note the definitions of the maps $`𝙹`$ and $`j`$ make sense for arbitrary partitions, though to prove the Mullineux conjecture we only need to apply them to restricted partitions. In general, one has that $`𝙹(\mu +p\nu )=𝙹(\mu )+p\nu `$ and $`j(\mu +p\nu )=j(\mu )`$.

Recalling that $`a(\lambda )`$ is the number of nodes in the $`p`$-rim of $`\lambda `$, we note for arbitrary $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$ that

$$j(\lambda )=\{\begin{array}{cc}a(\lambda )\lambda _1\hfill & \text{if }a(\lambda )0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \\ a(\lambda )+1\lambda _1\hfill & \text{if }a(\lambda )0(modp)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.2)
Comparing with (6.1), this shows that for restricted $`\lambda `$, $`j(\lambda )`$ is the first part of the partition $`𝙼(\lambda )`$. More generally, it is proved in \[4, Proposition 3.4\] that for restricted $`\lambda `$, $`𝙼(𝙹(\lambda ))=𝚁(𝙼(\lambda ))`$, where $`𝚁`$ denotes first row removal. Using this fundamental fact, the following theorem of Xu  follows easily:

###### Theorem 6.1.

For $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$, $`𝙼(\lambda )`$ is the partition $`\mu `$ with $`\mu _i=j(𝙹^{i1}(\lambda ))`$.

We will refer to the algorithm for computing $`𝙼(\lambda )`$ given by Theorem 6.1 as Xu’s algorithm. For an example, take $`\lambda =(5,4,3^2,1^2),p=5`$ as above. Then $`𝙹(\lambda )=(4,3^3),𝙹^2(\lambda )=(3^2,2^2),𝙹^3(\lambda )=(3^2,1^2),𝙹^4(\lambda )=(3^2),𝙹^5(\lambda )=(2^2),𝙹^6(\lambda )=(1^2),𝙹^7(\lambda )=0`$. Hence, $`𝙼(\lambda )=(4,3,2^5)`$.

We next explain the relationship between Xu’s algorithm and Serganova’s algorithm from Theorem 4.3. The main step is to prove the following alternative description of the map $`𝙹`$.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Suppose that $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$ with $`\lambda _{m+1}=0`$. Define $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}\{0,1\}`$ by $`x_{m+1}=x_{m+2}=\mathrm{}=0`$ and

$$x_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\lambda _i+x_{i+1}+x_{i+2}+\mathrm{}0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\lambda _i+x_{i+1}+x_{i+2}+\mathrm{}0(modp)\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`i=m,m1,\mathrm{},1`$. Then, $`𝙹(\lambda )`$ is the partition $`\mu `$ with $`\mu _i=\lambda _ix_i`$.

###### Proof.

Proceed by induction on $`m`$, the case $`m=0`$ being vacuous. For the induction step, take $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$ with $`\lambda _{m+1}=0`$. Define $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu `$ according to the statement of the lemma. By the induction hypothesis, we get that $`𝙹(𝚁(\lambda ))=𝚁(\mu )`$, which shows in particular that $`j(𝚁(\lambda ))=|𝚁(\lambda )||𝚁(\mu )|=x_2+x_3+\mathrm{}`$. To complete the proof, it remains to show that the first part of $`𝙹(\lambda )`$ is equal to $`\lambda _1x_1`$, or equivalently, $`j(\lambda )=x_1+x_2+x_3+\mathrm{}`$.

If $`a(𝚁(\lambda ))0(modp)`$, then all the $`p`$-segments in the $`p`$-rim of $`𝚁(\lambda )`$ have $`p`$ nodes in them. Hence, the node $`(1,\lambda _2)`$ does not belong to the $`p`$-rim of $`\lambda `$. Using (6.2) for the second equality, we therefore get that

$$a(\lambda )=\lambda _1\lambda _2+a(𝚁(\lambda ))=\lambda _1+j(𝚁(\lambda )).$$

Otherwise, if $`a(𝚁(\lambda ))0(modp)`$, then the last $`p`$-segment of $`𝚁(\lambda )`$ has less than $`p`$ nodes in it. This implies that the node $`(1,\lambda _2)`$ must belong to the $`p`$-rim of $`\lambda `$, so

$$a(\lambda )=\lambda _1\lambda _2+1+a(𝚁(\lambda ))=\lambda _1+j(𝚁(\lambda )).$$

Thus in either case, we have shown that

$$a(\lambda )=\lambda _1+j(𝚁(\lambda ))=\lambda _1+x_2+x_3+\mathrm{}.$$

If this is zero mod $`p`$, then $`x_1=0`$ and $`j(\lambda )=a(\lambda )\lambda _1`$ by (6.2). If it is non-zero mod $`p`$, then $`x_1=1`$ and $`j(\lambda )=a(\lambda )+1\lambda _1`$. Either way, $`j(\lambda )=x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}`$ as required. ∎

Assume now that $`m,nd`$. Recall the definition of the embedding $`x:𝒫(d)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$ from (5.12). Instead, define

$$y:𝒫(d)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d),\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i\epsilon _{m+i}.$$
(6.3)
Let $`:X^+(T)X^+(T)`$ be the bijection defined combinatorially according to Theorem 4.3. Then:

###### Lemma 6.3.

For $`m,nd`$ and $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x(\lambda )}=y(𝙼(\lambda ))`$.

###### Proof.

Compute $`\stackrel{~}{x(\lambda )}`$ using Theorem 4.3 and the ordering

$$\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _1\epsilon _{m+1};\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+2},\mathrm{},\epsilon _1\epsilon _{m+2};\mathrm{};\epsilon _m\epsilon _{m+n},\mathrm{},\epsilon _1\epsilon _{m+n}.$$

After the first $`m`$ steps of the process, $`x(\lambda )`$ has been replaced by $`x(\lambda )_{i=1}^mx_i\epsilon _i+j(\lambda )\epsilon _{m+1}`$, where $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$ are defined as in Lemma 6.2. Lemma 6.2 shows this is exactly the weight $`x(𝙹(\lambda ))+j(\lambda )\epsilon _{m+1}.`$ Repeating the argument for the next $`m`$ steps of Serganova’s algorithm, we see similarly that $`x(𝙹(\lambda ))+j(\lambda )\epsilon _{m+1}`$ gets replaced by the weight $`x(𝙹(𝙹(\lambda )))+j(\lambda )\epsilon _{m+1}+j(𝙹(\lambda ))\epsilon _{m+2}`$. Continuing in this way and using Xu’s Theorem 6.1, we get after the $`nm`$th step of Serganova’s algorithm that $`\stackrel{~}{x(\lambda )}=y(𝙼(\lambda ))`$. ∎

At last we are ready to prove the Mullineux conjecture, see also (5.14).

###### Theorem 6.4.

For $`\lambda 𝒫(d)`$, $`D_\lambda \mathrm{sgn}D_{𝙼(\lambda )}`$.

###### Proof.

Take $`m=nd`$. Let $`\sigma :GG`$ be the supergroup automorphism defined for a commutative superalgebra $`A`$ and a matrix $`gG(A)`$ of the form (2.1) by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}W\hfill & X\hfill \\ & \\ Y\hfill & Z\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z\hfill & Y\hfill \\ & \\ X\hfill & W\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

Given any $`G`$-supermodule $`M`$, we let $`\sigma ^{}M`$ denote the $`G`$-supermodule equal to $`M`$ as a vector superspace, but with new action defined by $`gm=\sigma (g)m`$ for all $`gG(A),mMA`$ and all commutative superalgebras $`A`$. In particular, $`\sigma ^{}(V^d)`$ denotes the tensor space $`V^d`$ with the action of $`G`$ twisted by $`\sigma `$ and with the original $`S_d`$-action from (5.7). We also write $`V^d\mathrm{sgn}`$ for the $`G`$-supermodule $`V^d`$ but with the action of $`S_d`$ twisted by tensoring with $`\mathrm{sgn}`$.

Let $`\sigma :\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}`$ be the map $`ii+n`$ if $`in`$, $`iin`$ if $`in+1`$. Extend $`\sigma `$ to a map $`\sigma :I(n|n,d)I(n|n,d)`$ mapping $`𝒊=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$ to $`\sigma (𝒊)=(\sigma (i_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (i_d))`$. Define a map $`\sigma :V\sigma ^{}V,v_iv_{\sigma (i)}`$. Obviously, this is an odd isomorphism of $`G`$-supermodules. Hence, the map

$$\sigma ^d:V^d\mathrm{sgn}\sigma ^{}(V^d),v_𝒊1(1)^{(d1)\overline{i}_1+(d2)\overline{i}_2+\mathrm{}+\overline{i}_{d1}}v_{\sigma (𝒊)}$$

is an isomorphism of $`G`$-supermodules. Using this formula, it is easy to check that the map $`\sigma ^d`$ commutes with the action of a simple transposition $`(jj+1)S_d`$. Hence, $`\sigma ^d`$ is an isomorphism of $`G,S_d`$-bimodules. It follows immediately that for any $`G`$-supermodule $`M`$, there is a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(V^d,\sigma ^{}M)=\mathrm{Hom}_G(\sigma ^{}(V^d),M)\mathrm{Hom}_G(V^d\mathrm{sgn},M)$$

of $`kS_d`$-modules. Hence, recalling Remark 5.8(ii), we have a natural isomorphism

$$(f_\omega M)\mathrm{sgn}f_\omega (\sigma ^{}M)$$
(6.4)
of $`kS_d`$-modules for any $`S(n|n,d)`$-supermodule $`M`$.

We now apply (6.4) to $`M=L(x(\lambda ))`$. By (4.1) and Lemma 6.3,

$$L(x(\lambda ))L_{w_1}(\stackrel{~}{x(\lambda )})L_{w_1}(y(𝙼(\lambda ))).$$

The automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`G`$ swaps the Borel subgroups $`B_1`$ and $`B_{w_1}`$ and interchanges the two diagonal blocks in the torus $`T`$. Hence,

$$\sigma ^{}L_{w_1}(y(𝙼(\lambda )))L(x(𝙼(\lambda ))).$$

So by (5.13) and (6.4), we get

$$D_\lambda \mathrm{sgn}=(f_\omega L(x(\lambda )))\mathrm{sgn}f_\omega (\sigma ^{}L(x(\lambda )))f_\omega L(x(𝙼(\lambda )))=D_{𝙼(\lambda )}.$$

This completes the proof. ∎

We conclude the article by completing the combinatorial description of the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ that parametrizes the irreducible polynomial representations of $`G`$ of degree $`d`$ in Lemma 5.4. For $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$, we will use the notation $`t(\lambda )`$ for the partition $`(\lambda _{m+1},\lambda _{m+2},\mathrm{},\lambda _{m+n})`$, i.e. the “tail” of $`\lambda `$. Also recall the definition of $`j`$ from (6.2).

###### Theorem 6.5.

For arbitrary $`m,n,d`$, we have that

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ $`=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)|j(t(\lambda ))\lambda _m\}.`$
###### Proof.

Pick $`Mm,Nn`$ such that $`Md`$ and $`N=Mm`$. Throughout the proof, we will identify $`GL(m|n)`$ with the closed subgroup of $`GL(M|N)`$ consisting (for each commutative superalgebra $`A`$) of all invertible matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}W\hfill & 0\hfill & X\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & I_{Mm}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ & & & \\ Y\hfill & 0\hfill & Z\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & I_{Nn}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$

where $`W,X,Y,Z`$ are as in (2.1). Embed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$) into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M|N,d)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(M|N,d)`$) as the set of all $`\lambda `$ with $`\lambda _{m+1}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _M=\lambda _{M+n+1}=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{M+N}=0`$, and embed $`I(m|n,d)`$ into $`I(M|N,d)`$ as the set of all $`d`$-tuples $`𝒊`$ with entries belonging to the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},m,M+1,\mathrm{},M+n\}`$. Let

$$\xi =\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)}{}\xi _\lambda S(M|N,d).$$

The embedding $`GL(m|n)GL(M|N)`$ induces an isomorphism between the Schur superalgebra $`S(m|n,d)`$ and the subalgebra $`\xi S(M|N,d)\xi `$ of $`S(M|N,d)`$. The element $`\xi _{𝒊,𝒋}`$ of $`S(m|n,d)`$ for $`𝒊,𝒋I(m|n,d)`$ corresponds to the element of $`\xi S(M|N,d)\xi `$ with the same name. We will denote the irreducible $`S(M|N,d)`$-supermodule of highest weight $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d)`$ by $`L(\lambda )`$, and the irreducible $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodule of highest weight $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ by $`L^{}(\lambda )`$.

Let $`wD_{M,N}`$ be the permutation

$$w=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m+1& m+2& \mathrm{}& M\\ M+1& M+2& \mathrm{}& M+N\end{array}\right)$$

This defines a Borel subgroup $`B_w`$ of $`G=GL(M|N)`$, a set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_w^+`$ of positive roots and a dominance ordering $`_w`$ on $`X(T)`$. Explicitly, for a commutative superalgebra $`A`$, $`B_w(A)`$ consists of all matrices in $`G(A)`$ of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}P\hfill & X\hfill & Y\hfill \\ 0\hfill & Q\hfill & 0\hfill \\ & & \\ 0\hfill & Z\hfill & R\hfill \end{array}\right),$$

where $`P`$ is an upper triangular $`m\times m`$ matrix, $`Q,R`$ are upper triangular $`N\times N`$ matrices, and $`X,Y,Z`$ are arbitrary. Like in (4.1), define a bijection $`r:X(T)X(T)`$ by the rule

$$L_1(\lambda )L_w(r(\lambda )).$$

The key observation is that if $`\lambda `$ is a weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$, then every $`\mu _w\lambda `$ is also $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$. Hence, since the idempotent $`\xi `$ is just projection onto the weight spaces belonging to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$, we see that for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d)`$, $`\xi L(\lambda )\xi L_w(r(\lambda ))`$ is non-zero if and only if $`r(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$. Moreover, in that case, $`r(\lambda )`$ is the highest weight of $`\xi L(\lambda )`$ with respect to the standard dominance ordering on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m|n,d)`$. Viewing $`\xi L(\lambda )`$ as an $`S(m|n,d)`$-supermodule via the identification $`S(m|n,d)=\xi S(M|N,d)\xi `$, we have shown:

$$\xi L(\lambda )\{\begin{array}{cc}L^{}(r(\lambda ))\hfill & \text{if }r(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.5)
Invoking Lemma 5.6, this means that

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(m|n,d)`$ $`=r(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d))\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)`$
$`=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)|r^1(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d)\}.`$
Now we compute $`r^1(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+(m|n,d)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+(M|N,d)`$. Let $`t(\lambda )`$ denote the partition $`(\lambda _{M+1},\lambda _{M+2},\mathrm{},\lambda _{M+N})`$, i.e. the tail of $`\lambda `$ as in the statement of the theorem. Write $`t(\lambda )=\mu +p\nu `$ for partitions $`\mu ,\nu `$ with $`\mu `$ restricted, so

$$\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\epsilon _i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _i\epsilon _{M+i}+p\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i\epsilon _{M+i}.$$

Applying Lemma 4.2 repeatedly to the root sequence

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{M+N}\epsilon _{m+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{M+1}\epsilon _{m+1};\epsilon _{M+N}\epsilon _{m+2},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{M+1}\epsilon _{m+2};\mathrm{};\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _{M+N}\epsilon _M,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{M+1}\epsilon _M.\end{array}$$

and arguing as in the proof of Lemma 6.3, one gets that

$$r^1(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\epsilon _i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}j(𝙹^{i1}(\mu ))\epsilon _{m+i}+p\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i\epsilon _{M+i}.$$

Note the number $`j(𝙹^{i1}(\mu ))`$ appearing here is simply the $`i`$th part of $`𝙼(\mu )`$ according to Theorem 6.1. Finally, using Theorem 5.5 for the explicit description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d)`$, we deduce that $`r^1(\lambda )`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}(M|N,d)`$ if and only if $`j(\mu )\lambda _m`$. Since $`j(\mu )=j(\mu +p\nu )=j(t(\lambda ))`$, this completes the proof. ∎