Representations of shifted super Yangians and finite W-superalgebras of type A

Note that T_{i,j}^{(r)}=0 if 0<r\leqslant s_{i,j}. Clearly, the elements D_{i}^{(r)} (resp. E_{i,j}^{(r)} and F_{j,i}^{(r)}) can be written as T_{i,i}^{(r)} (resp. T_{i,j}^{(r)} and T_{j,i}^{(r)}) plus a linear combination of monomials of total degree r in the elements \{T_{a,b}^{(s)}\mid 1\leqslant a,b\leqslant m+n,0<s<r\}. Since {\mathrm{gr}}\,{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)} is free supercommutative on generators (?)–(?), the elements \{{\mathrm{gr}}_r\,T_{i,j}^{(r)}\mid 1\leqslant i,j\leqslant m+n, r>s_{i,j}\} also freely generate {\mathrm{gr}}\,{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}.

We prove it using the same argument as in [LM21, Prop. 2.7]. Let

then by (2.1), we have [\mathbf D_i^{(2)},E_i^{(r)}]=\mathfrak{s}_iE_i^{(r+1)}. Note that D_i^{(2)}=\mathsf{T}_{i,i}^{(2)}-\sum_{j<i}\mathsf{T}_{i,j}^{(1)}\mathsf{T}_{j,i}^{(1)} and D_i^{(1)}=\mathsf{T}_{i,i}^{(1)}. A direct computation implies that

Note that \Delta(E_i^{(1)})=E_i^{(1)}\otimes 1+1\otimes E_i^{(1)}. Using [\mathbf D_i^{(2)},E_i^{(r)}]=\mathfrak{s}_iE_i^{(r+1)}, [F_i^{(1)},E_i^{(s)}]=\mathfrak{s}_i H_i^{(s)}, and [E_i^{(r)},\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{-}]\subset \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{\leqslant0}, one shows inductively Part (2). Similarly, one proves Part (3).

We then prove Part (1). It is clearly for the case i=1. By (?), it suffices to prove the statement with D replaced by H. Applying [\Delta(F_i^{(1)}),?] to Part (2) and using [F_i^{(1)},E_i^{(s)}]=\mathfrak{s}_i H_i^{(s)}, we find that

Similarly, applying [\Delta(E_i^{(1)}),?] to Part (3), we have

Combining the two equations above completes the proof of Part (1).

This is established in Theorem 3.13.

When \sigma=0 and \mathfrak{s} is the standard one, it is well known [Go07, Na20] that the set \{\mathcal C_{m|n}^{(r)}\,|\,r\geqslant1\} is algebraically independent and it generates \mathcal Z(\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}). For a general \mathfrak{s}, the proof in the standard case works analogously as in [Ts20, Thm. 2.43].

We claim that \mathcal Z(\mathrm{Y}_{m|n})= \mathcal Z(\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)) for any \sigma. Note that D_i^{(r)} belongs to \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^0 \subseteq \mathrm{Y}_{m|n} for all 1\leqslant i\leqslant m+n, r>0. Then (?) implies that \mathcal Z(\mathrm{Y}_{m|n})\subseteq\mathcal Z(\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)). The other inclusion can be established by passing to the associated graded superalgebra {\mathrm{gr}}^L\, \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma) with respect to the loop filtration, with the help of [Pe21, Thm. 4.4] and [Na20, Prop. 3.8], and modifying the argument in [Mo07, Thm. 1.7.5].

We prove it by induction on \ell. The base case \ell=1 is verified directly by definition. Using the anti-automorphism \tau if necessary, we can assume that q_1\geqslant q_\ell and hence fix a choice of k such that k<\ell. Note that if i,h\leqslant j, then

Thus, the induction hypothesis implies that all the terms in the RHS of Lemma A.4 are zero if r>s_{i,j}+p_{\min(i,j)}, completing the proof.

Follows from the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.5 using Theorem 3.3.

It follows from the explicit formula of \mathsf{T}_{i,j;0}^{(r)} and (?).

It follows from (?).

The statement is trivial when \ell=1 so we assume \ell\geqslant 2. Suppose first that \Delta_R is defined. Examining (?), one finds that the map \Delta_{\ell-1,1} coincides with the injective homomorphism \psi_R:W(\pi)\rightarrow \mathrm{U}(\dot{\mathfrak{p}})\otimes \mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m_\ell|n_\ell}) defined in the proof of [Pe21, Thm. 10.1]. Since the composition \psi_R^{-1}\circ \Delta_R:\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{\ell}(\sigma)\rightarrow W(\pi) is exactly the identification \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^\ell(\sigma)\cong W(\pi), we deduce that \Delta_{\ell-1,1}=\Delta_R. The other case where \Delta_L is defined is similar, using instead the injective homomorphism \psi_L:W(\pi)\rightarrow \mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m_1|n_1})\otimes \mathrm{U}(\dot{\mathfrak{p}}) defined in the proof of [Pe21, Thm. 10.1], where the composition \psi_L^{-1}\circ \Delta_L:\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{\ell}(\sigma)\rightarrow W(\pi) is our identification.

As (?), \mu can be understood as a composition of (\ell-1) copies of \Delta_L or \Delta_R in any order which makes sense. Since both {\mathrm{gr}}\,\Delta_L and {\mathrm{gr}}\,\Delta_R are injective [Pe21, Thm. 8.2], the statement follows.

\mu can be understood as a composition of \Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}} followed by (\ell-2) more maps.

We argue by induction on \ell. There is nothing to prove if either \ell^\prime=0 or \ell^{\prime\prime}=0, hence the statement holds trivially in the base case \ell=1. Assume from now on \ell=\ell^\prime+\ell^{\prime\prime} with \ell^\prime, \ell^{\prime\prime}>0. In any case, at least one of \Delta_L and \Delta_R is defined. We explain the inductive step in the case where \Delta_R is defined, where in the other case the argument is almost identical. Note that when \Delta_R is defined on W(\pi), by our assumptions on the lengths of rows, we ensure that \Delta_R is defined on W(\vec\pi) as well.

Consider first that \ell^{\prime\prime}=1. By Lemma 3.7, \Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}}=\Delta_R for both W(\pi) and W(\vec\pi). Then the commutativity of the diagram can be checked by the explicit formula of \Delta_R and \iota in [Pe21, Thm. 6.1 (1)] and [Pe21, (5.23)] when they evaluate on parabolic generators.

Suppose now \ell^{\prime\prime}>1. Let \rho, \hat\rho, \rho' and \hat\rho^\prime denote the pyramids obtained by removing the rightmost column (which is of height q_\ell in all cases) of \pi,\vec\pi, \pi'' and \vec\pi'', respectively. Consider the following cube

where the maps on the front and back squares are defined from the parabolic inductions, and the remaining maps are induced by isomorphisms \iota. The top and bottom squares are commutative by the special case \ell^{\prime\prime}=1 considered in the previous paragraph. The front and back squares are commutative by Lemma 3.6. The square in the right is commutative by the induction hypothesis. Since the horizontal maps are parabolic inductions, all of them are injective by Corollary 3.9. This implies that the square on the left is commutative, finishing the inductive step.

One checks explicitly from (3.1)–(3.1), (3.1) and definition (?) that \hat\dag maps the elements \mu(D_i^{(r)}), \mu(E_i^{(r)}) and \mu(F_i^{(r)}) to \dot\mu(\dot D_i^{(r)}), \dot\mu(\dot E_i^{(r)}) and \dot\mu(\dot F_i^{(r)}).

In view of Lemma 3.11 and the injectivity of the Miura transforms, the statement follows from the following commutative diagram:

where the horizontal maps are induced by the obvious isomorphisms \mathfrak{h} \cong \mathfrak{h}^\prime \oplus \mathfrak{h}^{\prime\prime} and \dot{\mathfrak{h}} \cong \dot{\mathfrak{h}}^\prime \oplus \dot{\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime\prime}.

Recall from [Pe21, Rmk. 8.5] that \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma), \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma^\prime), and \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma^{\prime\prime}) are identified with the inverse limits {\displaystyle \lim_{\leftarrow}\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^\ell(\sigma), \lim_{\leftarrow}\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{\ell^\prime}(\sigma^\prime)}, and {\displaystyle\lim_{\leftarrow}\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}^{\ell^{\prime\prime}}(\sigma^{\prime\prime})}, respectively. The commutative diagram in Corollary 3.12 ensures that the maps \Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}} are stable as \ell^\prime, \ell^{\prime\prime}\rightarrow \infty, showing the existence of the induced homomorphism

lifting from the maps \Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}} for all \ell^\prime\geqslant s_{m+n,1}, \ell^{\prime\prime}\geqslant s_{1,m+n}. It remains to show that {\displaystyle \lim_{\leftarrow}\Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}}} agrees with the restriction of \Delta on \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma).

Let X denote some generator D_i^{(r)}, E_{i}^{(r)} or F_{i}^{(r)} of \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)\subseteq \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}. Its image \Delta(X) can be calculated as follows: first express X in terms of a linear combination of monomials in \mathsf{T}_{i,j}^{(r)} by the explicit formulas in [Pe16, Prop. 3.1]. Then by (?), \Delta(X) equals a linear combination of monomials in \mathsf{T}_{h,k}^{(s)}. Finally we rewrite all \mathsf{T}_{h,k}^{(s)} appearing in the expression back in terms of the generators D_i^{(r)}, E_{i}^{(r)} and F_{i}^{(r)}. On the other hand, exactly the same procedure can be applied to calculate \Delta_{\ell^\prime, \ell^{\prime\prime}}(X) where X runs over generators D_i^{(r)}, E_{i}^{(r)} or F_{i}^{(r)} in W(\pi) for each \ell, using (3.1) and (3.5). The crucial point is that the formulas expressing \mathsf{T}_{i,j;0}^{(r)} in terms of D_i^{(r)}, E_{i}^{(r)} and F_{i}^{(r)} in \mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{p}) is completely the same as the explicit formula in [Pe16, Prop. 3.1], for both of them are deduced from applying Gauss decomposition to an invertible matrix. This shows that {\displaystyle \lim_{\leftarrow}\Delta_{\ell^\prime,\ell^{\prime\prime}} =\Delta}.

Part (1) is due to Kac and Sergeev, see [Mus12, §13.2] for details. Part (2) is established in [BG19, Thm. 2.2] while Part (3) for the standard parity sequence is obtained in [BG19, Thm. 2.3]. Part (4) follows from Parts (1)-(3).

Part (3) for a general parity sequence \mathfrak{s} follows from Part (2) and the statement for the standard parity case. Here we provide a more direct approach. By the explicit decomposition of the quantum Berezinian \mathcal C_{M|N}(u) with respect to an arbitrary parity sequence given in (?), together with the fact that the evaluation map \operatorname{ev}:\mathrm Y_{M|N} \rightarrow \mathrm U(\mathfrak{gl}_{M|N}) from (?) is a homomorphism, one deduces that

By (?), the Harish-Chandra map \operatorname{HC}^\mathfrak{s} with respect to \mathfrak{s} carries the correct translations to each e_{j,j}, deducing the desired expression.

It follows from Proposition 2.7 and Lemma 2.8.

The first statement follows immediately from Proposition 2.4. The second statement follows from similar filtration argument as in [BK08, Thm. 5.5] with the help of Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 2.5.

Consider the highest \bm\ell-weight vector w_{\bm\zeta} in the Verma module \mathcal M(\sigma,\bm\zeta). Then it follows from (2.1) and (?) that

for all 1\leqslant i<m+n, r>s_{i,i+1}, and s>s_{i+1,i} due to our choice of \bm\zeta. Indeed, by (?) we have that H_i(u)w_{\bm\zeta}=u^{-d_i}Q_i(u)w_{\bm\zeta} and hence H_i^{(r+s-1)}w_{\bm\zeta}=0 if r>s_{i,i+1} and s>s_{i+1,i}. Thus the unique maximal proper submodule in \mathcal M(\sigma,\bm\zeta) is generated by all F_i^{(s)}w_{\bm\zeta} for 1\leqslant i<m+n and s>s_{i+1,i}, completing the proof.

(\Rightarrow). This follows immediately from Proposition 4.4.

(\Leftarrow). Suppose \bm\lambda\in \mathscr P_{1|1} is such that \lambda_1(u)/\lambda_2(u) is a rational function. If \sigma is the zero matrix, then the statement follows from [Zh95, Thm. 4]. Now consider the general case. By the canonical embedding \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}(\sigma)\hookrightarrow \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}, the finite dimensional \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}-module \mathcal L(\bm\lambda) is also a \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}(\sigma)-module by restriction. Moreover, v_{\bm\lambda} \in \mathcal L(\bm\lambda) remains to be a highest \bm\ell-weight vector of \bm\ell-weight \bm\lambda over \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}(\sigma). Thus \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) is a sub-quotient of \mathcal L(\bm\lambda) and hence finite dimensional as well.

(1). Recall \mu_{\wp} from (?) which fixes F_1^{(r)} for all r>0. Twisting the module \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) by the automorphism \mu_\wp with suitable \wp(u), we can assume

Let W(\pi) be the corresponding finite W-superalgebra obtained via the quotient \Omega. It follows from [BBG13, §7] that there exists an irreducible W-module denoted by \overline L(\substack{a_1 \cdots a_{r} \\ b_1 \cdots b_{d+r}}). Pulling back through the quotient homomorphism \Omega, \overline L(\substack{a_1 \cdots a_{r} \\ b_1 \cdots b_{d+r}}) remains to be irreducible as a \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}(\sigma)-module. Moreover, it is a highest \bm\ell-weight module with highest \bm\ell-weight \bm\lambda. Hence it is isomorphic to \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) and the statement follows from [BBG13, Thm. 7.3].

(2). If f(0)\ne 0, then (f(u),u^d)=1 and hence f(u)=P(u). This implies r=\deg f(u). It is known from [Zh95, Thm. 4] that the \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}-module \mathcal L(\bm\lambda) has dimension 2^r. Thus it follows from Part (1) that \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) and the \mathrm{Y}_{1|1}-module \mathcal L(\bm\lambda) have the same dimension. The statement follows as \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) is a sub-quotient of the restriction module \mathcal L(\bm\lambda).

(\Rightarrow). Let \sigma_j denote the 2\times 2 submatrix

of the shift matrix \sigma. The map \psi_j:\mathrm{Y}_{\mathfrak{s}_{j}\mathfrak{s}_{j+1}}(\sigma_j)\to {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)} defined by

induces an embedding of the shifted (super) Yangian \mathrm{Y}_{\mathfrak{s}_{j}\mathfrak{s}_{j+1}}(\sigma_j) into {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}. Then the highest \bm\ell-weight vector v_{\bm\lambda} remains to be a highest \bm\ell-weight vector of highest \bm\ell-weight \bm\lambda_j=(\lambda_j(u),\lambda_{j+1}(u)) over the (super)algebra \mathrm{Y}_{\mathfrak{s}_{j}\mathfrak{s}_{j+1}}(\sigma_j). Note that \mathfrak{s} is the standard parity sequence. If 1\leqslant j<m+n and j\ne m, then \mathfrak{s}_j=\mathfrak{s}_{j+1} and hence (4.9) with the corresponding restrictions follows from [BK08, Coro. 7.5]. If j=m, then \mathfrak{s}_m\ne \mathfrak{s}_{m+1} and hence (4.9) follows from Proposition 4.7.

(\Leftarrow). Recalling the isomorphism \iota from (?), the twist of a highest \bm\ell-weight \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\vec{\sigma})-module by \iota is again a highest \bm\ell-weight {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}-module with the same highest \bm\ell-weight. Moreover, the twist of a module in \mathcal O_{\vec{\sigma}} is in \mathcal O_\sigma. Thus it suffices to prove it for the case when \sigma is an upper shift matrix. Then we have the coproduct \Delta:{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}\to \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}\otimes{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}. Rewrite \bm\lambda as a product \bm\lambda=\bm\gamma\bm\zeta such that

for 1\leqslant j<m+n and j\ne m. Via the coproduct, we have the {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}-module \mathcal L(\bm\gamma)\boxtimes \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\zeta), where \mathcal L(\bm\gamma) is the irreducible \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}-module with highest \bm\ell-weight \bm\gamma. Let v_{\bm\gamma} and v_{\bm \zeta} be the corresponding highest \bm\ell-weight vectors in \mathcal L(\bm\gamma) and \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\zeta), respectively. It follows from Lemma 4.1 that v_{\bm\gamma}\otimes v_{\bm \zeta} is a highest \bm\ell-weight vector of \bm\ell-weight \bm\lambda. Thus \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\lambda) is isomorphic to a sub-quotient of \mathcal L(\bm\gamma)\boxtimes \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\zeta). By [Zh96, Thm. 4], \mathcal L(\bm\gamma) is finite dimensional. Therefore, the statement follows as \mathcal L(\sigma,\bm\zeta) is 1-dimensional by Lemma 4.5.

It suffices to prove Part (2) as Part (1) follows by a similar filtration argument in the proof of [BK08, Thm. 5.5]. Recall that the Verma module \mathcal M(\sigma,\bm\lambda) is the quotient of {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)} by the left ideal \mathcal J generated by the elements

It is not hard to see from (?) and the Gauss decomposition (?) the left ideal \mathcal J is also equivalently generated by the elements

Let Q:=\big\{T_{j,i}^{(r)}\mid 1\leqslant i<j\leqslant m+n,r>s_{j,i}\big\}. Pick any ordering on P\cup Q such that the elements of Q precede the elements of P. Clearly, it follows from Lemma 2.5 and Proposition 4.3 that the ordered supermonomials in the elements P\cup Q containing at least one element from P form a basis of \mathcal J.

The W(\pi)-module W(\pi)\otimes_{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}\mathcal M(\sigma,\bm\lambda) can be identified as the quotient of W(\pi) by the image \bar{\mathcal J} of \mathcal J under the quotient map \Omega:{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}\to W(\pi).

If \lambda_i^{(r)}\ne 0 for some 1\leqslant i\leqslant m+n and r>p_i (which is exactly u^{p_i}\lambda_i(u)\notin\mathbb{C}[u]), then it follows from Theorem 3.3 that the image of T_{i,i}^{(r)}-\lambda_i^{(r)} is a unit in W(\pi) and hence W(\pi)\otimes_{\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}\mathcal M(\sigma,\bm\lambda)=0.

Conversely, suppose u^{p_i}\lambda_i(u)\in\mathbb{C}[u]. Consider two sets

and \overline Q:=\big\{T_{j,i}^{(r)}\mid 1\leqslant i<j\leqslant m+n,\,s_{j,i}<r\leqslant s_{j,i}+p_i\big\}. By Theorem 3.3 and Lemma 3.4, the order supermonomials in elements of \overline P\cup \overline Q containing at least one element from \overline P form a basis of \bar{\mathcal J}. Therefore, the image of \mathcal Y forms a basis for W(\pi)/\bar{\mathcal J}, completing the proof of Part (2).

The proof is the same as that of [BK08, Thm. 7.9]. For the only if part, one only needs to repeat that argument for 1\leqslant i<m+n and i\ne m using [BK08, Coro. 7.8]; see also the proof of Theorem 4.9. For the if part, it is also the same. Suppose that \mathbf{A} has a representative belonging to \mathrm{Col}(\pi). Let \mathbf{A}_1,\dots,\mathbf{A}_\ell be the columns of this representative. Since \pi is standard and \mathbf{A}_i is column strict, the irreducible module \mathcal L(\mathbf{A}_i) is finite dimensional (see Example 5.3). By Lemma 4.1, the tensor product \mathcal L(\mathbf{A}_1)\boxtimes \cdots\boxtimes \mathcal L(\mathbf{A}_\ell) is a finite dimensional W(\pi)-module containing a highest \bm\ell-weight vector of type \mathbf{A}. Hence \mathcal L(\mathbf{A}) being its subquotient is also finite dimensional.

The proof follows directly from results of [Pe16] together with some simple inductive argument. We prove (?) in detail and omit the proof for others. Since \pi is left-justified, \sigma is upper triangular (s_{j,i}=0 for all j\geqslant i). This implies that the element F_{j,i}^{(r)}\in \mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma) can be identified with \mathsf{F}_{j,i}^{(r)}\in\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}. Consequently, F_{j,i}^{(r)}=\mathfrak{s}_{j-1}[F_{j-1}^{(1)}, F_{j-1,i}^{(r)}] for all j-i\geqslant 2, or in terms of generating series

It suffices to establish (?) in the special case k=j+1:

Indeed, applying [F_{j+1}^{(1)}, ? ] to both sides of (?), using the facts that [F_{j+1}^{(1)},F_{j,i}(v)]=0, which follows from (2.1), and [F_{j+1}^{(1)},F_{j+1,h}(u)]=\mathfrak{s}_{j+1} F_{j+2,h}(u) for all h\leqslant j, which follows from (Proof), one deduces (?) for k=j+2. Applying [F_{t}^{(1)}, ? ] successively to the results for t=j+2,\cdots,k-1, one obtains (?) in general.

We prove (?) by induction on j-i. The initial case when j-i=1 is exactly the result of applying the shift map \psi_{i-1} to [Pe16, (6.21)], which also implies the following identity:

Assume now j-i\geqslant 2, then

Note that the last equality is due to the induction hypothesis. The two summations correspond to the cases when i_r\neq j and i_r=j, respectively, in the RHS of (?), completing the proof.

Follows immediately from Part (1) of Lemma 5.9 .

The proof is parallel to that of [BK08, Lem. 6.16] with the help of Part (4) from Lemma 5.9, which clearly shows how \mathfrak{s}_i shows up.

We first note the following simple observation. If \mathfrak{s}_i=\mathfrak{s}_{m+n}, then by Part (1) of Lemma 5.9 the definition of the vectors \mathfrak{m}_c does not depend on the order taken in the products. If \mathfrak{s}_i\ne\mathfrak{s}_{m+n}, then by Part (1) of Lemma 5.9 the definition of \mathfrak{m}_c does depend on the order taken in the products. However, under our genericness assumption, it follows from Part (1) of Lemma 5.9 that different orders in the products give rise to proportional vectors \mathfrak{m}_c. The rest of the proof is similar (actually slightly simpler as a_i are generic) to that of [BK08, Lem. 6.17].

Part (2) follows from Part (1) and Corollary 5.7. Thus it suffices to prove Part (1).

Suppose \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}) is reducible, then we can assume \mathcal L(\mathbf{B}) is a subquotient of \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}), where \mathbf{B}\in\mathrm{Row}(\pi) with entries b_{i,1},\dots,b_{i,p_i} on its i-th row for each 1\leqslant i\leqslant m+n and \mathbf{A}\ne \mathbf{B}. Therefore the \bm\ell-weight corresponding to the highest \bm\ell-weight vector of \mathcal L(\mathbf{B}) is \prod_{i=1}^{m+n}\prod_{j=1}^{p_i}y_{i,b_{i,j}}. Hence there exists a supertuple c=(c_{i,j,k})_{1\leqslant i<k\leqslant m+n,1\leqslant j\leqslant p_i} such that

Since \mathbf{A}\ne \mathbf{B}, the supertuple c is non-trivial. Let {\mathfrak i} be maximal such that c_{i,j,{\mathfrak i}}\ne 0 for some 1\leqslant i<{\mathfrak i} and 1\leqslant j\leqslant p_i. Then we have

Since a_{i_1,j_1}-a_{i_2,j_2}\notin \mathbb{Z} for (i_1,j_1)\ne (i_2,j_2), there is no way to rewrite the RHS as a monomial in y_{{\mathfrak i},b_{{\mathfrak i},j}} as the LHS. Hence we obtain a contradiction, completing the proof.

We need to show that [\mu(z),h]=0 for z\in Z(W(\pi)) and h\in \mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{h}). By the standard fact that the annihilator of any Zariski dense set of Verma (super)modules is zero (see e.g. [Mus12, Proof of Lem. 13.1.4]), it suffices to check that [\mu(z),h] annihilates \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_1)\boxtimes\cdots \boxtimes\mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_\ell) for generic \mathbf{A}\in \mathrm{Tab}(\pi) with columns \mathbf{A}_1,\dots,\mathbf{A}_{\ell}. By Lemma 5.14, \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_1)\boxtimes\cdots \boxtimes\mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_\ell) is irreducible for generic \mathbf{A}\in \mathrm{Tab}(\pi) when viewed as a W(\pi)-module via pulling back through \mu. Therefore \mu(z) acts on \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_1)\boxtimes\cdots \boxtimes\mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_\ell) as a scalar, implying that [\mu(z),h] acts on it as zero.

The injectivity of \psi follows from that of \operatorname{HC} and the commutative diagram (?). It remains to prove that \psi is surjective. Since \operatorname{hc}\circ\mu is injective and we know \operatorname{HC}\big( Z(\mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{g})) \big)=I(\mathfrak{c}) by Theorem 3.17, it suffices to show \operatorname{hc}\circ \mu\big(Z(W(\pi))\big)\subseteq I(\mathfrak{c}). Note that the image of \operatorname{hc} is contained in I(\mathfrak{c}_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes I(\mathfrak{c}_\ell). It reduces to show that \operatorname{hc}\circ\mu\big(Z(W(\pi))\big)\subset S(\mathfrak c)^{\mathfrak{S}_M\times \mathfrak{S}_N} as I(\mathfrak{c})=\big(I(\mathfrak{c}_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes I(\mathfrak{c}_\ell)\big)\cap \big(S(\mathfrak c)^{\mathfrak{S}_M\times \mathfrak{S}_N}\big).

Let \mathbf{A} and \mathbf{B} be \pi-tableaux that share the same content in even and odd boxes, respectively. By the definition of the Harish-Chandra homomorphism, to show \operatorname{hc}\circ\mu\big(Z(W(\pi))\big)\subset S(\mathfrak c)^{\mathfrak{S}_M\times \mathfrak{S}_N}, we need to show that any element z\in Z( W(\pi) ) acts on the modules \mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_1)\boxtimes\cdots \boxtimes\mathcal M(\mathbf{A}_\ell) and \mathcal M(\mathbf{B}_1)\boxtimes\cdots \boxtimes\mathcal M(\mathbf{B}_\ell) by the same scalar, where \mathbf{A}_i and \mathbf{B}_i denote the i-th column of \mathbf{A} and \mathbf{B}, respectively. Similar to the argument in the proof of Lemma 5.15, it suffices to prove the statement for generic \mathbf{A} and \mathbf{B}, since the set of generic \pi-tableaux is Zariski dense in the set of all \pi-tableaux.

If \mathbf{B} is obtained from \mathbf{A} by permuting even (resp. odd) entries within columns, then this is obvious since the image of \operatorname{hc} is contained in I(\mathfrak{c}_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes I(\mathfrak{c}_\ell).

If \mathbf{B} is obtained from \mathbf{A} by permuting even (resp. odd) entries within rows, then by (?)–(?) we have \mathcal M(\mathbf{A})=\mathcal M(\mathbf{B}). Since \mathbf{A} and \mathbf{B} are generic, then by Lemma 5.14 we have

as irreducible W(\pi)-modules. As a consequence, any element z\in Z( W(\pi) ) acts on these modules by exactly the same scalar. The general case follows from these two special cases.

It suffices to prove the identities for the E’s as that of F’s follow by applying the anti-isomorphism \tau from (?). We proceed by backward induction on the length of the admissible shape \nu=(\nu_1,\dots,\nu_z). The base case z=m+n follows by definition (?). Now suppose z<m+n. Pick 1\leqslant p\leqslant m+n and x,y>0 such that \nu_p=x+y, and then let \mu=(\nu_1,\dots,\nu_{p-1},x,y,\nu_{p+1},\dots,\nu_z), an admissible shape of length strictly less than that of \nu. Then a straightforward calculation implies that for each 1\leqslant a<b\leqslant m+n, 1\leqslant i\leqslant \nu_a and 1\leqslant j\leqslant \nu_b that

For b>a+1, we need to prove that

for each 1\leqslant g\leqslant \nu_{b-1}. We shall rewrite both sides of the identity that we need to prove in terms of the ^\mu E’s and then use the induction hypothesis

for each 1\leqslant a<b-1\leqslant m+n, 1\leqslant i\leqslant \mu_a, 1\leqslant j\leqslant \mu_b and 1\leqslant g\leqslant \mu_{b-1}.

We proceed case by case.

(1) If b<p or b=p,j\leqslant x, then it is obvious.

(2) Suppose b=p,j>x. By induction hypothesis, we have

for 1\leqslant h\leqslant x. Since s_{b,b+1}(\mu)=0 (as \nu is admissible) and ^{\mu} E_{b;h,j-x}^{(1)}={}^\nu D_{b;h,j}^{(1)}, we find that

Thus using the relations established in the previous cases and the defining relations of {\mathrm{Y}_{m|n}(\sigma)}, we find that

for any 1\leqslant g\leqslant \nu_{b-1}.

(3) Suppose a<p,b>p. If b>p+1 or b=p+1,g>x, then it is easy. Now consider the case b=p+1 and g\leqslant x. It is known in case (2) that

Using the cases already considered to express ^\nu E_{a,b-1;i,g}^{(r)} as a commutator then using the relation [Pe21, (5.13)], one has that [{}^\nu E_{a,b-1;i,g}^{(r)},{}^\nu E_{b-1;x+1,j}^{(s)}]=0. Applying [{}^\nu D_{b-1;g,x+1}^{(1)},?] to it and using the relation (?), we have

In particular,

Combining this with (?), we get that

as required.

(4) Suppose a=p,i\leqslant x. The LHS of (Proof) is equal to

while the RHS equals

Note that {}^\mu E_{a;i,l}(u) and {}^\mu E_{b;g,j}^{(s_{b,b+1}(\mu)+1)} supercommute. The equality (Proof) follows from the induction hypothesis.

(5) If a=p,i>x or a>p, then it is also easy.

Again it suffices to prove the identities for the E’s and the identities for the F’s will follow by applying the anti-isomorphism \tau from (?). It is equivalent to prove

We prove it by induction on b\geqslant a+2. For the base case b=a+2, we have by [Pe21, (5.11)] that

Multiplying by u^{-s_{b-1,b}(\nu)-1} and applying Lemma A.1, we obtain

It follows from (?) that the RHS is exactly (-1)^{|g|_{b-1}} \overline E_{a,b;i,j}(u).

Now suppose that b>a+2. Using Lemma A.1, the relations [Pe21, (5.11), (5.13)], and the induction hypothesis, we have

Now multiplying both sides by u^{-s_{b-1,b}(\nu)} and using (?) together with Lemma A.1 completes the proof.

The equations (A.3), (A.3) for a=z-1, and (A.3)–(A.3) for the special case b=a+1 follow from [Pe21, Lem. 10.2]. For the cases b>a+1, (A.3)–(A.3) are proved with the help of Lemma A.1 by a simple induction on b-a.

Then we consider the difficult (A.3). Using [Pe21, Thm. 9.2 & (9.5)] and Lemma A.1, it is not hard to see that

for any 1\leqslant g\leqslant \nu_{z-1}. Thus, (A.3) follows from the above observation and Lemma A.2.

For 1\leqslant a,b\leqslant z, 1\leqslant i\leqslant \nu_a, and 1\leqslant j\leqslant \nu_b, we have by definition that

Apply Lemma A.3 to rewrite the RHS along with (?)–(?). After a straightforward calculation