In abstract algebra, a cellular algebra is a finite-dimensional associative algebra A with a distinguished cellular basis which is particularly well-adapted to studying the representation theory of A.

History edit

The cellular algebras discussed in this article were introduced in a 1996 paper of Graham and Lehrer.[1] However, the terminology had previously been used by Weisfeiler and Lehman in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, to describe what are also known as coherent algebras. [2][3][4]

Definitions edit

Let   be a fixed commutative ring with unit. In most applications this is a field, but this is not needed for the definitions. Let also   be an  -algebra.

The concrete definition edit

A cell datum for   is a tuple   consisting of

  • A finite partially ordered set  .
  • A  -linear anti-automorphism   with  .
  • For every   a non-empty finite set   of indices.
  • An injective map
 
The images under this map are notated with an upper index   and two lower indices   so that the typical element of the image is written as  .
and satisfying the following conditions:
  1. The image of   is a  -basis of  .
  2.   for all elements of the basis.
  3. For every  ,   and every   the equation
 
with coefficients   depending only on  ,   and   but not on  . Here   denotes the  -span of all basis elements with upper index strictly smaller than  .

This definition was originally given by Graham and Lehrer who invented cellular algebras.[1]

The more abstract definition edit

Let   be an anti-automorphism of  -algebras with   (just called "involution" from now on).

A cell ideal of   w.r.t.   is a two-sided ideal   such that the following conditions hold:

  1.  .
  2. There is a left ideal   that is free as a  -module and an isomorphism
 
of  - -bimodules such that   and   are compatible in the sense that
 

A cell chain for   w.r.t.   is defined as a direct decomposition

 

into free  -submodules such that

  1.  
  2.   is a two-sided ideal of  
  3.   is a cell ideal of   w.r.t. to the induced involution.

Now   is called a cellular algebra if it has a cell chain. One can show that the two definitions are equivalent.[5] Every basis gives rise to cell chains (one for each topological ordering of  ) and choosing a basis of every left ideal   one can construct a corresponding cell basis for  .

Examples edit

Polynomial examples edit

  is cellular. A cell datum is given by   and

  •   with the reverse of the natural ordering.
  •  
  •  

A cell-chain in the sense of the second, abstract definition is given by

 

Matrix examples edit

  is cellular. A cell datum is given by   and

  •  
  •  
  • For the basis one chooses   the standard matrix units, i.e.   is the matrix with all entries equal to zero except the (s,t)-th entry which is equal to 1.

A cell-chain (and in fact the only cell chain) is given by

 

In some sense all cellular algebras "interpolate" between these two extremes by arranging matrix-algebra-like pieces according to the poset  .

Further examples edit

Modulo minor technicalities all Iwahori–Hecke algebras of finite type are cellular w.r.t. to the involution that maps the standard basis as  .[6] This includes for example the integral group algebra of the symmetric groups as well as all other finite Weyl groups.

A basic Brauer tree algebra over a field is cellular if and only if the Brauer tree is a straight line (with arbitrary number of exceptional vertices).[5]

Further examples include q-Schur algebras, the Brauer algebra, the Temperley–Lieb algebra, the Birman–Murakami–Wenzl algebra, the blocks of the Bernstein–Gelfand–Gelfand category   of a semisimple Lie algebra.[5]

Representations edit

Cell modules and the invariant bilinear form edit

Assume   is cellular and   is a cell datum for  . Then one defines the cell module   as the free  -module with basis   and multiplication

 

where the coefficients   are the same as above. Then   becomes an  -left module.

These modules generalize the Specht modules for the symmetric group and the Hecke-algebras of type A.

There is a canonical bilinear form   which satisfies

 

for all indices  .

One can check that   is symmetric in the sense that

 

for all   and also  -invariant in the sense that

 

for all  , .

Simple modules edit

Assume for the rest of this section that the ring   is a field. With the information contained in the invariant bilinear forms one can easily list all simple  -modules:

Let   and define   for all  . Then all   are absolute simple  -modules and every simple  -module is one of these.

These theorems appear already in the original paper by Graham and Lehrer.[1]

Properties of cellular algebras edit

Persistence properties edit

  • Tensor products of finitely many cellular  -algebras are cellular.
  • A  -algebra   is cellular if and only if its opposite algebra   is.
  • If   is cellular with cell-datum   and   is an ideal (a downward closed subset) of the poset   then   (where the sum runs over   and  ) is a two-sided,  -invariant ideal of   and the quotient   is cellular with cell datum   (where i denotes the induced involution and M, C denote the restricted mappings).
  • If   is a cellular  -algebra and   is a unitary homomorphism of commutative rings, then the extension of scalars   is a cellular  -algebra.
  • Direct products of finitely many cellular  -algebras are cellular.

If   is an integral domain then there is a converse to this last point:

  • If   is a finite-dimensional  -algebra with an involution and   a decomposition in two-sided,  -invariant ideals, then the following are equivalent:
  1.   is cellular.
  2.   and   are cellular.
  • Since in particular all blocks of   are  -invariant if   is cellular, an immediate corollary is that a finite-dimensional  -algebra is cellular w.r.t.   if and only if all blocks are  -invariant and cellular w.r.t.  .
  • Tits' deformation theorem for cellular algebras: Let   be a cellular  -algebra. Also let   be a unitary homomorphism into a field   and   the quotient field of  . Then the following holds: If   is semisimple, then   is also semisimple.

If one further assumes   to be a local domain, then additionally the following holds:

  • If   is cellular w.r.t.   and   is an idempotent such that  , then the algebra   is cellular.

Other properties edit

Assuming that   is a field (though a lot of this can be generalized to arbitrary rings, integral domains, local rings or at least discrete valuation rings) and   is cellular w.r.t. to the involution  . Then the following hold

  1.   is semisimple.
  2.   is split semisimple.
  3.   is simple.
  4.   is nondegenerate.
  1.   is quasi-hereditary (i.e. its module category is a highest-weight category).
  2.  .
  3. All cell chains of   have the same length.
  4. All cell chains of   have the same length where   is an arbitrary involution w.r.t. which   is cellular.
  5.  .
  • If   is Morita equivalent to   and the characteristic of   is not two, then   is also cellular w.r.t. a suitable involution. In particular   is cellular (to some involution) if and only if its basic algebra is.[8]
  • Every idempotent   is equivalent to  , i.e.  . If   then in fact every equivalence class contains an  -invariant idempotent.[5]

References edit

  1. ^ a b c d Graham, J.J; Lehrer, G.I. (1996), "Cellular algebras", Inventiones Mathematicae, 123: 1–34, Bibcode:1996InMat.123....1G, doi:10.1007/bf01232365, S2CID 189831103
  2. ^ Weisfeiler, B. Yu.; A. A., Lehman (1968). "Reduction of a graph to a canonical form and an algebra which appears in this process". Scientific-Technological Investigations. 2 (in Russian). 9: 12–16.
  3. ^ Higman, Donald G. (August 1987). "Coherent algebras". Linear Algebra and Its Applications. 93: 209-239. doi:10.1016/S0024-3795(87)90326-0. hdl:2027.42/26620.
  4. ^ Cameron, Peter J. (1999). Permutation Groups. London Mathematical Society Student Texts (45). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65378-7.
  5. ^ a b c d König, S.; Xi, C.C. (1996), "On the structure of cellular algebras", Algebras and Modules II. CMS Conference Proceedings: 365–386
  6. ^ Geck, Meinolf (2007), "Hecke algebras of finite type are cellular", Inventiones Mathematicae, 169 (3): 501–517, arXiv:math/0611941, Bibcode:2007InMat.169..501G, doi:10.1007/s00222-007-0053-2, S2CID 8111018
  7. ^ König, S.; Xi, C.C. (1999-06-24), "Cellular algebras and quasi-hereditary algebras: A comparison", Electronic Research Announcements of the American Mathematical Society, 5 (10): 71–75, doi:10.1090/S1079-6762-99-00063-3
  8. ^ König, S.; Xi, C.C. (1999), "Cellular algebras: inflations and Morita equivalences", Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 60 (3): 700–722, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.598.3299, doi:10.1112/s0024610799008212, S2CID 1664006