1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 17B67. The author was partially supported by TMR Grant No. FMRX-CT97-0100 .
<ph f="cmbx">A proof of Kac-Kazhdan character formula for affine Lie superalgebras</ph>

### Maria Gorelik Incumbent of the Frances and Max Hersh career development chair Dept. of Mathematics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

email: maria.gorelik@weizmann.ac.il
• Abstract. Kac and Kazhdan conjectured a character formula of a simple module with a generic highest weight at the critical level. We prove this formula for the affine Lie superalgebras with symmetrizable Cartan matrices.

1 Introduction

Let $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  be a complex affine Lie algebra. It is well-known that the representation theory of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  changes drastically at the critical level. In particular, Verma modules contain infinite number of singular vectors of imaginary degrees. In [KK, Kac and Kazhdan gave the following conjecture on the character formula of a simple module with a generic highest weight $\lambda$  at the critical level $chV\left(\lambda \right)={e}^{\lambda }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}$  where “genericity” means that all singular vectors lie in the imaginary degrees.
This formula was proven by different methods: for $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{s}}\mathfrak{l}\left(2\right)$  by M. Wakimoto [Wk, N. Wallach [Wl; for the affinizations of classical algebras by T. Hayashi [Hand R. Goodman, N. Wallach [GW; for a general affine Lie algebra by J. M. Ku [Kuand B. Feigin and E. Frenkel [FF, [F; in finite characteristic by O. Mathieu [M.
In this paper we prove the Kac-Kazhdan character formula $chV\left(\lambda \right)={e}^{\lambda }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re;0}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re;1}^{+}}\left(1+{e}^{-\alpha }\right).$  for the affine Lie superalgebras with symmetrizable Cartan matrices.

1.1

Our approach is close to the one of Ku. The inequality $\le$  means that $M\left(\lambda \right)$  has “enough” singular vectors; we construct these vectors using vanishing of a certain Lie superalgebra cohomology. 1 The inverse inequality $\ge$  is proven by the method of Ku. In  1.1.1 ,  1.1.2 below we describe an outline of the proof of the inequality $\le$  for the untwisted case (the twisted case differs by some technical details).

1 the cohomology of a “quarter” $\mathfrak{q}$  of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  with coefficients in $M\left(\lambda \right)$  and in $V\left(\lambda \right)$

1.1.1

Let $\mathfrak{g}={\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\oplus \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{n}$  be a finite-dimensional contragredient Lie superalgebra and $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}={\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\oplus \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\oplus \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  be its affinization. Set ${\mathcal{N}}^{+}:={\sum }_{r\in \mathbb{Z}}{t}^{r}\otimes \mathfrak{n},{\mathcal{N}}^{-}:={\sum }_{r\in \mathbb{Z}}{t}^{r}\otimes {\mathfrak{n}}_{-},\mathcal{ℋ}:={\sum }_{r\in \mathbb{Z}}{t}^{r}\otimes \mathfrak{h}$  and notice that $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]={\mathcal{N}}^{+}\oplus \mathcal{ℋ}\oplus {\mathcal{N}}^{-}$  is the triangular decomposition of $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]$  . Let ${HC}_{-}:\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right)\to \mathcal{U}\left(\mathcal{ℋ}\right)$  be the projection along the kernel $\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right){\mathcal{N}}^{-}+{\mathcal{N}}^{+}\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right)$  .
Set ${\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}:=\mathcal{ℋ}\cap {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}={\sum }_{r<0}{t}^{r}\otimes \mathfrak{h}$  and define ${HC}_{-}:M\left(\lambda \right)\to \mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  via the natural identification of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  with $\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  . The inequality $\le$  for Kac-Kazhdan character formula follows from the fact that ${HC}_{-}$  provides a surjective map between the set of singular vector $M\left(\lambda {\right)}^{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}$  of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  and $\mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  if $\lambda$  is a generic critical weight; “genericity” means that $M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -\alpha }$  does not have singular vectors if $\alpha$  is not an imaginary root. One easily sees that it is enough to verify the surjectivity for the elements of ${\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  that is to verify that for any $u\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  there exists a singular vector $v$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\right)=u$  .

1.1.2

Set $\mathfrak{q}:=\mathfrak{n}+{\sum }_{r>0}{t}^{r}\oplus \left(\mathfrak{h}+\mathfrak{n}\right)$  . It turns out that for imaginary $\alpha$  a vector $v\in M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -\alpha }$  is singular if $\mathfrak{q}v=0$  . Take $u:={t}^{m}\otimes h\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  where $m<0$  and $h\in \mathfrak{h}$  . Set $N:=\mathbb{C}h\left(p\right)+{\sum }_{s\ge 0}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+},V:=\mathbb{C}h\left(p\right)+{\sum }_{0\le s<-m}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+}$  and observe that $N$  is a $\mathfrak{q}$  -submodule of $\mathcal{ℋ}\oplus {\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  and $V$  is an ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{0}$  -submodule of $N$  . View ${N}^{*}$  as $\mathfrak{q}$  -module via the antiautomorphism $-id$  . Let ${h}^{*}\in {N}^{*}$  be the weight element dual to $h$  . A cohomological lemma  5.1 implies that for generic $\lambda$  there exists a unique $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism $\psi :{N}^{*}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  such that $\psi \left({h}^{*}\right)={v}_{\lambda }$  , see Lemma  3.4.3 .
Let ${T}_{m}:{\mathcal{N}}^{+}+\mathfrak{h}\to {\mathcal{N}}^{+}+\mathfrak{h}$  be the linear map given by ${T}_{m}\left({t}^{s}\otimes a\right)={t}^{s+m}\otimes a$  . Let $\gamma :\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\otimes M\left(\lambda \right)\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  be the natural map $\gamma \left(u\otimes v\right)=uv$  , and let ${id}^{\prime }\in V\otimes {N}^{*}$  corresponds to the identity map $V\to V$  . In Proposition  3.4.5 , we prove that the vector $v\left(h,m\right)=\gamma \left(\left({T}_{m}\otimes \psi \right){id}^{\prime }\right)$  satisfies ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right)$  and is singular if $\lambda$  has the critical level. As it was mentioned above, the singularity follows from $\mathfrak{q}v\left(h,m\right)=0$  which is a consequence of the $\mathfrak{q}$  -invariance of $\psi$  . This completes the proof of the surjectivity of ${HC}_{-}:M\left(\lambda {\right)}^{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}\to \mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  .

1.2 Affine Lie superalgebras

The affine Lie algebras are a natural generalization of semisimple Lie algebras. They can be defined as contragredient Lie algebras of polynomial growth. An affine Lie algebra can be described in terms of a simple Lie algebra and its automorphism (see, for example, [K2, Ch. VI-VIII). The Cartan matrix of an affine Lie algebra is symmetrizable; this does not hold for superalgebra case. The affine Lie superalgebras with symmetrizable Cartan matrices were classified by J. W. van de Leur [vdL; in particular, he proved that these algebras also admit a description in terms of a simple Lie superalgebra and its finite order automorphism.
The affine Lie superalgebras with symmetrizable Cartan matrices admit a Casimir element; in particular, their Shapovalov determinants admit a linear factorization.

1.3 Acknowledgment

I am grateful to M. Duflo for helpful discussions. A part of this work was done during my stay at IHES. I am grateful to this institution for stimulating atmosphere and excellent working conditions.

2 Preliminaries and notation

Our base field is $\mathbb{C}$  . For a homogeneous element of a superspace we denote by $p\left(u\right)$  its ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$  -degree. For a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$  we denote by $\mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)$  its universal enveloping algebra and by $\mathcal{S}\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)$  its symmetric algebra. We consider the natural $\mathbb{Z}$  -grading on affine Lie algebras and ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{k}$  stands for the $k$  th homogeneous component i.e. $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}={\oplus }_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{k}$  .

2.1 Triangular decompositions of superalgebras

A triangular decomposition of a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$  can be constructed as follows (see [PS). A Cartan subalgebra is a nilpotent subalgebra which coincides with its normalizer.
It is proven in [PSthat any two Cartan subalgebras are conjugate by an inner automorphism.
Fix a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$  . Then $\mathfrak{g}$  has a generalized root decomposition $\mathfrak{g}:=\mathfrak{h}+{\oplus }_{\alpha \in \Delta }{\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$  where $\Delta$  is a subset of ${\mathfrak{h}}^{*}$  and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }=\left\{x\in \mathfrak{g}|\left(ad\left(h\right)-\alpha \left(h\right){\right)}^{dim\mathfrak{g}}\left(x\right)=0\right\}.$  In cases considered in this paper, all Cartan subalgebras are pure even and any root spaces ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$  is either odd or even. That allows one to define the parity on the set of roots $\Delta$  . Denote by ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\overline{0}}$  (resp., ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\overline{1}}$  ) the even (resp., odd) component of $\mathfrak{g}$  . Denote by ${\Delta }_{0}$  (resp.
${\Delta }_{1}$  ) the set of non-zero weights of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\overline{0}}$  (resp., ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\overline{1}}$  ) with respect to $\mathfrak{h}$  . Then $\Delta$  is a disjoint union of ${\Delta }_{0}$  and ${\Delta }_{1}$  .
Now fix $h\in {\mathfrak{h}}_{0}$  satisfying $\alpha \left(h\right)\in \mathbb{R}\subset \left\{0\right\}$  for all $\alpha \in \Delta$  . Set
 $\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }^{+}:=\left\{\alpha \in \Delta |\alpha \left(h\right)>0\right\},\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}\mathfrak{n}:={\sum }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }^{+}}{\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }\end{array}$
where ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$  is the weight space corresponding to $\alpha$  .
Define ${\Delta }^{-}$  and ${\mathfrak{n}}_{-}$  similarly. Then $\mathfrak{g}={\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\oplus \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{n}$  is a triangular decomposition.

2.2 Affine Lie superalgebras with symmetrizable Cartan matrix

According to [vdL, any affine Lie superalgebra with symmetrizable Cartan matrix can be described in terms of loop algebra of a finite dimensional contragredient Lie superalgebra and an automorphism of a finite order. A non-twisted affine Lie superalgebras corresponds to the trivial automorphism. The twisted affine Lie superalgebras correspond to the Dynkin diagrams ${X}_{N}=A\left(2k,2l-1\right),A\left(2k-1,2l-1\right)\left(k,l\right)\ne \left(1,1\right),A\left(2k,2l\right),C\left(l+1\right),D\left(k+1,l\right),{G}_{3}$  and automorphisms of order $2,2,4,2,2,2$  respectively.
We briefly recall the construction below.

2.2.1

Let ${X}_{N}$  be a connected Dynkin diagram of finite type for Lie superalgebra. Let $\mathfrak{g}={\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\oplus \mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{n}$  be the corresponding contragredient finite dimensional Lie superalgebra (the triangular decomposition corresponds to the Dynkin diagram). The algebra $\mathfrak{g}$  is either simple or of the type $\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  for type $A\left(n-1,n-1\right)$  . The even part ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\overline{0}}$  is reductive. The algebra $\mathfrak{g}$  admits a non-degenerate even invariant bilinear form $\left(-|-\right)$  ; we normalize the form $\left(-|-\right)$  in the standard way (see [KW). For $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  we denote by $\left(-|-\right)$  also the induced form on $\mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  .

2.2.2

The non-twisted affine Lie superalgebra ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }$  corresponding to the Dynkin diagram ${X}_{N}^{\left(1\right)}$  is the central extension of the loop algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$  which can be described as follows. This is the $\mathbb{Z}$  -graded algebra ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }={\oplus }_{m\in \mathbb{Z}}{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}^{\prime }$  where ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}^{\prime }=\mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathbb{C}{K}^{\prime }\oplus \mathbb{C}{D}^{\prime }$  and ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}^{\prime }:={t}^{m}\otimes \mathfrak{g}$  if $\mathfrak{g}\ne \mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  , ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}^{\prime }:={t}^{m}\otimes \mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  for $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  . The structure of superspace on ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }$  is given by $p\left(t\right)=p\left({K}^{\prime }\right)=p\left({D}^{\prime }\right)=0$  and the commutational relations are
 $\begin{array}{c}\left[a\left(m\right),b\left(k\right)\right]=\left[a,b\right]\left(m+k\right)+m{\delta }_{m,-k}\left(a|b\right){K}^{\prime },\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}\left[{D}^{\prime },a\left(m\right)\right]=ma\left(m\right),\left[{K}^{\prime },{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }\right]=0\end{array}$
where $a\left(n\right):={t}^{n}\otimes a$  for $a\in \mathfrak{g},n\in \mathbb{Z}$  ; For $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  the first relation changes if $m+k\ne 0$  : $\left[a\left(m\right),b\left(k\right)\right]=\overline{\left[a,b\right]}\left(m+k\right)$  where $\overline{a}$  stands for the natural map $\left[\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right),\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)\right]=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)\to \mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  .
We identify $\mathfrak{g}$  with the subalgebra ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}^{\prime }$  .

2.2.3

Let $\epsilon$  be an automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}$  of a finite order $r$  ( $r=1,2,3,4$  ) which stabilizes $\mathfrak{h}$  . The affine Lie superalgebra $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  corresponding to the Dynkin diagram ${X}_{N}^{\left(r\right)}$  is the set of invariants $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}:=\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }{\right)}^{\epsilon }$  where $\epsilon$  is extended to ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\prime }$  by putting $\epsilon \left(t\right)=exp\left(-2\pi i/r\right)t$  that is $\epsilon \left({t}^{m}\otimes a\right)=exp\left(-2\pi mi/r\right){t}^{m}\otimes \epsilon \left(a\right),\epsilon \left({K}^{\prime }\right)={K}^{\prime },\epsilon \left({D}^{\prime }\right)={D}^{\prime }.$  We identify ${\mathfrak{g}}^{\epsilon }$  with the subalgebra ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}$  .
Fix a triangular decomposition $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}={\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\oplus \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\oplus \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  where ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\epsilon }\subset \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  .

2.3 Invariant bilinear form

Since $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  has a symmetrizable Cartan matrix, it admits a non-degenerate supersymmetric even invariant bilinear form $\left(-|-\right)$  . It is easy to deduce from the invariance that $\left({\mathfrak{g}}^{\epsilon }|{K}^{\prime }\right)=\left({\mathfrak{g}}^{\epsilon }|{D}^{\prime }\right)=0$  and $\left({K}^{\prime }|{K}^{\prime }\right)=0$  . This implies that $\mathbb{C}{K}^{\prime }+\mathbb{C}{D}^{\prime }$  admits a basis $K,D$  where $K$  (which is proportional to ${K}^{\prime }$  ) is a central element in $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  , $D={D}^{\prime }+c{K}^{\prime }$  satisfies $\left[D,x\right]=mx$  for any $x\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}$  and, moreover, one has $\left(K|K\right)=0,\left(K|D\right)=1,\left(D|D\right)=0$  .

2.3.1

It is easy to see that $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]={\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\oplus {\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime }\oplus \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  where ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime }\subset \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  is the orthogonal to $K$  with respect to $\left(-|-\right)$  ; one has $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime }\oplus \mathbb{C}D$  . However ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime }$  is not a Cartan subalgebra since its centralizer is $\mathcal{ℋ}={\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime }+{\sum }_{k\ne 0}{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{k\delta }.$  We construct a triangular decomposition of $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]$  by the procedure described in  2.1 : we choose a Cartan subalgebra to be $\mathcal{ℋ}$  . If $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  is not of the type $A\left(2k,2l{\right)}^{\epsilon }$  for $r=4$  then $\mathcal{ℋ}$  is pure even. One has a triangular decomposition $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]={\mathcal{N}}^{+}\oplus \mathcal{ℋ}\oplus {\mathcal{N}}^{-}$  where $\mathfrak{n}\subset {\mathcal{N}}^{+},{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\subset {\mathcal{N}}^{-}$  . If $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  is an untwisted affinization, ${\mathcal{N}}^{±}={\sum }_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}{t}^{i}\otimes {\mathfrak{n}}_{±}$  . Put $\mathcal{ℬ}:={\mathcal{N}}^{+}\oplus \mathcal{ℋ}.$

2.3.2

Lemma. For $h\left(m\right)\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{m},{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-m}$  one has $\left[h\left(m\right),{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right]=m\left(h\left(m\right)|{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right)K.$
• Proof. Clearly, $\left[h\left(m\right),{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right]\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  . The invariance of $\left(-,-\right)$  gives $\left(\left[h\left(m\right),{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right]|h\right)=\left(h\left(m\right)|\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),h\right]\right)$  so $\left(\left[h\left(m\right),{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right]|h\right)=0$  if $h\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\cap \left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]$  and, moreover, $\left(\left[h\left(m\right),{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right]|D\right)=m\left(h\left(m\right)|{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\right)$  . The statement follows.

2.3.3

It is not hard to show that $\left[{\mathcal{ℋ}}_{m},{\mathcal{ℋ}}_{k}\right]=0$  for $m+k\ne 0$  Thus $\mathbb{C}K+{\sum }_{s\ne 0}{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{s\delta }$  is a Heisenberg superalgebra (for the Lie algebra case see [K2, 8.4). If $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  is not of the type $A\left(2k,2l{\right)}^{\epsilon }$  for $r=4$  then the Heisenberg superalgebr is pure even.

2.3.4

Let us describe the form $\left(-|-\right)$  in terms of  2.2 . One has $\left(x\left(m\right)|y\left(n\right)\right)={r}^{-1}{\delta }_{m,-n}\left(x|y\right)$  for $x,y\in \mathfrak{g}$  and $\left(K|K\right)=0,\left(K|D\right)=1,\left(D|D\right)=0$  , $\left(x\left(m\right)|aK+bD\right)=0$  where $K=r{K}^{\prime },D={D}^{\prime }$  .

2.4 Roots

Denote by ${\Delta }^{+}$  the set of positive roots of $\mathfrak{g}$  , by ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}^{+}$  the multiset of positive roots of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  , by ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{0}^{+}$  (resp., ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{1}^{+}$  ) the multiset of even (resp., odd) positive roots. The form $\left(-|-\right)$  induces a non-degenerate bilinear form on ${\mathfrak{h}}^{*}$  .

2.4.1

The bilinear form $\left(-|-\right)$  induces a bilinear form $\left(-,-\right)$  on ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  . A root $\alpha$  is imaginary if $\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)=0$  for $\beta \in \stackrel{^}{\Delta }$  ; a root is real if it is not imaginary. Denote by ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re}^{+}$  (resp., ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im}^{+}$  ) the set of real (resp., imaginary) positive roots.
All imaginary roots are proportional: there exists $\delta \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  such that $\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im}$  takes form $\alpha =s\delta$  if ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha }\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{s}$  (for $\mathfrak{g}=G\left(3\right),r=2$  , $\delta$  is not a root: ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im}=\left\{2s\delta \right\}$  , see [vdL, Table 5).
Let ${h}_{\alpha }$  be the image of $\alpha$  under the isomorphism ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}\to \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  induced by the bilinear form (that is $\mu \left({h}_{\alpha }\right)=\left(\alpha ,\mu \right)$  ). Then ${h}_{\delta }$  is central and thus is proportional to $K$  .
For an untwisted case ( $r=1$  ), $\delta$  is a root and ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{r\delta }={t}^{r}\otimes \mathfrak{h}$  . For $r=1$  , the real roots are of the form $\alpha +k\delta$  where $\alpha \in \Delta ,k\in \mathbb{Z}$  and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha +k\delta }={t}^{k}\otimes {\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha }$  .

2.4.2

Set ${\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+}:={\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}^{+}}{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}\alpha .$  Define a partial ordering on ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  by setting $\mu >{\mu }^{\prime }$  if $\mu -{\mu }^{\prime }\in {\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+}$  .

2.4.3

Let $\stackrel{^}{\pi }$  be the set of simple roots for ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}^{+}$  . Define $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  by $\left(\stackrel{^}{\rho },\alpha \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha ,\alpha \right)$  for any $\alpha \in \stackrel{^}{\pi }$  .
For a weight $\lambda \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  the value $\lambda \left(K\right)$  is called a level. The weights of a given level form a hyperplane in ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  . Put ${h}^{\vee }:=\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(K\right)$  . The level $-{h}^{\vee }$  is called critical: $\lambda$  has the critical level iff $K\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)=0$  which can be rewritten as $\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=0$  .

2.5 Verma modules

Set $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}:=\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}+\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  . For each $\lambda \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  let $M\left(\lambda \right)$  be the Verma module of the highest weight $\lambda$  , let ${v}_{\lambda }$  be the canonical generator of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  and let $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  be the maximal proper submodule of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  . The module $V\left(\lambda \right):=M\left(\lambda \right)/\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  is simple.

2.5.1

The vacuum representation of a level $c$  is ${V}_{c}:=\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right){\otimes }_{\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}+{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}\right)}{\mathbb{C}}_{c}$  where ${\mathbb{C}}_{c}$  is a one-dimensional $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}+{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}$  -module which is trivial as $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}+\mathfrak{h}+{\mathfrak{n}}_{-}$  -module and such that $K{|}_{{\mathbb{C}}_{c}}=cid$  . Taking $\lambda$  satisfying $\lambda {|}_{\mathfrak{h}}=0,\lambda \left(K\right)=c$  we see that ${V}_{c}$  is the quotient of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  by the submodule generated by ${\mathfrak{n}}_{-}{v}_{\lambda }$  .

2.5.2

Verma modules do not admit Jordan-Hölder series since some Verma modules have infinite length. However, so-called local series introduced in [DGKare nice substitution for Jordan-Hölder ones. A series of modules $N={N}_{0}\subset {N}_{1}\subset \dots \subset {N}_{m}$  is local is at $\nu$  if either ${N}_{i}/{N}_{i+1}\sim =V\left({\lambda }_{i}\right)$  for some ${\lambda }_{i}\ge \nu$  or $\left({N}_{i}/{N}_{i+1}{\right)}_{\mu }=0$  for all $\mu \ge \nu$  .

2.6 Projections $HC$  and ${HC}_{-}$

Denote by $HC$  the Harish-Chandra projection $HC:\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right)\to \mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)=\mathcal{S}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  along the decomposition $\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right)=\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)\oplus \left(\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right){\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}^{+}+{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}^{-}\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right)\right)$  .

2.6.1

The triangular decomposition $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]={\mathcal{N}}^{+}\oplus \mathcal{ℋ}\oplus {\mathcal{N}}^{-}$  induces the projection ${HC}_{-}:\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right)\to \mathcal{U}\left(\mathcal{ℋ}\right)$  along the kernel $\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right){\mathcal{N}}^{-}+{\mathcal{N}}^{+}\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right)$  .

2.6.2

The restriction of $HC$  to $\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}{\right)}^{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}$  is an algebra homomorphism. Similarly the restriction of ${HC}_{-}$  to $\mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]{\right)}^{\mathfrak{h}}$  is an algebra homomorphism.

2.6.3

Set ${\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}:=\mathcal{ℋ}\cap {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}.$  A Verma module $M\left(\lambda \right)$  can be canonically identified with $\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)\subset \mathcal{U}\left(\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\right)$  . This identification induces a linear map $M\left(\lambda \right)\to \mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  which we also denote by ${HC}_{-}$  .

2.7 Shapovalov form

The Shapovalov forms for $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  are constructed in a usual way. We recall some details below.

2.7.1 Choice of antiautomorphism.

Call a linear endomorphism $\sigma$  of a superalgebra a “naive” antiautomorphism if $\sigma$  is invertible and $\sigma \left(\left[xy\right]\right)=\left[\sigma \left(y\right),\sigma \left(x\right)\right]$  . Any contragredient Lie superalgebra admits a “naive” anti-involution $\sigma$  which preserves the elements of a Cartan subalgebra (for Cartan generators one has $\sigma \left({e}_{i}\right)={f}_{i}$  ). Let $\sigma$  be a naive anti-involution of $\mathfrak{g}$  ; then $\sigma$  satisfies ${\sigma }^{2}=id,\sigma {|}_{\mathfrak{h}}=id,\sigma \left(\mathfrak{n}\right)={\mathfrak{n}}_{-}$  . One has $\left(\sigma \left(b\right)|\sigma \left(a\right)\right)=\left(a|b\right)$  because $\sigma {|}_{\mathfrak{h}}=id$  (if $\mathfrak{g}$  is simple this follows from the fact that all non-degenerate invariant bilinear forms on $\mathfrak{g}$  are proportional; in the remaining case, $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  it can be easily seen). Extend $\sigma$  to a naive anti-involution $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  by letting $\sigma {|}_{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}=id$  and $\sigma \left(a\left(m\right)\right):=\sigma \left(a\right)\left(-m\right)$  . One has $\left(\sigma \left(b\right)|\sigma \left(a\right)\right)=\left(a|b\right)$  .

2.7.2

Identify $\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  with $\mathcal{S}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  . Define a form $\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)\otimes \mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)\to \mathcal{S}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  by setting $S\left(x,y\right):=HC\left(\sigma \left(x\right)y\right)$  . Using the natural identification of a Verma module $M\left(\lambda \right)$  with $\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  , one easily sees that $\overline{M\left(\lambda \right)}$  coincides with the kernel of the evaluated form $S\left(\lambda \right):\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)\otimes \mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)\to \mathbb{C}$  .
Notice that $S\left(x,y\right)=0$  if $x$  and $y$  have distinct weights. Thus $S={\sum }_{\nu \in {\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+}}{S}_{\nu }$  where ${S}_{\nu }$  is the restriction of $S$  to $\mathcal{U}\left({\mathfrak{n}}_{-}{\right)}_{-\nu }\otimes \mathcal{U}\left({\mathfrak{n}}_{-}{\right)}_{-\nu }$  . By the above, $dimV\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -\nu }=codimker{S}_{\nu }\left(\lambda \right)$  .

2.7.3

Recall ${\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}^{+}$  is the multiset. The determinant of ${S}_{\nu }$  is computed in [KK $det{S}_{\nu }={\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{0}}^{+}}{\phi }_{\alpha }^{\tau \left(\nu -\alpha \right)}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{1}}^{+}}{\phi }_{\alpha }^{{\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\nu -\alpha \right)}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\overline{\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}}_{\overline{1}}}{\phi }_{\alpha }^{{\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\nu -\alpha \right)}{\prod }_{k=1}^{\infty }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\overline{\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}}_{\overline{0},re}}{\phi }_{k\alpha }^{\tau \left(\nu -k\alpha \right)}{\prod }_{k=0}^{\infty }{\prod }_{{\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{\overline{1}}\{\overline{\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}}_{\overline{1}}}{\phi }_{\left(2k+1\right)\alpha }^{\tau \left(\nu -\left(2k+1\right)\alpha \right)},$  where ${\phi }_{k\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=2\left(\lambda +\rho ,\alpha \right)-k\left(\alpha ,\alpha \right)$  for $k\ge 1$  , and
 $\begin{array}{c}{\overline{\Delta }}_{\overline{0},re}:=\left\{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{\overline{0},re}^{+}|\frac{1}{2}\alpha \notin {\Delta }_{\overline{0},re}^{+}\right\},\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}{\overline{\Delta }}_{\overline{1}}:=\left\{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{\overline{1}}^{+}|2\alpha \notin {\Delta }_{\overline{0}}^{+}\right\}.\end{array}$
The multiplicities are expressed via the Kostant partition function $\tau :Q\to {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$  given by $\tau \left(\nu \right)=dim\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}{\right)}_{\nu }=dimM\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -\nu }$  and for odd root $\alpha$  the function ${\tau }_{\alpha }$  is given by ${\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\nu \right)=dimM\left(\alpha {\right)}_{\lambda -\nu }$  where $M\left(\alpha \right)$  is ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}^{-}$  -submodule of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  generated by ${f}_{\alpha }{v}_{\lambda }$  for a non-zero ${f}_{\alpha }\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-\alpha }$  .

2.8 Characters

We say that a module $M$  admits a character if $M$  is a diagonalizable $\mathfrak{h}$  -module and all its weight spaces are finite dimensional; we write $chM={\sum }_{\mu }dim{M}_{\mu }{e}^{\mu }.$

2.8.1

For each $\lambda$  let ${C}_{\lambda }$  be the collection of elements of the form ${\sum }_{\mu <\lambda }{c}_{\mu }{e}^{\mu }$  where ${c}_{\lambda }\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$  .
Set $C:=\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{k}{x}_{i}|{x}_{i}\in {C}_{{\lambda }_{i}}\right\}$  . Note that $x,y\in C$  implies $xy\in C$  . For $x,y\in C$  write $x\ge y$  if $x-y\in C$  . In all our examples, $chM$  belongs to $C$  .

2.8.2

For a diagonalizable $\mathfrak{h}$  -module $M$  we denote by $\Omega \left(M\right)$  the set of weights of $M$  and by ${M}_{\mu }$  the weight space of weight $\mu$  . Set ${M}_{>\mu }:={\sum }_{\nu >\mu }{M}_{\nu }$  and define ${M}_{\ge \mu }$  similarly.
For any map $f:M\to N$  we denote by ${f}_{\mu }$  (resp., ${f}_{>\mu },{f}_{\ge \mu }$  ) the restriction of $f$  to ${M}_{\mu }$  (resp., ${M}_{>\mu },{M}_{\ge \mu }$  ).

2.8.3

Recall taht $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}=\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]\oplus \mathbb{C}D$  . As $\left[\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}},\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right]$  -modules one has $M\left(\lambda \right)\sim =M\left(\lambda -r\delta \right)$  and so $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)\sim =\overline{M}\left(\lambda -r\delta \right)$  . As a consequence, $chV\left(\lambda -r\delta \right)={e}^{-r\delta }chV\left(\lambda \right)$  .

3 Explicit construction of singular vectors at the critical level

In this section we prove the following inequality
 $\begin{array}{c}chV\left(\lambda \right)\le {e}^{\lambda }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re;0}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re;1}^{+}}\left(1+{e}^{-\alpha }\right).\text{if}\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=0.\end{array}$ (1)

3.1 Outline of the proof

Recall that $chM\left(\lambda \right)={e}^{\lambda }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{0}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{1}^{+}}\left(1+{e}^{-\alpha }\right).$  One has $ch\mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)={\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}$  . Using  2.8.3 , we rewrite the inequality ( 1 ) in the form
 $\begin{array}{c}dimHom\left(M\left(\lambda -r\delta \right),M\left(\lambda \right)\right)\ge dim\mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}{\right)}_{-r\delta }\text{if}\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=0.\end{array}$ (2)

3.1.1

It is enough to prove the inequality ( 2 ) for a dense set of $\lambda$  's at the critical hyperplane $\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=0$  . We verify ( 2 ) for $\lambda$  such that all simple subquotients of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  are of the form $V\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)$  ; more precisely, we take $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{0}$  where
 $\begin{array}{c}\Lambda :=\left\{\lambda \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}|2\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\mu \right)=\left(\mu ,\mu \right)\text{for}\mu \in {\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+}⟹\mu \in \mathbb{Z}\delta \right\},\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}{\Lambda }_{c}:=\left\{\lambda \in \Lambda |2\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=c\right\}.\end{array}$
Notice that ${\Lambda }_{0}$  is a subset of the critical hyperplane. In Proposition  3.4.5 we will explicitly construct a singular vector $v\left(h,m\right)\in M\left(\lambda \right)$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right)$  for all $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{0},m<0,h\left(m\right)\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m\delta }$  . The existence of $v\left(h,m\right)$  implies the following proposition which establishes ( 2 ).

3.1.2

Proposition. Take $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{0}$  . For any $x\in \mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  the Verma module $M\left(\lambda \right)$  contains a singular vector $v$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\right)=x$  .
• Proof. Take a monomial $x\in \mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  . We prove the assertion by induction on the degree of $x$  . For $x=1$  the highest weight vector ${v}_{\lambda }$  satisfies the condition. For the degree greater than zero write $x=ba$  for some monomial $a$  and some $b\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  . By induction hypothesis, there exists a singular vector $v\left(a\right)\in M\left(\lambda \right)$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(a\right)\right)=a$  . The vector $v\left(a\right)$  generates a module of the highest weight $\lambda -s\delta$  where $s\delta$  is the weight of $x$  (in fact $v\left(a\right)$  generates a Verma module, see Corollary  4.1.3 ); observe that $\lambda -s\delta \in \Lambda$  .
By Proposition  3.4.5 , $M\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)$  contains a singular vector $v\left(b\right)$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(b\right)\right)=b$  .
Writing $v\left(a\right)=u{v}_{\lambda }$  , $v\left(b\right)={u}^{\prime }{v}_{\lambda -s\delta }$  where $u,{u}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  we have ${HC}_{-}\left(u\right)=a,{HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }\right)=b$  so ${HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }u\right)=ba$  . Thus ${u}^{\prime }u{v}_{\lambda }$  is a singular vector satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }u{v}_{\lambda }\right)=ba=x$  .

3.1.3

The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of Proposition  3.4.5 .

3.1.4 Notation

We will use the following subalgebra of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  $\mathfrak{q}:=\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}\cap \mathcal{ℬ}$  for an untwisted case $\mathfrak{q}:=\mathfrak{n}+{\sum }_{r>0}{t}^{r}\otimes \left(\mathfrak{h}+\mathfrak{n}\right)$  . We will use the notation introduced in  3.1.1 .

3.2

Lemma. Take $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{c}$  .
• (i) If $c\ne 0$  then $M\left(\lambda \right)$  is simple.
• (ii) If $c=0$  then all simple subquotients of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  are of the form $V\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)$  ( $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$  ).
• (iii) A vector $v\in M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -s\delta }$  is singular iff $\mathfrak{q}v=0$  .
• Proof. Let $\lambda -\nu$  be the weight of a singular vector of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  . The form $\left(-|-\right)$  gives rise to a quadratic Casimir element which acts on $M\left(\lambda \right)$  by the scalar $\left(\lambda ,\lambda +2\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)$  . As a consequence, $\left(\nu ,\nu \right)=2\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\nu \right)$  . The definition of $\Lambda$  implies that $\nu$  is not of the form $\mu +k\delta$  for $\mu \ne 0$  . Thus $\nu =s\delta$  for some $s$  . This proves (i) and (ii).
For (iii) take $v\in M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -s\delta }$  satisfying $\mathfrak{q}v=0$  . The subspace $\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}\right)v$  contains a singular vector. Write $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}=\mathfrak{q}\oplus \mathfrak{s}$  where $\mathfrak{s}=\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}\cap {\mathcal{N}}_{-}$  (for the untwisted case $\mathfrak{s}={\sum }_{i>0}{t}^{i}\otimes {\mathfrak{n}}_{-}$  ). Notice that $\mathfrak{s}$  is a subalgebra of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  and $\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}\right)v=\mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{s}\right)v$  because $\mathfrak{q}v=0$  . Weight vectors in $\mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{s}\right)v$  which are not proportional to $v$  have weights of the form $\lambda -\mu$  where $\mu \in {\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+},\mu \notin \mathbb{N}\delta$  ; by (i) these vectors are not singular. Hence $v$  is singular.

3.3

Set ${\Lambda }^{\prime }:=\left\{\left(\lambda ,\mu \right)|\lambda \in \Lambda ,\lambda -\mu \in \Omega \left(\mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{q}\right)\right)\right\}$  and define ${\Lambda }_{c}^{\prime }$  similarly (taking $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{c}$  ).

3.3.1

Lemma. Take $\left(\lambda ,\mu \right)\in {\Lambda }^{\prime }$  . One has $V\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)V\left(\lambda \right),\overline{M}\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right).$
• Proof. Writing ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}=\sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)\oplus \sigma \left(\mathfrak{s}\right)$  where $\mathfrak{s}$  is introduced in the proof of Lemma  3.2 (iii), we get $\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)=\mathcal{U}\left(\sigma \left(\mathfrak{s}\right)\right)+\sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  .
One has $V\left(\lambda \right)=\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right){v}_{\lambda }$  . The condition $\left(\lambda ,\mu \right)\in {\Lambda }^{\prime }$  ensures that $\mathcal{U}\left(\sigma \left(\mathfrak{s}\right)\right){v}_{\lambda }$  does not meet $V\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }$  . Thus $V\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)V\left(\lambda \right)$  .
For the second inclusion, recall that $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)=0$  if the level of $\lambda$  is not critical (see Lemma  3.2 (i)). Take $\lambda$  at the critical level. Lemma  3.2 (ii) implies that $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)=\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right){M}^{\prime }$  where ${M}^{\prime }:={\sum }_{r>0}\overline{M}\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -r\delta }$  . The condition $\left(\lambda ,\mu \right)\in {\Lambda }^{\prime }$  ensures that $\mathcal{U}\left(\sigma \left(\mathfrak{s}\right)\right){M}^{\prime }$  does not meet $M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }$  . Thus $\overline{M}\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{q}\right){M}^{\prime }$  and the second inclusion follows.

3.3.2

Proposition. For a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{m}$  satisfying $\mathfrak{q}\subseteq \mathfrak{m}\subseteq \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  and any $\left(\lambda ,\mu \right)\in {\Lambda }^{\prime }$  one has ${H}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{m},V\left(\lambda \right){\right)}_{\mu }=0\text{and}{H}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{m},M\left(\lambda \right){\right)}_{\mu }=0\text{for}r=0,1.$
• Proof. The first formula follows from Lemma  5.1 and Lemma  3.3.1 .
By Lemma  3.2 (i), $M\left(\lambda \right)=V\left(\lambda \right)$  if the level of $\lambda$  is not critical. For $\lambda$  at the critical level, the second formula is an easy consequence of the first one. Indeed, $M\left(\lambda \right)$  has a local series at $\mu$  with simple quotients $V\left({\lambda }_{i}\right)$  where, by Lemma  3.2 (ii), ${\lambda }_{i}=\lambda -{s}_{i}\delta$  for some ${s}_{i}\ge 1$  . By the long exact sequence of Lie algebra cohomology, it is enough to show that for $r=0,1$  one has ${H}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{m},V\left({\lambda }_{i}\right){\right)}_{\mu }=0$  for all indexes $i$  . The last follows from the first formula and the fact that $\left({\lambda }_{i},\mu \right)\in {\Lambda }^{\prime }$  .

3.4

Fix $u=h\left(m\right)\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  ( $m<0$  ). In this subsection we construct for each $\lambda \in {\Lambda }_{0}$  a singular vector $v\left(h,m\right)\in M\left(\lambda \right)$  satisfying ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right).$

3.4.1

From the construction of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  given in  2.2.3 we see that for each $k$  divisible by $r$  we have a well-defined linear map ${T}_{k}:{\mathcal{N}}^{+}\to {\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  given by ${T}_{k}\left(u\left(s\right)\right)=u\left(s+k\right).$  Observe that ${T}_{k}$  is ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{0}$  -invariant algebra map and ${T}_{k}\left({e}_{\alpha ,s}\right)={e}_{\alpha ,s+k}$  .
Let $p$  be the reminder of $m$  modulo $r$  ( $0\le j\le r$  ). One has $h\left(p\right)={T}_{p-m}\left(h\left(m\right)\right)$  if $\mathfrak{g}\ne \mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  . For $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  one has $h\in \mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  because $m\ne 0$  ; if $p\ne 0$  the element $h\left(p\right)$  is well-defined; if $p=0$  let ${h}^{\prime }\in \mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  be any preimage of $h\in \mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  and let $h\left(p\right)$  stands for ${h}^{\prime }\left(0\right):={h}^{\prime }$  . For $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  extend ${T}_{m-p}$  to $h\left(p\right)$  by the formula ${T}_{m-p}\left(h\left(p\right)\right):=h\left(m\right)$  . Notice that ${T}_{m-p}$  remains ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{0}$  -invariant.

3.4.2 Notation

Retain notation of  2.3.1 . View $\mathcal{ℬ}$  as a $\mathfrak{q}$  -module via the adjoint action and recall the $\mathbb{Z}$  -grading on $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  given by ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{s}:=\left\{a\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}|\left[D,a\right]=sa\right\}$  .
Set $N:=\mathbb{C}h\left(p\right)+{\sum }_{s\ge p}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+},{N}^{\prime }:={\sum }_{s\ge -m+p}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+},V:=\mathbb{C}h\left(p\right)+{\sum }_{p\le s<-m+p}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+}$  and observe that $N,{N}^{\prime }$  are $\mathfrak{q}$  -submodule of $\mathcal{ℬ}=\mathcal{ℋ}\oplus {\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  and $V$  is an ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{0}$  -submodule of $N$  . For the untwisted case $N=\mathbb{C}h+{\sum }_{s>0}{t}^{s}\otimes \mathfrak{n}$  , and ${N}^{\prime }={\sum }_{i\ge m}{t}^{i}\otimes \mathfrak{n}$  since $r=1$  and so $p=0$  for all $m$  .
Let ${V}^{*}$  be the orthogonal compliment of ${N}^{\prime }$  in ${N}^{*}$  that is ${V}^{*}:=\left\{f\in Hom\left(N,\mathbb{C}\right)|f\left({N}^{\prime }\right)=0\right\}.$  Notice that ${V}^{*}$  viewed as ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{0}$  -module is dual to $V$  .
Both $N,{N}^{\prime }$  are $\left(\mathfrak{q}+\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  -modules. View ${N}^{*}$  and ${V}^{*}$  as $\left(\mathfrak{q}+\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)$  -modules via the antiautomorphism $-id$  . Let $h\left(p{\right)}^{*}\in {V}^{*}$  be the “dual to” $h\left(p\right)$  that is $h\left(p{\right)}^{*}\left(h\left(p\right)\right)=1,h\left(p{\right)}^{*}\left(a\right)=0$  for all $a\in {\sum }_{s\ge p}{\mathcal{N}}_{s}^{+}$  .

3.4.3

Lemma. For any $\lambda \in \Lambda$  there exists a unique $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism $\psi :{V}^{*}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  such that $\psi \left(h\left(p{\right)}^{*}\right)={v}_{\lambda }$  .
• Proof. Define $\mu \succcurlyeq \nu$  if $\mu -\nu \in {\sum }_{\alpha \in \Omega \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)}{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}\alpha$  and $\mu \succ \nu$  if $\mu \succcurlyeq \nu$  , $\mu \ne \nu$  .
Notice that ${N}_{p\delta }=\mathbb{C}h\left(p\right),{N}_{s\delta }=0$  for all $s\ne p$  and $\Omega \left(N\right)\subset \left\{\mu |\mu \succcurlyeq p\delta \right\}$  . The set $\Omega \left({V}^{*}\right)=-\Omega \left(V\right)$  is a finite subset of $-\Omega \left(N\right)$  .
Retain notation of  2.8.2 . Notice that ${V}_{\succcurlyeq \mu }^{*},{V}_{\succ \mu }^{*}$  are $\mathfrak{q}$  -submodules of ${V}^{*}$  . Since ${V}_{\succcurlyeq -p\delta }^{*}$  is spanned by $h\left(p{\right)}^{*}$  , the restriction ${\psi }_{\succcurlyeq p\delta }$  is uniquely defined. Now we deduce the statement from Lemma  3.3.2 by induction on $\mu \in -\Omega \left(\mathfrak{q}\right)$  . Assume that ${\psi }_{\succ \mu }:{V}_{\succ \mu }^{*}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  is uniquely defined. Let $\phi :{V}_{\succcurlyeq \mu }^{*}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  be an extension of ${\psi }_{\succ \mu }$  . Then $\phi$  is a $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism if and only if $e\phi \left({e}_{\mu }^{*}\right)={\psi }_{\succ \mu }\left(e{e}_{\mu }^{*}\right)$  for any $e\in \mathfrak{q},{e}_{\mu }^{*}\in {V}_{\mu }^{*}$  . Take ${e}_{\mu }^{*}\in {V}_{\mu }^{*}$  and define ${\phi }^{\prime }:\mathfrak{q}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  by the rule ${\phi }^{\prime }\left(e\right):={\psi }_{\succ \mu }\left(e.{e}_{\mu }^{*}\right).$  The map ${\phi }^{\prime }$  satisfies the condition $\phi \left(\left[{u}_{1},{u}_{2}\right]\right)={u}_{1}\phi \left({u}_{2}\right)-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left({u}_{1}\right)p\left({u}_{2}\right)}{u}_{2}\phi \left({u}_{1}\right)$  for all ${u}_{1},{u}_{2}\in \mathfrak{q}$  . By Proposition  3.3.2 , ${H}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{q},M\left(\lambda \right){\right)}_{\mu }=0$  and so there exists a unique $v\in M\left(\lambda \right)$  satisfying $\phi \left(e\right)=ev$  for all $e\in \mathfrak{q}$  . Put ${\psi }_{\mu }\left({e}_{\mu }^{*}\right):=v$  . The uniqueness implies both uniqueness and linearity of ${\psi }_{\mu }$  . Hence ${\psi }_{\succ \mu }$  can be uniquely extended to a $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism ${\psi }_{\succcurlyeq \mu }$  . The statement follows.

3.4.4

Remark that $\psi$  shifts weights by $\lambda +r\delta$  that is $\psi \left({V}_{-r\delta -\mu }^{*}\right)\subset M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -\mu }$  .

3.4.5

Retain notation of  3.4.1 ,  3.4.2 .
Proposition. Fix $\lambda \in \Lambda$  and $h\left(m\right)\in {\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}$  ( $m<0$  ). Let $\psi :{V}^{*}\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  be a $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism constructed in Lemma  3.4.3 , let $\gamma :\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\otimes M\left(\lambda \right)\to M\left(\lambda \right)$  be the natural map $\gamma \left(u\otimes v\right)=uv$  , and let ${id}^{\prime }\in V\otimes {V}^{*}$  corresponds to the identity map $V\to V$  . Then $v\left(h,m\right)=\gamma \left(\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right){id}^{\prime }\right)$  satisfies ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right)$  and $v\left(h,m\right)$  is singular if $\lambda$  has the critical level.
• Proof. Let $B$  be a weight basis of $V\cap {\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  ; then $\left\{h\left(p\right)\right\}\cup B$  is a weight basis of $V$  . For $b\in B$  denote by ${b}^{*}$  the element of the dual basis $\left\{h\left(p{\right)}^{*}\right\}\cup {B}^{*}$  of ${V}^{*}$  . One has $v\left(h,m\right)=h\left(m\right){v}_{\lambda }+{\sum }_{b\in B}{T}_{m-p}\left(b\right)\psi \left({b}^{*}\right).$  Since ${\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  is ${T}_{m-p}$  -stable, ${T}_{m-p}\left(b\right)\in {\mathcal{N}}^{+}$  and so ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right)$  .
Let us check that $v\left(h,m\right)$  is singular if $\lambda$  has the critical level. In the light of Lemma  3.2 it is enough to verify that $\mathfrak{q}v\left(h,m\right)=0$  .
Take a weight element $u\left(i\right)\in {\mathfrak{q}}_{i}$  ( $i\ge 0$  ). Notice that ${T}_{m-p}\left(\left[u\left(i\right),x\right]\right)=\left[u\left(i\right),{T}_{m-p}\left(x\right)\right]$  for all $x\in V$  apart of the case $u\left(i\right)={h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),x=h\left(p\right)$  (we assume that $x$  is a weight element). Recall that $\psi$  is $\mathfrak{q}$  -homomorphism and so $\psi \left(u\left(i\right)y\right)=u\left(i\right)\psi \left(y\right)$  .
Consider the case $u\left(i\right)\ne {h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)$  . Then $u\left(i\right)v\left(h,m\right)=\gamma \left({\sum }_{b\in {B}^{\prime }}\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right)\left(u\left(i\right)\left(b\otimes {b}^{*}\right)\right)\right).$  where ${B}^{\prime }:=\left\{h\left(p\right)\right\}\cup B$  is a basis of $V$  . For ${b}_{s}\in {B}^{\prime }$  set $\left[u\left(i\right),{b}_{s}\right]=\sum {c}_{sj}{b}_{j}+{w}_{s}$  where ${w}_{s}\in {N}^{\prime }={\sum }_{t\ge -m+p}{\mathcal{N}}_{t}^{+}$  . Then $u\left(i\right){b}_{s}^{*}=-\sum {c}_{js}{b}_{j}$  and so ${\sum }_{b\in {B}^{\prime }}u\left(i\right)\left(b\otimes {b}^{*}\right)=\sum {w}_{s}\otimes {b}_{s}^{*}$  .
Notice that ${T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right)\in \mathfrak{q}$  and so $\gamma \left(\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right)\left({w}_{s}\otimes {b}_{s}^{*}\right)\right)={T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right)\psi \left({b}_{s}^{*}\right)=\psi \left({T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}\right)$  since $\psi$  is $\mathfrak{q}$  -invariant. Denote by $wta$  the weight of $a$  . One has $wt{w}_{s}=wt\left(u\left(i\right)\right)+wt{b}_{s}$  and $wt{b}_{s}^{*}=-wt{b}_{s}$  so $wt{T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}=\left(m-p\right)\delta +wt\left(u\left(i\right)\right)\in \Omega \left(\mathcal{ℬ}\right)$  because $wt\left(u\left(i\right)\right)\in \Omega \left({\mathcal{N}}^{+}\right)$  . However ${T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}\in {V}^{*}$  and $\Omega \left({V}^{*}\right)=-\Omega \left(V\right)\subset -\Omega \left(\mathcal{ℬ}\right)$  . Thus ${T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}=0$  or ${T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}\in \mathcal{ℋ}$  that is $wt{T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}=-p\delta$  . In the last case $wt\left(u\left(i\right)\right)=m\delta$  which contradicts to the assumption $u\left(i\right)\ne {h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)$  . Hence ${T}_{m-p}\left({w}_{s}\right){b}_{s}^{*}=0$  for all $s$  and so $u\left(i\right)v\left(h,m\right)=0$  if $u\left(i\right)\ne {h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)$  . Consider the case $u\left(i\right)={h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)$  . Then  $\begin{array}{c}{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)v\left(h,m\right)=\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),h\left(m\right)\right]{v}_{\lambda }+\gamma \left({\sum }_{b\in B}\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right)\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\left(b\otimes {b}^{*}\right)\right)\right).\end{array}$ (3)
Repeating the above argument we obtain ${w}_{s}=\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),b\right]$  and $\gamma \left({\sum }_{b\in B}\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right)\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\left(b\otimes {b}^{*}\right)\right)\right)={\sum }_{b\in B}\psi \left({T}_{m-p}\left(\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),b\right]\right){b}_{s}^{*}\right).$  Let us compute the term ${T}_{m-p}\left(\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),b\right]\right){b}^{*}=\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right),b\right]{b}^{*}$  ; its weight is $-p\delta$  and so it is proportional to $h\left(p{\right)}^{*}$  . One has $\left(\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right),b\right]{b}^{*}\right)\left(h\left(p\right)\right)=\left(-1{\right)}^{1+\left(p\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right)\right)+p\left(h\left(p\right)\right)+1\right)p\left(b\right)}{b}^{*}\left(\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right),\left[h\left(p\right),b\right]\right]\right)$  and thus $\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right),b\right]{b}^{*}=c\left(b\right)h\left(p{\right)}^{*}$  where $c\left(b\right)=0$  if $p\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right)\right)\ne p\left(h\left(p\right)\right)$  and $\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right),\left[h\left(p\right),b\right]\right]=\left(-1{\right)}^{1+p\left(b\right)}c\left(b\right)b$  . Then $\gamma \left({\sum }_{b\in B}\left({T}_{m-p}\otimes \psi \right)\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)\left(b\otimes {b}^{*}\right)\right)\right)={\sum }_{b\in B}c\left(b\right){v}_{\lambda }.$  Notice that ${\sum }_{b\in B}c\left(b\right)=-\frac{1}{2}{str}_{W}ad{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right)\circ adh\left(p\right)$  where $W:={\sum }_{s=p}^{-m+p}{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{s}$  .
Hence  $\begin{array}{c}{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)v\left(h,m\right)=\left(\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),h\left(m\right)\right]-\frac{1}{2}{str}_{W}ad{h}^{\prime }\left(-p\right)\circ adh\left(p\right)\right){v}_{\lambda }.\end{array}$ (4)
By Lemma  2.3.2 , $\left[{h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right),h\left(m\right)\right]=m\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)|h\left(m\right)\right)K$  where $K$  is a central element of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  . The restriction of $\left(-|-\right)$  to ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-m}\otimes {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}$  is a non-degenerate pairing invariant with respect to the action of ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}$  . On the other hand, the map ${B}^{\prime }:{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-p}\otimes {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{p}\to \mathbb{C}$  given by ${B}^{\prime }\left(x|y\right)={str}_{W}adx\circ ady$  is also a pairing invariant with respect to the action of ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}$  .
Identify ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-m}$  with ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-p}$  via ${T}_{-m+p}$  and ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}$  with ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{p}$  via ${T}_{m-p}$  (for the case $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  , $p=0$  identify ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{-m},{\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}$  with $\mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(n|n\right)$  ). Observe that ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{m}$  is a simple ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}$  -module (see [K2and [vdL, 6.10). Thus ${B}^{\prime }$  is proportional to the restriction of $\left(-|-\right)$  . The map $\left(-|-\right)$  induces an isomorphism $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\to {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  ; since $K$  is central, its image of $K$  is proportional to $\delta$  . Finally, ${h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)v\left(h,m\right)=\left({h}^{\prime }\left(-m\right)|h\left(m\right)\right)\left(\left(\lambda ,\delta \right)+a\right){v}_{\lambda }$  for some scalar $a$  . Therefore $v\left(h,m\right)$  is singular if $\lambda$  has level $a$  . Since ${HC}_{-}\left(v\left(h,m\right)\right)=h\left(m\right)$  , the vector $v\left(h,m\right)$  is non-zero for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$  . By Lemma  3.2 (i), $v\left(h,m\right)$  is not singular if $\lambda$  has a non-critical level. Hence $a/m=-{h}^{\vee }$  and this completes the proof.

4 Kac-Kazhdan character formula

4.1 Description of results

Call $\lambda \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  a generic critical weight if $\left(\lambda +\stackrel{^}{\rho },\delta \right)=0$  and $\lambda$  is not a root of other factors of Shapovalov determinants.
Set ${N}_{+}:={\mathcal{N}}^{+}\cap {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-},{N}_{-}:={\mathcal{N}}^{-}\cap {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}.$  In [Ku, Sect. 5, Ku proves that $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{\lambda }$  does not meet $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  (we obtain this result in Corollary  4.7 ). This gives ${e}^{-\lambda }chV\left(\lambda \right)\ge ch\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right)={\prod }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{re;0}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{re;1}^{+}}\left(1+{e}^{-\alpha }\right).$  Combining with the inverse inequality established in the previous section, we conclude the Kac-Kazhdan character formula:

4.1.1

Theorem. For $\lambda$  being a generic critical weight one has $chV\left(\lambda \right)={e}^{\lambda }{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{re;0}^{+}}\left(1-{e}^{-\alpha }{\right)}^{-1}{\prod }_{\alpha \in {\Delta }_{re;1}^{+}}\left(1+{e}^{-\alpha }\right).$
Using Proposition  3.1.2 we obtain

4.1.2

Corollary. Let $\lambda$  be a generic critical weight. The restriction of ${HC}_{-}$  is a bijection between the space of singular vectors in $M\left(\lambda \right)$  and $\mathcal{U}\left({\mathcal{ℋ}}_{-}\right)$  .

4.1.3

Corollary. Let $\lambda$  be a generic critical weight. A submodule generated by a singular weight vector in $M\left(\lambda \right)$  is a Verma module.
• Proof. Let $v\in M\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\lambda -s\delta }$  be a singular vector. The submodule $M$  generated by $v$  is a quotient of $M\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)$  . If $M\ne M\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)$  then $M=M\left(\lambda -s\delta \right)/{M}^{\prime }$  where ${M}^{\prime }$  contains a singular vector ${v}^{\prime }$  . Writing $v=u{v}_{\lambda },{v}^{\prime }={u}^{\prime }{v}_{\lambda -s\delta }$  , ( $u,{u}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  ) we obtain ${u}^{\prime }u=0$  .
Notice that $\lambda ,\lambda -s\delta$  are generic so ${HC}_{-}\left(v\right)={HC}_{-}\left(u\right)\ne 0$  and ${HC}_{-}\left({v}^{\prime }\right)={HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }\right)\ne 0$  .
Then ${HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }u\right)={HC}_{-}\left({u}^{\prime }\right){HC}_{-}\left(u\right)\ne 0$  which contradicts to ${u}^{\prime }u=0$  .

4.2

Let us check that $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{\lambda }$  does not meet $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  (see Corollary  4.7 ). The main idea is to construct a “generic Verma module at the critical level” ( ${M}_{E}$  in  4.3 ) and compare its Jantzen filtration with a Jantzen filtration on $M\left(\lambda \right)$  . This reasoning reduces the assertion to the fact that the minors corresponding to $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right)$  in the Shapovalov matrices are not identically equal to zero at the critical level (see Proposition  4.6 ). We give some details below.

4.3 The module ${M}_{E}$

If $C$  is a local ring with the maximal ideal generated by $x$  , set ${\upsilon }_{x}\left(y\right)=k$  if $k\in \mathbb{N},y\in \left({x}^{k}\right),y\notin \left({x}^{k+1}\right)$  .
Set $B:=\mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{h}+D\right),F:=FractB$  . Let $E$  be the localization of the polynomial algebra $F\left[x\right]$  on the maximal ideal generated by $x$  : $E:=F\left[x{\right]}_{\left(x\right)}$  . Define an algebra homomorphism $\iota :\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)\to E$  by setting $\iota \left(K\right):=x-\left(\delta ,\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right),\iota {|}_{\mathfrak{h}+D}=id$  . View $E$  as $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  -module via $x.y:=\iota \left(x\right)y$  for any $x\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}},y\in E$  ; define $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}$  -module structure on $E$  by setting $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}E=0$  .
Finally, set ${M}_{E}:=\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right){\otimes }_{\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}\right)}E$  and view ${M}_{E}$  as a $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  - $E$  bimodule.

4.3.1

The Shapovalov form induces a bilinear form ${S}_{E}:{M}_{E}\otimes {M}_{E}\to E$  . This form can be written as ${S}_{E}\left(u{v}_{\iota },{u}^{\prime }{v}_{\iota }\right)=\iota \left(S\left(u,{u}^{\prime }\right)\right)$  where ${v}_{\iota }$  is the canonical generator of ${M}_{E}$  , $u,{u}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right)$  .
Define a decreasing filtration on ${M}_{E}$  via the form $S\left({M}_{E}\right)$  :
${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E}\right):=\left\{v\in {M}_{E}|\forall {v}^{\prime }\in {M}_{E}{S}_{E}\left(v,{v}^{\prime }\right)\in \left({x}^{k}\right).\right\}$  Fix $\mu \in {\stackrel{^}{Q}}^{+}$  and let ${S}_{E;\mu }$  be the restriction of ${S}_{E}$  to ${M}_{E;\mu }:=\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}{\right)}_{-\mu }E\subset {M}_{E}$  . Notice that ${M}_{E;\mu }$  is a free $E$  -module of a finite rank. The determinant $det{S}_{E;\mu }$  is defined up to an invertible element in $E$  and is equal to $\iota \left(det{S}_{\mu }\right)$  . Using the formula for Shapovalov determinant given in  2.7.3 we get ${\upsilon }_{x}\left(det{S}_{E;\mu }\right)={\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{0}}^{+}}\tau \left(\mu -\alpha \right)+{\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{1}}^{+}}{\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\mu -\alpha \right).$

4.3.2

Denote by $\phi$  the canonical map ${M}_{E}\to {M}_{E}/x{M}_{E}$  and view the target as a vector space over $F$  . The Jantzen sum formula ([Ja, Lem.3) gives
 $\begin{array}{c}{\sum }_{k\ge 1}{dim}_{F}\phi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E;\mu }\right)\right)={\upsilon }_{x}\left(det{S}_{E;\mu }\right)={\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{0}}^{+}}\tau \left(\mu -\alpha \right)+{\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{1}}^{+}}{\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\mu -\alpha \right).\end{array}$ (5)

4.4 The module ${M}_{A}$

Let $\lambda$  be a generic critical weight. Set $A:=\mathbb{C}\left[x{\right]}_{\left(x\right)}$  . Let us define a Jantzen filtration on $M\left(\lambda \right)$  . Choose an element ${\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{\prime }\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  such that $\left({\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{\prime },\alpha \right)\ne 0$  for all roots $\alpha$  and ${\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{\prime }\left(K\right)=1$  .
Define an algebra homomorphism ${\iota }^{\prime }:\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}\right)\to A$  by setting ${\iota }^{\prime }\left(h\right)=\lambda +h\left({\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{\prime }\right)x$  for all $h\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  .
View $A$  as $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}$  -module via $x.y:={\iota }^{\prime }\left(x\right)y$  for any $x\in \stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}},y\in A$  ; define $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}$  -module structure on $A$  by setting $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}A=0$  . Finally, set ${M}_{A}:=\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}\right){\otimes }_{\mathcal{U}\left(\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{b}}\right)}A$  and view ${M}_{A}$  as a $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{g}}$  - $A$  bimodule.

4.4.1

Define a filtration ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A}\right)$  similarly to one in  4.3.1 . Denote by ${\phi }^{\prime }$  the canonical map ${M}_{A}\to {M}_{A}/x{M}_{A}=M\left(\lambda \right)$  . The subspaces ${\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right)$  are $\mathfrak{g}$  -submodules of $M\left(\lambda \right)$  ; they form the Jantzen filtration. One has ${\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right)=\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  . The Jantzen sum formula ([Ja, Lem.3) gives
 $\begin{array}{c}{\sum }_{k\ge 1}{dim}_{\mathbb{C}}{\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A;\mu }\right)\right)={\upsilon }_{x}\left(det{S}_{A;\mu }\right)={\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{0}}^{+}}\tau \left(\mu -\alpha \right)+{\sum }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{im,\overline{1}}^{+}}{\tau }_{\alpha }\left(\mu -\alpha \right).\end{array}$ (6)
where the last equality follows from the condition that $\lambda$  is generic.

4.5

Comparing ( 5 ) with ( 6 ) we conclude that
 $\begin{array}{c}{\sum }_{k\ge 1}{dim}_{F}\phi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E;\mu }\right)\right)={\sum }_{k\ge 1}{dim}_{\mathbb{C}}{\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A;\mu }\right)\right).\end{array}$ (7)
Lemma  4.5.1 below shows that ${dim}_{F}\phi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E;\mu }\right)\right)={dim}_{\mathbb{C}}{\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A;\mu }\right)\right)$  .
The natural embedding $A=\mathbb{C}\left[x{\right]}_{\left(x\right)}\subset F\left[x{\right]}_{\left(x\right)}=E$  induces an embedding of ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}$  - $A$  bimodules: $\psi :{M}_{A}\to {M}_{E}$  ; one has ${M}_{E}=\psi \left({M}_{A}\right){\otimes }_{A}E.$

4.5.1

Lemma. One has ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E}\right)=\psi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right){\otimes }_{A}E$  for $k\ge 0$  .
• Proof. One can easily sees that the Shapovalov forms on ${M}_{A}$  and its image in ${M}_{E}$  are connected by the formula ${S}_{A}\left({v}_{1},{v}_{2}\right)={p}_{\lambda }\left({S}_{E}\left(\psi \left({v}_{1}\right),\psi \left({v}_{2}\right)\right)\right)$  where ${p}_{\lambda }:F\to FractA$  is an algebra homomorphism given by ${p}_{\lambda }\left(x\right)=x,{p}_{\lambda }\left(h\right)=\lambda \left(h\right)+x{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{\prime }\left(h\right)$  for all $h\in {\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime \prime }$  where ${\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime \prime }\subset \mathfrak{h}$  is the orthogonal to $D$  with repect to $\left(-,-\right)$  (then $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{h}}^{\prime \prime }+\mathbb{C}K$  ). Therefore  $\begin{array}{c}v\notin {\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A}\right)⟹\psi \left(v\right)\notin {\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E}\right)\end{array}$ (8)
because ${\upsilon }_{x}\left({S}_{A}\left({v}_{1},{v}_{2}\right)\right)\ge {\upsilon }_{x}\left({S}_{E}\left(\psi \left({v}_{1}\right),\psi \left({v}_{2}\right)\right)\right)$  . From ( 8 ) we get ${dim}_{F}\phi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E;\mu }\right)\right)\le {dim}_{\mathbb{C}}{\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A;\mu }\right)\right)$  for all $k\ge 0$  From ( 7 ) we see that these inequalities are in fact equalities for $k\ge 1$  ; for $k=1$  both sides are equal to $\tau \left(\mu \right)$  so it is again the equality.
Therefore ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{E}\right)=\psi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{k}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right){\otimes }_{A}E$  as required.

4.6

The following statement is proven in [Ku, 5.3.
Proposition. ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{E,\mu }\right)$  does not meet the space $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{\iota }$  where ${v}_{\iota }$  is the canonical generator of ${M}_{E}$  .
• Proof. One needs to verify that the kernel of the bilinear form $\iota \circ S$  does not meet $X:=\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right)$  . For each $\mu$  denote by ${S}_{\mu }^{\prime }$  the restriction of $S$  to $X\otimes X$  . It is enough to show that $\iota \left(det{S}_{\mu }^{\prime }\right)\ne 0$  for all $\mu$  . If $\iota \left(det{S}_{\mu }^{\prime }\right)\ne 0$  then $det{S}_{\mu }^{\prime }$  is divisible by the polynomial $K+\left(\delta ,\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)$  and so the leading term of $det{S}_{\mu }^{\prime }$  is divisible by $K$  . Using technique of Shapovalov, we find that the leading term of $det{S}_{\mu }^{\prime }$  takes form ${\prod }_{\alpha \in {\stackrel{^}{\Delta }}_{re}^{+}}{h}_{\alpha }^{{d}_{\alpha }\left(\mu \right)}$  and thus is not divisible by $K$  . The statement follows.

4.7

Corollary. For a generic critical weight $\lambda$  one has $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)\cap \mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{\lambda }=0.$
• Proof. One has ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{E}\right)=\psi \left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right){\otimes }_{A}E$  so ${\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{A}\right)$  does not meet $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{{\iota }^{\prime }}$  where ${v}_{{\iota }^{\prime }}$  is the highest weight vector of ${M}_{A}$  . Therefore $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)={\phi }^{\prime }\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}^{1}\left({M}_{A}\right)\right)$  does not meet $\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{+}\right)\mathcal{U}\left({N}_{-}\right){v}_{\lambda }$  as required.

5 A vanishing lemma

If $\mathfrak{p}$  is a Lie algebra, $N$  is a $\mathfrak{p}$  -module and ${N}^{\prime }$  is a subspace of $N$  , denote by $\mathfrak{p}{N}^{\prime }$  the vector space spanned by $xv$  where $x\in \mathfrak{p},v\in {N}^{\prime }$  .

5.1

Lemma. Let $\mathfrak{m}$  be a subalgebra of $\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}$  . Assume that $\lambda ,\mu \in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{h}}}^{*}$  are such that $V\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{m}\right)V\left(\lambda \right),\overline{M}\left(\lambda {\right)}_{\mu }\subset \sigma \left(\mathfrak{m}\right)\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  then ${H}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{m},V\left(\lambda \right){\right)}_{\mu }=0\text{for}r=0,1.$
• Proof. Set $V:=V\left(\lambda \right),{\mathfrak{m}}^{-}:=\sigma \left(\mathfrak{m}\right).$  Let $\phi :\mathfrak{m}\to V$  be a linear map of weight $\mu$  satisfying the condition  $\begin{array}{c}\phi \left(\left[{u}_{1},{u}_{2}\right]\right)={u}_{1}\phi \left({u}_{2}\right)-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left({u}_{1}\right)p\left({u}_{2}\right)}{u}_{2}\phi \left({u}_{1}\right).\end{array}$ (9)
We need to prove that there exists a unique vector $w\in {V}_{\mu }$  such that  $\begin{array}{c}\phi \left(u\right)=uw\text{for all}u\in \mathfrak{m}.\end{array}$ (10)
Recall that the Shapovalov form equips $V$  with a non-degenerate bilinear form; denote this form by $A$  . Since $A\left(v,u{v}^{\prime }\right)=A\left(\sigma \left(u\right)v,{v}^{\prime }\right)$  for all $u\in \mathfrak{g};v,{v}^{\prime }\in V$  , the condition ( 10 ) is equivalent to  $\begin{array}{c}A\left(w,uv\right)=A\left(\phi \left(\sigma \left(u\right)\right),v\right)\text{for all}u\in {\mathfrak{m}}^{-},v\in V.\end{array}$ (11)
Define a linear functional on ${\mathfrak{m}}^{-}\otimes V$  by setting $\delta \left(u\otimes v\right):=A\left(\phi \left(\sigma \left(u\right)\right),v\right)$  . Let $\beta :{\mathfrak{m}}^{-}\otimes V\to V$  be the natural map given by $\beta \left(u\otimes v\right)=uv$  . As we will check below, there exists a unique ${\delta }^{\prime }\in \left({V}_{\mu }{\right)}^{*}$  such that ${\delta }_{\mu }={\delta }^{\prime }{\beta }_{\mu }$  (see  2.8.2 for the notation). Since the restriction of $A$  to ${V}_{\mu }$  is non-degenerate, there exists a unique $w\in {V}_{\mu }$  satisfying $A\left(w,y\right)={\delta }^{\prime }\left(y\right)$  for all $y\in {V}_{\mu }$  . Clearly, such $w$  satisfies the condition ( 11 ). This proves the lemma.
The assumption on $\lambda ,\mu$  gives ${V}_{\mu }=Im{\beta }_{\mu }$  and this implies the uniqueness of ${\delta }^{\prime }$  . It remains to prove that  $\begin{array}{c}Ker{\beta }_{\mu }\subset Ker{\delta }_{\mu }.\end{array}$ (12)
Identify $M\left(\lambda \right)$  with ${U}^{-}:=\mathcal{U}\left({\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right)$  . Let $F$  be a free associative algebra generated by ${\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}$  and $\gamma :F\to V$  be the canonical epimorphism. Define a linear functional ${\delta }_{F}$  on ${\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F$  by setting ${\delta }_{F}\left(bf\right):=A\left(\phi \left(\sigma \left(b\right)\right),\gamma \left(f\right)\right),\text{for}b\in {\mathfrak{m}}^{-},f\in F.$  Note that the definition is consistent since $F$  is a free algebra. One has $\delta \left(b\otimes \gamma \left(f\right)\right)={\delta }_{F}\left(bf\right)$  . Now ( 12 ) can be rewritten as  $\begin{array}{c}Ker{\gamma }_{\mu }\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F\subset Ker{\delta }_{F}.\end{array}$ (13)
Recall that ${U}^{-}=F/I$  where $I$  is the two-sided ideal generated by the set $\left\{{s}_{x,y}:x,y\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathfrak{n}}}_{-}\right\}$  where ${s}_{x,y}:=xy-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)}yx-\left[xy\right]$  . Clearly, $Ker\gamma =I+J$  where $J\subset F$  is a linear space whose image in ${U}^{-}$  coincides with $\overline{M}\left(\lambda \right)$  . By the assumption on $\lambda ,\mu$  we can choose $J$  in such a way that ${J}_{\mu }\subset {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}J$  .
One has $Ker{\gamma }_{\mu }\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F=\left({I}_{\mu }+{J}_{\mu }\right)\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F={I}_{\mu }\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F+{J}_{\mu }\subset I\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F+{J}_{\mu }$  because ${J}_{\mu }\subset {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}J$  . Using Lemma  5.1.1 we obtain $I\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F={\mathfrak{m}}^{-}I+{I}^{\prime \prime }$  where ${I}^{\prime \prime }$  is a right ideal in $F$  which is generated by the set $\left\{{s}_{x,y}:x,y\in {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}\right\}$  . Thus $Ker{\gamma }_{\mu }\cap {\mathfrak{m}}^{-}F\subset {I}^{\prime \prime }+{\mathfrak{m}}^{-}I+{J}_{\mu }\subset {I}^{\prime \prime }+{\mathfrak{m}}^{-}\left(I+J\right)={I}^{\prime \prime }+{\mathfrak{m}}^{-}Ker\gamma .$  By definition, ${\mathfrak{m}}^{-}Ker\gamma \subset Ker{\delta }_{F}$  . Finally, to verify that ${\delta }_{F}\left({I}^{\prime \prime }\right)=0$  take any $x,y\in {\mathfrak{m}}^{-},f\in F$  and set ${x}^{\prime }:=\sigma \left(x\right),{y}^{\prime }:=\sigma \left(y\right),v:=\gamma \left(f\right)$  . One has  $\begin{array}{c}{\delta }_{F}\left(\left(xy-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)}yx-\left[xy\right]\right)f\right)\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}=A\left(\phi \left({x}^{\prime }\right),yv\right)-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)}A\left(\phi \left({y}^{\prime }\right),xv\right)-A\left(\phi \left(\left[{y}^{\prime }{x}^{\prime }\right]\right),v\right)\end{array}$
 $\begin{array}{c}=A\left({y}^{\prime }\phi \left({x}^{\prime }\right),v\right)-\left(-1{\right)}^{p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)}A\left({x}^{\prime }\phi \left({y}^{\prime }\right),v\right)-A\left(\phi \left(\left[{y}^{\prime }{x}^{\prime }\right]\right),v\right)=0\end{array}$
by the assumption ( 9 ). This completes the proof.

5.1.1

Lemma. Let ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }\subset \mathfrak{p}$  be Lie superalgebras, $F$  (resp., ${F}^{\prime }$  ) be free superalgebras generated by $\mathfrak{p}$  (resp., ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$  ) and $I$  (resp., ${I}^{\prime }$  ) be the kernel of canonical homomorphism $F\to \mathcal{U}\left(\mathfrak{p}\right)$  (resp., ${F}^{\prime }\to \mathcal{U}\left({\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }\right)$  ). Then $I\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }F={\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }I+{I}^{\prime }F$  .
• Proof. Choose a linearly ordered basis $A$  of $\mathfrak{p}$  in such a way that ${A}^{\prime }:=A\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$  is a basis of ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$  and the elements of ${A}^{\prime }$  precede the elements of $A\{A}^{\prime }$  . View the PBW basis corresponding to $A$  (resp., ${A}^{\prime }$  ) as a subset of $F$  and denote this subset by $P$  (resp., ${P}^{\prime }$  ). Let $X$  (resp., ${X}^{\prime }$  ) be the linear span of $P$  (resp., ${P}^{\prime }$  ). One has $F=X\oplus I$  and so $I\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }F={\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }I\oplus \left(I\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }X\right)$  .
Let us show that $I\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }X\subset {I}^{\prime }F$  . Take an element $u\in {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }X$  and write $u={\sum }_{sj}{c}_{sj}{x}_{s}{y}_{j}$  where ${x}_{s}\in {A}^{\prime },{y}_{j}\in P$  and ${c}_{sj}$  are scalars. One has ${y}_{j}={y}_{j}^{\prime }{z}_{j}$  where ${y}_{j}^{\prime }\in {P}^{\prime },{z}_{j}\in P\{P}^{\prime }$  .
Then $u={\sum }_{sj}{c}_{sj}{x}_{s}{y}_{j}^{\prime }{z}_{j}$  and ${x}_{s}{y}_{j}^{\prime }\in {F}^{\prime }={X}^{\prime }\oplus {I}^{\prime }$  . One has ${X}^{\prime }{z}_{j}\subset X$  by the assumption on bases. Hence $u\in X+{I}^{\prime }F$  that is ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }X\subset X+{I}^{\prime }F$  . Then $I\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }X\subset I\cap \left(X+{I}^{\prime }F\right)={I}^{\prime }F$  since $I\cap X=0$  and ${I}^{\prime }F\subset I$  .
References

1. V. V. Deodhar, O. Gabber, V. G. Kac, Structure of some categories of representations of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Adv. in Math., 45, (1982), p. 92–116.
2. T. Hayashi, Sugawara operators and Kac-Kazhdan conjecture, Inv. Math., 94 (1988), p.13–52.
3. B. Feigin, E. Frenkel, The family of representations of affine Lie algebras, Russian Mth. Survey, 43, (1988), p. 221–222.
4. E. Frenkel, Affine Kac-Moody algebras at the critical level and quantum Drinfeld-Sokolov reduction, Harvard Thesis 1990.
5. R. Goodman, N. Wallach, Higher order Sugawara operators for affine Kac-Moody algebras, Trans. AMS, 315, (1989), p. 1–66.
6. J. C. Jantzen, Moduln mit einem höchsten Gewicht, Lecture Notes in Math., 750, 1979.
7. V. G. Kac, D. A. Kazhdan, Structure of representations with highest weight of infinite dimensional Lie algebra, Adv. in Math., 34, (1979), p. 97–108.
8. V. G. Kac, Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras, Progress in Math. 44, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1983.
9. V. G. Kac, M. Wakimoto, Integrable highest weight modules over affine superalgebras and number theory
10. J.-M. Ku, Structure of the Verma module $M\left(-\rho \right)$  over Euclidean Lie algebras, J. of Algebra, 124, (1989), p.367–387.
11. O. Mathieu, On some modular representations of affine Kac-Moody algebras at the critical level, 102, (1996), p. 305–312.
12. I. Penkov, V. Serganova, Generic irreducible representations of finite-dimensional Lie superalgebras, International Journal of Math., 5 (1994), p. 389–419.
13. J. W. van de Leur, A classification of contragredient Lie superalgebras of finite growth, Comm. in Algebra, 17, (1989), p.1815–1841.
14. M. Wakimoto, Fock reprsentations of the affine Lie algebra ${A}_{1}^{\left(1\right)}$  , Comm. Math. Phys., 104, (1986), p. 604–609.
15. N. Wallach, A class of non-standard modules for affine Lie algebras, Math. Z. 196, (1987) No. 3, p. 303–313.

email: maria.gorelik@weizmann.ac.il