The Kazhdan-Lusztig story doesn't apply to the four exceptional cases $(E_6)_1$, $(E_7)_1$, $(E_8)_1$, $(E_8)_2$ (see this earlier question of mine).

What's special about those cases?

  • $\begingroup$ Note that the transliteration should be "Kazhdan" in your heading and text. Unfortunately I can't give a convincing answer to your question, but people like Ostrik and Finkelberg might be helpful here too (or perhaps K-L themselves). $\endgroup$ Jan 16, 2015 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Can you clarify your notation here? Does the $1$ subscript denote untwisted affine Lie algebra? $\endgroup$ Jan 16, 2015 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry. I really should have written this more carefully. Here, $(E_6)_1$ means $E_6$ level $1$. and $(E_8)_2$ means $E_8$ level $2$. The second subscript denotes the choice of central extension of the loop Lie algebra. $\endgroup$ Jan 16, 2015 at 20:56

1 Answer 1


If I remember correctly, Kazhdan and Lusztig first pick an appropriate irreducible rigid object/module ${\bf V}^{\kappa}_{\lambda}$ in the tensor category $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_{\kappa}$ of $\tilde{\frak{g}}$-modules (here $\kappa-h^{\vee}$ is the level). Then they use this object to prove rigidity of the whole tensor category.

But ${\bf V}^{\kappa}_{\lambda}$ is by definition an induced representation (Weyl module), where you induce from the finite-dimensional $\frak{g}$-module $L(\lambda)$. As you know, induced modules are reducible in general, so you have to choose $\ell$ negative enough in order to be irreducible (there is a simple condition for that).

For example, for $E_6$ you choose $L(\lambda)$ to be a smallest non-trivial irreducible representation (there are two of dimension $27$). Of course, you don't pick the trivial trivial representation; ${\bf V}_0^{\kappa}$ is the unit object in the category. The irreducibility condition implies $\kappa \leq -14$ [There is something wrong here; see Remark 1]. Finkelberg reverses $\kappa$ to $-\kappa$, so you get the level to be at least $14-12=2$.

Remark 1: What I said above is probably incorrect. In KL (Part I, Proposition 2.12) it was proved that ${\bf V}^\kappa_{\lambda}$ is irreducible if $\langle \lambda+ 2\rho, \lambda \rangle < -2\kappa$, where $\kappa \in \mathbb{Q}_{<0}$. For $E_6$ there are two $27$-dimensional modules $L(\omega_1)$ and $L(\omega_5)$ of dimension $27$. For $\omega_1$ (same for $\omega_5$) I'm getting $\langle \omega_1+2 \rho,\omega_1 \rangle=17.33..$ so $\kappa \leq -9$ already guarantees irreducibility. I guess one also has to consider the rigidity condition (Part IV).

Remark 2: There seems to be a mismatch between the values of $\kappa$ for which $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_{-\kappa}$ is rigid in Finkelberg's paper and in KL. In 3.15 (Corollary 2) of KL, Part IV, they list $\kappa \geq 14,20,{\bf 26}$ for $E_{6,7,8}$ resp. while Finkelberg (in Section 2.6) claims $\kappa \geq 14,20,{\bf 33}$, referring to the same result of KL. It's either a typo or Finkelberg for some reason chooses more conservative lower bound $3+h^{\vee}$ which applies to all types. If $\kappa \geq 26$ for $E_8$ is correct, level 1 and 2 are non-issues.

  • $\begingroup$ Let me try to understand your sentence "The irreducibility condition implies κ=−13". Are you saying that for e.g. $E_6$ level $-13$ (which corresponds to level 1 under the reflection) and $V$ one of the 27-dimensional irrep, that the induced representation will fail to be irreducible? $\endgroup$ Jan 17, 2015 at 21:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.