Jantzen conjecture for graded affine Hecke algebras

Let H\mathcal H be a graded affine Hecke algebra, let MM be a standard H\mathcal H-module, and let J0M⊇J1M⊇⋯J^0M\supseteq J^1M\supseteq\cdots be its Jantzen filtration arising from a one-parameter deformation of the central character. The conjecture asserts that every layer JiM/Ji+1MJ^iM/J^{i+1}M is semisimple and that, for every irreducible constituent LL of MM, its multiplicities across the Jantzen layers are given by the full local intersection-cohomology multiplicities of the corresponding orbit closure: the graded multiplicity of LL in gr⁡JM\operatorname{gr}_J M equals the graded local intersection-cohomology multiplicity attached to that orbit closure.

References

Primary source

arXiv

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A new paper claims a proof in the equal-parameter case, but the result has not been independently verified and broader cases remain open.

The conjecture identifies the algebraic Jantzen filtration with geometric intersection-cohomological multiplicities for graded affine Hecke algebras. A recent paper claims this in the equal-parameter, real-central-character, dominant-direction setting; the full generality remains unsettled.

Known results

  • Type AA degenerate affine Hecke algebras: Jantzen filtrations and Rogawski’s multiplicity refinement were obtained in this setting (Suzuki, 1998).
  • A geometric standard-module multiplicity formula was established using constructible sheaves and intersection cohomology (Ciubotaru–Kato, 2021).

September 2026 claimed proof

The paper identifies the standard-to-contragredient map with a costalk-to-stalk map and uses Hard Lefschetz to determine elementary divisors, proving the stated restricted case. An August 2026 announcement says GPT 5.6 produced a broader proof, but the author explicitly sought gaps and the claim remains unverified; dominance appears necessary from a type-AA example.

Current status (as of September 2026): The equal-parameter, real-central-character, dominant-direction case is claimed proved, but independent verification is absent and the broader conjecture remains open.

Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.