arxiv: v2 [math.rt] 19 Mar 2008

Transcription

1 Contemporary Mathematics arxiv: v2 [math.rt] 19 Mar 2008 G-stable pieces and partial flag varieties Xuhua He Abstract. We will use the combinatorics of the G-stable pieces to describe the closure relation of the partition of partial flag varieties in [L3, section 4]. Introduction In 1977, Lusztig introduced a finite partition of a (partial) flag variety Y. In the case where Y is the full flag variety, this partition is the partition into Deligne-Lusztig varieties (see [DL]). In this case, it follows easily from the Bruhat decomposition that the closure of a Deligne-Lusztig variety is the union of some other Deligne-Lusztig varieties and the closure relation is given by the Bruhat order on the Weyl group. In this paper, we will use some combinatorial technique in [H4] to study the partition on a partial flag variety. We show that the partition is a stratification and the closure relation is given by the partial order introduced in [H2, 5.4] and [H3, 3.8 & 3.9]. We also study some other properties of the locally closed subvarieties that appear in the partition. 1. Some combinatorics 1.1. Let k be an algebraic closure of the finite field F q and G be a connected reductive algebraic group defined over F q with Frobenius map F : G G. We fix an F-stable Borelsubgroup B of G and an F-stable maximal torus T B. Let I be the set of simple roots determined by B and T. Then F induces an automorphism on the Weyl group W which we deonte by δ. The autmorphism restricts to a bijection on the set I of simple roots. By abusion notations, we also denote the bijection by δ. For any J I, let P J be the standard parabolic subgroup corresponding to J and P J be the set of parabolic subgroups that are G-conjugate to P J. We simply write P as B. Let L J be the Levi subgroup of P J that contains T. For any parabolic subgroup P, let U P be the unipotent radical of P. We simply write U for U B Mathematics Subject Classification. 14M15, 20G40. The author is partially supported by NSF grant DMS c 0000 (copyright holder) 1

2 2 XUHUA HE For J I, we denote by W J the standard parabolic subgroup of W generated by J and by W J (resp. J W) the set of minimal coset representatives in W/W J (resp. W J \W). For J,K I, we simply write W J K W as K W J. For P P J and Q P K, we write pos(p,q) = w if w J W K and there exists g G such that P = gp J g 1, Q = gẇp K ẇ 1 g 1, where ẇ is a representative of w in N(T). For g G and H G, we write g H for ghg 1. We first recall some combinatorial results For J I, let T (J,δ) be the set of sequences (J n,w n ) n 0 such that (a) J 0 = J, (b) J n = J n 1 Ad(w n 1 )δ(j n 1 ) for n 1, (c) w n Jn W δ(jn) for n 0, (d) w n W Jn w n 1 W δ(jn 1) for n 1. Then for any sequence (J n,w n ) n 0 T (J,δ), we have that w n = w n+1 = and J n = J n+1 = for n 0. By [Be], the assignment (J n,w n ) n 0 wm 1 for m 0 defines a bijection T (J,δ) W J. Now we prove some result that will be used in the proof of Lemma 2.5. Lemma 1.1. Let (J n,w n ) n 0 T (J,δ) be the element that corresponds to w. Then (1) w(l J U PJ1 )w 1 U Pδ(J). (2) w(l Ji U PJi+1 )w 1 L δ(ji 1) U Pδ(Ji for i 1. ) Proof. We only prove part (1). Part (2) can be proved in the same way. Assume that part (1) is not true. Then there exists α Φ + J Φ+ J 1 such that wa Φ + δ(j). Let i J J 1 with α i α. Since w W J, we have that wα i Φ + δ(j). By definition, w 1 = w 1 v for some v W δ(j. Then α i w 1 Φ + δ(j) = w 1vΦ + δ(j) = w 1 Φ δ(j). Since w 1 W δ(j), we must have α i = w 1 α j for some j δ(j). Hence i J 1, which is a contradiction. Part (1) is proved Define a W J -action on W by x y = δ(x)yx 1. For w W J, set I(J,δ;w) = max{k J;Ad(w)(K) = δ(k)} and [w] J = W J (ww I(J,δ;w) ). Then W = w W J[w] J. See [H4, Corollary 2.6]. Given w,w W and j J, we write w sj δ w if w = s δ(j) ws j and l(w ) l(w). If w = w 0,w 1,,w n = w is a sequence of elements in W such that for all s j k, we have w k 1 δ w k for some j J, then we write w J,δ w. We call w,w W elementarily strongly (J,δ)-conjugate if l(w) = l(w ) and there exists x W J such that w = δ(x)wx 1 and either l(δ(x)w) = l(x)+l(w) or l(wx 1 ) = l(x)+l(w). We call w,w strongly (J,δ)-conjugate if there is a sequence w = w 0,w 1,,w n = w such that w i 1 is elementarily strongly (J,δ)-conjugate to w i for all i. We will write w J,δ w if w and w are strongly (J,δ)-conjugate. If w J,δ w and w J,δ w, then we say that w and w are in the same (J,δ)-cyclic shift and write w J,δ w. Then it is easy to see that w J,δ w if and only if w J,δ w and w J,δ w. By [H4, Proposition 3.4], we have the following properties: (a) for any w W, there exists w 1 W J and v W I(J,δ;w1) such that w J,δ w 1 v.

3 G-STABLE PIECES AND PARTIAL FLAG VARIETIES 3 (b) if w,w are in the same W J -orbit O of W and w,w are of minimal length in O, then w J,δ w. If moreover, O W J, then w J,δ w By [H4, Corollary 4.5], for any W J -orbit O and v O, the following conditions are equivalent: (1) v is a minimal element in O with respect to the restriction to O of the Bruhat order on W. (2) v is an element of minimal length in O. We denote by O min the set of elements in O satisfy the above conditions. The elements in (W J w) min for some w W J are called distinguished elements (with respect to J and δ). As in [H4, 4.7], we have a natural partial order J,δ on W J defined as follows: Let w,w W J. Then w J,δ w if for some (or equivalently, any) v (W J w ) min, there exists v (W J w) min such that v v. In general, for w W J and w W, we write w J,δ w if there exists v (W J w) min such that v w. 2. G F -stable pieces 2.1. For J I, set Z J = {(P,gU P );P P J,g G} with the G G-action defined by (g 1,g 2 ) (P,gU P ) = ( g2 P,g 1 gu P g 1 2 ). Set h J = (P J,U PJ ). Then the isotropic subgroup R J of h J is {(lu 1,lu 2 );l L J,u 1,u 2 U PJ }. It is easy to see that Z J = (G G)/RJ. Set G F = {(g,f(g));g G} G G. For w W J, set We call Z J,F;w a G F -stable piece of Z J. Lemma 2.1. Let w,w W. (1) If w J,δ w, then Z J,F;w = G F (B,BwB) h J. G F (B,BwB) h J G F (B,Bw B) h J v<w G F (B,BvB) h J. (2) If w J,δ w, then G F (B,BwB) h J = G F (B,Bw B) h J. Proof. It suffices to prove the case where w sj δ w for some j J. Notice that F(Bs i B) = Bs δ(i) B for i I. If ws j < w, then (B,BwB) h J = (B,Bws j B)(B,Bs j B) h J = (Bs j B,Bws j B) h J G F (B,Bs δ(j) Bws j B,B) h J G F (B,Bw B) h J G F (B,Bws j B) h J. If moreover, l(w ) = l(w), then Bs δ(j) Bws j B = Bw B and G F (B,BwB) h J = G F (B,Bw B) h J.

4 4 XUHUA HE If s δ(j) w < w, then (B,BwB) h J = (B,Bs δ(j) B)(B,Bs δ(j) wb) h J G F (Bs j B,Bs δ(j) wb) h J = G F (B,Bs δ(j) wbs j B) h J G F (B,Bw B) h J G F (B,Bs δ(j) wb) h J. If moreover, l(w ) = l(w), then Bs δ(j) wbs j B = Bw B and G F (B,BwB) h J = G F (B,Bw B) h J. If ws δ(j) > w and s j w > w, then l(w ) = l(w). By [L1, Proposition 1.10], w = w. The statements automatically hold in this case. Lemma 2.2. We have that Z J = w W JZ J,F;w. Remark. We will see in subsection 2.3 that Z J is the disjoint union of Z J,F;w for w W J. Proof. Let z Z J. Since G G acts transitively on Z J, z is contained in the G-orbit of an element (1,g) h J for some g G. By the Bruhat decomposition of G, we have that z G F (1,Bw 1 B) h J for some w 1 W. We may assume furthermore that w 1 is of minimal length among all the Weyl group elements w 1 with z G F (1,Bw 1 B) h J. By part (1) of the previous lemma and 1.3 (a), z G F (B,BwvB) h J l(w )<l(w 1)G F (B,Bw B) h J for some w W J and v W I(J,δ;w). By our assumption on w 1, we have that z G F (B,BwvB) h J and l(wv) = l(w 1 ). In particular, z is contained in the G F -orbit of an element (1,g l) h J for some l L K and g U Pδ(K) wu PK, where K = I(J,δ;w). Set F : L K L K by F (l 1 ) = w 1 F(l 1 )w. By Lang s theorem for F, we can find l 1 L K such that F (l 1 )ll 1 1 = 1. Then and z Z J,F;w. (l 1,F(l 1 ))(1,g l) h J = (1,F(l 1 )g ll 1 1 ) h J (1,U Pδ(K) wf (l 1 )ll 1 1 U P K ) h J (1,BwB) h J 2.2. For any parabolic subgroups P and Q of G, we set P Q = (P Q)U P. It is known that P Q is a parabolic subgroup of G. The following properties are easy to check. (1) For any g G, ( g P) (g Q) = g (P Q ). (2) If P B, then P Q = P for any parabolic subgroup Q. Lemma 2.3. Let J,K I and w J W. Set J 1 = J Ad(w 1 )K, where w 1 = min(ww K ). Then for g BwB, we have that P (g P K) J = P J1. Proof. By 2.2 (1), it suffices to prove the case where g = ẇ. Now (P J ) (ẇp K) = (P J ) (ẇ1p K) = (L J ẇ1 L K )(L J ẇ1 U PK )(U PJ ẇ1 P K )U PJ = (L J ẇ1 L K )((L J U) ẇ1 L K )(L J ẇ1 U PK )(U PJ ẇ1 P K )U PJ.

5 G-STABLE PIECES AND PARTIAL FLAG VARIETIES 5 Since w J W and w 1 = min(ww K ), we have that w 1 J W K. Therefore L J ẇ1 L K = L J1 and ((L J U) ẇ1 L K )(L J ẇ1 U PK ) = ((L J U) ẇ1 L K )((L J U) ẇ1 U PK ) = (L J U) ẇ1 P K = L J U. So (P J ) (ẇp K) = L J1 (L J U)U PJ = L J1 U = P J1. Lemma 2.4. To each (P,gU P ) Z J, we associate a sequence (P n,j n,w n ) n 0 as follows P 0 = P, P n = (P n 1 ) F(g P n 1 ) for n 1, J n I with P n P Jn, w n = pos(p n,f( g P n )) for n 0. Let w W J. Let (P,gU P ) Z J,F;w and (P n,j n,w n ) n 0 be the sequence associated to (P,gU P ). Then (J n,w n ) n 0 T (J,δ) and wm 1 = w for m 0. Proof. Using 2.2 (1), it is easy to see by induction on n that the sequence associatedto ( F(h) P,hgU P F(h) 1 ) is ( F(h) P n,j n,w n ) n 0. Then it suffices to prove the case where (P,gU P ) = (P J,kU PJ ) for some k Bδ 1 (w) 1 B. Let (J n,w n) n 0 T (J,δ) be the element that corresponds to w. Then w n = min(w 1 W δ(jn)) for n 0. By the previous lemma, we can show by induction on n that P n = P J n for all n 0. Then J n = J n for n 0. Moreover, w n = pos(p n,f( k P n )) = pos(p Jn, F(k) P δ(jn)) = w n since k Bδ 1 (w) 1 B. (A similar result with a similar proof appears in [H1, Lemma 2.3].) 2.3. We can now define a map β : Z J W J by β(p,gu P ) = w 1 m for m 0, where (P n,j n,w n ) n 0 is the sequence associated to (P,gU P ). Then Z J = w W Jβ 1 (w) is a partition of Z J into locally closed subvarieties. Since Z J,F;w β 1 (w) and Z J = w W JZ J,F;w, we have that Z J,F;w = β 1 (w) and Z J = w W JZ J,F;w. Fix w W J and let (J n,w n ) n 0 be the element in T (J,δ) that corresponds to w. Clearly, the map (P,gU P ) P m for m 0 is a morphism ϑ : Z J,F;w P I(J,δ;w). Lemma 2.5. Let w W J. Set x = δ 1 (w) 1 and K = δ 1 I(J,δ;w). Then Proof. Notice that (U PK ) F (x,1) h J = (U PK x,u Pδ(K) ) h J. (U PK x,u Pδ(K) ) h J = (U PK ) F (x,u Pδ(K) ) h J = (U PK ) F (x,u Pδ(K) L J ) h J = (U PK ) F (x(u Pδ(K) L J ),1) h J. Soit sufficestoshowthat foranyv U Pδ(K) L J, thereexistsu U PK L δ 1 (J) such that x 1 uxf(u) 1 vu PJ.

6 6 XUHUA HE Let (J n,w n ) n 0 T (J,δ) be the element that corresponds to w. By Lemma 1.1, x 1 (L δ 1 (J) U Pδ 1 (J1 ) )x U P J, x 1 (L δ 1 (J i) U Pδ 1 (Ji+1 ) )x L J i 1 U PJi for i 1. We have that δ(k) = J m for some m N. Now v = v m v m 1 v 0 for some v i L Ji U PJi+1. We define u i L δ 1 (J i) U Pδ 1 (Ji+1 as follows: ) Let u m = 1. Assume that k < m and that u i L δ 1 (J i) U are Pδ 1 (Ji+1 ) already defined for k < i m and that (x 1 (u m u m 1 u k+2 ) 1 x)f(u m u m 1 u k+1 ) 1 = v m v m 1 v k+1. Let u k be the element with F(u k ) 1 = (x 1 (u m u m 1 u k+1 )x)v m v m 1 v k F(u m u m 1 u k+1 ) = (x 1 u k+1 x)f(u m u m 1 u k+1 ) 1 v k F(u m u m 1 u k+1 ) L JK U PJk+1. Thus u k+1 L δ 1 (J k ) U Pδ 1 (Jk+1 ) and that (x 1 (u m u m 1 u k+1 )x)f(u m u m 1 u k ) 1 = v m v m 1 v k. This completes the inductive definition. Now set u = u m u m 1 u 0. Then (x 1 ux)f(u) 1 = (x 1 (u m u m 1 u 1 )x)f(u) 1 (F(u)(x 1 u 0 x)f(u) 1 ) vu Pδ(J). The lemma is proved. By the proof of Lemma 2.2, Z J,F;w = G F (U Pδ 1 I(J,δ;w) δ 1 (w) 1 U Pδ(I(J,δ;w)),1) h J. Then we have the following consequence. Corollary 2.6. Let w W J. Then G F acts transitively on Z J,F;w. Remark. Therefore there are only finitely many G F -orbits on Z J and they are indexed by W J. This is quite different from the set of G -orbits on Z J. Proposition 2.7. Let w W. Then G F (B,Bw) h J = w W J,w J,δ wz J,F;w. Remark. Similar results appear in [H3, Proposition 4.6], [H2, Corollary 5.5] and [H4, Proposition 5.8]. The following proof is similar to the proof of[h4, Proposition 5.8]. Proof. We prove by induction on l(w). Using the proper map p : G F BF Z J Z J defined by (g,z) (g,f(g)) z, one can prove that G F (B,Bw) h J = G F (B,Bw) h J = v w G F (B,Bv) h J.

7 G-STABLE PIECES AND PARTIAL FLAG VARIETIES 7 By 1.3 (a), w J,δ w 1 v for some w 1 W J and v W I(J,δ;w). By Lemma 2.1, G F (B,Bw) h J = G F (B,Bw) h J w <wg F (B,Bw ) h J = G F (B,Bw 1 v) h J w <wg F (B,Bw ) h J. By the proof of Lemma 2.2, G F (B,Bw 1 v) h J G F (B,Bw 1 ) h J. Thus by induction hypothesis, G F (B,Bw) h J w W J,w J,δ wz J,F;w. On the other hand, if w W J with w J,δ w, then there exists w J,δ w with w w. Then by Lemma 2.1, Z J,F;w = G F (B,Bw ) h J G F (B,Bw) h J. ThereforeG F (Bw,B) h J = w W J,w J,δ wz J,F;w. By2.3,Z J,F;w1 Z J,F;w2 = if w 1,w 2 W J and w 1 w 2. Thus G F (Bw,B) h J = w W J,w J,δ wz J,F;w. The proposition is proved. 3. A stratification of partial flag varieties 3.1. It is easy to see that there is a canonical bijection between the G F - orbits on Z J and the R J -orbits on (G G)/G F which sends G F (1,w) h J to R J (1,w 1 )G F /G F. Notice that the map (g 1,g 2 ) g 2 F(g 1 ) 1 gives an isomorphism of R J -varieties (G G)/G F = G, where the RJ -action on G is defined by (lu 1,lu 2 ) g = lu 2 gf(lu 1 ) 1. Using the results of G F -orbits on Z J above, we have the following results. (1) For w J W, R J w = R J (BwB). If moreover, w (W J w) min, then R J (Bw B) = R J (BwB). (2) G = w J WR J w. (3) For w W, R J w = w J W,(w ) 1 J,δ w 1R J w. Notice that if J =, part (2) above follows easily from Bruhat decomposition. One may regard (2) as an extension of Bruhat s Lemma. We will also discuss a variation of (2) in section 4. 4] Now we review the partition on P J introduced by Lusztig in [L3, section To each P P J, we associate a sequence (P n,j n,w n ) n 0 as follows P 0 = P, P n = (P n 1 ) F(Pn 1) for n 1, J n I with P n P Jn, w n = pos(p n,f(p n )) for n 0. By [L3, 4.2], (J n,w n ) n 0 T (J). Thus we have a map i : P J J W. For w J W, let P J,w = {P P J ;w m = w for m 0}. Then P J = w J WP J,w. It is easy to see that P J,w = {P P J ;(P,U P ) Z J,F;w 1}. Notice that Lie (G ) +Lie (G F ) = Lie (G) Lie (G). Then for any x Z J, G x and G F x intersects transversally at x. In particular, P J,w is the transversal intersection of G h J and Z J,F;w 1. We simply write P,w as B w. By 3.2 (3), B w = {B 1 B;pos(B 1,F(B 1 )) = w} = { g B;g 1 F(g) BẇB}.

8 8 XUHUA HE Since the Lang isogeny g 1 F(g) is an isomorphism G F \G G, we have that (a) B w = v w B v. Now we can prove our main theorem. Theorem 3.1. Let p : B P J be the morphism which sends a Borel subgroup B to the unique parabolic subgroup in P J that contains B. Then (1) For w J W, p(b w ) = P J,w. If moreover, v (W J w) min, then p(b v ) = p(b w ) = P J,w. (2) For w W, P J,w = p(b w ) = w J W,(w ) 1 J,δ w 1P J,w. Remark. The closure relation of P J,w was conjectured by G. Lusztig in private conversation. Proof. (1) Let w J W and g G with g B B w. Then g 1 F(g) BwB. Thus ( g P J,U PJ ) = (g,g) h J = (g,f(g))(1,f(g) 1 g) h J G F (B,Bw 1 ) h J = Z J,F;w 1 and p(b w ) P J,w. By 3.1, for any g G, there exists l L J such that (gl) 1 F(gl) Bẇ B for some w J W. Hence (a) p(b) = g G p( g B) = w J W g 1 F(g) Bẇ B p( g B) = w J W p(b w ) w J WP J,w = P J. Since p is proper, we have that p(b) = P J. Thus the inequality in (a) is actually an equality and p(b w ) = P J,w for all w J W. If moreover, v (W J w) min, then by 3.1, there exists l L J such that (gl) 1 F(gl) = l 1 g 1 F(g)F(l) BẇB. Thus p( g B) = g P J = gl P J p(b w ) and p(b v ) p(b w ). Similarly, we have that p(b w ) p(b v ). Then p(b v ) = p(b w ). Part (1) is proved. (2) Since p is proper, we have that P J,w = p(b w ). By 3.2 (a), B w = v w B v and p(b w ) = v w p(b v ) = g G,g 1 F(g) B vb p(g B). By 3.1 (3), Part (2) is proved. p(b w ) = w J W,(w ) 1 J,δ w 1 g 1 F(g) Bẇ B p( g B) = w J W,(w ) 1 J,δ w 1p(B w) = w J W,(w ) 1 J,δ w 1P J,w. Let us discuss some other properties of P J,w. Proposition 3.2. Assume that G is quasi-simple and J I. Then P J,w is irreducible if and only if supp δ (w) = I. Proof. By [L3, 4.2 (d)], P J,w is isomorphic to P K,w, where K = I(J,δ;w). By [BR, Theorem 2], P K,w is irreducible if and only if ww K is not contained in W J for any δ-stable proper subset J of I. Let J be the minimal δ-stable subset of I with ww K W J. It is easy to see that if supp δ (w) = I, then J = I. On the other hand, suppose that supp δ (w) I and J = I. Then for any i K supp δ (w), we have that wα i δ(k). Since

9 G-STABLE PIECES AND PARTIAL FLAG VARIETIES 9 wα i α i + j supp(w) Zα j, we must have that wα i = α i and i δ(k). In particular, K supp δ (w) is δ-stable, wα i = α i for all i K supp δ (w) and K supp δ (w) = I supp δ (w). SinceGisquasi-simple,thereexistsi K supp δ (w) such that (α i,α j ) < 0 for some j supp(w). Now assume that w = s j 1 s j2 s jm is a reduced expression and m = max{n;(α i,α j n ) 0}. Then s j1 s j2 s jm α i = s j1 s j2 s jm α i = α i. Thus 0 > (α i,α j m ) = (s j 1 s jm α i,s j1 s jm α j m ) = (α i,s j1 s jm α j m ). However, s j1 s jm α j m is a negative coroot. Thus (α i,s j1 s jm α j m ) 0, which is a contradiction. Therefore if supp δ (w) I, then J I. The proposition is proved By [L3, 4.2 (d)], P J,w is isomorphic to P K,w, where K = I(J,δ;w). Similar to [DL, 1.11], we have that P K,w = {g G;g 1 F(g) P K ẇp K }/P K = {g G;g 1 F(g) ẇp K }/P K ẇp K = {g G;g 1 F(g) ẇu PK }/L Ad(ẇ) F K (U PK ẇu PK ). Let P P K,w such that there exists a F-stable Levi subgroup L of P. Then similar to [DL, 1.17], we have that P K,w = {g G;g 1 F(g) PF(P)}/P = {g G;g 1 F(G) F(P)}/P F(P) = {g G;g 1 F(g) F(U P )}/L F (U P F(U P )). 4. An extension of Bruhat decomposition After the paper was submitted, I learned from A. Vasiu about his conjecture in [Va, 2.2.1]. We state it in the following slightly stronger version. Corollary 4.1. Let P be a parabolic subgroup of G of type J with a Levi subgroup L. Let R = {(lu,lu );l L,u,u U P } and define the action of R on G by (lu,lu ) g = lugf(lu ) 1. Then (1) There are only finitely many R-orbits on G, indexed by J W. (2) If moreover, there exists a maximal torus T P such that F(T ) = T, then each R-orbit contains an element in N G (T ). Proof. We may assume that P = g P J and L = g L J. For any w J W, set w = gwf(g) 1. Then it is to see that R w = g(r J w)f(g) 1. Now part (1) follows from 3.1 (2). If moreover, T = g T P is F-stable, then we have that g 1 F(g) N G (T). Thus w = gwf(g) 1 = g(wf(g) 1 g)g 1 and wf(g) 1 g N G (T). So w N G (T ) and part (2) is proved.

10 10 XUHUA HE Acknowledgements We thank G. Lusztig for suggesting the problem and some helpful discussions. We alsothank Z. Lin forexplainingto me aconjectureby A. Vasiu andsome helpful discussions. After the paper was submitted, I learned from T. A. Springer that he also obtained some similar results about the G F -stable pieces in a different way using the approach in [Sp]. References [Be] R. Bédard, On the Brauer liftings for modular representations, J. Algebra 93 (1985), no. 2, [BR] C. Bonnafé and R. Rouquier, On the irreducibility of Deligne-Lusztig varieties, Comptes Rendus Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 343 (2006), [DL] P. Deligne and G. Lusztig, Representations of reductive groups over finite fields, Ann. of Math. (2) 103 (1976), no. 1, [H1] X. He, Unipotent variety in the group compactification, Adv. in Math. 203 (2006), [H2] X. He, The character sheaves on the group compactification, Adv. in Math., 207 (2006), [H3] X. He, The G-stable pieces of the wonderful compactification, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 359 (2007), [H4] X. He, Minimal length elements in some double cosets of Coxeter groups, Adv. in Math. 215 (2007), [L1] G. Lusztig, Hecke algebras with unequal parameters, CRM Monograph Series 18, American Mathematical Society, [L2] G. Lusztig, Parabolic character sheaves, I, II, Mosc. Math. J. 4 (2004), no. 1, ; no. 4, [L3] G. Lusztig, A class of perverse sheaves on a partial flag manifold, Represent. Theory 11 (2007), [Sp] T. A. Springer, An extension of Bruhat s Lemma, J. Alg. 313 (2007), [Va] A. Vasiu, Mod p classification of Shimura F-crystals, arxiv:math/ Department of Mathematics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY address: hugo@math.sunysb.edu