arxiv: v2 [math.ct] 12 Oct 2016

Transcription

1 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL arxiv: v2 [math.ct] 12 Oct 2016 Liang Kong a,b,c, Hao Zheng d 1 a Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA b Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications Harvard University, Cambridge, MA c Institute for Advanced Study (Science Hall) Tsinghua University, Beijing , China d Department of Mathematics, Peing University, Beijing, , China Abstract. We prove that the notion of Drinfeld center defines a functor from the category of indecomposable multi-tensor categories with morphisms given by bimodules to that of braided tensor categories with morphisms given by monoidal bimodules. Moreover, we apply some ideas in physics to prove that the center functor restricted to indecomposable multi-fusion categories (with additional conditions on the target category) is fully faithful. As byproducts, we provide new proofs to some important nown results in fusion categories. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Preliminaries Rigid monoidal categories Tensor product of module categories Multi-tensor categories The center of a monoidal category Structure of multi-tensor categories Monoidal modules over a braided monoidal category Criterion of rigidity The center functor Functoriality of center An alternative approach to a monoidal functor Fully-faithfulness of the center functor 19 References s: ong.fan.liang@gmail.com, hzheng@math.pu.edu.cn 1

2 2 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 1. Introduction It is well nown in classical algebras that the notion of center is not functorial unless we consider only simple algebras. Recent development in physics [DKR1, DKR2, Ko, KWZ], however, suggests that this rather trivial functoriality of center for simple algebras becomes highly non-trivial for a categorical analogue of the simple algebra, if we also modify the morphisms in the target category properly. In this paper, we prove that the notion of center (or Drinfeld center) defines a symmetric monoidal functor Z from the category MTen ind of indecomposable multi-tensor categories over a field (see Definition 2.3.3) with morphisms given by bimodules to the category BTen of braided tensor categories with morphisms given by monoidal bimodules (see Definition 2.6.1). More precisely, for C, D MTen ind and a C-D-bimodule M, the center functor Z is defined by C Z(C) and M Z(M), where Z(M) := Fun C D (M, M) is the category of C-D-bimodule functors. A multi-tensor category can be regarded as a categorical analogue of a semisimple algebra as illustrated in the following dictionary (see Definition 2.3.3). finite monoidal category multi-tensor category indecomposable multi-tensor category finite-dimensional algebra semisimple algebra simple algebra For our purpose, we need develop the theory of multi-tensor categories in many directions. In particular, we will study the theory of the tensor product over a monoidal category in details in Section and that of the tensor product over a braided multi-tensor category in Section After all these preparations, in Section 3.1, we prove that Z : MTen ind BTen is a well-defined symmetric monoidal functor. For physical applications of this center functor [KWZ], one needs to consider semisimple multi-tensor categories, also called multi-fusion categories [ENO2]. Let MFus ind be the subcategory of MTen ind consisting of indecomposable multi-fusion categories and semisimple bimodules and BFus cl the subcategory of BTen consisting of nondegenerate braided fusion categories and closed multi-fusion bimodules (see Definition and Definition 3.3.5). In Section 3.3, we prove that the center functor Z : MFus ind BFus cl is fully faithful. Our proof of the fully-faithfulness is inspired by the physical intuition of the boundary-bul relation in topological orders [KWZ]. Mathematically, it amounts to the following logical steps: (1) for a closed multi-fusion Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodule E, we show that C Z(C) E Z(D) D rev is a multi-fusion category with a trivial center; (2) a multi-fusion category with a trivial center is equivalent to the category Fun (M, M), where is the category of finite dimensional vector spaces over a field and M is certain semisimple finite module category M over (see Definition 2.3.5); (3) E determines a unique C-Dbimodule structure on M; (4) E M gives the inverse map of Z on morphisms. This completes the proof. The fully-faithfulness of Z immediately implies two important nown results in fusion categories: (1) two fusion categories C and D are Morita equivalent if and only if Z(C) br Z(D) [Mu, ENO3]; (2) there is a group isomorphism between the group of the equivalence classes of invertible C-C-bimodules and the group of the equivalence classes of braided auto-equivalences of Z(C) [ENO4]. As byproducts, our proof of the fully-faithfulness of Z provides new proofs to above two results and also slightly generalize them.

3 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 3 Besides our main results, a few notable new results are the explicit equivalences between different realizations of the tensor product over a monoidal category (Theorem 2.2.3, Corollary 2.2.5, Proposition 2.2.6), the criteria of rigidity (Proposition 2.7.4, Corollary 2.7.5), an alternative and equivalent definition of a monoidal functor (Theorem 3.2.2) and Theorem Acnowledgement: LK was supported by NSFC under Grant No , and by the Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications at Harvard University. HZ is supported by NSFC under Grant No Preliminaries Given left modules M, N over a monoidal category C, we use Fun C (M, N) to denote the category of C-module functors F : M N which preserve finite colimits throughout this paper. We remind readers that a functor between abelian categories preserve finite colimits if and only if it is right exact Rigid monoidal categories. In this subsection, we recall some basic facts about the rigidity of a monoidal category and set our notations. Let C be a monoidal category. We say that an object a C is left dual to an object b C and b is right dual to a, if there are a unit, i.e. a morphism u : 1 b a, and a counit, i.e. a morphism v : a b 1, such that the composed morphisms a a 1 Ida u a b a v Ida 1 a a b 1 b u Id b b a b Id b v b 1 b are identity morphisms. We also denote a = b L and b = a R. We say that C is rigid, if every object has both a left dual and a right dual. In this case, taing the left dual determines an equivalence δ L : C C op, a a L, and taing the right dual determines an equivalence δ R : C C op, a a R, Remar Let C be a rigid monoidal category and M a left C-module [O]. Then the functor a : M M is left adjoint to a R and right adjoint to a L for a C. Therefore, the action : C M M preserves all limits and colimits in the second variable. In particular, the tensor product : C C C preserves all limits and colimits separately in each variable. Given a left module M over a rigid monoidal category C, the opposite category M op admits two natural right C-module structures, which we denote by M op L and M op R, respectively. More precisely, for x M, a C, we have (M op L, L ) : x L a := a L x, (M op R, R ) : x R a := a R x. Let C be a monoidal category. We use Alg(C) to denote the category of algebras in C. Given algebras M, N in C, we use LMod M (C), RMod N (C) and BMod M N (C) to denote the category of left M-modules, right N-modules and M-N-bimodules in C, respectively. Note that LMod N (C) is automatically a right C-module and that RMod N (C) is a left C-module.

4 4 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL Remar Let C be a rigid monoidal category and let M be an algebra in C. Given a right M-module V RMod M (C), the action V M V adjoints to a morphism M V R V R which endows V R with the structure of a left M-module. Therefore, the functor δ R induces an equivalence RMod M (C) LMod M (C) R op of left C-modules. Similarly, given a right M-module V RMod M (C), the action V M V adjoints to a morphism M LL V L V L which endows V L with the structure of a left M LL -module. Therefore, the functor δ L induces an equivalence RMod M (C) LMod M LL(C) L op of left C-modules. Definition Let C be a monoidal category and M a left C-module. Given objects x, y M, we define an object [x, y] C, if exists, by the mapping property Hom C (a, [x, y]) Hom M (a x, y), and refer to it as the internal hom between x and y. We say that M is enriched in C, if [x, y] exists for every pair of objects x, y M. Remar If M is enriched in C and if a, b C admit a left dual, then we have a canonical isomorphism for x, y M a [x, y] b L [b x, a y]. (2.1) Actually, we have Hom C (c, a [x, y] b L ) Hom C (a L c b, [x, y]) Hom M (a L c b x, y) Hom M (c b x, a y) Hom C (c, [b x, a y]) for c C. Remar The identity morphism Id x : x x induces a morphism 1 [x, x]. Moreover, the natural map Hom C (a, [x, y]) Hom C (b, [y, z]) Hom M (a x, y) Hom M (b y, z) Hom M (b a x, z) Hom C (b a, [x, z]), determines a canonical morphism [y, z] [x, y] [x, z] if we set a = [x, y] and b = [y, z]. It follows that [x, x] is an algebra in C and [x, y] is a right module over [x, x] (see for example [O]). Lemma Let C be a rigid monoidal category that admits coequalizers, and M = RMod M (C) for some algebra M Alg(C). Then M is enriched in C and we have [x, y] (x M y R ) L for x, y M. Proof. We have Hom C (a, (x M y R ) L ) Hom C (a x M y R, 1) Hom M (a x, y), where we have implicitly used the fact that the tensor functor preserves colimits (recall Remar 2.1.1). Theorem Let C be a rigid monoidal category that admits coequalizers, and let M be a left C-module that admits coequalizers. Then M RMod M (C) for some algebra M Alg(C) if and only if the following conditions are satisfied. (1) M is enriched in C. (2) There is an object P M such that the functor [P, ] : M C is conservative and preserves coequalizers. In this case, the functor [P, ] induces an equivalence M RMod [P,P ] (C). Proof. Necessity. (1) is given by Lemma The object M satisfies (2) because [M, ] is just the forgetful functor, which is obviously conservative and preserves colimits. Sufficiency. By definition, the functor F = P : C M is left adjoint to the functor G = [P, ] : M C. Applying the Barr-Bec theorem, we see that the functor G exhibits M monadic over C. Since C is rigid, we have G F = [P, P ] [P, P ] by Remar Therefore, we conclude that M RMod [P,P ] (C).

5 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 5 Remar From the proof we see that the sufficiency of Theorem still holds if we drop the rigidity of C but require [P, P ] [P, P ] in Condition (2) Tensor product of module categories. The preserving-finite-colimit condition in the following definition is inspired by Lurie s tensor product of presentable categories [L] (see similar definitions in [T, ENO4, BBJ]). Definition Let C be a monoidal category, M a right C-module and N a left C-module. Suppose that the categories C, M, N admits finite colimits and that the functors : C C C, : M C M and : C N N preserves finite colimits separately in each variable. A balanced C-module functor is a functor F : M N D equipped with an isomorphism F ( Id N ) F (Id M ) : M C N D satisfying the following conditions: F preserves finite colimits separately in each variable. For a, b C, x M, y N, the evident diagrams F (x, y) F (x 1, y) F (x, 1 y) F ((x a) b, y) F (x a, b y) F (x, a (b y)) F (x (a b), y) are commutative. F (x, (a b) y) We use Fun bal C (M, N; D) to denote the category of balanced C-module functors F : M N D. The tensor product of M and N over C is a category M C N, which admits all finite colimits, together with a balanced C-module functor C : M N M C N, such that, for every category D, which admits all finite colimits, composition with C induces an equivalence Fun(M C N, D) Fun bal C (M, N; D). Remar It is worthwhile to remind readers the usual universal property of the tensor product as illustrated in the following commutative diagram: for F Fun bal C (M, N; D). M N C M C N F Theorem Let C be a monoidal category such that C admits finite colimits and the tensor product : C C C preserves finite colimits separately in each variable. Let M = LMod M (C), M = RMod M (C) and N = RMod N (C) for some algebras M, N in C. We have the following assertions: D! F

6 6 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL (1) The balanced C-module functor M N BMod M N (C) defined by (x, y) x y exhibits BMod M N (C) as the tensor product M C N. (2) The balanced C-module functor M N Fun C (M, N) defined by (x, y) M x y exhibits Fun C (M, N) as the tensor product M C N. Proof. Since any functor F Fun C (M, N) preserves coequalizers, we have canonical isomorphisms F ( ) = F ( M M) M F (M), where F (M) BMod M N (C). As a consequence, we have a canonical equivalence BMod M N (C) Fun C (M, N) defined by z M z. Then it is clear that (2) follows from (1). It remains to prove (1). Our assumptions on C and imply that BMod M N (C) admits finite colimits. Let F : M N D be a balanced C-module functor where D admits finite colimits. We construct a functor G : BMod M N (C) D as follows. Given a bimodule V BMod M N (C), note that V V N N is the coequalizer of the evident diagram V N N V N. We set G(V ) to be the coequalizer of the evident diagram F (V, N N) F (V, N). Given a bimodule map V V, we have an induced morphism G(V ) G(V ) such that G is a functor. By the construction of G and our assumptions on and F, we obtain that G preserves finite colimits. Thus we obtain a functor Fun bal C (M, N; D) Fun(BMod M N (C), D). It remains to identify F (x, y) with G(x y) for x M and y N. Actually, by our assumption on F, G(x y) can be identified with the coequalizer of the evident diagram F (x, y N N) F (x, y N), which is nothing but F (x, y). Remar Results similar to Theorem have appeared earlier in various framewors (see for example [ENO4, DSS, L, BBJ, DN]). Corollary Let C be a rigid monoidal category which admits finite colimits. Assume M = RMod M (C), N = RMod N (C) for some algebras M, N in C. (1) The balanced C-module functor M op L N Fun C (M, N) defined by (x, y) [, x] R y exhibits Fun C (M, N) as the tensor product M op L C N. (2) We have a natural isomorphism Hom M op L C N(x C y, x C y ) Hom C (1, [y, y ] [x, x]) for x, x M op and y, y N. (3) The formula x C y y C x determines an equivalence M op R C N (N op L C M) op. Proof. (1) By Remar 2.1.2, x x R defines a canonical equivalence of right C- modules M op L = RMod M (C) op L LMod M (C). Using Theorem and Lemma 2.1.6, we obtain the following canonical equivalences: M op L C N BMod M N (C) Fun C (M, N) x C y x R y M x R y = [, x] R y. (2.2) (2) We have Hom M op C N(x C y, x C y ) Hom BModM N (C)(x R y, x R y ) Hom C (x M x R y N y R, 1) Hom C (1, [y, y ] [x, x]). (3) By Remar 2.1.2, the functor x x L defines the canonical equivalence M op R LMod M LL(C). We obtain the following canonical equivalences: M op R C N BMod M LL N(C) δr BMod N M (C) op (N op L C M) op

7 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 7 defined by x C y x L y (x L y) R = y R x y C x. Proposition Let C be a rigid monoidal category which admits finite colimits. Assume M = RMod M (C), N = RMod N (C) for some algebras M, N in C. If taing right adjoints defines an equivalence between Fun C (N, M) op and Fun C (M, N), then the balanced C-module functor M op R N Fun C (M, N) defined by (x, y) [x, ] y exhibits Fun C (M, N) as the tensor product M op R C N. Proof. By (3) in Corollary 2.2.5, we have M op R C N (N op L C M) op Fun C (N, M) op Fun C (M, N) where the third equivalence is defined by taing right adjoint. equivalences map the object x C y M op R C N as follows: x C y y C x [, y] R x ([, y] R x) R Note that these where ([, y] R x) R is the right adjoint of the functor [, y] R x Fun C (N, M). It remains to prove that ([, y] R x) R [x, ] y. (2.3) Without loss of generality, we may assume M = RMod M (C) and N = RMod N (C) for some algebras M, N Alg(C). For m M, n N, we have the following canonical isomorphisms Hom M ([n, y] R x, m) Hom M (n N y R x, m) Hom C (n N y R x M m R, 1) Hom N (n, (y R x M m R ) L ) Hom N (n, (x M m R ) L y) Hom N (n, [x, m] y). where we have used Lemma in the first and the last step. This shows that [x, ] y is right adjoint to [, y] R x, as desired Multi-tensor categories. Let be a field. We denote by the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces over. We will denote M N simply by M N for -modules M, N when is clear from the context. We recall some notions from [EGNO]. Definition By a finite category over we mean a -module C which is equivalent to RMod A () for some finite-dimensional -algebra A. By a -linear functor between finite categories over we mean a right exact -module functor. Remar An intrinsic description of a finite category is a -linear abelian category such that all morphism spaces are finite dimensional, every object has finite length, and it has finitely many simple objects, each of which has a projective cover. Definition A finite monoidal category over is a monoidal category C such that C is a finite category over and that the tensor product : C C C is a balanced -module functor. A multi-tensor category is a rigid finite monoidal category. A tensor category is a multi-tensor category with a simple tensor unit. We say that a multi-tensor category is indecomposable if it is neither zero nor the direct sum of two nonzero multi-tensor categories.

8 8 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL Remar In [EGNO], a multi-tensor category is called a finite multi-tensor category. We omit finite for simplicity. In [EGNO, Definition 4.1.1], is assumed to be algebraically closed, in this case, the notion of a tensor category defined above coincides with that of a finite tensor category in [EGNO]. Definition Given a finite monoidal category C, we say that a left C-module M is finite if M is a finite category and the action C M M is a balanced -module functor. The notions of a finite right module and a finite bimodule are defined similarly. Lemma Let C be a finite monoidal category and M a finite left C-module. Then M is enriched in C. Proof. The functor Hom M ( x, y) : C, where represents the dual vector space, is right exact for x, y M, hence, a functor in Fun (C, ). By Corollary 2.2.5(1), the assignment a Hom C (, a) defines an equivalence C op Fun (C, ). Therefore, Hom M ( x, y) is representable. Namely, [x, y] exists. Proposition Let C be a multi-tensor category and M a finite left C-module. We have M RMod M (C) for some algebra M in C. Proof. Assume M = RMod A () and C = RMod B (). According to Lemma 2.3.6, M is enriched in C. In particular, the functor [A, ] : M C is well defined. The functor Hom C (1, [A, ]) Hom M (A, ) Hom (, ) is conservative, thus [A, ] is also conservative. Let F : C be the forgetful functor. The functor F ([A, ]) Hom C (B, [A, ]) Hom M (A, B R ) Hom (, B R ) is exact, hence [A, ] is exact. Applying Theorem 2.1.7, we establish the proposition. Lemma Let C be a finite monoidal category and M, N algebras in C. Then BMod M N (C) is a finite category. In particular, LMod M (C) and RMod N (C) are finite categories. Proof. Assume C = RMod A (). The functor Hom BModM N (C)(M A N, ) Hom C (A, ) Hom (, ) is exact and conservative. Then apply Theorem Corollary Let C be a multi-tensor category, M and N finite right and left C-modules, respectively. Then M C N is a finite category. Proof. Combine Theorem 2.2.3, Proposition and Lemma Remar Proposition and an equivalent statement of Corollary were proved in [EO] for M, N being exact modules. Remar The universal property of the tensor product C can be enhanced to the -linear setting as illustrated in the following commutative diagram: M N C M C N for F Fun bal C (M, N; D). F D! F

9 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 9 Proposition Let C, C be finite monoidal categories and M = RMod M (C), N = RMod N (C), M = RMod M (C ), N = RMod N (C ) for some algebras M, N Alg(C), M, N Alg(C ). (1) The formula (V, V ) V V determines an equivalence M M RMod M M (C C ). (2) The formula (φ, ψ) φ ψ determines an equivalence Fun C (M, N) Fun C (M, N ) Fun C C (M M, N N ). Proof. (1) In view of Corollary 2.3.9, the categories M M, C M are welldefined. Let G : RMod M M (C C ) C C, G : M M C M and G : C M C C be the forgetful functors, and let F, F, F be their left adjoints, respectively. Clearly, G, G, G are exact and conservative. Applying the Barr-Bec theorem, we see that the functors G and G G exhibit RMod M M (C C ) and M M monadic over C C, respectively. Then we obtain the desired equivalence from the isomorphism of monads G F (G G ) (F F ). (2) By using the same argument, we deduce an equivalence BMod M N (C) BMod M N (C ) BMod M M N N (C C ) The center of a monoidal category. Recall that the center (or Drinfeld center or monoidal center) of a monoidal category C, denoted by Z(C), is the category of pairs (Z, z), where Z C and z is a half braiding for Z (see for example [Ma, JS]). The category Z(C) has a natural structure of a braided monoidal category. Moreover, Z(C) can be naturally identified with the category of C-C-bimodule functors of C. Remar Let C be a monoidal category. We use C rev to denote the monoidal category which has the same underlying category C but equipped with the reversed tensor product a rev b := b a. If C is a braided monoidal category with a braiding β a,b : a b b a for a, b C, then we equip C rev with the braiding βa,b rev := (β a,b) 1. Note that a half-braiding in a monoidal category C is identical to the inverse of a half-braiding in C rev. Consequently, we may simply identify Z(C rev ) = Z(C) rev. Remar If C is a rigid monoidal category, then Z(C) is also rigid. Actually, Fun C (C, C) C rev is rigid, hence closed under taing left and right adjoint. It follows that Z(C) Fun C C (C, C) is closed under taing left and right adjoint, hence rigid. Definition Let C and D be two monoidal categories and M a C-D-bimodule. We say that M is invertible if there is a D-C-bimodule N and equivalences M D N C as C-C-bimodules and N C M D as D-D-bimodules. If such an invertible C- D-bimodule exists, C and D are said to be Morita equivalent. The following proposition was proved in [S, Mu, ENO4]. Proposition Let C, D be monoidal categories and M an invertible C-Dbimodule. Then the evident monoidal functors Z(C) Fun C D (M, M) Z(D) are equivalences. Moreover, the induced equivalence Z(C) Z(D) preserves braiding.

10 10 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL Lemma Let C be a multi-tensor category. Regard C as a left C C rev -module. We have a canonical isomorphism in C C rev for a, b, c, d C. [a b, c d] (c d) [1, 1] (a L b R ) Proof. This is immediate form Remar 2.1.4, because a b and c d admit a left dual in C C rev. Lemma Let C be a multi-tensor category. Then C RMod [1,1] (C C rev ). Proof. Note that the functor [1, ] : C C C rev is exact and conservative. Moreover, [1, 1] [1, 1] by Lemma Then apply Theorem and Remar Proposition Let C and D be multi-fusion categories. We have (1) Z(C D) Z(C) Z(D). (2) The evident embeddings Z(C), Z(D) Z(C D) induces an equivalence of braided monoidal categories Z(C) Z(D) Z(C D). Proof. (1) is obvious. (2) follows from Proposition and Lemma (recall that Z(C) Fun C C rev(c, C)). Remar In view of Lemma 2.4.5, there is a canonical isomorphism ψ c : (1 c) [1, 1] [1, c] (c 1) [1, 1] for c C. Note that ψ c induces an isomorphism ([1, 1] a) c c ([1, 1] a) for a C, thus equips [1, 1] a with a half-braiding, so as to promote [1, 1] a to an object of Z(C). Proposition Let C be a multi-tensor category. The forgetful functor Z(C) C is right adjoint to a [1, 1] a. Proof. Let u : 1 1 [1, 1] be the unit of the algebra, and let v : [1, 1] 1 1 be the canonical morphism. The unit map a (1 1) a u Ida [1, 1] a, a C and the counit map [1, 1] b β,b Id b ([1, 1] 1) Id b v b, b Z(C) exhibit the forgetful functor Z(C) C right adjoint to a [1, 1] a. Proposition Let C be a multi-tensor category. There is a canonical isomorphism ([a, b] Z(C) c) L [a L, c L ] C C rev b L for a, b, c C. Proof. We have Hom Z(C) ([a, b] L Z(C), x) Hom Z(C)(x R, [a, b] Z(C) ) Hom C (a x R, b) Hom C (b L a, x) for x Z(C). So, [a, b] L Z(C) [1, 1] C C rev (bl a) by Proposition It follows that ([a, b] Z(C) c) L ([1, 1] C C rev (b L a)) c L ((1 c L ) [1, 1] C C rev (1 a)) b L [a L, c L ] C C rev b L, where we used Lemma in the last step Structure of multi-tensor categories. Theorem Let C be a multi-tensor category. We have the following assertions: (1) The unit object 1 of C is semisimple. Assume 1 = i Λ e i with e i simple. Then e i e i e i e R i and e i e j 0 for i j. (2) Let C ij = e i C e j. Then C i,j Λ C ij and C ij C jl C il. If, in addition, C is indecomposable, then we have

11 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 11 (3) C ij 0 for all i, j Λ. (4) The tensor product of C gives a C ii -C ll -bimodule equivalence C ij Cjj C jl C il. (5) C ij is an invertible C ii -C jj -bimodule. (6) For each i Λ, j Λ C ij is an invertible C ii -C-bimodule. (7) For each i Λ, we have a canonical braided monoidal equivalence Z(C) Z(C ii ). Proof. (1) Let e be a simple subobject of 1. Then e R is a simple quotient of 1. Since the counit map e e R 1 is nonzero, e e R is nonzero. So, the induced injective map e e R 1 e R e R must be an isomorphism. Similarly, e R e e R. By considering the unit map 1 e R e, we obtain e e R e e e R. Consequently, e e e e R. Moreover, the composed map e 1 e R is nonzero, because tensoring with e obtain an isomorphism. This shows that e is a direct summand of 1, thus 1 is semisimple. Note that tensoring with e annihilates all simple summands of 1 other than e. We obtain e i e j 0 for i j. (2) is a consequence of (1). (3) We introduce a binary relation on Λ defined by i j if C ij 0. We first show that is an equivalence relation. Clearly, is reflexive. Moreover, is symmetric, because δ R induces an equivalence C ij C ji. Suppose i j and j l. Choose nonzero a C ij and b C jl. Then Hom C (a b, a b) Hom C (a L a, b b L ), which contains the nonzero composed morphism a L a e j b b L. Thus a b 0, i.e. i l. This shows that is transitive. Since C is indecomposable, Λ can only have a single equivalence class. Therefore, C ij 0 for all i, j Λ. (4) Assume C ji = RMod A () and C jl = RMod B (). We define M = [A, A] Cjj A A L and N = [B, B] Cjj B B L. Then C ij LMod M (C jj ), C jl RMod N (C jj ), and C ij Cjj C jl BMod M N (C jj ). The forgetful functor G : BMod M N (C jj ) C jj is right adjoint to F : x M x N. The functor G : C il C jj, y A y B L is right adjoint to F : x A L x B. Clearly, both G, G are exact and conservative. Invoing the Barr-Bec theorem, we see that the functors G and G exhibit BMod M N (C jj ) and C il monadic over C jj, respectively. From the evident isomorphism of monads G F G F, we conclude that BMod M N (C jj ) C il. Moreover, the composed equivalence C ij Cjj C jl BMod M N (C jj ) C il carries x Cjj y to x y, which is clearly a C ii -C ll -bimodule functor. (5) follows from (4). (6) Using a similar argument as the proof of (4), we deduce the equivalences ( j Λ C ij) C ( Λ C i) C ii and ( Λ C i) Cii ( j Λ C ij) C. (7) follows from (6) and Proposition Remar The parts (1)(2) of Theorem was proved in [EGNO] under a weaer condition. Corollary Let C be a multi-tensor category over an algebraically closed field. We have Z(C) if and only if C Fun ( n, n ) for some integer n 1. Proof. We only need to prove the necessity. Note that C is indecomposable by Proposition 2.4.7(1). Suppose Hom C (1, 1) n. If C is a tensor category, then the forgetful functor F : Z(C) C is surjective in the sense that every object a C is a subquotient of some F (b) by Proposition 3.39 in [EO]. This proves the n = 1 case.

12 12 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL For general n, by Theorem and the n = 1 case, we obtain C ij for all 1 i, j n. Then observe that the monoidal functor C Fun ( n i=1 C i1, n i=1 C i1) given by the tensor product is an equivalence Monoidal modules over a braided monoidal category. The following notions generalize that of a tensor category over a symmetric tensor category introduced in [DGNO, Definition 4.16]. Definition Let C and D be finite braided monoidal categories. (1) A monoidal left C-module is a finite monoidal category M equipped with a -linear braided monoidal functor φ M : C rev Z(M). (2) A monoidal right D-module is a finite monoidal category M equipped with a -linear braided monoidal functor φ M : D Z(M). (3) A monoidal C-D-bimodule is a finite monoidal category M equipped with a -linear braided monoidal functor φ M : C rev D Z(M). A monoidal C-D-bimodule is said to be closed if φ M is an equivalence. Remar A monoidal right D-module M is automatically equipped with a unital monoidal action M D M induced by M Z(M) M. Therefore, M is an ordinary right D-module, when we forget the braiding on D and the monoidal structure on M. It is also useful to encode the data φ M : D Z(M) by the induced central functor f M : D M. That is, f M is equipped with a half-braiding f M (a) y ca,y y f M (a) for a D, y M such that c a b,y = (c a,y Id b ) (Id a c b,y ) and the following diagram f M (a) f M (b) f M (a b) is commutative. c a,fm (b) f M (β a,b ) f M (b) f M (a) f M (b a) The following definition generalizes Definition 2.7 in [DNO]. Definition Let D be a finite braided monoidal category and M, N monoidal right D-modules. A monoidal D-module functor F : M N is a -linear monoidal functor equipped with an isomorphism of monoidal functors F f M f N : D N such that the evident diagram F (f M (a) x) f N (a) F (x) F (x f M (a)) F (x) f N (a) (2.4) is commutative for a D and x M. Two right monoidal D-modules are said to be equivalent if there is an invertible monoidal D-module functor F : M N. Remar If M is a monoidal C-D-bimodule, then M rev is automatically a monoidal D-C-bimodule. Example If C, D are finite monoidal categories and M is a finite C-Dbimodule, then the category Fun C D (M, M) is a monoidal Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodule (not a monoidal Z(D)-Z(C)-bimodule).

13 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 13 Remar In the language of E n -algebras (see for example [L]), a monoidal category is an E 1 -algebra in the symmetric monoidal -category of categories, while a braided monoidal category is an E 2 -algebra, and a symmetric monoidal category is an E 3 -algebra. The monoidal module defined here is an E 1 -algebra over an E 2 -algebra. Moreover, the Drinfeld center of a monoidal category is the center of an E 1 -algebra, and the Müger center of a braided monoidal category is the center of an E 2 -algebra Criterion of rigidity. Let C be a braided multi-tensor category, M and N monoidal right and left C-modules, respectively. It is standard to show that M C N has a canoncial structure of a monoidal category such that the canonical functor M N M C N is monoidal (see [G]). Definition ([BD]). An r-category is a monoidal category C with a tensor unit 1 such that C is enriched in itself and that the functor [, 1] : C C op is an equivalence. In this case, we will denote the functor [, 1] by D. Remar Let C be an r-category. Given an object a C, we have canonical morphisms u : 1 [a, a] and v a : Da a = [a, 1] a 1. A morphism a b 1 induces a morphism a [b, 1] = Db. We start from the following criterion of rigidity: Proposition ([BD]). Let C be an r-category. Then C is rigid if and only if the composed morphism (Db Da) (a b) Id Db v a Id b v Db 1 b Db b b 1 induces an isomorphism φ a,b : Db Da D(a b) for a, b C. Proposition Let C be a braided multi-tensor category, M and N monoidal right and left C-modules, respectively. Suppose that M, N are rigid. Then the finite monoidal category M C N is an r-category. Moreover, the following conditions are equivalent: (1) The monoidal category M C N is rigid. (2) The tensor product of M C N is left exact separately in each variable. (3) The following equality holds for a, b M C N length(a b) = length(s(a) s(b)) (2.5) where s(a) is the direct sum of the simple grading pieces of the decomposition series of a. (4) Equation (2.5) holds for a = a C a, b = b C b where a, b M, a, b N are simple. Proof. The formula x C y y L C x L x L C y L induces equivalences M C N N op C M op (M C N) op by Corollary 2.2.5(3). Moreover, we have D(x C y) = [x C y, 1 C 1] M C N x L C y L by Corollary 2.2.5(2). So, M C N is an r-category. (1) (2) (3) (4) are clear. (2) (1). Since M, N are rigid, the induced morphism φ a,b : Db Da D(a b) is an isomorphism if a, b lie in the essential image of the canonical functor M N M C N. Since the tensor product of M C N is exact separately in each variable, both Db Da and D(a b) are exact in each variable a, b. So, φ a,b is an isomorphism for general a, b. By Proposition 2.7.3, M C N is rigid. (4) (3). Since the tensor product of M C N is right exact separately in each variable, the direction of (2.5) is always true. Moreover, when (2.5) holds, it still

14 14 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL holds if we replace a, b by their subquotients. Since the tensor products of M and N are both exact separately in each variable, Condition (4) implies that (2.5) holds whenever a, b lie in the essential image of the canonical functor M N M C N. So, (2.5) holds for general a, b. Corollary Let C be a braided multi-tensor category, M and N monoidal right and left C-modules, respectively. Suppose that M, N are rigid. Then the finite monoidal category M C N is rigid if x C y is semisimple for simple objects x M and y N. Example If C, D are multi-tensor categories over an algebraically closed field, then C D is also a multi-tensor category category. Actually, since is algebraically closed, x y is simple for simple objects x C, y D. So, C D is rigid by Corollary Remar Even when C, D are multi-tensor categories, the finite monoidal category C D may be not rigid. For example, let be a nonseparable extension of. The finite monoidal category is not rigid due to Theorem and the fact that the unit object of is not semisimple. 3. The center functor In this section, we assume that is an algebraically closed field Functoriality of center. Given a multi-tensor category C with a tensor unit 1, we use I C to denote the right dual of [1, 1] C rev C C rev C. Given a left module M over a rigid monoidal category C, we use LL C M to denote the left C-module which has the same underlying category as M but equipped with the action a LL x = a LL x. Given a right module N over a rigid monoidal category C, we use NC RR to denote C LL revn. Lemma Let C be a multi-tensor category and M, M finite left C-modules. There is an equivalence C op L C rev C Fun (M, M ) Fun C (M, M ), (3.1) which carries 1 C C rev C f to I C f, and an equivalence which carries 1 C C rev C f to I C f. C C rev C Fun ( LL C M, M ) Fun C (M, M ), (3.2) Proof. By Corollary 2.2.5(1) and the definition of I C, we see that the composed equivalence C op L C rev C Fun (M, M ) Fun C rev C(C, Fun (M, M )) Fun C (M, M ) carries 1 C C rev C f [, 1 C ] R f I C f. Thus we obtain the first equivalence (3.1). Then using the equivalence C C op, a a L, we obtain (3.2) from (3.1). Note that (3.2) carries 1 C C rev C to I C f. Remar If N, N are finite right C-modules, we have C rev C C rev Fun ( LL C revn, N ) Fun C rev(n, N ), (3.3) which maps 1 C rev C C rev g I C rev g, or equivalently, Fun (N RR C, N ) C rev C C Fun C rev(n, N ) (3.4) which maps g C rev C 1 C I C rev g.

15 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 15 Lemma Let C, D be multi-tensor categories, M a finite left C-module, N a finite C-D-bimodule and P a finite left D-module. There is an equivalence Fun C (M, N) D P Fun C (M, N D P), f D y f( ) D y. Proof. Using Corollary 2.2.5(1) twice, we obtain a composed equivalence Fun C (M, N) D P M op L C N D P Fun C (M, N D P) (3.5) ([, x] R x ) D y x C x D y [, x] R (x D y). By the universal property of C and D, (3.5) carries f D y to f( ) D y. Lemma Let A, B, C, D be multi-tensor categories and A M C, A M D, CN B, DN B finite bimodules. There is an equivalence Fun A (M, M ) C rev D Fun B rev( LL C N, N ) Fun A B (M C N, M D N ) (3.6) defined by f C rev C g I C (f( ) D g( )). Proof. We first prove the Lemma for the special case A = = B. We have the following composed equivalence: Fun (M, M ) C rev D Fun ( LL C N, N ) which carries objects as follows: C C C rev (Fun (M, M ) D Fun ( LL C N, N )) C C rev C Fun ( LL C N, Fun (M, M ) D N ) Fun C (N, Fun (M, M ) D N ) Fun C (N, Fun (M, M D N )) Fun (M C N, M D N ), f C rev D g 1 C C C rev (f D g) 1 C C rev C (f D g( )) I C (f D g( )) I C (f( ) D g( )) I C (f( ) D g( )). Here, we used Lemma in the second and fourth steps, and used Lemma in the third step. By using the canonical equivalences Fun A (M, M ) A A rev A Fun ( LL A M, M ) and Fun B rev(n, N ) Fun (NB RR, N ) B rev BB given by Lemma and Remar 3.1.2, we can reduce the general case to the above special case, thus complete the proof. Remar The natural equivalence in (3.6) induces a natural equivalence: Fun A (M RR C, M ) C rev D Fun B rev(n, N ) Fun A B (M C N, M D N ) (3.7) defined by f C rev D g I C rev (f( ) D g( )). Actually, it can be obtained from (3.6) by replacing A, B, C, D by their ( ) rev, respectively, exchanging the letter A with B and exchanging the letter M with N. Lemma Let C be an indecomposable multi-tensor category. The formula a Z(C) b a b defines an equivalence C Z(C) C Fun (C, C) as C rev C- C rev C-bimodules.

16 16 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL Proof. Since C is indecomposable, by Theorem 3.27 in [EO], there is a canonical monoidal equivalence C rev C Fun Z(C) (C, C). The composed equivalence C Z(C) C δr Id C op R Z(C) C Fun Z(C) (C, C) C rev C carries a Z(C) b a R Z(C) b [a R, ] Z(C) b [a, b L ] R, where we have used Proposition in the second step and Proposition in the last step. The composed equivalence C rev C δr Id C op C Fun (C, C), where the last equivalence is given by c d Hom C (, c) R d, carries [a, b L ] R further to a functor f. Then we have Hom C (f(x), y) Hom C rev C([a, b L ] R, x L y) Hom C (a x b, y), i.e. f a b. Note that a Z(C) b a b is a C rev C-C rev C-bimodule functor. Theorem Let C, D, E be multi-tensor categories, M, M monoidal C-Dbimodules and N, N monoidal D-E-bimodules. Assume D is indecomposable. The assignment f Z(D) g f D g determines an equivalence of Z(C)-Z(E)-bimodules Fun C D (M, M ) Z(D) Fun D E (N, N ) Fun C E (M D N, M D N ). (3.8) Moreover, when M = M and N = N, (3.8) is an equivalence of monoidal Z(C)- Z(E)-bimodules. Proof. We have the following composed equivalence: Fun C D (M, M ) Z(D) Fun D E (N, N ) Fun C (M RR D, M ) D rev D D Z(D) D D rev D Fun E rev( LL DN, N ) Fun C (M RR D, M ) D rev D Fun (D, D) D rev D Fun E rev( LL DN, N ) Fun C (M D D, M D D) D rev D Fun E rev( LL DN, N ) Fun C (M, M ) D rev D Fun E rev( LL DN, N ) Fun C E (M D N, M D N ), where we have used (3.4) and (3.2) in the first step; Lemma in the second step; (3.7) in the third step; (3.6) in the last step. For f Fun C (M, M ), g Fun E rev(n, N ), this composed equivalence carries (I D rev f ) Z(D) (I D g ) (f D rev D 1 D ) Z(D) (1 D D rev D g ) f D rev D Id D D rev D g I D rev (f ( ) D Id D ( )) D rev D g (I D rev f ) D rev D g I D ((I D rev f )( ) D g ( )) = (I D rev f ) D (I D g ). Therefore, it must carry f Z(D) g to f D g. It is clear that it is also a Z(C)-Z(E)- bimodule equivalence.

17 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 17 When M = M and N = N, the formula f Z(D) g f D g clearly defines a monoidal equivalence. Moreover, it is routine to chec that the diagram (2.4) is commutative in this case. Therefore, the isomorphism defined in (3.8) is a monoidal Z(C)-Z(E)-bimodule equivalence. We introduce two categories MTen ind and BTen as follows: (1) The category MTen ind of indecomposable multi-tensor categories over with morphisms given by the equivalence classes of finite bimodules. (2) The category BTen of braided tensor categories over with morphisms given by the equivalence classes of monoidal bimodules. In view of Example 2.7.6, both categories are symmetric monoidal categories under. Theorem The assignment C Z(C), C M D Fun C D (M, M) defines a symmetric monoidal functor Z : MTen ind BTen. Proof. By Remar and Theorem 3.1.7, the functor Z is well-defined. By Proposition (2) and Proposition 2.4.7, Z is a symmetric monoidal functor. Remar The domain of Z can not be generalized to decomposable multitensor categories. For example, let C =, regarded as a -C-bimodule and a C--bimodule. Note that Fun C (C, C) Z(C) Fun C (C, C) C and Fun (C C C, C C C) C C do not match An alternative approach to a monoidal functor. In this subsection, we provide an equivalent definition of a -linear monoidal functor. It is inspired by the notion of a morphism between two local topological orders introduced in [KWZ]. Let f : C D be a -linear monoidal functor between two finite monoidal categories C and D. It endows the category D with a canonical C-C-bimodule structure, denoted by f D f. The category Fun C C (C, D) has a natural structure of a monoidal category [GNN] which can be described as follows. An object is a pair: (d, β,d = {f(c) d β c,d d f(c)} c C ) where d D and β c,d is an isomorphism in D natural with respect to the variable c C and satisfying β c,d β c,d = β c c,d. A morphism (d, β) (d, β ) is defined by a morphism ψ : d d respecting β c,d and β c,d for all c C. The monoidal structure is given by the formula (d, β) (d, β ) = (d d, β β). It is not hard to see an object in Fun C D ( f D, f D) is also such a pair. Therefore, we simply identify these two monoidal categories: Fun C C (C, f D f ) = Fun C D ( f D, f D). Lemma Let f : C D be a -linear monoidal functor from an indecomposable multi-tensor category C to a finite monoidal category D. Then the evaluation functor C Fun C C (C, D) D, (c, j) j(c) induces an equivalence of monoidal right Z(D)-modules C Z(C) Fun C C (C, f D f ) D. (3.9) Proof. This follows from Theorem and the obvious monoidal equivalences Fun C (C, C) C and Fun C (C, D f ) D.

18 18 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL Let C and D be finite monoidal categories. We define two groupoids. One is the groupoid Fun (C, D) of -linear monoidal functors from C to D and isomorphisms between them. The other one Fun ph (C, D) is defined as follows: An object f Fun ph (C, D) is a pair f = (f (0), f (1) ) where f (0) is a monoidal Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodule, and f (1) : C Z(C) f (0) D is an equivalence of monoidal right Z(D)-modules (recall Definition 2.6.3). An isomorphism φ : f g in Fun ph (C, D) is an equivalence class of pairs φ = (φ (0), φ (1) ) where φ (0) : f (0) g (0) is an equivalence of monoidal Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodules and φ (1) : g (1) (Id C Z(C) φ (0) ) f (1) is an isomorphism, i.e. the following diagram: Id C Z(C) φ (0) C Z(C) f (0) C Z(C) g (0) g (1) f (1) D (3.10) is commutative up to φ (1). Two pairs (φ (0) i, φ (1) i ) for i = 1, 2 are equivalent if there is an isomorphism ψ : φ (0) 1 φ (0) 2 such that φ (1) 1 = φ (1) 2 ψ. Theorem Let C be an indecomposable multi-tensor category and D a finite monoidal category. There is an equivalence between two groupoids Fun (C, D) and Fun ph (C, D) defined by, for a monoidal functor f : C D, f f ( = f (0) (1) ) f = Fun C C (C, f D f ), C Z(C) Fun C C (C, f D f ) D, where f D f is the C-C-bimodule structure on D induced from the -linear monoidal functor f : C D and f (1) is given by the monoidal equivalence (3.9). Proof. Let φ : f g be an isomorphism between -linear monoidal functors from C to D. Then f D f g D g as C-C-bimodules canonically (simply by the identity functor). It further induces a monoidal equivalence φ (0) : f (0) g (0) and a natural isomorphism φ (1) c j : j(c) f(c) j(1 C) φc Id g(c) j(1 C ) φ (0) (j)(c) for c C, j Fun C C (C, f D f ) such that the diagram (3.10) commutes up to φ (1). Therefore, we obtain a functor Fun (C, D) Fun ph (C, D) that carries f to f and φ to φ = ( φ (0), φ (1) ). Conversely, let g Fun ph (C, D), i.e. g = (g (0) (0) g(1), C Z(C) g D), where g (0) is a monoidal Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodule and g (1) an equivalence of monoidal right Z(D)-modules. Let 1 g (0) be the tensor unit of g (0). The functor x x Z(C) 1 g (0) defines a -linear monoidal functor C C Z(C) g (0). Then we obtain a composed -linear monoidal functor g : C C Z(C) g (0) g(1) D.

19 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL 19 Suppose we are given an isomorphism φ : f g in Fun ph (C, D). Then we see from diagram (3.10) that φ (1) induces an isomorphism of -linear monoidal functors φ : f g, and it is clear that φ is independent of the representative of φ. Therefore, we obtain a functor Fun ph (C, D) Fun (C, D) that carries g to g and carries φ to φ. Given a -linear monoidal functor f : C D, the -linear monoidal functor ( f) : C D is given by c c Z(C) 1 f (0) f(c) f(1 C ) f(c) for c C. Therefore, we obtain a natural isomorphism ( f) f. Suppose g Fun ph (C, D). We need to show g (g) to complete the proof. We have the following equivalences of monoidal Z(C)-Z(D)-bimodules: g (0) Z(C) Z(C) g (0) Fun C C (C, C) Z(C) g (0) Fun C C (C, C Z(C) g (0) ) Fun C C (C, g D g ) = (g) (0), (3.11) where we have used Lemma in the third step. Let φ (0) be the composed isomorphism defined by (3.11). We claim that the following diagram: C Z(C) g (0) Id C Z(C) φ (0) C Z(C) Fun C C (C, g D g ) (3.12) g (1) D. (g) (1) is commutative. Indeed, consider the following commutative diagram: C Z(C) g (0) Id C Z(C) φ (0) C Z(C) Fun C C (C, g D g ) Id C Z(C) Fun C C (C,g (1) ) C Z(C) Fun C C (C, C) Z(C) g (0) C Z(C) Fun C C (C, C Z(C) g (0) ) (g) (1) γ D g (1) C Z(C) g (0) where both (g) (1) and γ are defined by the equivalence (3.9); the commutativity of the left sub-diagram is just the definition of φ (0) ; that of the right sub-diagram is obvious. Notice that the composition of the equivalences in the left column and those in the bottom row is nothing but the identity functor. Therefore, diagram (3.12) is commutative. It is routine to chec that the isomorphism g (g) given by the pair (φ (0), Id) is a natural isomorphism. Remar It is useful to now how much of a -linear monoidal functor f is determined by f (0). One can introduce an equivalence relation between monoidal functors in Fun (C, D): f g if there is a -linear monoidal auto-equivalence h : D D such that f h g. We denote the equivalence class of f by [f] and the equivalence class of f (0) by [f (0) ]. Then the map [f] [f (0) ] is a bijection Fully-faithfulness of the center functor. In this subsection, we assume is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Definition We say that a finite category C over is semisimple if C RMod A () for some finite-dimensional semisimple -algebra A. A multi-fusion

20 20 THE CENTER FUNCTOR IS FULLY FAITHFUL category is a semisimple multi-tensor category. A fusion category is a multi-fusion category with a simple tensor unit. We need the following fundamental result about multi-fusion categories. Theorem [ENO2] Let C be a multi-fusion category and M, N semisimple left C-modules. Then the category Fun C (M, N) is semisimple. In particular, Fun C (M, M) is a multi-fusion category. Definition We say that a braided fusion category C is nondegenerate, if the evident braided monoidal functor C rev C Z(C) is an equivalence; that is, the monoidal C-C-bimodule C is closed. Remar We refer readers to [DGNO] for equivalent conditions of the nondegeneracy of a braided fusion category. Definition Let C, D be braided multi-fusion categories and M a monoidal C-D-bimodule. We say that M is a multi-fusion C-D-bimodule if M is also a multifusion category. Theorem Let C, D, E be nondegenerate braided fusion categories and C M D, DN E closed multi-fusion bimodules. Then M D N is a closed multi-fusion C-Ebimodule. Proof. Note that M D N M C rev D (C rev N), and C rev N is a closed multifusion C rev D-C rev E-bimodule. Therefore, it is enough to prove the special case C = and D = Z(M). Let P = M Z(M) N. By Corollary and Theorem 3.3.2, P is rigid, and therefore P is a multi-fusion category. Since D = Z(M) is a braided fusion category, the multi-fusion category M is indecomposable. Invoing Theorem 3.2.2, we derive an equivalence of monoidal Z(M)-Z(P)-bimodules N Fun M M (M, P) = Fun M P (P, P). Then, by Corollary 3.35 in [EO] (see also [S]), the canonical braided monoidal functor Z(M rev P) Z(N) is an equivalence. Then, from the assumption Z(N) Z(M) rev E, we conclude that the canonical functor E Z(P) is an equivalence. We introduce two categories MFus ind and BFus cl as follows: (1) The category MFus ind of indecomposable multi-fusion categories over with the equivalence classes of nonzero semisimple bimodules as morphisms. (2) The category BFus cl of nondegenerate braided fusion categories over with the equivalence classes of closed multi-fusion bimodules as morphisms. Note that MFus ind and BFus cl are well-defined due to Theorem and Theorem Both are symmetric monoidal categories under. Theorem The center function from Theorem restricts to a fully faithful functor Z : MFus ind BFus cl. Proof. By Proposition 4.4 in [ENO1], the center of a fusion category is nondegenerate. Thus by Theorem 2.5.1(7), the center of an indecomposable multifusion category is also nondegenerate. This shows that the functor Z is welldefined on objects. Let C, D be indecomposable multi-fusion categories and M a nonzero semisimple C-D-bimodule. Then the canonical braided monoidal functor Z(C rev D) Z(Fun C D (M, M)) is an equivalence by Corollary 3.35 in [EO]. This shows that the Z is well-defined on morphisms.