Representation theory of disconnected reductive groups

Abstract: We study three fundamental topics in the representation theory of disconnected algebraic groups whose identity component is reductive: (i) the classification of irreducible representations; (ii) the existence and properties of Weyl and dual Weyl modules; and (iii) the decomposition map relating representations in characteristic $0$ and those in characteristic $p$ (for groups defined over discrete valuation rings). For each of these topics, we obtain natural generalizations of the well-known results for connected reductive groups.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Let $G$ be a (possibly disconnected) affine algebraic group over an algebraically closed field $\Bbbk$, and let $G^\circ$ be its identity component.  We call $G$ a \emph{(possibly) disconnected reductive group} if $G^\circ$ is reductive.  The goal of this paper is to extend a number of well-known foundational facts about connected reductive groups to the disconnected case.

Such groups occur naturally, even when one is primarily interested in
\emph{connected} reductive groups. Namely, for a connected reductive group $H$, the stabilizer $H^x$ of a nilpotent element in the Lie algebra of $H$ may be disconnected.  Let $H^x_{\mathrm{unip}}$ be its unipotent radical; then $H^x/H^x_{\mathrm{unip}}$ is a disconnected reductive group.  The study of (the derived category of) coherent sheaves on the nilpotent cone $\mathcal{N}$ of $H$, and in particular of \emph{perverse-coherent sheaves} on $\mathcal{N}$, leads naturally to questions about representations of $H^x/H^x_{\mathrm{unip}}$.  See~\cite{ahr} for some questions of this form, and for some applications of the results of this paper.

The present paper contains three main results:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We classify the irreducible representations of $G$ in terms of those of $G^\circ$, via an adaptation of Clifford theory (Theorem~\ref{thm:disconn-class}).
\item
Assuming that the characteristic of $\Bbbk$ does not divide $|G/G^\circ|$, we prove that the category of finite-dimensional $G$-modules has a natural structure of a highest-weight category (Theorem~\ref{thm:hw-structure}).
\item
Starting from a disconnected reductive group scheme over an extension of the $p$-adic integers (with algebraically closed residue field), one obtains a ``decomposition map'' relating the Grothendieck groups of representations in characteristic $0$ and in characteristic $p$.  We prove that this map is an isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
These results are certainly not surprising, and
some of them may be known to experts, but we are not aware of a reference that treats them in the detail and generality needed for the applications in~\cite{ahr}.

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Jens Carsten Jantzen a helpful conversation.

\section{Classification of simple representations}
\label{sec:simples}

In this section we consider (affine) algebraic groups over an arbitrary
algebraically closed field $\Bbbk$. Our goal is to describe the representation theory of a disconnected algebraic group $G$ whose neutral connected component $G^\circ$ is reductive in terms of the representation theory of $G^\circ$, via a kind of Clifford theory.

\subsection{Twist of a representation by an automorphism}
\label{app:twist}

Let $G$ be an algebraic group, $\varphi : G \overset{\sim}{\to} G$ an automorphism, and let $\pi=(V,\varrho)$ be a representation of $G$. Then we define the representation ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi$ as the pair $(V,\varrho \circ \varphi^{-1})$. (Below, we will most of the time write $V$ for $\pi$, and ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} V$ for ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi$.) It is straightforward to check that if $\psi : G \overset{\sim}{\to} G$ is a second automorphism, then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:twist-composition}
{}^\psi \hspace{-1pt} \bigl( {}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi \bigr) = {}^{\psi \circ \varphi} \hspace{-1pt} \pi.
\end{equation}
If $f : \pi \to \pi'$ is a morphism of $G$-representations, then the same linear map defines a morphism of $G$-representations ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi \to {}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi'$, which will sometimes be denoted ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} f$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:twist-Ind}
Let $H \subset G$ be a subgroup, and $(V,\varrho)$ be a representation of $H$. Then there exists a canonical isomorphism of $G$-modules
\[
{}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \Ind_H^G(V,\varrho) \cong \Ind_{\varphi(H)}^{G}(V, \varrho \circ \varphi^{-1}).
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
By definition, we have
\begin{align*}
\Ind_H^G(V,\varrho) &= \{f : G \to V \mid \forall h \in H, \, f(gh)=\varrho(h^{-1})(f(g))\}, \\
\Ind_{\varphi(H)}^G(V,\varrho \circ \varphi^{-1}) &= \{f : G \to V \mid \forall h \in \varphi(H), \, f(gh)=\varrho \circ \varphi^{-1}(h^{-1})(f(g))\}.
\end{align*}
Here, in both cases the functions are assumed to be algebraic, and the $G$-action is defined by $(g \cdot f)(h)=f(g^{-1}h)$. We have a natural isomorphism of vector spaces
\[
\Ind_H^G(V,\varrho) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Ind_{\varphi(H)}^G(V,\varrho \circ \varphi^{-1})
\]
sending $f$ to $f \circ \varphi^{-1}$. It is straightforward to check that this morphism is an isomorphism of $G$-modules from ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \Ind_H^G(V,\varrho)$ to $\Ind_{\varphi(H)}^{G}(V, \varrho \circ \varphi^{-1})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:twist-Ind}
More generally, if $G'$ is another algebraic group and $\varphi : G \overset{\sim}{\to} G'$ is an isomorphism, for any $G$-module $\pi$ we can consider the $G'$ module ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi$ defined as above. Then the same arguments as for Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-Ind} show that we have ${}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \Ind_H^G(\pi) \cong \Ind_{\varphi(H)}^{G'}({}^\varphi \hspace{-1pt} \pi)$.
\end{rmk}

In particular, assume that we are given an algebraic group $G'$ and an embedding of $G$ as a normal subgroup of $G'$. Then for any $g \in G'$, we have an automorphism $\mathrm{ad}(g)$ of $G$ sending $h$ to $ghg^{-1}$. In this setting, we will write ${}^g \hspace{-1pt} V$ for ${}^{\mathrm{ad}(g)} \hspace{-1pt} V$, and ${}^g \hspace{-1pt} f$ for ${}^{\mathrm{ad}(g)} \hspace{-1pt} f$. Then for $g,h \in G'$, since $\mathrm{ad}(g) \circ \mathrm{ad}(h) = \mathrm{ad}(gh)$, \eqref{eqn:twist-composition} translates to ${}^g \hspace{-1pt} \bigl( {}^h \hspace{-1pt} V \bigr) = {}^{gh} \hspace{-1pt} V$.

The verification of the following lemma is straightforward.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:twist-inner}
Let $(V,\varrho)$ be a representation of $G$. Then if $g \in G$, $\varrho(g^{-1})$ induces an isomorphism $V \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^g \hspace{-1pt} V$.
\end{lem}

\subsection{Disconnected reductive groups}
\label{ss:disconn}

From now on we fix
an algebraic group $G$ whose identity component $G^\circ$ is reductive.
We set $A := G/G^\circ$ (a finite group).
The canonical quotient morphism $G \to A$ will be denoted $\varpi$.

Let $T$ be the ``universal maximal torus'' of $G^\circ$, i.e., the quotient $B/(B,B)$ for any Borel subgroup $B \subset G^\circ$.  (Since all Borel subgroups in $G^\circ$ are $G^\circ$-conjugate, and since $B=N_{G^\circ}(B)$ acts trivially on $B/(B,B)$, the quotient $B/(B,B)$ does not depend on $B$, up to canonical isomorphism.)  Let $\mathbf{X} = X^*(T)$ be its weight lattice.
If $T' \subset B$ is any maximal torus, then the composition $T' \hookrightarrow B \twoheadrightarrow T$ is an isomorphism, and this lets us identify $\mathbf{X}$ with $X^*(T')$. The image in $\mathbf{X}$ under this identification of the roots of $(G,T')$, and of the subset of positive roots (chosen as the opposite of the $T'$-weights on the Lie algebra of $B$), do not depend on the choice of $T'$; so they define the canonical root system $\Phi \subset \mathbf{X}$ and the subset $\Phi^+ \subset \Phi$ of positive roots. Similar comments apply to coroots, so that we can define the dominant weights $\mathbf{X}^+ \subset \mathbf{X}$. We denote by $W$ the Weyl group of $T$. (This group is well defined because $N_{B}(T')=T'$ for a maximal torus $T'$ contained in a Borel subgroup $B$.)

Given a weight $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, we denote by
\[
L(\lambda),\qquad \Delta(\lambda),\qquad \nabla(\lambda)
\]
the irreducible, Weyl, and dual Weyl $G^\circ$-modules, respectively, corresponding to $\lambda$. Here $\nabla(\lambda)$ is defined as the induced module $\Ind_{B}^{G^\circ}(\Bbbk_B(\lambda))$ for some choice of Borel subgroup $B \subset G^\circ$, $L(\lambda)$ is the unique simple submodule of $\nabla(\lambda)$, and $\Delta(\lambda)$ is defined as $(\nabla(-w_0 \lambda))^*$, where $w_0 \in W$ is the longest element. (These modules do not depend on the choice of $B$ up to isomorphism thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-Ind} and Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-inner}.)

For any $g \in G$ and any Borel subgroup $B \subset G^\circ$, $\mathrm{ad}(g)$ induces an isomorphism $B/(B,B) \overset{\sim}{\to} gBg^{-1}/(gBg^{-1}, gBg^{-1})$. Since $gBg^{-1}$ is also a Borel subgroup of $G^\circ$, this defines an automorphism $\underline{\mathrm{ad}}(g)$ of $T$. The fact that $T$ is well defined translates to the property that $\underline{\mathrm{ad}}(g)=\mathrm{id}$ if $g \in G^\circ$, so that $\underline{\mathrm{ad}}$ factors through a morphism $A \to \mathrm{Aut}(T)$, which we will also denote by $\underline{\mathrm{ad}}$.

For $a \in A$ and $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:combinatorial-action}
{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda := \lambda \circ \underline{\mathrm{ad}}(a^{-1}).
\end{equation}
 This operation defines an action of $A$ on $\mathbf{X}$, which preserves $\Phi$, $\Phi^+$ and $\mathbf{X}^+$. Moreover, Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-Ind} implies that for any $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and $g \in G$, we have canonical isomorphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:twist-standard}
{}^g \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \cong \Delta({}^{\varpi(g)} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda), \quad
{}^g \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \cong L({}^{\varpi(g)} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda), \quad
{}^g \hspace{-1pt} \nabla(\lambda) \cong \nabla({}^{\varpi(g)} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda).
\end{equation}

We will denote by $\Irr(G^\circ)$ the set of isomorphism classes of simple $G^\circ$-modules. This set admits an action of $G$, where $g$ acts via $[V] \mapsto [{}^g \hspace{-1pt} V]$. (Of course, this action factors through an action of $A$.) The constructions above provide a natural bijection $\mathbf{X}^+ \overset{\sim}{\to} \Irr(G^\circ)$ (sending $\lambda$ to the isomorphism class of $L(\lambda)$), which is $A$-equivariant in view of~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard}.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:restrict-semis}
Let $V$ be an irreducible $G$-module.  Then $V$ is semisimple as a $G^\circ$-module.  All of its irreducible $G^\circ$-submodules lie in a single $G$-orbit in $\Irr(G^\circ)$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Choose an irreducible $G^\circ$-submodule $M \subset V$, and choose a set of coset representatives $g_1, \ldots, g_r$ for $G^\circ$ in $G$.  The subspace
\[
\sum_{i=1}^r g_iM \subset V
\]
is stable under the action of $G$, so it must be all of $V$.  Each summand $g_iM$ is stable under $G^\circ$, so there is a surjective map of $G^\circ$-representations
\[
\bigoplus_{i=1}^r g_i M \to \sum_{i=1}^r g_iM = V.
\]
Now, $g_iM$ is isomorphic as a $G^\circ$-module to ${}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} M$; in particular, each $g_iM$ is an irreducible $G^\circ$-module, and $\bigoplus_i g_iM$ is semisimple.  Thus, as a $G^\circ$-module, $V$ is a quotient of a semisimple module, all of whose summands lie in a single $G$-orbit of $\Irr(G^\circ)$, so the same holds for $V$ itself.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The component group and induced representations}
\label{ss:component}

For each $a \in A = G/G^\circ$, let us choose, once and for all, a representative $\iota(a) \in G$.  In the special case $a = 1_A$, we require that
\[
\iota(1_A) = 1_G.
\]
Given $a,b \in A$, the representative $\iota(ab)$ need not be equal to $\iota(a)\iota(b)$; but these elements lie in the same coset of $G^\circ$.  Explicitly, there is a unique element $\gamma(a,b) \in G^\circ$ such that
\[
\iota(a)\iota(b) = \iota(ab)\gamma(a,b).
\]
Our assumption on $\iota(1_A)$ implies that for any $a \in A$, we have
\[
\gamma(1_A,a) = \gamma(a,1_A) = 1_G.
\]
By expanding $\iota(abc)$ in two ways, one finds that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:gamma-product}
\gamma(ab,c) \cdot \mathrm{ad}(\iota(c)^{-1})(\gamma(a,b)) = \gamma(a,bc)\gamma(b,c).
\end{equation}

Now let $V$ be a $G^\circ$-module.  By Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-inner}, for any $a,b \in A$ the action of $\gamma(a,b)$ defines an isomorphism of $G^\circ$-modules
\[
{}^{\gamma(a,b)} \hspace{-1pt} V \overset{\sim}{\to} V.
\]
Twisting by $\iota(ab)$ we deduce an isomorphism
\[
\phi_{a,b} : {}^{\iota(a)\iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} V \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(ab)} \hspace{-1pt} V.
\]

We can use the maps $\iota$ and $\gamma$ to explicitly describe representations of $G$ that are induced from $G^\circ$, as follows. Let us denote by $\Bbbk[A]$ the group algebra of $A$ over $\Bbbk$. Let $V$ be a $G^\circ$-module, and consider the vector space
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:induced-explicit}
\tilde V = \Bbbk[A] \otimes V = \bigoplus_{f \in A} \Bbbk f \otimes V.
\end{equation}
We now explain how to make $\tilde V$ into a $G$-module.  Note that every element of $G$ can be written uniquely as $\iota(a)g$ for some $a \in A$ and $g \in G^\circ$.  We put
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:induced-action}
\iota(a)g \cdot (f \otimes v) = af \otimes \gamma(a,f) \cdot \mathrm{ad}(\iota(f)^{-1})(g) \cdot v.
\end{equation}
Using~\eqref{eqn:gamma-product} one can
check that this does indeed define an action of $G$ on $\tilde V$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ind-tensor}
The map
\[
f \mapsto \sum_{a \in A} a \otimes f(\iota(a))
\]
defines an isomorphism of $G$-modules $\Ind_{G^\circ}^G(V) \overset{\sim}{\to} \tilde{V}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
It is clear that our map is an isomorphism of vector spaces, and that its inverse sends $a \otimes v$ to the function $f : G \to V$ such that $f(\iota(a)g) = g^{-1} \cdot v$ for $g \in G^\circ$ and $f(\iota(b)g) = 0$ for $g \in G^\circ$ and $b \in A \smallsetminus \{a\}$. It is not difficult to check that this inverse map respects the $G$-actions, proving the proposition.
\end{proof}

In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:ind-tensor}, it is clear
that as $G^\circ$-modules, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:induce-restrict}
\Ind_{G^\circ}^G(V) \cong \bigoplus_{f \in A} {}^{\iota(f)} \hspace{-1pt} V,
\end{equation}
as expected.

\subsection{A twisted group algebra of a stabilizer}
\label{ss:twisted}

Let $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, and let $A^\lambda=\{a \in A \mid {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda = \lambda\}$ be its stabilizer. We also set $G^\lambda := \varpi^{-1}(A^\lambda)$. In view of~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:stab-subgroup}
G^\lambda = \{g \in G \mid {}^g \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \cong L(\lambda)\}.
\end{equation}

We fix a representative for the simple $G^\circ$-module $L(\lambda)$ and,
for each $a \in A^\lambda$, an isomorphism of $G^\circ$-modules
\[
\theta_a: L(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda).
\]
In the special case that $a = 1_A$, we require that
\[
\theta_{1_A} = \mathrm{id}_{L(\lambda)}.
\]
Explicitly, these maps have the property that for any $g \in G^\circ$ and $v \in L(\lambda)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:def-thetaa}
\theta_a(g \cdot v) = \mathrm{ad}(\iota(a)^{-1})(g) \cdot \theta_a(v),
\end{equation}
where on the right-hand side we consider the given action of $G^\circ$ on $L(\lambda)$.

Now let $a,b \in A^\lambda$, and consider the diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
L(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta_a"] \ar[rrr, bend left=30, "\theta_{ab}"] &
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[r, "{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \theta_b"] &
{}^{\iota(a)\iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[r, "{\phi_{a,b}}"] &
{}^{\iota(ab)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda).
\end{tikzcd}
\]
This is \emph{not} a commutative diagram.  Rather, both $\theta_{ab}$ and $\phi_{a,b} \circ {}^{\iota(a)}\theta_b \circ \theta_a$ are isomorphisms of simple $G^\circ$-modules, so they must be scalar multiples of one another.  Let $\alpha(a,b) \in \Bbbk^\times$ be the scalar such that
\[
\phi_{a,b} {}^{\iota(a)}\theta_b \theta_a = \alpha(a,b) \cdot \theta_{ab}.
\]
Our assumptions on $\iota(1_A)$ and $\theta_{1_A}$ imply that for all $a \in A$, we have
\[
\alpha(1_A,a) = \alpha(a,1_A) = 1.
\]

\begin{figure}
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=11pt]
&&& {}^{\iota(ab)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta_c"] &
 {}^{\iota(ab)\iota(c)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[dr, "{\phi_{ab,c}}" description] \\
L(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta_a"] \ar[urrr, bend left=20, "\theta_{ab}"] \ar[rrrrr, bend left=50, "\theta_{abc}"] &
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta_b"] \ar[drrr, bend right=40, "\theta_{bc}"] &
{}^{\iota(a)\iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[ur, "{\phi_{a,b}}"] \ar[dr, "\theta_c"] &&&
{}^{\iota(abc)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \\
&&& {}^{\iota(a)\iota(b)\iota(c)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[r, "{\phi_{b,c}}"] \ar[uur, "{\mathrm{ad}(\iota(c)^{-1})(\gamma(a,b)) \cdot (-)}" description] &
  {}^{\iota(a)\iota(bc)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \ar[ur, "{\phi_{a,bc}}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\]
\caption{Isomorphisms of $L(\lambda)$ with ${}^{\iota(abc)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$}\label{fig:cocycle}
\end{figure}

Given three elements $a,b,c \in A^\lambda$, we can form the diagram shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cocycle}.  The subdiagram consisting of straight arrows is commutative (by~\eqref{eqn:gamma-product},~\eqref{eqn:def-thetaa} and the definitions), whereas each curved arrow introduces a scalar factor.  Comparing the different scalars shows that
\[
\alpha(a,b)\alpha(ab,c) = \alpha(a,bc) \alpha(b,c).
\]
In other words, $\alpha: A^\lambda \times A^\lambda \to \Bbbk^\times$ is a $2$-cocycle.

Let $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ be the twisted group algebra of $A^\lambda$ determined by this cocycle.  Explicitly, we define $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ to be the $\Bbbk$-vector space spanned by symbols $\{ \rho_a : a \in A^\lambda \}$ with multiplication given by
\[
\rho_a \rho_b = \alpha(a,b) \rho_{ab}.
\]
This is a unital $\Bbbk$-algebra, with unit $\rho_{1_A}$.

The algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ can be described in more canonical terms as follows.

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:end-induced}
There exists a canonical isomorphism of $\Bbbk$-algebras
\[
\End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr) \cong (\mathscr{A}^\lambda)^{\mathrm{op}}.
\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will work with the description of $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda))$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:ind-tensor} (applied to the group $G^\lambda$):
we identify it with $\Bbbk[A^\lambda] \otimes L(\lambda)$, where the action of $G^\lambda$ is given by~\eqref{eqn:induced-action}.

We begin by equipping $\Bbbk[A^\lambda] \otimes L(\lambda)$ with the structure of a right $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module as follows: given $a,f \in A^\lambda$ and $v \in L(\lambda)$, we put
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sA-action}
(f \otimes v) \cdot \rho_a := (fa) \otimes \gamma(f,a) \cdot \theta_a(v).
\end{equation}
Let us check that this is indeed a right $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module structure:
\begin{align*}
((f \otimes v) \cdot \rho_a) \cdot \rho_b
&= ((fa) \otimes \gamma(f,a) \cdot \theta_a(v)) \cdot \rho_b \\
&= (fab) \otimes \gamma(fa,b) \cdot \theta_b(\gamma(f,a) \cdot \theta_a(v)) \\
&= (fab) \otimes \gamma(fa,b) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(\gamma(f,a)) \cdot \theta_b(\theta_a(v)) \\
&= (fab) \otimes \gamma(f,ab) \gamma(a,b) \cdot \theta_b(\theta_a(v)) \\
&= (fab) \otimes \alpha(a,b)(\gamma(f,ab) \cdot \theta_{ab}(v)) \\
&= (f \otimes v) \cdot (\alpha(a,b)\rho_{ab}).
\end{align*}
(Here, the third equality relies on~\eqref{eqn:def-thetaa}, and the fourth one on~\eqref{eqn:gamma-product}.)
Next, we check that the right action of $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ commutes with the left action of $G$:
\begin{align*}
\iota(a)g \cdot ((f \otimes v) \cdot \rho_b)
&= \iota(a)g \cdot ((fb) \otimes \gamma(f,b) \cdot \theta_b(v)) \\
&= (afb) \otimes \gamma(a,fb)\mathrm{ad}(\iota(fb)^{-1})(g)\gamma(f,b) \cdot \theta_b(v) \\
&= (afb) \otimes \gamma(a,fb) \gamma(f,b) \mathrm{ad}((\iota(fb)\gamma(f,b))^{-1})(g) \cdot \theta_b(v) \\
&= (afb) \otimes \gamma(af,b) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(\gamma(a,f)) \mathrm{ad}((\iota(f)\iota(b))^{-1})(g) \cdot \theta_b(v) \\
&= (afb) \otimes \gamma(af,b) \theta_b(\gamma(a,f) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(f)^{-1})(g) \cdot v) \\
&= ((af) \otimes \gamma(a,f) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(f)^{-1})(g) \cdot v) \cdot \rho_b \\
&= (\iota(a)g \cdot (f \otimes v)) \cdot \rho_b.
\end{align*}

As a consequence, the right $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-action gives rise to an algebra homomorphism
\[
\varphi: (\mathscr{A}^\lambda)^{\mathrm{op}} \to \End_{G^\lambda}(\Bbbk[A^\lambda] \otimes L(\lambda)).
\]
For each $a \in A^\lambda$, the operator $\varphi(\rho_a)$ permutes the direct summands $\Bbbk f \otimes L(\lambda) \subset \Bbbk[A^\lambda] \otimes L(\lambda)$, as $f$ runs over elements of $A^\lambda$.  Moreover, distinct $a$'s give rise to distinct permutations.  It follows from this that the collection of linear operators $\{ \varphi(\rho_a) : a \in A^\lambda \}$ is linearly independent.  In other words, $\varphi$ is injective.

On the other hand, by adjunction, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:dim-End}
\dim \End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr)
= \dim \Hom_{G^\circ} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)), L(\lambda) \bigr).
\end{equation}
Now,~\eqref{eqn:induce-restrict} implies that as a $G^\circ$-module, $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda))$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of $|A^\lambda|$ copies of $L(\lambda)$.  So~\eqref{eqn:dim-End} shows that
\[
\dim \End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr) = |A^\lambda| = \dim \mathscr{A}^\lambda.
\]
Since $\varphi$ is an injective map between $\Bbbk$-vector spaces of the same dimension, it is also surjective, and hence an isomorphism.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}\phantomsection
\label{rmk:indep-1}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The $G^\circ$-module $L(\lambda)$ is defined only up to isomorphism. But if $L'(\lambda)$ is another choice for this module, then an isomorphism $L(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} L'(\lambda)$ is unique up to scalar (and exists). Hence the induced isomorphism $\End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr) \overset{\sim}{\to} \End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L'(\lambda)) \bigr)$ does not depend on the choice of isomorphism. In other words, the algebra $\End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr)$ is completely canonical, i.e.~does not depend on any choice.
\item
Once the $G^\circ$-module $L(\lambda)$ is fixed,
our description of the $\Bbbk$-algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$, and of its identification with $\End_{G^\lambda}(\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda)))^{\mathrm{op}}$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:end-induced}, depend on the choice of the isomorphisms $\theta_a$ for $a \in A \smallsetminus \{1\}$. However, if $\{\theta'_a : a \in A \smallsetminus \{1\}\}$ is another choice of such isomorphisms, and $\{\rho'_a : a \in A\}$ is the basis of the corresponding algebra $(\mathscr{A}')^\lambda$, then for any $a \in A$ there exists a unique $t_a \in \Bbbk^\times$ such that $\theta'_a = t_a \theta_a$. It is easy to check that the assignment $\rho'_a \mapsto t_a \rho_a$ defines an algebra isomorphism $(\mathscr{A}')^\lambda \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathscr{A}^\lambda$ which commutes with the identifications provided by Proposition~\ref{prop:end-induced}.
\item
\label{it:action-A-Ind}
If, instead of using Lemma~\ref{lem:ind-tensor} to describe the $G^\lambda$-module $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda))$, we describe it in terms of algebraic functions $\phi : G^\lambda \to L(\lambda)$ satisfying $\phi(gh)=h^{-1} \cdot \phi(g)$ for $h \in G^\circ$, then the right action of $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ on this module satisfies $(\phi \cdot \rho_a)(g) = \theta_a \circ \phi(g\iota(a)^{-1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}

\subsection{Simple $G^\lambda$-modules whose restriction to $G^\circ$ is a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$}\label{ss:lambda-E}

We continue with the setting of~\S\ref{ss:twisted}, and in particular with our fixed $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$.
If $E$ is a finite-dimensional left $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module,
we define a $G^\lambda$-action on the $\Bbbk$-vector space $E \otimes L(\lambda)$
by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:L-module}
\iota(a)g \cdot (u \otimes v) = \rho_au \otimes \theta_a^{-1}(gv)
\qquad\text{for $a \in A^\lambda$ and $g \in G^\circ$.}
\end{equation}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:L-module}
The rule~\eqref{eqn:L-module} defines a structure of $G^\lambda$-module on $E \otimes L(\lambda)$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Note that
\[
\iota(a)g\iota(b)h = \iota(a)\iota(b) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(g) h = \iota(ab) (\gamma(a,b) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(g) h).
\]
We now have
\begin{align*}
\iota(a)g\cdot (\iota(b)h \cdot (u \otimes v))
&= \iota(a)g \cdot (\rho_bu \otimes \theta_b^{-1}(hv)) \\
&= \rho_a\rho_b u \otimes \theta_a^{-1}(g \theta_b^{-1}(hv)) \\
&= \alpha(a,b) \rho_{ab} u \otimes (\theta_b \circ \theta_a)^{-1}(\mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(g)hv) \\
&= \rho_{ab} u \otimes \theta_{ab}^{-1}(\gamma(a,b) \mathrm{ad}(\iota(b)^{-1})(g) hv) \\
&= (\iota(a)g\iota(b)h) \cdot (u \otimes v),
\end{align*}
proving the desired formula.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Glambda}
The assignment $E \mapsto E \otimes L(\lambda)$ defines a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules and the set of isomorphism classes of simple $G^\lambda$-modules whose restriction to $G^\circ$ is a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will show that if $V$ is a finite dimensional $G^\lambda$-module whose restriction to $G^\circ$ is a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$, and if we set $E:=\Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),V)$, then $E$ has a natural structure of a left $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module, and there exists an isomorphism of $G^\lambda$-modules
\[
\eta_{\lambda,E} : E \otimes L(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} V.
\]

We define the $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-action on $E$ by
\[
(\rho_a \cdot f)(x) = \iota(a) \cdot f(\theta_a(x))
\]
for $f \in E=\Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),V)$ and $x \in L(\lambda)$. (We leave it to the reader to check that $\rho_a \cdot f$ is a morphism of $G^\circ$-modules.) To justify that this defines an $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module structure, we simply compute:
\begin{align*}
(\rho_a \cdot (\rho_b \cdot f))(x) &= \iota(a) \cdot (\rho_b \cdot f)(\theta_a(x)) \\
&= \iota(a) \cdot \iota(b) \cdot f(\theta_b \circ \theta_a(x)) \\
&= \iota(ab) \cdot \gamma(a,b) \cdot f(\theta_b \circ \theta_a(x)) \\
&= \iota(ab) \cdot f(\gamma(a,b) \cdot \theta_b \circ \theta_a(x)) \\
&= \alpha(a,b) \cdot \iota(ab) \cdot f(\theta_{ab}(x)) \\
&= ((\alpha(a,b) \rho_{ab}) \cdot f)(x).
\end{align*}
Now there exists a canonical isomorphism of $G^\circ$-modules
\[
\eta_{\lambda,E} :
E \otimes L(\lambda) = \Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),V) \otimes L(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} V,
\]
defined by $\eta_{\lambda,E}(f \otimes v) = f(v)$. Let us check that this morphism also commutes with the action of $\iota(A)$.
By definition we have
\[
\iota(a) \cdot (f \otimes v) = (\rho_a \cdot f) \otimes \theta_a^{-1}(v) = \sigma(\iota(a)) \circ f \circ \theta_a \otimes \theta_a^{-1}(v),
\]
where $\sigma : G^\lambda \to \mathrm{GL}(V)$ is the morphism defining the $G^\lambda$-action. Hence
\[
\eta_{\lambda,E} \bigl( \iota(a) \cdot (f \otimes v) \bigr) = \iota(a) \cdot f(v) = \iota(a) \cdot \eta_{\lambda,E}(f \otimes v),
\]
proving that $\eta_{\lambda,E}$ is an isomorphism of $G^\lambda$-modules.

It is clear that the assignments
\[
- \otimes L(\lambda) : E \mapsto E \otimes L(\lambda) \quad \text{and} \quad \Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),-) : V \mapsto \Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),V)
\]
define functors from the category of finite-dimensional $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules to the category of finite-dimensional $G^\lambda$-modules whose restriction to $G^\circ$ are isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$, and from the category of finite-dimensional $G^\lambda$-modules whose restriction to $G^\circ$ are isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$ to the category of finite-dimensional $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules respectively. It is straightforward to construct an isomorphism of functors $\Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),-) \circ (- \otimes L(\lambda)) \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathrm{id}$,
as well as an isomorphism $(- \otimes L(\lambda)) \circ \Hom_{G^\circ}(L(\lambda),-) \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathrm{id}$ defined by $\eta_{\lambda,-}$. Our functors are thus equivalences of categories, quasi-inverse to each other; hence they define bijections between the sets of isomorphism classes of simple objects in these categories.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:indep-2}
As in Remark~\ref{rmk:indep-1}, it can be easily checked that the assignment $E \mapsto E \otimes L(\lambda)$ does not depend on the choice of the isomorphisms $\{\theta_a : a \in A\}$, in the sense that if $\{\theta'_a : a \in A\}$ is another choice of such isomorphisms, and if $(\mathscr{A}')^\lambda$ is the corresponding algebra, then the identification $(\mathscr{A}')^\lambda \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathscr{A}^\lambda$ considered in Remark~\ref{rmk:indep-1} defines a bijection between isomorphism classes of simple $(\mathscr{A}')^\lambda$-modules and $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules, which commutes with the operations $- \otimes L(\lambda)$. Of course, these constructions do not depend on the choice of $L(\lambda)$ in its isomorphism class either.
\end{rmk}

\subsection{Induction from $G^\lambda$ to $G$}
\label{ss:induction-Glambda}

We continue with the setting of~\S\S\ref{ss:twisted}--\ref{ss:lambda-E}. If $E$ is a finite-dimensional $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module, we now consider the $G$-module
\[
L(\lambda,E) := \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda)).
\]

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Ind-simple}
If $E$ is a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module, then $L(\lambda, E)$ is a simple $G$-module.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $V \subset L(\lambda,E)$ be a simple $G$-submodule. For any simple $G^\circ$-module $L$, let $[V:L]_{G^\circ}$ denote the multiplicity of $L$ as a composition factor of $V$, regarded as a $G^\circ$-module.  The image of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow L(\lambda,E)$ under the isomorphism
\[
\Hom_G \bigl( V,  L(\lambda,E) \bigr) = \Hom_G \bigl( V,  \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda)) \bigr) \cong \Hom_{G^\lambda}(V,E \otimes L(\lambda))
\]
given by Frobenius reciprocity provides a nonzero morphism of $G^\lambda$-modules $V \to E \otimes L(\lambda)$, which must be surjective since $E \otimes L(\lambda)$ is simple by Proposition~\ref{prop:Glambda}. It follows that $[V: L(\lambda)]_{G^\circ} \ge \dim(E)$.
Now, as in~\eqref{eqn:induce-restrict}, if $g_1, \ldots, g_r$ are representatives in $G$ of the cosets in $G/G^\lambda$, then as $G^\circ$-modules we have
\[
L(\lambda,E) = \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^r {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)^{\oplus \dim(E)}.
\]
Since $V$ is stable under the $G$-action, we have $[V: L(\lambda)]_{G^\circ} = [V: {}^{g_i}\hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)]_{G^\circ}$ for all $i$
(see Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-inner}), and hence $[V : {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)]_{G^\circ} \ge \dim(E)$ for all $i$.  This implies that $\dim(V) \ge \dim(\Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda)))$, so in fact $V = \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda))$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Simple $G$-modules}

We come back to the general setting of~\S\ref{ss:disconn}. (In particular, the dominant weight $\lambda$ is not fixed anymore.)
We can now prove that the procedure explained in~\S\S\ref{ss:twisted}--\ref{ss:induction-Glambda} allows us to construct \emph{all} simple $G$-modules (up to isomorphism).

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:simple-Ind}
Let $V$ be a simple $G$-module. Then there exists $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module $E$, and an isomorphism of $G$-modules
\[
V \overset{\sim}{\to} L(\lambda,E).
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Certainly there exists $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and a surjection of $G^\circ$-modules $V \twoheadrightarrow L(\lambda)$. By Frobenius reciprocity we deduce a nonzero (hence injective) morphism of $G$-modules $V \hookrightarrow \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G}(L(\lambda))$. So to conclude, it suffices to prove that all composition factors of $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G}(L(\lambda))$ are of the form $L(\lambda,E)$ (with $E$ a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module). However, we have
\[
\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G}(L(\lambda)) \cong \Ind_{G^\lambda}^{G} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda)) \bigr).
\]
The restriction of $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda))$ to $G^\circ$ is a direct sum of copies of $L(\lambda)$ by~\eqref{eqn:induce-restrict} applied to $G^\lambda$. Therefore, all of its composition factors are of the form $E \otimes L(\lambda)$ with $E$ a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module by Proposition~\ref{prop:Glambda}. Since the functor $\Ind_{G^\lambda}^{G}$ is exact (by Lemma~\ref{lem:ind-tensor}, or by~\cite[Corollary~I.5.13]{jantzen}) and sends simple $G^\lambda$-modules of the form $E \otimes L(\lambda)$ to simple $G$-modules by Lemma~\ref{lem:Ind-simple}, the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Conjugation}
\label{ss:conj}

It now remains to understand when two modules of the form $L(\lambda,E)$ are isomorphic. For this, we need to analyze the relation between this construction applied to a dominant weight, and to a twist of this dominant weight by an element of $A$.

So, let $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, and $a \in A$. Then we have
\[
A^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda} = a A^\lambda a^{-1}, \quad G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda} = \iota(a) G^\lambda \iota(a)^{-1},
\]
and we can choose as $L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$ the module ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$, cf.~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard}.

Let us choose isomorphisms $\theta_b : L(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$ for all $b \in A^\lambda$. Again for $b \in A^\lambda$, we can consider the isomorphism
\begin{multline*}
\tilde{\theta}_{aba^{-1}} : L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)
=
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \xrightarrow{\theta_b} {}^{\iota(a) \iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) = {}^{\iota(a) \iota(b) \iota(a)^{-1}} \hspace{-1pt} \bigl({}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \bigr) \\
= {}^{\iota(a)\iota(b)\iota(a)^{-1}} \hspace{-1pt} \bigl(L({}^{a} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda) \bigr)
\xrightarrow[\sim]{\iota(aba^{-1})^{-1} \iota(a) \iota(b) \iota(a)^{-1} \cdot (-)} {}^{\iota(aba^{-1})} \hspace{-1pt} L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda).
\end{multline*}
(Here, the last isomorphism means the action of $\iota(aba^{-1})^{-1} \iota(a) \iota(b) \iota(a)^{-1}$ on $L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$, or in other words the action of $\iota(a)^{-1} \iota(aba^{-1})^{-1} \iota(a) \iota(b)$ on $L(\lambda)$.)

The following claim can be checked directly from the definitions.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:cocycle-conjugation}
For any $b,c \in A^\lambda$, we have
\[
\gamma(aca^{-1},aba^{-1}) \circ \tilde{\theta}_{aba^{-1}} \circ \tilde{\theta}_{aca^{-1}} = \alpha(c,b) \cdot \tilde{\theta}_{acba^{-1}}
\]
(where here $\gamma(aca^{-1},aba^{-1})$ means the action of this element on $L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$).
\end{lem}

If $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ and its basis $\{\rho_b : b \in A^\lambda\}$ are defined in terms of the isomorphisms $\{\theta_b : b \in A^\lambda\}$ and if $\mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$ and its basis $\{\tilde{\rho}_b : b \in A^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}\}$ are defined in terms of the isomorphisms $\{\tilde{\theta}_a : a \in A^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}\}$, then Lemma~\ref{lem:cocycle-conjugation} allows us to compare the cocycles that arise in the definitions of $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ and $\mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$. More precisely, this lemma shows that the assignment $\rho_b \mapsto \tilde{\rho}_{aba^{-1}}$ defines an algebra isomorphism $\xi_\lambda^a : \mathscr{A}^\lambda \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$.

The isomorphism $\xi_\lambda^a$ can be described more canonically as follows. Recall that Proposition~\ref{prop:end-induced} provides canonical identifications
\[
(\mathscr{A}^\lambda)^{\mathrm{op}} \overset{\sim}{\to} \End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr), \quad (\mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda})^{\mathrm{op}} \overset{\sim}{\to} \End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)) \bigr).
\]
One can check that
under these identifications, the automorphism $\xi^a_\lambda$ is given by the isomorphism
\[
\End_{G^\lambda} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr) = \End_{G^{ {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}} \bigl( {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \bigr) \overset{\sim}{\to} \End_{G^{ {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}} \bigl( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}} (L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)) \bigr)
\]
(where we use the notation of Remark~{\rm \ref{rmk:twist-Ind}}).

The properties of these isomorphisms that we will need below are summarized in the following lemma.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:properties-xi}
Let $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:isom-product}
If $a,b \in A$, then we have $\xi_\lambda^{ab} = \xi_{{}^b \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}^a \circ \xi^b_\lambda$.
\item
\label{it:isom-inner}
If $a \in A^\lambda$, then $\xi_\lambda^a$ is an inner automorphism of $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
\eqref{it:isom-product}
To simplify notation, we set $\mu := {}^{ab} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda$.
Note that the simple $G^\circ$-modules of highest weight $\mu$ used in the definitions of $\xi_\lambda^{ab}$ and $\xi_{{}^b \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}^a \circ \xi^b_\lambda$ are different: for the former we use the module $L_1(\mu) := {}^{\iota(ab)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$, while for the latter we use the module $L_2(\mu) := {}^{\iota(a) \iota(b)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$. There exists a canonical isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:isom-algebras-product}
L_1(\mu) \overset{\sim}{\to} L_2(\mu),
\end{equation}
given by the action of $\gamma(a,b)^{-1}$ on $L(\lambda)$ (i.e.~the inverse of the isomorphism denoted $\phi_{a,b}$ in~\S\ref{ss:component}).

Our algebras are all defined as endomorphisms of some induced module, which can be described in terms of functions with values in the vector space underlying the representation $L(\lambda)$. From this point of view, $\xi_{{}^b \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}^a \circ \xi^b_\lambda$ is conjugation by the isomorphism of vector spaces $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda)) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\mu}(L_2(\mu))$ sending functions $G^\lambda \to L(\lambda)$ to functions $G^\mu \to L(\lambda)$ and given by $\phi \mapsto \phi(\iota(b)^{-1} \iota(a)^{-1} (-) \iota(a) \iota(b))$, while $\xi_\lambda^{ab}$ is conjugation by the isomorphism $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda)) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\mu}(L_1(\mu))$ given by $\phi \mapsto \phi(\iota(ab) (-) \iota(ab)^{-1})$. Taking into account the isomorphism~\eqref{eqn:isom-algebras-product}, we have to check that conjugation by the isomorphism given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:isom-algebras-conj1}
\phi \mapsto \gamma(a,b) \cdot \phi(\iota(b)^{-1} \iota(a)^{-1} (-) \iota(a) \iota(b))
\end{equation}
(where $\gamma(a,b) \cdot (-)$ means the action of $\gamma(a,b) \in G^\circ$ on $L(\lambda)$) coincides with conjugation by the isomorphism given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:isom-algebras-conj2}
\phi \mapsto \phi(\iota(ab) (-) \iota(ab)^{-1}).
\end{equation}
However, since $\gamma(a,b)$ belongs to $G^\circ$, the functions $\phi$ we consider satisfy
\begin{multline*}
\gamma(a,b) \cdot \phi(\iota(b)^{-1} \iota(a)^{-1} (-) \iota(a) \iota(b)) = \phi(\iota(b)^{-1} \iota(a)^{-1} (-) \iota(a) \iota(b) \gamma(a,b)^{-1}) \\
= \phi(\iota(b)^{-1} \iota(a)^{-1} (-) \iota(ab)) = \phi(\gamma(a,b)^{-1} \iota(ab)^{-1} (-) \iota(ab)).
\end{multline*}
Thus, the isomorphisms~\eqref{eqn:isom-algebras-conj1} and~\eqref{eqn:isom-algebras-conj2} do \emph{not} coincide, but they differ only by the action of an element of $G^\lambda$ (which, in fact, even belongs to $G^\circ$) on $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda))$. Therefore, conjugation by either~\eqref{eqn:isom-algebras-conj1} or~\eqref{eqn:isom-algebras-conj2} induces the \emph{same} isomorphism of algebras $\End_{G^\lambda}(\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda}(L(\lambda))) \overset{\sim}{\to} \End_{G^\mu} ( \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\mu} (L_1(\mu)) )$.

\eqref{it:isom-inner}
By the comments preceding the statement, $\xi^a_\lambda$ is conjugation by an isomorphism $\Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^\lambda} (L(\lambda)) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Ind_{G^\circ}^{G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}} (L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda))$. If $a \in A^\lambda$ then this isomorphism defines an invertible element of $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$, so that $\xi^a_\lambda$ is indeed an inner automorphism.
\end{proof}

Given $a \in A$ and $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, the isomorphism $\xi^a_\lambda$ defines a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules and the set of isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$-modules.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:properties-xi}\eqref{it:isom-product} we see
that this operation
defines an action of the group $A$ on the set of pairs $(\lambda, E)$ where $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and $E$ is a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module.
Moreover,
it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:properties-xi}\eqref{it:isom-inner} that the induced
action of $A^\lambda$ on the set of isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules is trivial.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:conjugation-isom}
Let $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, and let $E$ be a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module. Let $a \in A$, and let $E'$ be the simple $\mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$-module deduced from $E$ via the isomorphism $\xi^a_\lambda : \mathscr{A}^\lambda \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathscr{A}^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$. Then there exists an isomorphism of $G$-modules
\[
L(\lambda,E) \overset{\sim}{\to} L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda, E').
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
As above we choose for our simple $G^\circ$-module of highest weight ${}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda$ the module ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$. Then conjugation by $\iota(a)$ induces an isomorphism $G^\lambda \overset{\sim}{\to} G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$, and using the notation of Remark~\ref{rmk:twist-Ind} we have as $G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}$-modules
\[
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} (E \otimes L(\lambda)) = E' \otimes L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda).
\]
In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-Ind} we deduce an isomorphism of $G$-modules
\[
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes L(\lambda)) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Ind_{G^{{}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda}}^G(E' \otimes L({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)).
\]
Now by Lemma~\ref{lem:twist-inner} the left-hand side is isomorphic to $L(\lambda,E)$, and the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Classification of simple $G$-modules}

We denote by $\Irr(G)$ the set of isomorphism classes of simple $G$-modules. Now we can finally state the main result of this section.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:disconn-class}
The assignment $(\lambda,E) \mapsto L(\lambda,E)$ induces a bijection
\[
\left.
\left\{
(\lambda, E) \, \left|\,
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and $E$ an isom. class} \\
\text{of simple left $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules}
\end{array}
\right\} \right.
\right/ A \longleftrightarrow \Irr(G).
\]
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
From Lemma~\ref{lem:Ind-simple}, we see that the assignment $(\lambda,E) \mapsto L(\lambda,E)$ defines a map from the set of pairs $(\lambda,E)$ as in the statement to the set $\Irr(G)$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:conjugation-isom} this map factors through a map
\[
\left.
\left\{
(\lambda, E) \, \left|\,
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and $E$ an isom. class} \\
\text{of simple left $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules}
\end{array}
\right\} \right.
\right/ A \to \Irr(G).
\]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:simple-Ind}, this latter map is surjective. Hence, all that remains is to prove that it is injective.

Let $(\lambda,E)$ and $(\lambda',E')$ be pairs as above.
Let $V = L(\lambda,E)$ and $V' = L(\lambda',E')$, and assume that $V \cong V'$. As a $G^\circ$-representation, $V$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of twists of $L(\lambda)$, and $V'$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of twists of $L(\lambda')$ (see the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Ind-simple}). Hence $L(\lambda)$ and $L(\lambda')$ are twists of each other, which implies that $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ are in the same $A$-orbit. Therefore, we can (and shall) assume that $\lambda=\lambda'$. Fix some isomorphism $V \overset{\sim}{\to} V'$, and consider the morphism of $G^\lambda$-modules $f : V \to E' \otimes L(\lambda)$ deduced by Frobenius reciprocity.
If $g_1, \ldots, g_r$ are representatives of the cosets in $G/G^\lambda$, with $g_1=1_G$, then we have an isomorphism of $G^\circ$-modules
\[
 \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G (E \otimes L(\lambda)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^r {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda) \otimes E.
\]
If $i \neq 1$, then ${}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$ is not isomorphic to $L(\lambda)$. Hence $f$ is zero on the corresponding summand of $\Ind_{G^\lambda}^G (E \otimes L(\lambda))$. We deduce that the composition
\[
E \otimes L(\lambda) \hookrightarrow \Ind_{G^\lambda}^G (E \otimes L(\lambda)) \xrightarrow{f} E' \otimes L(\lambda),
\]
where the first morphism is again deduced from Frobenius reciprocity,
is nonzero. But this morphism is a morphism of $G^\lambda$-modules. Since $L(\lambda,E)$ and $L(\lambda,E')$ are simple, it must be an isomorphism, and by Proposition~\ref{prop:Glambda} this implies that $E \cong E'$ as $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}\phantomsection
\label{rmk:classification-simples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:rmks-representatives}
As explained above Lemma~\ref{lem:conjugation-isom}, for any $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ the action of $A^\lambda$ on the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules is trivial. Hence if $\Lambda \subset \mathbf{X}^+$ is a set of representatives of the $A$-orbits in $\mathbf{X}^+$, the quotient considered in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:disconn-class} can be described more explicitly as the set of pairs $(\lambda,E)$ where $\lambda \in \Lambda$ and $E$ is an isomorphism class of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules.
\item
Assume that $\iota$ is a group morphism (so that $G$ is isomorphic to the semi-direct product $A \ltimes G^\circ$) and that moreover there exists a Borel subgroup $B \subset G^\circ$ such that $\iota(a)B\iota(a)^{-1}=B$ for any $a \in A$. Then if we define the standard and costandard $G^\circ$-modules using this Borel subgroup, the isomorphisms
\[
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \cong \Delta({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda), \quad {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \nabla(\lambda) \cong \nabla({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)
\]
(see~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard}) can be chosen in a canonical way. In fact, our assumptions imply that there exist unique $B$-stable lines in ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda)$ and $\Delta({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$, and moreover that these lines coincide. Hence there exists a unique isomorphism of $G$-modules ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} \Delta({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$ which restricts to the identity on these $B$-stable lines. Similar comments apply to ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \nabla(\lambda)$ and $\nabla({}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda)$.

In particular, the isomorphisms $\theta_a$ of~\S\ref{ss:twisted} can be chosen in a canonical way. Then the cocycle $\alpha$ will be trivial, so that in this case $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ is canonically isomorphic to the group algebra $\Bbbk[A^\lambda]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}

\subsection{Semisimplicity}

We finish this section with a criterion ensuring that the algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ is semisimple unless $p$ is small.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:induced-semisimple}
Assume that $p \nmid |A|$.
If $V$ is a simple $G^\circ$-module, then $\Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V)$ is a semisimple $G$-module.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a $G$-submodule of $\Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V)$, and let $N = \Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V)/M$. We will show that the image $c$ of the exact sequence $M \hookrightarrow \Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V) \twoheadrightarrow N$ in $\Ext^1_G(N,M)$ vanishes.

First we remark that for any two algebraic $G$-modules $X,Y$, the forgetful functor from $\mathrm{Rep}(G)$ to $\mathrm{Rep}(G^\circ)$ induces an isomorphism
\[
\Hom_G(X,Y) \overset{\sim}{\to} \bigl( \Hom_{G^\circ}(X,Y) \bigr)^A.
\]
Under our assumptions the functor $(-)^A$ is exact. On the other hand, it is easily checked that the restriction of any injective $G$-module to $G^\circ$ is injective. Hence this isomorphism induces an isomorphism
\[
\Ext^n_G(X,Y) \overset{\sim}{\to} \bigl( \Ext^n_{G^\circ}(X,Y) \bigr)^A
\]
for any $n \geq 0$. We deduce in particular that the forgetful functor induces an injection
\[
\Ext^1_G(N,M) \hookrightarrow \Ext^1_{G^\circ}(N,M).
\]
Hence to prove that $c=0$ it suffices to prove that the sequence $M \hookrightarrow \Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V) \twoheadrightarrow N$, considered as an exact sequence of $G^\circ$-modules, splits. This fact is clear since $\Ind_{G^\circ}^G (V)$ is semisimple as a $G^\circ$-module, see~\eqref{eqn:induce-restrict}.
\end{proof}

From this lemma (applied to the group $A^\lambda$) and Proposition~\ref{prop:end-induced} we deduce the following.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:semisimple-algebra}
If $p \nmid | A^\lambda|$, then
the algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ is semisimple (and in fact isomorphic to a product of matrix algebras).
\end{lem}

\section{Highest weight structure}
\label{sec:disconn-hwt}

Our goal in this section is to prove that if
$p \nmid |A|$, then the category $\mathrm{Rep}(G)$ of finite-dimensional $G$-modules admits a natural structure of a highest weight category.

For the beginning of the section, we continue with the setting of~\S\ref{ss:disconn} (not imposing any further assumption).

\subsection{The order}

If $(\lambda,E)$ is a pair as in Theorem~\ref{thm:disconn-class}, we denote by $[\lambda,E]$ the corresponding $A$-orbit.
We define a relation $<$ on the set of such orbits as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:def-order}
[\lambda,E] < [\lambda',E']
\qquad\text{if}\qquad
\text{for some $a \in A$, we have ${}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda < \lambda'$.}
\end{equation}
(Here, the order on $\mathbf{X}$ is the standard one, where $\lambda \leq \mu$ iff $\mu - \lambda$ is a sum of positive roots.)

\begin{lem}
The relation $<$ is a partial order.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Using the fact that for $a \in A$ and $\lambda, \mu \in \mathbf{X}$ such that $\lambda \leq \mu$ we have ${}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda \leq {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \mu$ (because the $A$-action is linear and preserves positive roots), one can easily check that this relation is transitive. What remains to be seen is that there cannot exist classes $[\lambda,E]$, $[\lambda',E']$ such that
\[
[\lambda,E] < [\lambda',E'] < [\lambda,E].
\]
However, in this case we have ${}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda < \lambda$ for some $a \in A$. Since $a$ permutes the positive coroots of $G^\circ$, then
 if we denote by $2\rho^\vee$ the sum of these coroots we must have $\langle {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda, 2\rho^\vee \rangle = \langle \lambda, 2\rho^\vee \rangle$, hence $\langle \lambda - {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda, 2\rho^\vee \rangle=0$. On the other hand, by assumption $\lambda - {}^a \hspace{-1pt} \lambda$ is a nonzero sum of positive roots, so that its pairing with $2\rho^\vee$ cannot vanish. This provides the desired contradiction.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Standard $G$-modules}
\label{ss:standard}

Let $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$.  We will work in the setting of \S\S\ref{ss:component}--\ref{ss:twisted}, including, in particular, fixing a $G^\circ$-module $L(\lambda)$, and notation such as $\iota$, $\gamma$, $\theta$, and $\alpha$. We also fix a representative $\Delta(\lambda)$ for the Weyl module surjecting to $L(\lambda)$, and a surjection $\pi^\lambda : \Delta(\lambda) \to L(\lambda)$.

Since $\End_{G^\circ}(\Delta(\lambda))=\Bbbk \cdot \mathrm{id}$, from~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard} we see that
for each $a \in A^\lambda$, there exists a unique isomorphism $\theta^\Delta_a: \Delta(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda)$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\Delta(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta^\Delta_a"] \ar[d, two heads] &
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \ar[d, two heads] \\
L(\lambda) \ar[r, "\theta_a"] & {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda).
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Moreover, this uniqueness implies that
for any $a, b \in A^\lambda$, if we define $\phi^\Delta_{a,b} : \Delta(\lambda) \to \Delta(\lambda)$ as the action of $\gamma(a,b)$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:delta-cocyle}
\phi^\Delta_{a,b}\theta^\Delta_b \theta^\Delta_a = \alpha(a,b) \theta^\Delta_{ab}.
\end{equation}

\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:Alambda-standards}
These considerations show that the subgroup $A^\lambda \subset A$ can be equivalently defined as consisting of the elements $a \in A$ such that  ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \cong \Delta(\lambda)$. The twisted group algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$ can also be defined in terms of a choice of isomorphisms $(\theta^\Delta_a : a \in A^\lambda)$ instead of isomorphisms $(\theta_a : a \in A^\lambda)$.
\end{rmk}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Delta-disconn}
Let $E$ be a simple left $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module.
The following rule defines the structure of a $G^\lambda$-module on the vector space $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda)$:
\[
\iota(a)g \cdot (u \otimes v) = \rho_au \otimes (\theta_a^\Delta)^{-1}(gv)
\qquad\text{for any $a \in A^\lambda$ and $g \in G^\circ$.}
\]
This $G^\lambda$-module has $E \otimes L(\lambda)$ as its unique irreducible quotient.  Moreover, all the $G^\circ$-composition factors of the kernel of the quotient map $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda) \to E \otimes L(\lambda)$ are of the form $L(\mu)$ with $\mu < \lambda$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We begin by noting that thanks to~\eqref{eqn:delta-cocyle},
the calculation from Lemma~\ref{lem:L-module} can be repeated to show that the formula above does, indeed, define the structure of a $G^\lambda$-module on $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda)$.  Moreover, the quotient map $\pi^\lambda: \Delta(\lambda) \to L(\lambda)$ induces a surjective map of $G^\lambda$-modules
\[
\pi^\lambda_E := \mathrm{id}_E \otimes \pi: E \otimes \Delta(\lambda) \to E \otimes L(\lambda).
\]

If we forget the $G^\lambda$-module structure and regard $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda)$ as just a $G^\circ$-module, then it is clear that its unique maximal semisimple quotient can be identified with $E \otimes L(\lambda)$, and that the highest weights of the kernel of $\pi^\lambda_E$ are${}< \lambda$.
Now, let $M$ be the head of $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda)$ as a $G^\lambda$-module.  Since $M$ must remain semisimple as a $G^\circ$-module (by Lemma~\ref{lem:restrict-semis}), it cannot be larger than $E \otimes L(\lambda)$.  In other words, $E \otimes L(\lambda)$ is the unique simple quotient of $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:standard-disconn}
Let $E$ be a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module. The $G$-module
\[
\Delta(\lambda,E) :=
\Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes \Delta(\lambda))
\]
admits $L(\lambda,E)$ as its unique irreducible quotient. Moreover, all the composition factors of the kernel of the quotient map $\Delta(\lambda,E) \to L(\lambda,E)$ are of the form $L(\mu,E')$ with $[\mu,E'] < [\lambda,E]$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
The surjection $E \otimes \Delta(\lambda) \to E \otimes L(\lambda)$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:Delta-disconn} induces a surjection $\Delta(\lambda,E) \to L(\lambda,E)$ since the functor $\Ind_{G^\lambda}^G$ is exact (see the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:simple-Ind}). If $g_1, \cdots, g_r$ are representatives of the cosets in $G/G^\lambda$, then as $G^\circ$-modules we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:isom-Delta-G0}
\Delta(\lambda,E) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^r E \otimes {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda), \quad L(\lambda,E) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^r E \otimes {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda).
\end{equation}
Therefore, as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:simple-Ind}, $L(\lambda,E)$ is the head of $\Delta(\lambda,E)$ as a $G^\circ$-module, hence also as a $G$-module.

If $L(\mu,E')$ is a $G$-composition factor of the kernel of the surjection $\Delta(\lambda,E) \to L(\lambda,E)$, then some twist of $L(\mu)$ must be a $G^\circ$-composition factor of the surjection $ {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda) \to  {}^{g_i} \hspace{-1pt} L(\lambda)$ for some $i$. Therefore $\mu$ is smaller than some twist of $\lambda$, and we deduce that $[\mu,E'] < [\lambda,E]$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{$\Ext^1$-vanishing}
\label{ss:vanishing}

The same
proof as for Lemma~\ref{lem:conjugation-isom}
shows that, up to isomorphism, $\Delta(\lambda,E)$ only depends on the orbit $[\lambda,E]$. The following lemma shows that this module is a ``partial projective cover'' of $L(\lambda,E)$ (under the assumption that $p \nmid |A|$).

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Ext1-Delta}
Assume that $p \nmid |A|$.
For any two pairs $(\lambda,E)$ and $(\mu,E')$, we have
\[
\Ext^1_G \bigl( \Delta(\lambda,E), L(\mu,E') \bigr) \neq 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad [\mu, E'] > [\lambda,E].
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:induced-semisimple}, we have a canonical isomorphism
\[
\Ext^1_G \bigl( \Delta(\lambda,E), L(\mu,E') \bigr) \cong
\Bigl( \Ext^1_{G^\circ} \bigl( \Delta(\lambda,E), L(\mu,E') \bigr) \Bigr)^A.
\]
If we assume that $\Ext^1_G \bigl(\Delta(\lambda,E), L(\mu,E') \bigr) \neq 0$, then this isomorphism shows that we must also have $\Ext^1_{G^\circ} \bigl( \Delta(\lambda,E), L(\mu,E') \bigr) \neq 0$. Using~\eqref{eqn:isom-Delta-G0}, we deduce that for some $g,h \in G$ we have
\[
\Ext^1_{G^\circ}({}^g \hspace{-1pt} \Delta(\lambda), {}^h \hspace{-1pt} L(\mu)) \neq 0.
\]
This implies that ${}^{\varpi(h)} \hspace{-1pt} \mu > {}^{\varpi(g)} \hspace{-1pt} \lambda$, hence that $[\mu, E'] > [\lambda,E]$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Costandard $G$-modules}
\label{ss:costandard}

Fix again $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-module $E$. Then after fixing a costandard module $\nabla(\lambda)$ with socle $L(\lambda)$ and an embedding $L(\lambda) \hookrightarrow \nabla(\lambda)$, as in~\S\ref{ss:standard} the isomorphisms $\theta_a$ can be ``lifted'' to isomorphisms $\theta_a^\nabla : \nabla(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \nabla(\lambda)$, which satisfy the appropriate analogue of~\eqref{eqn:delta-cocyle}. Using these isomorphisms one can define a $G^\lambda$-module structure on $E \otimes \nabla(\lambda)$ by the same procedure as in Lemma~\ref{lem:Delta-disconn}. Then the same arguments as for Proposition~\ref{prop:standard-disconn} show that $\nabla(\lambda,E):=\Ind_{G^\lambda}^G(E \otimes \nabla(\lambda))$ admits $L(\lambda,E)$ as its unique simple submodule, and that all the composition factors of the injection $L(\lambda,E) \hookrightarrow \nabla(\lambda,E)$ are of the form $L(\mu,E')$ with $[\mu,E'] < [\lambda,E]$. Moreover, as in Lemma~\ref{lem:Ext1-Delta}, if $p \nmid |A|$ we have
\[
\Ext^1_G \bigl( L(\mu,E'), \nabla(\lambda,E) \bigr) \neq 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad [\mu, E'] > [\lambda,E].
\]

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Ext-vanishing}
Assume that $p \nmid |A|$, and
let $(\lambda,E)$ and $(\mu, E')$ be pairs as above. Then for any $i>0$ we have
\[
\Ext^i_G(\Delta(\lambda,E), \nabla(\mu,E'))=0.
\]
Moreover
\[
\Hom_G(\Delta(\lambda,E), \nabla(\mu,E'))=0
\]
unless $[\lambda,E]=[\mu,E']$, in which case this space is $1$-dimensional.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:induced-semisimple}, for any $i>0$ we have
\[
\Ext_G^{i}(\Delta(\lambda,E), \nabla(\mu,E')) \cong \\
\bigl( \Ext_{G^\circ}^i(\Delta(\lambda,E), \nabla(\mu,E')) \bigr)^A.
\]
As $G^\circ$-modules $\Delta(\lambda,E)$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of Weyl modules, and $\nabla(\mu,E')$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of induced modules. Hence, the right-hand side vanishes unless $i=0$, which proves the first claim.

For the second claim we remark that if
$\Hom_G(\Delta(\lambda,E), \nabla(\mu,E')) \neq 0$,
then $L(\lambda,E)$ is a composition factor of $\nabla(\mu,E')$, so that $[\lambda,E] \leq [\mu,E']$, and $L(\mu,E')$ is a composition factor of $\Delta(\lambda,E)$, so that $[\mu,E'] \leq [\lambda,E]$. We deduce that $[\mu,E']=[\lambda,E]$. Moreover, in this case any nonzero morphism in this space must be a multiple of the composition
\[
\Delta(\lambda,E) \twoheadrightarrow L(\lambda,E) \hookrightarrow \nabla(\lambda,E),
\]
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Highest weight structure}
\label{ss:hw}

Let $\mathscr{C}$ be a finite-length $\Bbbk$-linear abelian category such that $\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(M,N)$ is finite-dimensional for any $M$, $N$ in $\mathscr{C}$.
Let $\mathscr{S}$ be the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible objects of $\mathscr{C}$. Assume that $\mathscr{S}$ is equipped with a partial order $\leq$, and that for each $s \in \mathscr{S}$ we have a fixed representative of the simple object $L_s$. Assume also we are given, for any $s \in \mathscr{S}$, objects $\Delta_s$ and $\nabla_s$, and morphisms $\Delta_s \to L_s$ and $L_s \to \nabla_s$. For $\mathscr{T} \subset \mathscr{S}$, we denote by $\mathscr{C}_{\mathscr{T}}$ the Serre subcategory of $\mathscr{C}$ generated by the objects $L_t$ for $t \in \mathscr{T}$. We write $\mathscr{C}_{\leq s}$ for $\mathscr{C}_{\{t \in \mathscr{S} \mid t \leq s\}}$, and similarly for $\mathscr{C}_{<s}$. Finally, recall that an \emph{ideal} of $\mathscr{S}$ is a subset $\mathscr{T} \subset \mathscr{S}$ such that if $t \in \mathscr{T}$ and $s \in \mathscr{S}$ are such that $s \leq t$, then $s \in \mathscr{T}$.

Recall that
the category $\mathscr{C}$ (together with the above data) is said to be a \emph{highest weight category} if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:qh-def-fin}
for any $s \in \mathscr{S}$, the set $\{t \in \mathscr{S} \mid t \leq s\}$ is finite;
\item
\label{it:qh-def-split}
for each $s \in \mathscr{S}$, we have
$\End_{\mathscr{C}}(L_s) = \Bbbk$;
\item
\label{it:Delta-nabla-proj-inj}
for any $s \in \mathscr{S}$ and any ideal $\mathscr{T} \subset \mathscr{S}$ such that $s \in \mathscr{T}$ is maximal, $\Delta_s \to L_s$ is a projective cover in $\mathscr{C}_{\mathscr{T}}$ and $L_s \to \nabla_s$ is an injective envelope in $\mathscr{C}_{\mathscr{T}}$;
\item
\label{it:qh-def-ker}
the kernel of $\Delta_s \to L_s$ and the cokernel of $L_s \to \nabla_s$ belong to $\mathscr{C}_{<s}$;
\item
\label{it:qh-def-ext2}
we have $\Ext^2_{\mathscr{C}}(\Delta_s, \nabla_t) = 0$ for all $s, t \in \mathscr{S}$.
\end{enumerate}
In this case, the poset $(\mathscr{S}, \leq)$ is called the \emph{weight poset} of $\mathscr{C}$.

See~\cite[\S 7]{riche-hab} for the basic properties of highest weight categories (following Cline--Parshall--Scott and Be{\u\i}linson--Ginzburg--Soergel).

We can finally state the main result of this section.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:hw-structure}
Assume that $p \nmid |A|$.
The category $\mathrm{Rep}(G)$, equipped with the poset
\[
\left.
\left\{
(\lambda, E) \, \left| \,
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and $E$ an isom. class} \\
\text{of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda$-modules}
\end{array}
\right\} \right.
\right/ A
\]
(with the order defined in~\eqref{eqn:def-order}) and the objects $\Delta(\lambda,E)$, $L(\lambda,E)$, $\nabla(\lambda,E)$, is a highest weight category.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The desired properties are verified in Theorem~\ref{thm:disconn-class}, Proposition~\ref{prop:standard-disconn} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Ext1-Delta}, their variants for costandard objects (see~\S\ref{ss:costandard}), and Lemma~\ref{lem:Ext-vanishing}.
\end{proof}

\section{Grothendieck groups}
\label{sec:Groth}

Our goal in this section is to prove a generalization of a result of Serre~\cite{serre-Groth} providing a description of the Grothendieck group of
any split connected reductive group over a complete discrete valuation ring. (In~\cite{serre-Groth}, the author considers more general coefficients, but we will restrict to the setting we need for the application in~\cite{ahr}.)

\subsection{Setting}

We will denote by $\O$ a complete discrete valuation ring, with algebraically closed residue field $\mathbb{F}$. We also denote by $\mathbb{K}$ the fraction field of $\O$, and by $\overline{\mathbb{K}}$ an algebraic closure of $\mathbb{K}$. We will assume that $\mathbb{K}$ has characteristic $0$, and that $\mathbb{F}$ has characteristic $p>0$.

We will consider an affine $\O$-group scheme $G$, a closed normal subgroup $G^\circ \subset G$, and we will denote by $A$ the factor group of $G$ by $G^\circ$ in the sense of~\cite[\S I.6.1]{jantzen} (i.e.~of~\cite[III, \S 3, n.~3]{dg}).
We will make the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:ass-1}
$G^\circ$ is a reductive group scheme over $\O$ (in the sense of~\cite{sga3.3});
\item
\label{it:ass-2}
$A$ is the constant group scheme associated with a finite group $\mathbf{A}$, and moreover $\mathrm{char}(\mathbb{F})$ does not divide $|\mathbf{A}|$.
\end{enumerate}

We will now note a few consequences of these assumptions. We begin with the following observation.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:reductive-split}
Any reductive group scheme over $\O$ (in particular, $G^\circ$) is split.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
This result follows from the arguments in the proof of~\cite[Corollary~2.1.2]{mcninch2016}. Namely, let $H$ be a reductive group scheme over $\O$, and let $K$ be a split $\O$-torus such that there exists a closed embedding $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{F}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} K \to \mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{F}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} H$. By~\cite[Exp.~XI, Corollaire~4.2]{sga3.2} and~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~18.5.17]{ega4}, there exists an $\O$-group scheme morphism $f: K \to H$ which lifts this embedding. If we let $K$ act on itself by left multiplication, and on $H$ by left multiplication via $f$, then $f$ is $K$-equivariant. Hence so is the induced morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:f^*}
\mathcal{O}(H) \to \mathcal{O}(K).
\end{equation}
In other words (see~\cite[\S I.2.11]{jantzen}), both $\mathcal{O}(H)$ and $\mathcal{O}(K)$ admit gradings by characters of $K$, and~\eqref{eqn:f^*} is a graded morphism. Now each graded piece of $\mathcal{O}(K)$ has finite rank over $\O$ (in fact, these pieces are free of rank~$1$), and the image of this morphism under the functor $\mathbb{F} \otimes_{\O} -$ is surjective by the construction of $f$. By the Nakayama lemma, we deduce that~\eqref{eqn:f^*} itself is surjective, i.e.~that $f$ is a closed embedding.

Finally, it follows from~\cite[Exp.~XIX, Th\'eor\`eme~2.5]{sga3.3} that the rank of the $\overline{\K}$-group $\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{\K}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} H$ coincides with that of $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{F}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} H$, so that $\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{\K}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} K$ is a maximal torus in $\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{\K}) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} H$. We have thus proved that $K$ is a maximal torus in $H$, and hence that the latter group is split.
\end{proof}

Next, from~\cite[\S I.5.7]{jantzen} (or from~\cite[III, \S 3, Proposition~2.5]{dg}) we deduce that the quotient morphism $\varpi : G \to A$ is flat, and hence that $G$ is a flat $\O$-group scheme (since $A$ is flat by assumption).
If $\Bbbk$ is one of $\mathbb{F}$, $\mathbb{K}$ or $\overline{\mathbb{K}}$, we set
\[
G_\Bbbk := \mathrm{Spec}(\Bbbk) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} G, \quad G^\circ_\Bbbk := \mathrm{Spec}(\Bbbk) \times_{\mathrm{Spec}(\O)} G^\circ.
\]
Then $G_\Bbbk$ is an extension of the constant (hence smooth) $\Bbbk$-group scheme associated with $\mathbf{A}$ by the smooth group scheme $G^\circ_\Bbbk$, so it is smooth by~\cite[Proposition~8.1]{milne}. From this we deduce that $G$ itself is smooth (see~\cite[Tag 01V8]{stacks}).

In particular, the groups $G_\mathbb{F}$ and $G_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ are algebraic groups (over $\mathbb{F}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{K}}$) in the usual ``naive'' sense. Since $G^\circ_\mathbb{F}$ is connected and $\mathbf{A}$ is finite, the latter group identifies with the group of components of $G_\mathbb{F}$. Similarly, $\mathbf{A}$ also identifies with the group of components of $G_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:surjectivity}
The morphism $G(\O) \to \mathbf{A}$ induced by $\varpi$ is surjective.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We consider the commutative diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G(\O) \ar[r] \ar[d] & A(\O) \ar[d, equal] \\
G(\mathbb{F}) \ar[r] & A(\mathbb{F})
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where the horizontal maps are induced by $\varpi$ and the vertical ones by the quotient morphism $\O \to \mathbb{F}$. Here the lower arrow is surjective, and the right vertical arrow is an isomorphism. On the other hand the left vertical arrow is surjective by~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~18.5.17]{ega4}. We deduce that the upper arrow is surjective, as desired.
\end{proof}

Thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:surjectivity}, we can (and will) choose a section $\iota : \mathbf{A} \to G(\O)$ of the projection induced by $\varpi$. (Of course, we do not assume that $\iota$ is a group morphism.) We will assume that $\iota(1)=1$. For simplicity, we will also denote by $\iota : A \to G$ the morphism of $\O$-group schemes defined by $\iota$: for any $\O$-algebra $R$, the induced morphism on $R$-points is the composition $A(R)=\mathbf{A} \xrightarrow{\iota} G(\O) \to G(R)$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:G-product}
The morphism
\[
A \times G^\circ \to G
\]
defined by $(a,g) \mapsto \iota(a) \cdot g$ is an isomorphism of $\O$-schemes.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Consider the algebra morphism $\varphi : \mathcal{O}(G) \to \prod_{a \in \mathbf{A}} \mathcal{O}(G^\circ)$ induced by our morphism. From the remarks above, we know that the algebra morphism $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O \varphi$ is an isomorphism. Here $\prod_{a \in \mathbf{A}} \mathcal{O}(G^\circ)$ is finitely generated as an $\mathcal{O}(G)$-module, since $\mathcal{O}(G^\circ)$ is. Hence, by (a variant for discrete valuation rings of)~\cite[Lemma~1.4.1]{br}, we deduce that $\varphi$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Statement}

Let us consider the Grothendieck groups
\[
\mathsf{K}(G), \qquad \mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{K}), \qquad \mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{F})
\]
of the categories of (algebraic) $G$-modules of finite type over $\O$, of finite-dimensional (algebraic) $G_\mathbb{K}$-modules, and of finite-dimensional (algebraic) $G_\mathbb{F}$-modules, respectively. We will also denote by $\mathsf{K}_{\mathrm{pr}}(G)$ the Grothendieck group of the exact category of $G$-modules which are free of finite rank over $\O$. Following~\cite{serre-Groth} we consider the natural morphisms of abelian groups
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathsf{K}_{\mathrm{pr}}(G) \ar[rd] \ar[r, "\sim"] & \mathsf{K}(G) \ar[r, two heads] & \mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{K}) \ar[ld, "d_G"] \\
& \mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{F})
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Here, on the upper line, the left horizontal map (which is induced by the natural inclusion of categories) is an isomorphism by~\cite[Proposition~4]{serre-Groth}.  The right horizontal map (induced by the exact functor $\mathbb{K} \otimes_\O (-)$) is surjective by~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~1]{serre-Groth}. The map from the top left-hand corner to the group on the bottom line is induced by the (exact) functor $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O (-)$. Finally, the map $d_G$ is the ``decomposition'' morphism from~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~2]{serre-Groth}.

The main result of this section is the following.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Groth-gps}
All the maps in~\eqref{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups} are isomorphisms.
\end{thm}

According to~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~3]{serre-Groth}, if $d_G$ is surjective, then the right-hand morphism on the upper line is automatically an isomorphism. Thus, to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:Groth-gps}, it is enough to prove that $d_G$ is an isomorphism. This will be accomplished in~\S\ref{ss:invertibility} below.

\subsection{Lattices}
\label{ss:lattices}

Our starting point will be the main result of~\cite{serre-Groth}, which is applicable here thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:reductive-split}. This result asserts that if we consider the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups-connected}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathsf{K}_{\mathrm{pr}}(G^\circ) \ar[rd] \ar[r, "\sim"] & \mathsf{K}(G^\circ) \ar[r, two heads] & \mathsf{K}(G^\circ_\mathbb{K}) \ar[ld, "d_{G^\circ}"] \\
& \mathsf{K}(G^\circ_\mathbb{F})
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
similar to~\eqref{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups} but for the group $G^\circ$, then the decomposition morphism $d_{G^\circ}$ is an isomorphism, so that all the maps in~\eqref{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups-connected} are isomorphisms.

More precisely, let us a fix a split torus $T \subset G^\circ$ and set $\mathbf{X}:=X^*(T)$. Choosing a system of positive roots in the root system of $(G^\circ,T)$, we obtain a Borel subgroup $B \subset G^\circ$ containing $T$ (chosen such that $B$ is the negative Borel subgroup), and a subset $\mathbf{X}^+ \subset \mathbf{X}$ of dominant weights.

By the well known representation theory of connected reductive groups over algebraically closed fields, both the set of isomorphism classes of simple $G^\circ_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$-modules and the set of isomorphism classes of simple $G^\circ_{\mathbb{F}}$-modules are in bijection with $\mathbf{X}^+$. More concretely, if $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ and if $L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)$ is a simple $G^\circ_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$-module of highest weight $\lambda$, then there exists a simple $G^\circ_{\mathbb{K}}$-module $L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)$ and an isomorphism $\overline{\mathbb{K}} \otimes_\mathbb{K} V_\mathbb{K} \cong V_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ (see e.g.~\cite[\S 4.6]{serre-Groth} or~\cite[Corollary~II.2.9]{jantzen} for details).
If $V_\O \subset V_\mathbb{K}$ is a $G^\circ$-stable $\O$-lattice, then the class of $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O V_\O$ in $\mathsf{K}(G^\circ_\mathbb{F})$ coincides with the class of the Weyl module $\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ of highest weight $\lambda$ (because $L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)$ and $\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ have the same characters). In fact, it is well known that the lattice $V_\O$ can be chosen in such a way that $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O V_\O \cong \Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ as $G^\circ_\mathbb{F}$-modules. For each $\lambda$ we will fix such a lattice, and denote it by $L_\O(\lambda)$.

In the present setting, $\mathbf{A}$ is the group of components both of $G_\mathbb{F}$ and of $G_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$. Identifying $T_\mathbb{F}$ and $T_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ with the universal maximal tori of $G^\circ_\mathbb{F}$ and $G_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}^\circ$ respectively (via the choice of Borel subgroups obtained from $B$ by base change), we obtain two actions of $\mathbf{A}$ on $\mathbf{X}=X^*(T_\mathbb{F})=X^*(T_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}})$, see~\S\ref{ss:disconn}. The description of this action involves the property that Borel subgroups are conjugate, which is not true over $\O$; so it is not clear from the definition that they must coincide. In the next lemma we will show that they do at least coincide on $\mathbf{X}^+$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:actions-coincide}
The two actions of $\mathbf{A}$ on $\mathbf{X}$ agree on $\mathbf{X}^+$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let us provisionally denote the two actions of $\mathbf{A}$ on $\mathbf{X}$ by $\cdot_\mathbb{F}$ and $\cdot_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$. Since $\mathbf{A}$ acts by algebraic group automorphisms on $G^\circ$, this group acts on all the Grothen\-dieck groups in~\eqref{eqn:diagram-Groth-groups-connected}, and all the maps in this diagram are obviously $\mathbf{A}$-equivariant. Now for $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$ we have $a \cdot [L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)] = [L_\mathbb{K}(a \cdot_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}} \lambda)]$. Hence
\[
d_{G^\circ}(a \cdot [L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)]) = [\Delta_\mathbb{F}(a \cdot_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}} \lambda)].
\]
On the other hand, since $d_{G^\circ}$ is $\mathbf{A}$-equivariant we have
\[
d_{G^\circ}(a \cdot [L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)]) = a \cdot [\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)] = [\Delta_\mathbb{F}(a \cdot_\mathbb{F} \lambda)]
\]
(see~\eqref{eqn:twist-standard}). We deduce that $[\Delta_\mathbb{F}(a \cdot_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}} \lambda)] = [\Delta_\mathbb{F}(a \cdot_\mathbb{F} \lambda)]$, hence that $a \cdot_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}} \lambda = a \cdot_\mathbb{F} \lambda$.
\end{proof}

From now on we fix $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$.
It follows in particular from Lemma~\ref{lem:actions-coincide} that the two possible definitions of the subgroup $\mathbf{A}^\lambda \subset \mathbf{A}$ (see~\S\ref{ss:twisted}) coincide.

\begin{lem}\phantomsection
\label{lem:isom-LO}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:End-LO}
We have $\End_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda)) = \O$.
\item
For any $a \in \mathbf{A}^\lambda$, there exists an isomorphism of $G^\circ$-modules
\[
\label{it:Hom-LO}
{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda) \cong L_\O(\lambda).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We only explain the proof of~\eqref{it:Hom-LO}; the proof of~\eqref{it:End-LO} is similar.
Consider the object
\[
R\Hom_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda),{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda))
\]
of the derived category of $\O$-modules.
By~\cite[Lemma~II.B.5 and its proof]{jantzen}, this complex has bounded cohomology, and each of its cohomology objects is finitely generated. This implies that it is isomorphic (in the derived category) to a finite direct sum of shifts of finitely generated $\O$-modules.

It follows from~\cite[Proposition~A.6 and Proposition~A.8]{mr} that we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{F} \@ifnextchar_{\@lotimessub}{\@lotimesnosub}_\O R\Hom_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda),{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda)) &\cong R\Hom_{G^\circ_\mathbb{F}}(\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda), \Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)), \\
\overline{\mathbb{K}} \@ifnextchar_{\@lotimessub}{\@lotimesnosub}_\O R\Hom_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda),{}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda)) &\cong R\Hom_{G^\circ_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}}(L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda), L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)).
\end{align*}
Now we have $R\Hom_{G^\circ_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}}(L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda), L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)) \cong \overline{\mathbb{K}}$, so that $\Hom_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda), {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda))$ is a sum of $\O$ and a torsion module. But since $\Hom_{G^\circ_\mathbb{F}}(\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda),\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda))=\mathbb{F}$, this torsion module is zero; in other words we have $\Hom_{G^\circ}(L_\O(\lambda), {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt}L_\O(\lambda)) \cong \O$. If $f : L_\O(\lambda) \to {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda)$ is a generator of this rank-$1$ $\O$-module, the $G_{\mathbb{F}}$-module morphism $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O f$ is an isomorphism, so that $f$ is also an isomorphism.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Comparison of twisted group algebras}
\label{ss:comparison}

We continue with the setting of~\S\ref{ss:lattices} (and in particular with our fixed $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$).

By Lemma~\ref{lem:isom-LO} we can choose, for any $a \in \mathbf{A}^\lambda$, an isomorphism $\theta_a : L_\O(\lambda) \overset{\sim}{\to} {}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_\O(\lambda)$. Then $\overline{\mathbb{K}} \otimes_\O \theta_a$ is an isomorphism from $L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)$ to ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} L_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}(\lambda)$, and for $a,b \in \mathbf{A}^\lambda$ the scalar $\alpha(a,b) \in \overline{\mathbb{K}}$ defined in~\S\ref{ss:twisted} using these isomorphisms in fact belongs to $\O^\times$. In particular, if $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ is the associated twisted group algebra (over $\overline{\mathbb{K}}$), then the $\O$-lattice $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O := \bigoplus_{a \in A^\lambda} \O \cdot \rho_a$ is an $\O$-subalgebra in $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$. On the other hand, $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O \theta_a$ is an isomorphism from $\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ to ${}^{\iota(a)} \hspace{-1pt} \Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$, and by Remark~\ref{rmk:Alambda-standards} the algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{F}$ from~\S\ref{ss:twisted} (now for the group $G_\mathbb{F}$ and its simple module $L_\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$) can be described as the twisted group algebra of $\mathbf{A}^\lambda$ defined by the cocyle sending $(a,b)$ to the image of $\alpha(a,b)$ in $\mathbb{F}$.

Summarizing, we have obtained an $\O$-algebra $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O$ which is free over $\O$ and such that
\[
\overline{\mathbb{K}} \otimes_\O \mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O \cong \mathscr{A}^\lambda_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}, \quad \mathbb{F} \otimes_\O \mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O \cong \mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{F}.
\]
From Lemma~\ref{lem:semisimple-algebra} we know that $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ are products of matrix algebras (over $\mathbb{F}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{K}}$ respectively). In fact, the same arguments show that $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}:=\mathbb{K} \otimes_\O \mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O$ is also a product of matrix algebras (over $\mathbb{K}$). Hence we are in the setting of Tits' deformation theorem (see e.g.~\cite[Theorem~7.4.6]{geck-pfeiffer}), and we deduce that we have
a canonical bijection between the sets of isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$-modules and isomorphism classes of simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{F}$-modules, which sends a simple module $M$ to $\mathbb{F} \otimes_\O M_\O$, where $M_\O$ is any $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O$-stable $\O$-lattice in $M$.

Let now $E$ be a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$-module. The same procedure as in~\S\ref{ss:lambda-E} allows us to define a $G^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$-module structure on $E \otimes_\mathbb{K} L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)$, where $G^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$ is the inverse image of $\mathbf{A}^\lambda$ under the map $G_\mathbb{K} \to A$ induced by $\varpi$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:d-simples}
Let $\tilde{E}$ be the simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{F}$-module corresponding to $E$ under the bijection above. Then we have
\[
d_G([\Ind_{G^\lambda_\mathbb{K}}^{G_\mathbb{K}}(E \otimes L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda))]) = [\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda,\tilde{E})],
\]
where $G^\lambda_\mathbb{F}$ is the inverse image of $\mathbf{A}^\lambda$ under the map $G_\mathbb{F} \to A$ induced by $\varpi$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $E_\O \subset E$ is an $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\O$-stable lattice in $E$, then $E_\O \otimes_\O L_\O(\lambda)$ has a natural structure of $G^\lambda$-module (where $G^\lambda=\varpi^{-1}(\mathbf{A}^\lambda)$), and is a $G^\lambda$-stable lattice in $E \otimes L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda)$. Inducing to $G$, we deduce that $\Ind_{G^\lambda}^{G}(E_\O \otimes_\O L_\O(\lambda))$ is a $G$-stable lattice in $\Ind_{G^\lambda_\mathbb{K}}^{G_\mathbb{K}}(E \otimes L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda))$, whose modular reduction is $\Delta_\mathbb{F}(\lambda,\tilde{E})$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Invertibility of $d_G$}
\label{ss:invertibility}

We can now prove that $d_G$ is an isomorphism, which will finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Groth-gps}.

In fact, for any $\lambda \in \mathbf{X}^+$, since $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$ is a product of matrix algebras the assignment $E \mapsto \overline{\mathbb{K}} \otimes_\mathbb{K} E$ induces induces a bijection between the sets of isomorphism classes of simple modules for the algebras $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$ and $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$ from~\S\ref{ss:comparison}. Then, using Theorem~\ref{thm:disconn-class} and arguing as in~\cite[\S 3.6]{serre-Groth}, we see that the similar operation induces a bijection between the sets of isomorphism classes of simple $G_\mathbb{K}$-modules and of simple $G_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}}$-modules.

Let us now fix a subset $\Lambda \subset \mathbf{X}^+$ of representatives for the $\mathbf{A}$-orbits on $\mathbf{X}^+$.
By the remarks above, the classes of the modules $\Ind_{G^\lambda_\mathbb{K}}^{G_\mathbb{K}}(E \otimes L_\mathbb{K}(\lambda))$, where $(\lambda,E)$ runs over the pairs consisting of an element $\lambda \in \Lambda$ and a simple $\mathscr{A}^\lambda_\mathbb{K}$-modules, form a basis of $\mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{K})$ (see in particular Remark~\ref{rmk:classification-simples}\eqref{it:rmks-representatives}). In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:d-simples} and Theorem~\ref{thm:hw-structure}, the image of this basis under $d_G$ is a basis of $\mathsf{K}(G_\mathbb{F})$. Hence, $d_G$ is indeed an isomorphism.