Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: derived equivalences between finite dimensional algebras are known to be fundamental in representation theory and applications . unfortunately , still very few positive results are known about the structure of derived equivalences and about homological invariants . for instance , it is not known when ( a ) a derived equivalence between algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 induces derived equivalences between certain centraliser subalgebras @xmath6 and @xmath7 , or in case of group algebras between subgroup algebras . it is also not known when ( b ) the existence of a derived equivalence implies that @xmath0 and @xmath3 share homological invariants such as global or dominant dimension . for known classes of derived equivalences , both questions are known to have dauntingly negative answers . the aim of this article is to identify large classes of algebras where both problems do have positive solutions . a starting point , and some hope , may be provided by the class of self - injective algebras , which have both global and dominant dimension infinite , except in the semisimple case . under some mild assumption , derived equivalences are known to preserve the property of being self - injective , hence also the values of these two homological dimensions . in full generality , derived equivalences between self - injective algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 induce stable equivalences of morita type and thus there are equalities between global and also between dominant dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath3 . this motivates considering algebras that are closely related to self - injective algebras and considering derived equivalences inducing stable equivalences of morita type , leading to the following more precise versions of ( a ) and ( b ) :    the key concept to address both questions and to identify suitable and interesting classes of algebras is @xmath1-dominant dimension ( to be defined in [ defn : strong dominant dimension ] ) , where @xmath1 is the nakayama functor sending projective to injective modules over an algebra . concerning ( a ) , an assumption is needed to identify unique and non - zero associated self - injective centraliser subalgebras ( first used by martinez - villa @xcite ) of @xmath0 and @xmath3 , respectively , which then can be investigated for derived equivalence . in general , it may happen that an algebra @xmath0 having zero as associated self - injective algebra is derived equivalent to an algebra @xmath3 having a non - zero associated self - injective algebra ; see ( * ? ? ? * section 5 ) for an example . the condition that both algebras have faithful strongly projective - injective modules allows to identify non - trivial associated self - injective centraliser subalgebras ( lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] and definition [ defn : associatedselfinjectivealgebra ] ) , and it is strong enough to solve problem ( a ) :    : _ let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be finite dimensional algebras of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one , and let @xmath8 and @xmath9 be their associated self - injective centraliser subalgebras . if @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent , then also @xmath2 and @xmath4 are derived equivalent . _    the proof is based on a stronger result ( theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] ) , which shows that the given derived equivalence between @xmath0 and @xmath3 restricts to certain subcategories that are shown to determine the derived categories of @xmath2 and @xmath4 . the class of algebras of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one contains all self - injective algebras , but also the morita algebras introduced in @xcite , which are characterised in ( theorem [ prop : characterise morita algebras ] ) as the algebras having @xmath1-dominant dimension at least two ; their @xmath1-dominant dimension coincides with the classical dominant dimension . morita algebras in turn contain gendo - symmetric algebras and hence several classes of algebras of interest in algebraic lie theory such as classical or quantised schur algebras and blocks of the bgg - category @xmath10 of semisimple complex lie algebras ; these algebras usually have finite global dimension , but are related to self - injective algebras by schur - weyl dualities . special cases of the derived restriction theorem state for instance : ( 1 ) two classical or quantised schur algebras @xmath11 ( with @xmath5 ) are derived equivalent only if the corresponding group algebras of symmetric groups or hecke algebras are so ( for the latter a derived equivalence classification is known by chuang and rouquier @xcite ) . + ( 2 ) auslander algebras of self - injective algebras of finite representation type are derived equivalent if and only if the self - injective algebras are so ( the latter derived equivalences are known by work of asashiba @xcite ) , and in this case the auslander algebras moreover are stably equivalent of morita type ( corollary [ cor : restriction theorem for auslander algebras ] ) . problem ( b ) does not , in general , have a positive answer for algebras of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one ; only upper bounds for the differences in dimensions can be given ( which are valid in general , proposition [ prop : bound global dimension ] and theorem [ thm : bound the difference ] ) . to identify subclasses of algebras where problem ( b ) has a positive answer , two approaches are developed here :    one approach identifies special derived equivalences , which do preserve both global and dominant dimensions : these are the ( iterated ) almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences ( introduced in @xcite ) . these equivalences are known to induce stable equivalences of morita type . standard equivalences between self - injective algebras are of this form . the same is true for a larger class of algebras introduced here , the almost self - injective algebras , which include all self - injective algebras and also some algebras of finite global dimension , for instance schur algebras of finite representation type :    the second approach concentrates on directly identifying global and dominant dimension inside some derived category ; in the case of dominant dimension , the associated self - injective centraliser subalgebra occurring in the derived restriction theorem is used . this approach works ( under the assumption of having dominant dimension at least one ) for all split algebras ( e.g. , algebras over an algebraically closed field ) having an anti - automorphism ( for instance , a duality ) preserving simples :    dualities , i.e. involutory anti - automorphisms fixing simples , exist for instance for all cellular algebras . the second invariance theorem covers in particular classical and quantised schur algebras and even their blocks . in fact , the invariance property is strong enough ( theorems [ thm : global dimension of blocks of schur algebras ] and [ thm : dominant dimension of blocks of schur algebras ] ) to determine these dimensions by explicit combinatorial formulae in terms of weights and ( quantum ) characteristics , for all blocks of such schur algebras , using the derived equivalences constructed by chuang and rouquier . the main results of this article are motivated by various results in the literature , which are extended and applied here :    the idea to use schur - weyl dualities and schur functors to compare homological data of self - injective algebras such as group algebras of symmetric groups and of their schur algebras ( quasi - hereditary covers ) , of finite global dimension , has been developed in @xcite . there it has been demonstrated that dominant dimension is not only crucial for existence of schur - weyl duality , @xcite , but also for the quality of the schur functor in preserving homological data , although typically on one side of schur - weyl duality there is an algebra of infinite global and dominant dimension and on the other side there is an algebra with finite such dimensions . these are derived equivalent only in degenerate ( semisimple ) cases . the same approach has been demonstrated to work for hochschild cohomology in @xcite , where also a first instance of the derived restriction theorem has appeared . the concept of ( iterated ) almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence and its useful properties have been developed in @xcite , where the focus has been on the resulting stable equivalences of morita type ( which imply invariance of global and dominant dimension ) . chuang and rouquier s derived equivalence classification of blocks of symmetric groups and of some related algebras provides an important supply of examples . it turns out , however , that already these equivalences , more precisely those between quantised schur algebras , are not always iterated @xmath1-stable , which forces us to use the second approach to derived invariants , using anti - automorphisms fixing simples , in this case . after recalling two major homological invariants of algebras , global dimension and dominant dimension , a new variation of dominant dimension , @xmath1-dominant dimension , is introduced that will turn out to provide a crucial assumption in the main results . in the second subsection , the two main classes of algebras considered here will be discussed and related to @xmath1-dominant dimension ; these are the morita algebras , which will get characterised in terms of @xmath1-dominant dimension , and the new class of almost self - injective algebras .      throughout , @xmath12 is an arbitrary field of any characteristic . algebras are _ finite dimensional _ @xmath12-vector spaces and , unless stated otherwise , modules are finitely generated left modules . when @xmath0 is an algebra , @xmath13 denotes the opposite algebra of @xmath0 , and @xmath14 is the enveloping algebra @xmath15 . let @xmath16 ( respectively @xmath17 ) be the category of all ( respectively all finitely generated ) left @xmath0-modules , and @xmath18 ( respectively @xmath19 ) the full subcategory of @xmath17 whose objects are the projective ( respectively injective ) left @xmath0-modules . let @xmath20 be the usual @xmath12-duality functor @xmath21 and @xmath22 the nakayama functor . we follow the conventions from @xcite . let @xmath23 be an additive category . an object @xmath24 in @xmath23 is called _ strongly indecomposable _ if @xmath25 is a local ring . an object @xmath26 in @xmath23 is called _ basic _ if @xmath26 is a direct sum of strongly indecomposable objects of multiplicity one each . for an object @xmath27 in @xmath23 , we write @xmath28 for the full subcategory of @xmath23 consisting of all direct summands of finite direct sum of copies of @xmath27 . by @xmath29 or @xmath30 we denote the composition of morphisms @xmath31 and @xmath32 in @xmath23 . a morphism @xmath33 is said to be _ radical _ in @xmath23 , if for morphisms @xmath34 and @xmath35 , the composition @xmath36 never is an isomorphism . in contrast to the composition rule for morphisms , we write @xmath37 for the composition of two functors @xmath38 and @xmath39 between additive categories .      given a finite dimensional @xmath12-algebra @xmath0 , there are many homological invariants around to measure the complexity of @xmath0 from different points of view , and global dimension is the most widely used one . by definition , the global dimension of @xmath0 , denoted by @xmath40 , is the smallest number @xmath41 or @xmath42 such that @xmath43 for any @xmath44 and all @xmath45 . the following ( well - known ) characterisation can be found for instance in ( * ? ? ? * corollary 3.8 ) . [ lem : characterise global dimension ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . if @xmath46 , then @xmath40 is the largest number @xmath41 such that @xmath47 . dominant dimension was introduced by nakayama , and developed later mainly by morita and tachikawa , see @xcite for more information , and @xcite for a recent development partly motivating our aims and results . [ defn : dominant dimension ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . the _ dominant dimension _ of @xmath0 , denoted by @xmath48 , is defined to be the largest number @xmath49 ( or @xmath42 ) such that in a minimal injective resolution @xmath50 of the left regular @xmath0-module , @xmath51 is projective for all @xmath52 ( or @xmath42 ) . thus , @xmath53 not being projective , that is @xmath54 , is equivalent to @xmath0 not having a faithful projective - injective module . the module @xmath55 is projective and injective if and only if so is @xmath56 in @xmath57 . it follows that @xmath58 and thus @xmath48 can be defined alternatively via right @xmath0-modules . if @xmath59 , then there exists a unique ( up to isomorphism ) minimal faithful right @xmath0-module ( and also a unique up to isomorphism minimal faithful left @xmath0-module ) . it must be projective and injective , hence of the form @xmath60 for some idempotent @xmath61 in @xmath0 . if @xmath62 , then @xmath60 is a faithful balanced bimodule , i.e. , there is a double centralizer property , namely @xmath63 canonically . algebras of infinite dominant dimension are conjectured to be self - injective ( this is the celebrated _ nakayama conjecture _ ) , see @xcite . the following characterisation of dominant dimension is due to mller . [ prop : muller characterisation ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra of dominant dimension at least @xmath64 . let @xmath60 be a minimal faithful right @xmath0-module and @xmath65 be an integer . then @xmath66 if and only if @xmath67 for @xmath68 .    of particular interest later on will be certain derived equivalences , ( iterated ) almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences , defined in @xcite . here , a certain subclass of both projective and injective ( projective - injective for short ) modules is crucial . this motivates the following variation of dominant dimension , which is crucial for our main results . [ defn : strong projective injective modules ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra and @xmath69 be the nakayama functor . a projective @xmath0-module @xmath70 is said to be _ strongly projective - injective _ if @xmath71 is projective for all @xmath72 . by @xmath73 we denote the full subcategory of @xmath18 consisting of strongly projective - injective @xmath0-modules .    in @xcite , strongly projective - injective modules are called @xmath1-stably projective ; since this may be misunderstood as implying @xmath1-stable , we use a different terminology here . strongly projective - injective modules are projective and injective , which justifies their name . an easy proof goes as follows , see also ( * ? ? ? * lemma 2.3 ) . first note that @xmath70 is strongly projective - injective if and only if so is each of its direct summands . thus we may assume that @xmath70 is indecomposable . since the nakayama functor @xmath74 sends indecomposable projective modules to indecomposable injective modules , it follows that @xmath75 are indecomposable projective - injective for all @xmath72 . but there are only finitely many indecomposable objects in @xmath18 , so there must exist @xmath76 such that @xmath77 . using again that @xmath78 is an equivalence , we deduce that @xmath79 . in particular , @xmath70 is both projective and injective . [ defn : strong dominant dimension ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . @xmath1-dominant dimension _ of @xmath0 , denoted by @xmath80 , is defined to be the largest number @xmath49 ( or @xmath42 ) such that in a minimal injective resolution @xmath50 of the left regular @xmath0-module , @xmath51 is strongly projective - injective for all @xmath52 ( or @xmath42 ) .    by definition , @xmath81 , but in general there is no equality . here is an example illustrating the difference between these two dimensions . let @xmath0 be the path algebra @xmath82 of the quiver @xmath83 . then @xmath84 is projective - injective , but not strongly projective - injective , since @xmath85 and @xmath86 is not projective . as a result , @xmath87 , while @xmath88 .    in our context , @xmath1-dominant dimension is important , since it allows to identify particular self - injective centraliser subalgebras :    [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . if @xmath89 , then all projective - injective @xmath0-modules are strongly projective - injective , and thus @xmath90 . in this case , endomorphism rings of minimal faithful left @xmath0-modules are self - injective . suppose @xmath89 . then , a minimal faithful left @xmath0-module is of the form @xmath91 , and strongly projective - injective . we will use its endomorphism ring @xmath6 as ` the largest self - injective centraliser subalgebra ' .    since @xmath89 , the injective envelope @xmath92 of @xmath93 is strongly projective - injective . let @xmath70 be an indecomposable projective - injective @xmath0-module . the composition is a split monomorphism . thus @xmath70 is a direct summand of @xmath92 , and in particular strongly projective - injective . consequently , all projective - injective @xmath0-modules are strongly projective - injective . hence the two dominant dimensions coincide . let @xmath91 be a minimal faithful left @xmath0-module . by assumption , it is strongly projective - injective . hence @xmath94 belongs to @xmath95 , and in particular @xmath96 , that is , @xmath6 is self - injective . the endomorphism ring of a strongly projective - injective @xmath0-module in general may not be self - injective , even when assuming @xmath89 . for instance , let @xmath0 be the self - injective nakayama algebra with cyclic quiver , three simple modules and @xmath97 . then each indecomposable projective module is injective as well , and even strongly projective - injective , but the endomorphism ring of a sum of two non - isomorphic indecomposable projective modules never is self - injective . the proof of lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] works not only for @xmath91 , but also for any direct sum of copies of @xmath91 . [ defn : associatedselfinjectivealgebra ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra with @xmath89 and let @xmath91 be a minimal faithful left @xmath0-module . then the centraliser algebra @xmath6 is called the _ associated self - injective algebra of @xmath0_.    these associated self - injective subalgebras have been introduced and strongly used before in work of martinez - villa @xcite reducing validity of the auslander - reiten conjecture on stable equivalences preserving the number of non - projective simple modules to the case of self - injective algebras . there , the setup is more general and the associated self - injective algebras have been allowed to be zero , which does not make sense in our situation as we need a strong connection between the given algebra and its associated self - injective subalgebra . the term ` associated self - injective algebra ' first occurred in @xcite . the term ` morita algebras ' ( not related to morita rings occurring in morita contexts ) was coined by kerner and yamagata in @xcite , when they investigated algebras first studied by morita @xcite as endomorphism rings of generators over self - injective algebras . the subclass of morita algebras consisting of endomorphism rings of generators over symmetric algebras , called gendo - symmetric algebras , was introduced and studied independently in @xcite . [ def : morita algebras ] a @xmath12-algebra @xmath0 is called a _ morita algebra _ if @xmath0 is isomorphic to for some self - injective algebra @xmath98 and some module @xmath99 . @xmath0 is called _ gendo - symmetric _ if in addition @xmath98 is symmetric . gendo - symmetric algebras form a large class of algebras , cutting across traditional boundaries such as finite or infinite global dimension . examples of finite global dimension include classical and quantised schur algebras @xmath11 ( with @xmath5 ) , blocks of the bernstein - gelfand - gelfand category @xmath10 and many other algebras occurring in algebraic lie theory and elsewhere . examples of infinite global dimension include symmetric algebras , for instance group algebras and hecke algebras . morita algebras include in addition self - injective , and in particular frobenius algebras , and their auslander algebras . morita algebras have been characterised in several ways , see @xcite . for our purposes , a new characterisation is needed in terms of @xmath1-dominant dimension ( section [ subsec : global dimension and dominant dimension ] ) :    [ prop : characterise morita algebras ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . then @xmath100 if and only if @xmath0 is a morita algebra . suppose @xmath100 . then by lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] , the minimal faithful @xmath0-module @xmath91 is ( strongly ) projective - injective and its endomorphism ring @xmath6 is self - injective . moreover , @xmath0 has dominant dimension at least two , which implies a double centraliser property on @xmath91 , between @xmath0 and @xmath6 . therefore , @xmath0 is a morita algebra . conversely , if @xmath0 is a morita algebra , then @xmath0 is isomorphic to @xmath101 for some self - injective algebra @xmath98 and a generator @xmath27 in @xmath102 . let @xmath103 be the direct sum of all pairwise non - isomorphic indecomposable projective @xmath98-modules .    by definition , @xmath103 is a direct summand of @xmath27 and @xmath104 . moreover , as left @xmath98-modules and there are isomorphisms of @xmath0-modules @xmath105 here , the isomorphism @xmath106 follows from @xmath107 . the isomorphism @xmath108 uses and the isomorphism @xmath109 follows from tensor - hom adjointness . @xmath110 uses @xmath111 . this proves the claim . now we construct an injective presentation of the left regular @xmath0-module @xmath112 ( or @xmath101 ) as follows : take an injective presentation @xmath113 of @xmath27 and apply @xmath114 to obtain the exact sequence @xmath115 of left note that both @xmath84 and @xmath116 are projective @xmath98-modules and thus belong to @xmath117 . therefore , @xmath118 for @xmath119 , and so @xmath100 . let @xmath0 be a morita algebra . then @xmath120 . this follows immediately from lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] and proposition [ prop : characterise morita algebras ] . gendo - symmetric algebras appeared first in @xcite , see @xcite for further information . in our context , there is the following characterisation :    [ prop : properties on gendo - symmetric algebras ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra . then @xmath0 is gendo - symmetric if and only if @xmath121 as @xmath0-bimodules . if @xmath0 is gendo - symmetric , then @xmath122 . the first claim follows from ( * ? ? ? * theorem 3.2 ) and the second one from ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.3 ) . alternatively , the characterisation of @xmath48 also follows from proposition [ prop : muller characterisation ] combined with the following claim :    since @xmath0 is a gendo - symmetric algebra , dualising both sides of the isomorphism @xmath123 yields an isomorphism @xmath124 as @xmath0-bimodules . thus @xmath125 is isomorphic to @xmath91 , and in particular it is projective - injective . now , for a minimal injective resolution @xmath126 of the left regular @xmath0-module , the first @xmath48-terms are projective - injective , hence belong to @xmath127 . applying @xmath128 to the sequence @xmath129 , and comparing the cohomologies of @xmath130 and @xmath131 , proves the claim .    the second class of algebras we are going to study generalises self - injective algebras . an algebra @xmath0 is called an _ almost self - injective algebra _ , if @xmath89 and there is at most one indecomposable projective @xmath0-module that is not injective .    among the examples are schur algebras of finite representation type , which have finite global dimension and which are morita algebras . schur algebras , and thus morita algebras , in general are not almost self - injective . schur algebras of finite representation type are examples of gendo - brauer tree algebras described and classified in @xcite . these algebras are representation - finite gendo - symmetric and in addition biserial ; the corresponding symmetric algebras are brauer tree algebras . conversely , almost self - injective algebras need not be morita algebras as the following example illustrates . let @xmath0 be the @xmath12-algebra given by the quiver    @xmath132^\delta & 1 \ar@/^/[l]^\alpha \ar@/^/[r]^\beta & 3 \ar@/^/[l]^\theta}\ ] ] and relations @xmath133 . the loewy series of the indecomposable projective left @xmath0-modules are @xmath134 then both @xmath116 and @xmath135 are strongly projective - injective , and @xmath136 . thus @xmath0 is an almost self - injective algebra , but not a morita algebra . after recalling fundamental facts of derived morita theory , basic properties of standard equivalences will be shown and then almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences will be explained , thus providing crucial tools for proofs later on . let @xmath23 be an additive category . a complex @xmath137 over @xmath138 is a sequence of morphisms @xmath139 in @xmath23 of the form @xmath140 with @xmath141 for all @xmath142 . we call @xmath137 a _ radical _ complex if all @xmath139 are radical morphisms . we denote by @xmath143 ( respectively @xmath144 ) the category of complexes ( respectively bounded complexes ) over @xmath138 , and by @xmath145 ( respectively @xmath146 ) the corresponding homotopy category . @xmath147 ( respectively @xmath148 ) is the derived category of complexes ( respectively bounded complexes ) over @xmath138 when @xmath138 is abelian . homotopy categories and derived categories are prominent examples of _ triangulated categories_. for an algebra @xmath0 , we write @xmath149 , @xmath150 and @xmath151 for @xmath152 , @xmath153 and @xmath154 respectively , where @xmath155 stands for @xmath156 or @xmath157 .    [ lem : morphisms in derived categories ] let @xmath0 be an algebra . then :    @xmath106 every complex of @xmath0-modules is isomorphic to a radical complex in the homotopy category @xmath158 . @xmath108 two radical complexes are isomorphic in the homotopy category @xmath158 if and only if so they are in @xmath159 . @xmath109 for two complexes @xmath137 and @xmath160 , if there exists an integer @xmath161 such that @xmath137 has no cohomology in degrees larger than @xmath161 ( i.e. , @xmath162 for @xmath163 ) , and @xmath160 has no cohomology in degrees smaller than @xmath161 ( i.e. , @xmath164 for @xmath165 ) , then @xmath166 + in particular , for any complex @xmath167 of @xmath0-modules , @xmath168)$ ] is isomorphic to its @xmath169-th cohomology @xmath170 for all @xmath169 . the first two statements are taken from @xcite ; the remaining statements can be shown by using truncations and cartan - eilenberg resolutions of complexes . the tensor product of two complexes @xmath137 and @xmath160 in @xmath171 is defined to be the total complex of the double complex with its @xmath172-term @xmath173 , and their tensor product in @xmath174 is the tensor product of their projective resolutions in @xmath171 @xcite .    let @xmath137 be a complex over @xmath138 of the form @xmath175 . then the _ brutal truncations _ of @xmath137 are defined by cutting off the left or right hand part of the complex : @xmath176 and @xmath177 . there is an exact sequence of complexes @xmath178 , which also defines a triangle . _ derived equivalences _ are by definition equivalences of derived categories that preserve the triangulated structures , that is shift and triangles . two algebras _ @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent _ if there is a derived equivalence between their derived categories . despite their importance , derived equivalences are still rather unknown and even basic questions are still open . the equivalence relation between algebras defined by derived equivalence does , however , admit a very satisfactory theory , known as _ morita theory for derived categories _ , due to rickard and ( more generally for dg algebras ) to keller . [ thm : morita theory for derived category ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be two @xmath12-algebras . the following statements are equivalent .    * @xmath179 and @xmath180 are equivalent as triangulated categories . * @xmath181 and @xmath182 are equivalent as triangulated categories . * @xmath183 and @xmath184 are equivalent as triangulated categories . * @xmath185 and @xmath186 are equivalent as triangulated categories . * there exists a complex @xmath187 such that @xmath188 and * * @xmath189)=0 $ ] unless @xmath190 ; * * @xmath191 generates @xmath185 as triangulated category .    the complex @xmath192 in ( 5 ) is called a _ tilting complex_.    for any derived equivalence from @xmath179 to @xmath180 , the image of @xmath0 in @xmath180 is a tilting complex , and so is the preimage of @xmath3 in @xmath179 . it is not known whether the equivalences in ( 1)-(4 ) determine each other uniquely ( see ( * ? ? ? * section 7 ) ) . to fix the ambiguity , rickard @xcite associated to each derived equivalence a _ standard derived equivalence_. a complex @xmath193 is called a _ two - sided tilting complex _ if and only if @xmath194 for some complex @xmath195 . the complex @xmath196 is called an _ inverse _ of @xmath197 . the functor @xmath198 ( respectively , @xmath199 ) is a triangle equivalence with @xmath200 ( respectively , @xmath201 ) as a quasi - inverse . such a derived equivalence is called a _ standard derived equivalence_. it has been proved in @xcite that each derived equivalence @xmath202 induces a derived equivalence @xmath203 from @xmath204 to @xmath205 , and the image @xmath197 of @xmath206 under @xmath203 is a two - sided tilting complex such that @xmath207 for all @xmath208 . it is not known whether @xmath209 and @xmath210 agree on morphisms . two - sided tilting complexes can be used to provide further derived equivalences . let @xmath197 be a two - sided tilting complex in @xmath211 with an inverse @xmath196 . then , for each algebra @xmath212 , the functor @xmath213 is a triangle equivalence with @xmath200 as a quasi - inverse , and the functor @xmath214 defines a derived equivalence with @xmath215 as a quasi - inverse , see @xcite for more details . here are some properties of the standard derived equivalence @xmath216 , to be used later on . [ lem : standard derived equivalence ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent @xmath12-algebras . let @xmath216 be a standard derived equivalence from @xmath174 to @xmath217 defined by a two - sided tilting complex @xmath197 in @xmath218 as defined above in ( [ eqn : two sided standard derived equivalence ] ) . then for any complexes @xmath137 and @xmath160 in @xmath174 , there are isomorphisms in @xmath217    * @xmath219 , @xmath220 ; * @xmath221 ; * @xmath222 ; * @xmath223 . \(1 ) follows from the isomorphism @xmath224 and ( 2 ) follows from ( * ? ? ? * proposition 5.2 ) . to show ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) , note that the derived functor @xmath225 from @xmath226 to @xmath227 is right adjoint to the derived functor @xmath210 ( see @xcite ) . thus it is naturally isomorphic to the derived functor @xmath200 . similarly , the two derived functors @xmath228 and @xmath210 are naturally isomorphic . ( 3 ) then follows by a series of isomorphisms in @xmath229 : @xmath230 here the isomorphisms marked by @xmath231 follow by tensor - hom adjointness , and the isomorphism marked by @xmath232 follows from @xmath233 .    to prove ( 4 ) , observe that @xmath234 in @xmath235 . thus by ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) @xmath236 in @xmath217 . let @xmath237 be a triangulated category , and let @xmath238 , i=1 , 2 $ ] be triangles in @xmath237 . if one of the following conditions is satisfied    @xmath106 @xmath239)$ ] for @xmath240 ;    @xmath108 @xmath241 , z)$ ] for @xmath240 ,    then @xmath242 and @xmath243 are isomorphic . [ lemma - isomorphic - triangles ]    assume that condition ( 1 ) is satisfied . applying @xmath244 to @xmath245 ( @xmath240 ) yields isomorphisms @xmath246 . this means that each morphism factorises uniquely through @xmath247 . in particular , @xmath248 and @xmath249 for some . it follows that @xmath250 and @xmath251 , and thus by uniqueness , @xmath252 . hence @xmath253 is an isomorphism , and the commutative diagram @xmath254^{f_1}\ar[d]_{h } & z\ar@{=}[d]\\ y\ar[r]^{f_2 }   & z } \ ] ] extends to an isomorphism between @xmath242 and @xmath243 . the proof is similar when assuming ( 2 ) . derived equivalences , by definition , preserve all triangles , especially the following type . let @xmath255 be an idempotent in the @xmath12-algebra @xmath0 . there are canonical triangles associated to @xmath61 in @xmath227 : @xmath256 \\ \mathbf{(ct2 ) } \ , \ , \ ,   \eta_e^a & : \quad   a { \stackrel{\rho_e}{{\longrightarrow } } } { { \rm\bf r}{\rm hom}}_{eae}(ea , ea ) { \longrightarrow}v_a(e ) { \longrightarrow}a[1 ]   \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath257 is induced by the multiplication map @xmath258 , and @xmath259 is induced by the canonical morphism @xmath260 . the triangle @xmath261 plays a crucial role in the analysis of recollements of derived categories @xcite . the following result implies that the property of being a canonical triangle is preserved under certain derived equivalences . [ lem : derived - equivalence - preserves - canonical - triangle ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent @xmath12-algebras , and @xmath262 a two - sided tilting complex with inverse @xmath263 . let @xmath61 and @xmath264 be idempotents in @xmath0 and @xmath3 respectively . assume that the standard derived equivalence @xmath265 restricts to a triangle equivalence @xmath266 . then @xmath267 and @xmath268 as triangles in @xmath229 . since @xmath269 is an equivalence of additive categories with a quasi - inverse @xmath270 , it follows that @xmath271 is an equivalence of triangulated categories with a quasi - inverse @xmath272 . similarly , the derived functor @xmath273 defines an equivalence from @xmath274 to @xmath275 with a quasi - inverse @xmath276 . note that @xmath277 and ( see @xcite ) . @xmath278    _ proof of claim . _ by assumption , @xmath279 belongs to @xmath280 . similarly , hence ( a ) . there are the following isomorphisms @xmath281 it follows that @xmath282 . by symmetry , also @xmath283 , hence ( b ) .    to prove the first statement in ( c ) , consider the isomorphisms @xmath284 which use @xmath271 being an equivalence with quasi - inverse @xmath272 and @xmath285 . the second statement in ( c ) follows similarly . now , the isomorphisms ( the second one using ( a ) and ( c ) ) @xmath286 combined with lemma [ lem : standard derived equivalence ] ( 1 ) yield that @xmath287 is a triangle of the following form @xmath288\ ] ] in @xmath217 , where @xmath289 . so , the triangles @xmath290 and @xmath291 have at least two terms in common . to identify them as triangles , note that @xmath292 and since @xmath293 belongs to @xmath294 by ( b ) . then @xmath295)=0=   { { \rm hom } } _ { { \mathscr{d}({{b^{\mathrm{e}}{\sf \mbox{-}mod}}})}}(bf{\otimes^{\rm\bf l}}_{fbf}fb , u_b(f)'[i ] ) ,    \forall i\in \mathbb{z}.\ ] ] here , the vanishing follows by adjointness . thus @xmath290 and @xmath291 are isomorphic triangles in @xmath217 by lemma [ lemma - isomorphic - triangles ] . so , @xmath290 is as claimed . it remains to check the claim about @xmath296 . the canonical triangle @xmath297 is isomorphic to @xmath298 . _ proof of claim . _ applying @xmath299 to @xmath261 results in a triangle @xmath300,\ ] ] and @xmath301 by adjointness . let @xmath302 . by definition , @xmath303 . using adjointness again , this implies @xmath304 , that is , @xmath305 . similarly , @xmath306 . it follows that @xmath307 , { { \rm\bf r}{\rm hom}}_{eae}(ea , ea))=0={{\rm hom } } _ { { \mathscr{d}({{a^{\rm e}{\sf \mbox{-}mod}}})}}(v_a(e)[i ] , { { \rm\bf r}{\rm hom}}_{eae}(ea , ea))\ ] ] for all @xmath142 . by lemma [ lemma - isomorphic - triangles ] , the triangles @xmath308 and @xmath297 are isomorphic , which proves the claim .    by the first part of the proof , @xmath267 . applying lemma [ lem : standard derived equivalence ] ( 3 ) shows that @xmath309 . derived equivalences in general fail to preserve homological invariants such as global or dominant dimension . in this respect , stable equivalences of morita type behave much better . unfortunately , derived equivalences between algebras that are not self - injective , in general do not induce stable equivalences . the problem of finding derived equivalences , which do induce stable equivalences of morita type , has been addressed in @xcite by introducing a new class of derived equivalences , called _ almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences _ , and relating them with stable equivalences . as a crucial feature , these derived equivalences preserve many homological invariants . let @xmath310 be a derived equivalence between two @xmath12-algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 . we call @xmath209 an _ almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence _ if the following conditions are satisfied . @xmath106 the radical tilting complex @xmath311 in @xmath186 has nonzero terms only in positive degrees , that is , @xmath312 for all @xmath313 ; the radical tilting complex @xmath314 in @xmath185 has nonzero terms only in negative degrees , that is , @xmath315 for all @xmath72 . @xmath108 @xmath316 and @xmath317 . note that we may assume without loss of generality that the tilting complex @xmath318 is radical by lemma [ lem : morphisms in derived categories ] . the two conditions for @xmath192 are equivalent to those for @xmath319 @xcite . to generalise this type of derived equivalence , but to keep many interesting properties , the following _ iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences _ have been introduced . let @xmath310 be a derived equivalence between two @xmath12-algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 . we call @xmath209 an _ iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence _ , if there exists a sequence of derived equivalences @xmath320 of @xmath12-algebras @xmath321 @xmath322 for some @xmath323 with @xmath324 and @xmath325 such that each @xmath326 or @xmath327 is an almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence and @xmath328 .    in section [ sec : derived equivalences for morita algebras ] we will see that all derived equivalences between certain classes of algebras are iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences . this will make full use of the characterisations developed in @xcite . the crucial property in our context is :    [ prop : almost nu - stable preserve dimensions ] let @xmath310 be an iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences between @xmath12-algebras . then @xmath329 and @xmath330 . the derived restriction theorem , to be proved in this section , states that derived equivalences between two algebras restrict to derived equivalences between their associated self - injective centraliser subalgebras , provided the two given algebras have @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one . a subcategory of the bounded homotopy category of projective modules will be defined and shown to be invariant under derived equivalence , under the assumption on @xmath1-dominant dimension . this will be the key ingredient in the proof of the derived restriction theorem . recall that for an algebra @xmath0 with @xmath89 and minimal faithful left module @xmath91 , the algebra @xmath331 is called the _ associated self - injective algebra of @xmath0_. then the category @xmath73 is additively generated by @xmath91 . that @xmath98 is self - injective has been shown in the proof of lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] . suppose now that @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent @xmath12-algebras . like dominant dimension , @xmath1-dominant dimension is not a derived invariant . in particular , @xmath89 and @xmath332 may happen , and there may be no reasonable way to define a non - zero associated self - injective algebra for @xmath3 in this case . an example of such a situation has been given , for different reasons , in ( * ? ? ? * section 5 ) . therefore , it seems difficult to deduce any connection between the associated self - injective algebras of @xmath0 and @xmath3 in general without assuming both algebras have @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one .    if we , however , assume that both @xmath0 and @xmath3 have @xmath1-dominant dimension at least @xmath333 , then theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] below shows that any derived equivalence between @xmath0 and @xmath3 restricts to a derived equivalence between their associated self - injective algebras . the main tool for showing is the following subcategory of the homotopy category . [ defn : nu - stable complex ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra and @xmath74 be the nakayama functor . define @xmath334    note that for @xmath335 , the complex @xmath336 is defined componentwise . when @xmath0 has arbitrary @xmath1-dominant dimension , a complex in @xmath337 need not be isomorphic in @xmath338 to a complex in @xmath339 ; this is illustrated by an example below . however :    [ prop : nu - stable complexes ] let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra with @xmath89 . then @xmath339 is the smallest triangulated full subcategory of @xmath185 that contains @xmath337 and is closed under taking direct summands . in particular , every complex in @xmath337 is isomorphic in @xmath185 to a complex in the category @xmath339 . let @xmath340 be the smallest triangulated full subcategory of @xmath185 which contains @xmath337 and is closed under taking direct summands . let @xmath103 be a basic additive generator of @xmath73 . then @xmath341 is isomorphic to @xmath103 in @xmath342 , because @xmath341 is again basic and strongly projective - injective and has the same number of indecomposable direct summands as @xmath103 . therefore @xmath103 belongs to @xmath337 . since @xmath339 is the smallest triangulated full subcategory of @xmath185 which contains @xmath103 and is closed under taking direct summands , it follows that @xmath343 . to finish the proof , we need to show @xmath344 , that is , every radical complex in @xmath337 is isomorphic in @xmath185 to a complex in @xmath339 . without loss of generality , we assume that @xmath345 . let @xmath346 . so the complex @xmath347 is of the form @xmath348    we will prove by induction on @xmath161 that @xmath347 is isomorphic in @xmath185 to a complex in @xmath339 . if @xmath190 , then @xmath349 in @xmath183 implies that @xmath350 in @xmath342 , and so @xmath351 . in general , we first prove :    @xmath352 is strongly projective - injective . since @xmath347 is a radical complex in @xmath185 and @xmath78 is an equivalence , it follows that @xmath336 is a radical complex in @xmath353 . let @xmath354 be a quasi - isomorphism . then @xmath336 is an injective resolution of @xmath347 . by the construction of cartan - eilenberg injective resolutions @xmath347 admits an injective resolution @xmath355 with the properties : @xmath355 is quasi - isomorphic to @xmath347 , and @xmath356 for @xmath313 and @xmath53 is the injective envelope of @xmath352 . by the uniqueness of injective resolutions up to homotopy , the radical complex @xmath336 and the complex @xmath355 are isomorphic in @xmath357 , and therefore @xmath358 is a direct summand of @xmath53 by lemma [ lem : morphisms in derived categories ] . since @xmath89 , the injective envelope @xmath53 of @xmath352 is strongly projective - injective . it follows that @xmath358 and hence @xmath352 are strongly projective - injective as well . let @xmath359 be the mapping cone of @xmath360 , a complex of the form @xmath361}{{\longrightarrow } } } p^1\oplus \nu_{_a}(p^0){\longrightarrow}\cdots   { \longrightarrow}\nu_{_a}(p^n){\longrightarrow}0\ ] ] where @xmath362 is placed in degree @xmath363 . since @xmath360 is a quasi - isomorphism , it follows that @xmath359 is an acyclic complex , and thus the morphism @xmath364 : p^0\to p^1\oplus \nu_{_a}(p^0)$ ] splits in @xmath342 because @xmath352 is injective . let @xmath365 and @xmath366 be morphisms in @xmath342 such that @xmath367 . then @xmath368 is invertible in @xmath369 by the assumption that @xmath370 is a radical morphism . as a result , @xmath371 is a split monomorphism , and even an isomorphism as @xmath352 and @xmath358 have the same number of indecomposable direct summands . now , let @xmath372 be the brutal truncation of @xmath347 and let @xmath373 be the corresponding truncation of the chain morphism @xmath360 . starting from the triangle , the following commutative diagram in @xmath374 gives a morphism of triangles in @xmath374 @xmath375\ar[r]\ar[d]^{f^0[-1 ] } & { p^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}1}\ar[r]\ar[d]^{{f^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}1 } } & { p^{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]^{{f^{\bullet } } } & p^0\ar[d]^{f^0}\\      \nu_{_a}(p^0)[-1]\ar[r ] & \nu_{_a}({p^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}1 } ) \ar[r ] & \nu_{_a}({p^{\bullet}})\ar[r ] & \nu_{_a}(p^0 ) . } \ ] ] since @xmath360 is a quasi - isomorphism ( by assumption ) and so is @xmath371 ( by the arguments above ) , it follows that @xmath376 is a quasi - isomorphism . therefore @xmath377 , and by induction @xmath378 $ ] is isomorphic in @xmath158 to a complex in @xmath339 . using @xmath379 implies that @xmath347 is isomorphic in @xmath158 to a complex in @xmath339 . _ example . _ without the assumption on @xmath1-dominant dimension , proposition [ prop : nu - stable complexes ] may fail in general : let @xmath0 be the @xmath12-algebra given by the quiver @xmath380^{\alpha } & 2\ar@/^/[l]^{\beta}\ar@/^/[r]^{\gamma } & 3\ar@/^/[l]^{\delta } } \ ] ] and relations @xmath381 . the indecomposable projective left @xmath0-modules are @xmath382 the indecomposable injective left @xmath0-modules are @xmath383 let @xmath347 be the complex @xmath384 , where @xmath385 is the unique ( up to scalar ) non - zero map , and @xmath84 is placed in degree zero . then @xmath336 is a complex of the form @xmath386 . the obvious surjective maps @xmath387 and @xmath388 define a chain map from @xmath347 to @xmath389 and is a quasi - isomorphism . as a result , @xmath390 , but @xmath347 does not belong to @xmath339 , since @xmath391 . [ thm : restriction theorem ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent @xmath12-algebras , both of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least @xmath333 . then any derived equivalence @xmath392 restricts to an equivalence of triangulated subcategories .    without loss of generality , we may assume that @xmath209 is a standard derived equivalence . then @xmath209 induces @xmath393 as triangulated subcategories , and @xmath394 in @xmath184 , for any @xmath395 . thus @xmath396 and so by proposition [ prop : nu - stable complexes ] . let @xmath397 be a quasi - inverse of @xmath209 . the same arguments applied to @xmath397 imply @xmath398 . therefore , @xmath209 induces an equivalence @xmath399 . _ theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] has two predecessors : a special case , stated only for gendo - symmetric algebras , was proved in @xcite , where it was used to relate the hochschild cohomology of @xmath0 and that of its associated self - injective algebra . a result in the same spirit as theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] was obtained in @xcite without any restriction on algebras , but assuming @xmath209 to be an ( iterated ) almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence . [ cor : restriction theorem for morita algebras ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent @xmath12-algebras , both of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least @xmath333 . then the associated self - injective algebras of @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent . in particular , every derived equivalence of morita algebras induces a derived equivalence of their associated self - injective algebras . let @xmath98 be an associated self - injective algebra of @xmath0 . then by definition @xmath400 as additive categories , and thus @xmath401 as triangulated categories . the statement then follows directly from theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] . an application of corollary [ cor : restriction theorem for morita algebras ] is to auslander algebras : a ( finite dimensional ) @xmath12-algebra @xmath0 is said to be of _ finite representation type _ , if there are only finitely many indecomposable @xmath0-modules ( up to isomorphism ) . the _ auslander algebra _ @xmath402 of @xmath0 is defined to be the endomorphism ring of the direct sum of all pairwise non - isomorphic indecomposable left @xmath0-modules . [ cor : restriction theorem for auslander algebras ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be self - injective @xmath12-algebras , both of finite representation type . let @xmath402 and @xmath403 be the auslander algebras of @xmath0 and @xmath3 respectively . then    \(1 ) @xmath402 and @xmath403 are derived equivalent if and only if @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent . \(2 ) if @xmath402 and @xmath403 are derived equivalent , then they are stably equivalent of morita type . \(1 ) if @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent , then by ( * ? ? ? * corollary 3.13 ) , their auslander algebras @xmath402 and @xmath403 are derived equivalent . conversely , if @xmath402 and @xmath403 are derived equivalent , then by corollary [ cor : restriction theorem for morita algebras ] @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent , since @xmath0 and @xmath3 are the associated self - injective algebras of @xmath402 and @xmath403 respectively . \(2 ) if @xmath402 and @xmath403 are derived equivalent , then @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent by ( 1 ) , and thus stably equivalent of morita type by ( * ? ? ? * corollary 5.5 ) . now ( * ? ? ? * theorem 1.1 ) implies that @xmath402 and @xmath403 are stably equivalent of morita type . in this section , the two invariance theorems will be proven . for almost self - injective algebras the approach is to show that standard equivalences have a special form ; they are iterated almost @xmath1-stable and therefore preserve both global and dominant dimension . for algebras with a duality , a rather different approach will be taken , identifying the two homological dimensions inside the derived category . before addressing invariance , in the first subsection the general question is addressed how much homological dimensions can vary under derived equivalences . as it is well - known , the difference of global dimensions of two derived equivalent algebras is bounded by the length of a tilting complex inducing a derived equivalence , see for example ( * ? ? ? * section 12.5(b ) ) . more precisely , let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra , and define the _ length _ of a radical complex @xmath137 in @xmath404 to be @xmath405 the length of an arbitrary complex @xmath160 in @xmath404 is defined to be the length of the unique radical complex that is isomorphic to @xmath160 in @xmath404 ( lemma [ lem : morphisms in derived categories ] ) . [ prop : bound global dimension ] let @xmath406 be a derived equivalence between @xmath12-algebras . then @xmath407 . naively , one may expect that dominant dimension behaves similarly under derived equivalences . here is a counterexample : let @xmath65 be an integer , and let @xmath0 be the @xmath12-algebra given by the quiver @xmath408_{\alpha_1 } & 3\ar[l]_{\alpha_2 } & \cdots \ar[l]_{\alpha_3 } & 2n\ar[l]_(.45){\alpha_{2n-1 } } & 2n+1\ar[l]_{\alpha_{2n } }     } \ ] ] and relations @xmath409 . let @xmath410 denote the simple left @xmath0-module corresponding to the vertex @xmath169 and @xmath411 be the projective cover of @xmath410 . the modules @xmath411 are projective - injective for @xmath412 . the projective dimensions of the simple modules are @xmath413 , @xmath414 for @xmath415 , and the minimal injective resolution of the left regular @xmath0-module is of the form @xmath416 consequently , @xmath417 . let @xmath418 be the apr - tilting module ( see , for instance , ( * ? ? ? * vi.2.8 ) ) associated with the projective simple @xmath0-module @xmath419 , and let @xmath420 . then @xmath421 and therefore the derived equivalence between @xmath0 and @xmath3 induced by @xmath422 is given by a two - term tilting complex . by direct computation , @xmath3 is seen to be isomorphic to the @xmath12-algebra given by the same quiver as @xmath0 but with different relations @xmath423 for @xmath424 . as a result , @xmath425 and the difference between dominant dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath3 is @xmath426 , although the derived equivalence is induced by a tilting module . although this example smashes any hope to bound the difference of dominant dimensions of derived equivalent algebras in terms of lengths of tilting complexes , there are still some cases where both global dimension and dominant dimension behave nicely , see @xcite and @xcite . note that both algebras in the example above are of @xmath1-dominant dimension @xmath427 . this suggests to restrict attention to algebras of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least @xmath333 - a restriction that has been needed for theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] and that will be further justified by the invariance results later on . [ thm : bound the difference ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be @xmath12-algebras , both of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least @xmath333 and derived equivalent by @xmath310 . then @xmath428 . let @xmath429 and @xmath430 . since @xmath431 by ( * ? ? ? * lemma 2.1 ) , it is enough to show that @xmath432 if @xmath433 , there is nothing left to prove . assume that @xmath209 is a standard derived equivalence , @xmath434 and @xmath435 is a radical tilting complex in @xmath186 of the following form ( up to degree shift ) @xmath436 where @xmath352 is nonzero and placed in degree @xmath427 . take a cartan - eilenberg injective resolution @xmath355 of @xmath347 that is the total complex of the double complex obtained by taking minimal injective resolutions of @xmath437 for all @xmath169 . since @xmath438 and @xmath439 , the modules @xmath51 are strongly projective - injective for @xmath440 by lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] . let @xmath441 and @xmath442 be the brutal truncations of @xmath355 . by definition of brutal truncation , there is a triangle in @xmath443 @xmath444{\longrightarrow}{i^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}m}{\longrightarrow}{i^{\bullet}}{\longrightarrow}{i^{\bullet}}_{<m}.\ ] ] the standard derived equivalence @xmath209 lifts to a derived equivalence ( denoted by @xmath209 again ) from @xmath374 to @xmath443 . applying @xmath445 to the triangle @xmath231 , we obtain the triangle in @xmath374 @xmath446{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{f}^{-1}({i^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}m}){\longrightarrow}\mathcal{f}^{-1}({i^{\bullet}}){\longrightarrow}\mathcal{f}^{-1}({i^{\bullet}}_{<m } )     \end{aligned}\ ] ] and therefore the long exact sequence @xmath447 note that @xmath448 in @xmath374 , and @xmath449 belongs to @xmath339 by the construction of @xmath441 and theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] . moreover , lemma [ lem : morphisms in derived categories ] implies for @xmath450 , @xmath451 ) \cong      { { \rm hom } } _ { { \mathscr{d}(b)}}({p^{\bullet } } , { i^{\bullet}}_{{\geqslant}m}[i ] ) = 0     \end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath452)^p = 0 $ ] for @xmath453 and @xmath450 . therefore , from the long exact sequence ( [ eqn : long exact sequence ] ) , @xmath454 for @xmath313 , @xmath455 , and for @xmath456 . hence @xmath449 is isomorphic to a radical complex in @xmath339 of the form @xmath457 such that @xmath458 is exact . consequently the dominant dimension of @xmath0 is at least @xmath459 , as desired . a special case of theorem [ thm : bound the difference ] is :    [ cor : bound difference for morita algebras ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be morita algebras . if there is a derived equivalence , then @xmath428 . interactions between derived equivalences and stable equivalences frequently seem to be of particular interest , see @xcite and the references therein . * corollary 5.5 ) and corollary [ cor : restriction theorem for auslander algebras ] state that , for self - injective algebras and auslander algebras of finite representation type self - injective algebras , derived equivalences imply stable equivalences of morita type . the following theorem implies that the same holds for almost self - injective algebras , by characterising all derived equivalences among them as iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalences . [ thm : derived equivalences for almost self - injective ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent almost self - injective algebras . then any standard derived equivalence @xmath392 is an iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence ( up to shifts ) . in particular , derived equivalent almost self - injective algebras are stably equivalent of morita type .    to prove this theorem , we need some preparations . first , we recall some basics on @xmath460-split sequences introduced in @xcite , see also @xcite . let @xmath461 be an additive category and let @xmath462 be a full subcategory of @xmath461 . a morphism @xmath463 in @xmath461 is a _ right @xmath462-approximation _ , if @xmath464 and for any @xmath465 , the canonical morphism @xmath466 is an epimorphism . we call @xmath264 _ right minimal _ if an equality @xmath467 implies that @xmath468 is an isomorphism , for left @xmath462-approximations and left minimal morphisms are defined similarly . let @xmath138 be a triangulated category and let @xmath469 be a full ( not necessarily triangulated ) additive subcategory of @xmath138 . a triangle in @xmath138 @xmath470\ ] ] is called a _ @xmath469-split triangle _ if @xmath264 is a left @xmath469-approximation and @xmath41 is a right @xmath469-approximation . a full subcategory @xmath471 of @xmath138 is called a _ tilting subcategory _ if @xmath472)=0 $ ] for all @xmath473 and @xmath23 itself is the only triangulated subcategory of @xmath23 that contains @xmath474 and is closed under taking direct summands . an object @xmath422 in @xmath138 is a _ tilting object _ if @xmath475 is a tilting subcategory of @xmath138 . for example , all tilting complexes over an algebra @xmath0 are tilting objects in @xmath185 . [ lem : d - split sequences ] let @xmath138 be a triangulated category , and @xmath469 an additive full subcategory of @xmath138 . let @xmath476 $ ] be a @xmath469-split triangle . then :    \(1 ) suppose that @xmath264 is left minimal and @xmath41 is right minimal , and that @xmath477 and @xmath478 are decompositions of @xmath24 and @xmath26 into strongly indecomposable direct summands . then @xmath479 . in particular , if indecomposable objects in @xmath138 are strongly indecomposable , then @xmath24 is indecomposable if and only if so is @xmath26 . \(2 ) if @xmath480 is a tilting subcategory of @xmath23 and @xmath481 is injective , then @xmath482 is also a tilting subcategory of @xmath23 . \(3 ) if @xmath482 is a tilting subcategory of @xmath23 and @xmath483 is injective , then @xmath484 is also a tilting subcategory of @xmath23 . \(2 ) and ( 3 ) follow from ( * ? ? ? * theorem 2.32 ) . it remains to prove ( 1 ) . if @xmath485 , then and we are done . now we assume that @xmath486 . then @xmath487 and @xmath488 , since otherwise @xmath489 or @xmath490 , which contradicts the minimality of @xmath264 and @xmath41 . to proceed , let @xmath491 and @xmath492 . for any @xmath493 and @xmath494 , there exist @xmath495 with @xmath496 , and @xmath497 with @xmath498 since @xmath264 is a left @xmath460-approximation . therefore , @xmath499 , which implies @xmath500 . similarly @xmath501 and so @xmath502 is a two - sided ideal of @xmath25 . to see @xmath503 , it suffices to show , by ( * ? ? ? * theorem 15.3 , p. 166 ) , that @xmath504 is invertible in @xmath25 for each @xmath493 . let @xmath496 for some @xmath495 . in the diagram in @xmath23 @xmath505\ar[r]^{-h[-1 ] } \ar@{=}[d]^{\mathrm{id } } & x \ar[r]^f \ar[d]^{1-\alpha } & d \ar[r]^g \ar@{-->}[d]^\beta   & y \ar@{=}[d]^{\mathrm{id}}\\                y[-1]\ar[r]^{-h[-1 ] }                       & x \ar[r]^f                & d \ar[r]^g                & y}\ ] ] the first square commutes because @xmath506\cdot \alpha = h[-1]\cdot f\cdot u=0 $ ] , and @xmath507 exists so that the other squares commute by axioms of triangulated categories . since @xmath41 is a right minimal morphism , @xmath507 is an isomorphism , and thus again by axioms of triangulated categories , @xmath504 is an isomorphism .    by similar arguments , @xmath508 is a two - sided ideal of @xmath509 and it is contained in the jacobson radical @xmath510 of @xmath509 . we first construct a ring homomorphism @xmath511 as follows . for each @xmath512 , there exists a commutative diagram in @xmath23 @xmath513^f \ar[d]^\alpha   & d \ar[r]^g \ar@{.>}[d]^\beta & y \ar[r]^h \ar@{-->}[d]^\gamma & x[1]\ar[d]^{\alpha[1]}\\                x \ar[r]^f                 & d \ar[r]^g                    & y \ar[r]^h                      & x[1]}\ ] ] where @xmath507 exists since @xmath264 is a left @xmath460-approximation , and @xmath514 exists by axioms of triangulated categories . if @xmath515 and @xmath516 are different choices such that @xmath517 and @xmath518 , then @xmath519 which implies that @xmath520 for some @xmath521 . in other words , the image of @xmath514 in the quotient ring @xmath522 is well - defined , and thus @xmath523 is well - defined . then @xmath524 is a ring homomorphism . it is surjective since @xmath41 is a right @xmath460-approximation . the kernel of @xmath524 equals @xmath502 .    for any @xmath493 , there exists @xmath525 with @xmath526 . so @xmath527 @xmath528\cdot v[1]=0 $ ] which implies that @xmath523 factors through @xmath41 and thus @xmath529 . on the other hand , for any , there exists @xmath521 with @xmath530 , and so @xmath506\cdot \alpha = \phi(\alpha)[-1]\cdot h[-1 ] = ( u\cdot g\cdot h)[-1]=0 $ ] which implies that @xmath468 factors through @xmath264 and thus . altogether , @xmath524 induces an isomorphism @xmath531 , and hence further an isomorphism @xmath532 since both @xmath24 and @xmath26 are decomposed into strongly indecomposable direct summands , it follows that both rings @xmath25 and @xmath509 are semi - perfect rings by , and therefore the isomorphism above implies that @xmath25 and @xmath509 have the same number of simple left modules , or equivalently the same number of indecomposable projective left modules . consequently , @xmath24 and @xmath26 have the same number of indecomposable direct summands , that is @xmath479 . [ lem : tilting complex over almost self - injective algebras ] let @xmath0 be an almost self - injective algebra , but not self - injective . let @xmath103 be an additive generator of @xmath73 and let @xmath70 be the unique indecomposable projective left @xmath0-module such that @xmath533 . let @xmath534 be an indecomposable radical complex in @xmath185 . if @xmath535 is a tilting complex over @xmath0 , then at least one of the following two assertions holds true :    \(1 ) there exists @xmath536 such that @xmath537 , @xmath315 for all @xmath72 and for all @xmath538 , and @xmath539 in @xmath73 for all @xmath540 ;    \(2 ) there exists @xmath541 such that @xmath542 , @xmath315 for all @xmath313 and for all @xmath543 , and @xmath539 in @xmath73 for all @xmath544 . _ special case . _ the complex @xmath192 has only one nonzero term , that is , @xmath545 $ ] for some @xmath546 and @xmath547 . then @xmath548 is indecomposable since @xmath192 is indecomposable . if , then @xmath549 which contradicts the assumption that @xmath535 , as a tilting complex , generates @xmath185 . since each indecomposable projective left @xmath0-module is either isomorphic to @xmath70 or strongly projective - injective , by the definition of almost self - injective algebras @xmath548 must be isomorphic to @xmath70 . we still have to show that @xmath550 . assume @xmath551 . then by the self - orthogonality of tilting complexes , , which implies @xmath552 , a contradiction to @xmath89 . so , @xmath553 , which satisfies both conditions ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) .    in the _ general case _ , @xmath554 is an indecomposable radical complex of the following form @xmath555 where @xmath556 are nonzero projective left @xmath0-modules and @xmath557 . using the self - orthogonality of the tilting complex @xmath535 , we are going to check :    to see ( a ) , assume on the contrary that @xmath558 is a nonzero common direct summand of both @xmath559 and @xmath560 . let @xmath561 be a split epimorphism from @xmath559 to @xmath558 and @xmath562 be a split monomorphism from @xmath558 to @xmath560 . then the composition @xmath563 from @xmath559 to @xmath560 defines a nonzero morphism in @xmath564)$ ] , because @xmath192 is a radical complex . but this contradicts the assumption that @xmath192 is self - orthogonal and @xmath565 , which forces any morphism from @xmath192 to @xmath566 $ ] in @xmath185 to be zero .    similarly , ( b ) and ( c ) follow since for any @xmath551 , @xmath567)=0=     { { \rm hom } } _ { { \mathscr{k}^{\rm b}({a\mbox{{\sf -proj}}})}}(e , { t^{\bullet}}[m]).\ ] ]    as a consequence of the claim , @xmath568 or @xmath569 . indeed , if @xmath570 and @xmath571 , then by ( b ) and ( c ) , @xmath559 and @xmath560 have a common direct summand @xmath70 , which contradicts ( a ) . we will finish the proof by analysing these two cases . _ case @xmath572 . _ by ( b ) , @xmath573 and then @xmath574 by ( a ) . let @xmath575 be the brutal truncation of @xmath192 , which by definition provides the following triangle in @xmath185 : @xmath576{\stackrel{f}{{\longrightarrow } } } t^0 { \stackrel{g}{{\longrightarrow } } } { t^{\bullet}}{\longrightarrow}{t^{\bullet}}_{<0 }     \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath264 is the chain morphism induced by @xmath577 , and @xmath41 is the chain morphism induced by @xmath578 . applying @xmath579 to this triangle gives the short exact sequence @xmath580,e){\rightarrow}0    \end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath581 trivially and @xmath582,e)=0 $ ] by @xmath535 being tilting . in particular , @xmath583 is injective , and @xmath264 is a left @xmath584-approximation . the morphism @xmath264 is left minimal .    for any @xmath585 with @xmath586 , we have @xmath587 . thus @xmath561 defines a chain morphism @xmath588 in @xmath185 with @xmath589 and @xmath590 for all @xmath473 . now @xmath192 being an indecomposable complex in @xmath185 implies that @xmath591 is a local @xmath12-algebra , and therefore @xmath592 is either nilpotent or invertible . if @xmath592 is nilpotent in @xmath591 , say @xmath593 for some @xmath547 , then there exists a homotopy morphism such that @xmath594 . by definition of @xmath192 , the map @xmath595 is zero . thus , and hence @xmath596 is a split monomorphism . but this contradicts @xmath192 being a radical complex . it follows that @xmath264 is a left minimal morphism . applying @xmath597 to the triangle ( [ eqn : key triangle ] ) implies that @xmath41 is a right @xmath584-approximation . since @xmath41 induces an isomorphism @xmath598 , @xmath41 is a right minimal morphism . consequently , the triangle ( [ eqn : key triangle ] ) is a @xmath584-split sequence , with @xmath583 being an injective morphism . thus , by lemma [ lem : d - split sequences ] ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) , @xmath575 is an indecomposable radical complex , and @xmath599\oplus e$ ] is a tilting complex over @xmath0 . replacing @xmath192 by @xmath599 $ ] and repeating the same arguments @xmath600 times , we finally get that @xmath559 is indecomposable and @xmath601 is a tilting complex over @xmath0 , whereby @xmath559 is isomorphic to @xmath70 and the assertion ( 1 ) holds . _ case @xmath602 . _ by similar arguments as in the previous case , the assertion ( 2 ) in the statement can be verified for @xmath192 .    since the case @xmath603 has been shown already , all cases have been settled .    with these preparations , we are now able to prove theorem [ thm : derived equivalences for almost self - injective ] . first we assume that one of @xmath0 or @xmath3 is self - injective . when the ground field is algebraically closed , being self - injective is invariant under derived equivalence , by @xcite . under our assumption @xmath604 , invariance of being self - injective can be shown as follows , without any restriction on the ground field . by assumption , both @xmath0 and @xmath3 have @xmath604 . then @xmath0 is self - injective if and only if @xmath605 , and similarly for @xmath3 . by theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] , the given derived equivalence @xmath209 induces an equivalence @xmath606 of triangulated subcategories . hence , both @xmath0 and @xmath3 are self - injective . now , ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.8 ) implies that @xmath209 is an almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence up to degree shift . next , we assume that neither @xmath0 nor @xmath3 is self - injective . let @xmath607 and @xmath608 be basic additive generators of @xmath73 and @xmath609 respectively . then the number of indecomposable direct summands of @xmath608 is exactly one less than the number of the simple left @xmath3-modules . since @xmath89 and @xmath438 , the derived equivalence @xmath209 induces an equivalence @xmath610 of triangulated subcategories , again by theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] . let @xmath611 be the image of @xmath607 in @xmath186 under the equivalence . then @xmath612 generates @xmath613 , and @xmath614)=0 $ ] unless @xmath615 . without loss of generality , we assume that @xmath611 is , up to degree shift , a radical complex of the form @xmath616 where @xmath617 for all @xmath169 . by ( * ? ? ? * proposition 4.1 ) , there exists a complex @xmath137 in @xmath186 such that @xmath618 is a basic tilting complex over @xmath3 , inducing an almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence @xmath619 where @xmath620 . let @xmath192 be a radical complex such that @xmath621 . then @xmath622 . in particular , @xmath623 is a tilting complex over @xmath0 and @xmath192 is indecomposable . hence by lemma [ lem : tilting complex over almost self - injective algebras ] and ( * ? ? ? * theorem 1.3(5 ) ) , @xmath37 is an iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence up to degree shift , and thus @xmath624 is an iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence . let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be self - injective @xmath12-algebras and let @xmath24 ( respectively @xmath26 ) be an indecomposable left @xmath0-module ( respectively left @xmath3-module ) . if @xmath625 and @xmath626 are derived equivalent , then every standard derived equivalence between them is an iterated almost @xmath1-stable derived equivalence ( up to degree shift ) , and the two endomorphism algebras are stably equivalent of morita type .    by definition [ def : morita algebras ] , both endomorphism algebras are almost self - injective algebras . the statements then follow directly from theorem [ thm : derived equivalences for almost self - injective ] . _ example . _ theorem [ thm : derived equivalences for almost self - injective ] may fail if the algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 are not assumed to be almost self - injective . here is an example . let @xmath627/(x^2,y^2)$ ] , and let @xmath628 be the unique simple @xmath629-module . then @xmath629 is a self - injective @xmath12-algebra and the auslander - reiten sequence @xmath630 is an @xmath631-split sequence in the sense of @xcite . by ( * theorem 1.1 ) , the endomorphism algebras @xmath632 and @xmath633 are derived equivalent . by direct checking , both @xmath0 and @xmath3 are seen to have @xmath1-dominant dimension at least two , but none of them is an almost self - injective algebra . since @xmath634 and @xmath635 , the algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 can not be stably equivalent of morita type .    combining proposition [ prop : almost nu - stable preserve dimensions ] and theorem [ thm : derived equivalences for almost self - injective ] yields the _ first invariance theorem _ :    [ cor : class almost self - injective algebras ] derived equivalences between almost self - injective algebras preserve both global dimension and dominant dimension . many algebras have anti - automorphisms that preserve simple modules . prominent examples are involutory such anti - automorphisms , often called dualities , which are fundamental ingredients of the definition of cellular algebras . among the examples are group algebras of symmetric groups in any characteristic , many hecke algebras , brauer algebras , temperley - lieb algebras and many classes of schur algebras . in particular , quasi - hereditary algebras with duality occur frequently in algebraic lie theory . they have been studied in @xcite from the point of view of dominant dimension , motivating the concept of gendo - symmetric algebras and our present investigation of invariance properties . the anti - automorphisms defining dualities often occur as shadows of cartan involutions . a much larger class of algebras ( with anti - automorphisms not required to be involutions ) will be shown now to satisfy homological invariance properties . after establishing various elementary properties of the class of algebras with anti - automorphism preserving simples , both global and dominant dimension will get identified explicitly in the derived category , in terms of complexes occurring in canonical triangles . now we state precisely what we mean by an anti - automorphism preserving simples , and then we collect basic properties of algebras with such anti - automorphisms . see also @xcite and the references therein for further discussion of the special case of dualities . let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-algebra and let @xmath636 be an algebra anti - automorphism . for each ( left ) @xmath0-module @xmath27 , the @xmath514-twist of @xmath27 , denoted by @xmath637 , is defined to be the right @xmath0-module that equals @xmath27 as a @xmath12-vector space , and is equipped with the right @xmath0-action : @xmath638 the notation @xmath639 is reserved for this action . we define the twist of a right @xmath0-module or an @xmath0-bimodule similarly . for an @xmath0-bimodule @xmath27 , there are two different right @xmath0-module structures on @xmath640 : the usual one from the right @xmath0-action on @xmath27 and the twisted one from the left @xmath0-action on @xmath27 . to emphasize the difference , we write @xmath641 for the former and @xmath642 for the latter . if for every simple @xmath0-module @xmath628 , the @xmath12-dual of @xmath643 is isomorphic to @xmath628 as @xmath0-modules , then we say that _ @xmath514 fixes all simple modules_.    a @xmath12-algebra will be called @xmath12-split , if the endomorphism rings of simple @xmath0-modules are just @xmath12 . then simple @xmath0-bimodules are tensor products of simple left @xmath0-modules with simple right @xmath0-modules . [ lem : twist bimodule ] let @xmath0 be a split @xmath12-algebra with an anti - automorphism @xmath644 fixing all simple @xmath0-modules . then :    @xmath106 for each primitive idempotent @xmath61 in @xmath0 , the idempotent @xmath645 is conjugate to @xmath61 in @xmath0 . @xmath108 for each projective - injective @xmath0-module @xmath70 , the @xmath0-module @xmath646 is projective - injective . @xmath109 @xmath647 . in particular , @xmath0 is a morita algebra if and only if @xmath62 . @xmath110 @xmath648 , @xmath649 , and @xmath650 in @xmath651 , for every simple @xmath0-bimodule @xmath652 . @xmath653 let @xmath61 be a basic idempotent such that @xmath654 . then in @xmath655 , @xmath656    @xmath657 if @xmath27 is a non - zero @xmath0-bimodule with @xmath658 in @xmath651 , then @xmath659 .    @xmath660 if @xmath27 and @xmath661 are @xmath0-bimodules with @xmath658 and @xmath662 in @xmath663 , then in @xmath651 @xmath664    @xmath665 if @xmath666 is a complex in @xmath667 and @xmath668 is an integer such that :    @xmath669 , and    @xmath670 for all @xmath671 ,    then @xmath672 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{m^{\bullet}})[-d])\neq 0\}$ ] . \(1 ) let @xmath673 be the @xmath12-linear map defined by @xmath674 , for any @xmath675 . then @xmath676 for any @xmath677 . ( note that here @xmath91 gets twisted by @xmath678 . ) so @xmath679 is a right @xmath0-module isomorphism . now for each simple left @xmath0-module @xmath628 , @xmath680 by the assumption on @xmath644 . therefore , @xmath61 and @xmath645 are conjugate idempotents in @xmath0 . \(2 ) we may assume that @xmath70 is an indecomposable projective - injective @xmath0-module , thus of the form @xmath91 for some idempotent @xmath61 . then @xmath681 and @xmath682 by ( 1 ) . therefore , @xmath60 is projective - injective and @xmath683 is so , too . \(3 ) let @xmath91 be a basic projective - injective @xmath0-module such that every projective - injective @xmath0-module @xmath70 belongs to @xmath95 . then @xmath684 as @xmath0-modules by ( 2 ) . in other words , every projective - injective @xmath0-module is a strongly projective - injective @xmath0-module . so by definition , @xmath685 . the claim about morita algebras then follows from proposition [ prop : characterise morita algebras ] . \(4 ) let @xmath686 be the @xmath12-linear morphism defined by : @xmath687 for @xmath688 . then for any @xmath689 , there are equalities @xmath690 in @xmath691 . thus @xmath692 is an @xmath0-bimodule isomorphism and so is the @xmath12-dual of @xmath692 , that is , @xmath693 as @xmath0-bimodules . since @xmath0 is a split @xmath12-algebra , it follows that every simple @xmath0-bimodule @xmath652 is of the form @xmath694 , where @xmath628 and @xmath695 are simple left @xmath0-modules . thus , there is a series of isomorphisms of @xmath0-bimodules @xmath696 as the anti - automorphism @xmath644 fixes simple @xmath0-modules by assumption . \(5 ) since @xmath697 , the minimal faithful @xmath0-module @xmath91 is basic and projective - injective . by ( 2 ) , @xmath698 is also basic and projective - injective . as a result , @xmath699 as @xmath0-modules , and therefore @xmath700 as @xmath701-bimodules for some automorphism @xmath702 of @xmath6 . so for all @xmath703 @xmath704    \(6 ) since @xmath705 , there exists a simple @xmath0-bimodule @xmath652 such that @xmath706 . therefore @xmath707 thus the composition of an epimorphism from @xmath27 to @xmath652 followed by a monomorphism from @xmath652 to @xmath708 in @xmath651 defines a nonzero morphism from @xmath27 to @xmath708 . in particular , @xmath709 . \(7 ) since @xmath658 and @xmath710 in @xmath663 as @xmath0-bimodules , it follows that @xmath711 as @xmath0-modules for all @xmath712 . @xmath665 by definition , the complex @xmath713 $ ] has vanishing cohomology in degrees larger than @xmath427 , and @xmath714 $ ] has vanishing cohomology in degrees smaller than @xmath427 . this implies that @xmath715 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{m^{\bullet}})[-d])=0 $ ] for all @xmath716 . moreover , by lemma [ lem : morphisms in derived categories](3 ) , @xmath717 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{m^{\bullet}})[-m])$ ] is isomorphic to @xmath718 , which is nonzero by ( 6 ) . [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be derived equivalent split @xmath12-algebras . \(a ) if both @xmath0 and @xmath3 have anti - automorphisms fixing all simple modules , then . \(b ) if furthermore both @xmath0 and @xmath3 have dominant dimension at least @xmath333 , then .    for the proof of the theorem , we need the following lemma . let @xmath0 be a @xmath12-split algebra with an anti - automorphism @xmath644 fixing all simple @xmath0-modules , and let @xmath61 be an idempotent such that @xmath91 is basic and @xmath654 . then , in the canonical triangle @xmath719,\ ] ] for each integer @xmath169 , we have @xmath720 as @xmath0-bimodules . [ lem : canonical - complex - va ]    first of all , it follows from lemma [ lem : twist bimodule](1 ) that @xmath721 and @xmath91 are isomorphic left @xmath0-modules , and consequently @xmath645 and @xmath61 are conjugate in @xmath0 , namely , there is an invertible element @xmath722 such that @xmath723 . we fix this notation throughout the proof . let @xmath724 be the canonical map sending each element @xmath688 to the map @xmath725 . from the long exact sequence of cohomologies induced by the canonical triangle * ct2 * , it follows that @xmath726 for each @xmath712 , we have the following isomorphisms of @xmath0-bimodules @xmath727    where the last isomorphism follows from lemma [ lem : twist bimodule ] ( 5 ) . thus , for each integer @xmath72 , there is an isomorphism @xmath720 of @xmath0-bimodules . it remains to consider the cohomologies of @xmath728 in degrees @xmath427 and @xmath363 . for this purpose , we need four @xmath0-bimodules isomorphisms . we write down these isomorphisms explicitly , and it is straightforward to check that they are really @xmath0-bimodule homomorphisms . the first is @xmath729 note that @xmath723 and @xmath730 . let @xmath731 be the map sending @xmath732 to @xmath733 . the second isomorphism reads as follows . @xmath734 by assumption @xmath91 is basic and @xmath654 . then @xmath735 is again in @xmath95 , basic and has the same number of indecomposable direct summands as @xmath91 . hence @xmath736 as left @xmath0-modules . it follows that @xmath737 as left @xmath0-modules . equivalently , @xmath738 as right @xmath0-modules , and there is some automorphism @xmath739 of @xmath6 such that @xmath740 as @xmath6-@xmath0-bimodules . let @xmath741 be such an isomorphism . the third isomorphism is the canonical map @xmath742 and the fourth isomorphism is a composition @xmath743 from the proof of lemma [ lem : twist bimodule ] ( 4 ) , the map @xmath744 is an @xmath0-bimodule isomorphism . then it is straightforward to check that the diagram @xmath745^(.4){\eta}\ar[dddd]^{\omega } & { { \rm hom } } _ { eae}(ea , ea)\ar[d]^{c_{\omega}}\\ & { } ^{\omega}{{\rm hom } } _ { \omega(e)a\omega(e)}(a\omega(e ) , a\omega(e))^{\omega}\ar[d]^{c_u}\\ & { } ^{\omega}{{\rm hom } } _ { eae}(ae , ae)^{\omega}\ar[d]^{\operatorname{\mathrm{d}}}\\ & { } ^{\omega}{{\rm hom } } _ { eae}(\operatorname{\mathrm{d}}(ae ) , \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}(ae))^{\omega}\ar[d]^{c_{\tau}}\\ { } ^{\omega}\!\!a^{\omega}\ar[r]^(.4){\eta } & { } ^{\omega}{{\rm hom } } _ { eae}(ea , ea)^{\omega } } \quad\quad ( \star)\ ] ] is commutative . actually , for each @xmath688 , the image of @xmath746 under @xmath747 is @xmath748 , which sends each @xmath749 to @xmath750 . the image of @xmath746 under @xmath751 is @xmath752 . then one can check that there is a commutative diagram @xmath753^{\tau^{-1}}\ar[r]^{r_{\omega(a ) } } & ea\ar[d]^{\tau^{-1}}\\ \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}(ae)\ar[r]^{\operatorname{\mathrm{d}}(r_{u}^{-1}\omega^{-1}r_a\omega r_u ) } & \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}(ae ) } \ ] ] of right @xmath0-modules . this means precisely that the image of @xmath746 under @xmath754 is the same as its image under @xmath751 . thus , the diagram @xmath755 is commutative , and induces another commutative diagram @xmath756 & \operatorname{{ker}}\eta\ar[r]\ar@{-->}[d]^{\cong } & a\ar[d]^{\omega}\ar[r]^(.3){\eta } & { { \rm hom } } _ { eae}(ea , ea)\ar[d]^{c_{\omega}c_u\operatorname{\mathrm{d}}c_{\tau}}\ar[r ] & \operatorname{{coker}}\eta\ar[r]\ar@{-->}[d]^{\cong } & 0\\ 0\ar[r ] & { } ^{\omega}(\operatorname{{ker}}\eta)^{\omega}\ar[r ] & { } ^{\omega}\!\!a^{\omega}\ar[r]^(.3){\eta } & { } ^{\omega}{{\rm hom } } _ { eae}(ea , ea)^{\omega}\ar[r ] & { } ^{\omega}(\operatorname{{coker}}\eta)^{\omega}\ar[r ] & 0 } \ ] ] where the rows are exact and vertical maps are @xmath0-bimodule isomorphisms . this finishes the proof . \(a ) proposition [ prop : bound global dimension ] implies that if @xmath0 or @xmath3 has infinite global dimension , then so does the other and we are done . now assume @xmath0 and @xmath3 to have finite global dimension and @xmath757 to be a standard derived equivalence . let @xmath41 and @xmath758 be the global dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath3 respectively , and let @xmath759 denote the bounded complex @xmath760 in @xmath761 , and @xmath762 the bounded complex @xmath763 in @xmath764 . then lemma [ lem : characterise global dimension ] can be reformulated as @xmath765 by lemma [ lem : twist bimodule ] ( 4 ) and ( 7 ) and by @xmath12-duality , @xmath766 as @xmath0-bimodules . note that @xmath767 . hence , by lemma [ lem : twist bimodule](8 ) , we get @xmath768 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{r_a^{\bullet}})[-i])\neq 0\}.\ ] ] similarly @xmath769 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{r_b^{\bullet}})[-i])\neq 0\}$ ] . let @xmath770 be the derived equivalence induced from the given standard derived equivalence between @xmath0 and @xmath3 . then @xmath771 and @xmath772 in @xmath773 by lemma [ lem : standard derived equivalence ] ( 1 ) , ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) . hence , @xmath774 , that is , @xmath0 and @xmath3 have the same global dimension . \(b ) let @xmath385 and @xmath775 be the @xmath1-dominant dimensions of @xmath0 and @xmath3 respectively . since both @xmath385 and @xmath775 are at least one by assumption , lemma [ lem : twist bimodule ] ( 3 ) ( or lemma [ lem : two dominant dimensions coincide ] ) implies that there is no need to distinguish between dominant dimension and @xmath1-dominant dimension . let @xmath61 and @xmath264 be basic idempotents in @xmath0 and @xmath3 , respectively , such that @xmath654 and @xmath776 . let @xmath777 $ ] and be the canonical triangles ( denoted by ( ct2 ) in [ subsectionstandarddereq ] ) associated to the idempotents @xmath61 and @xmath264 respectively . let @xmath778 . we claim that @xmath779 . as @xmath780 , the module @xmath60 is a faithful right @xmath0-module and @xmath781 is injective . in this case @xmath782 , and @xmath783 vanishes if and only if @xmath781 is also surjective , if and only if @xmath784 ( see @xcite ) . this implies that @xmath550 when @xmath785 . if @xmath784 , then it follows from mller s characterisation ( proposition [ prop : muller characterisation ] ) that @xmath779 .    without loss of generality , the derived equivalence @xmath786 can be assumed to be standard and to be given by a two - sided tilting complex @xmath197 in @xmath218 . let @xmath787 be the induced standard derived equivalence and @xmath788 . then by theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] and lemma [ lem : derived - equivalence - preserves - canonical - triangle ] , @xmath789 as triangles in @xmath790 , and in particular , @xmath791 in @xmath790 . thus , it follows from lemma [ lem : canonical - complex - va ] and lemma [ lem : twist bimodule](8 ) that @xmath792 , v_a(e)[-i])\neq 0\ } , \mbox {   and } \ ] ] @xmath793 , v_b(f)[-i])\neq 0\}.\ ] ] since @xmath794 and @xmath795 , one has @xmath796 , and @xmath797 . the characterisations of global and dominant dimension , respectively , inside the derived category of the enveloping algebras , provided by the proof may be of independent interest . let @xmath0 be an algebra with an anti - automorphism preserving simples . @xmath798 let @xmath759 denote the bounded complex @xmath760 in @xmath761 . then the global dimension of @xmath0 , if finite , is determined in the category @xmath761 as @xmath799 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{r_a^{\bullet}})[-i])\neq 0\}.\ ] ]    @xmath800 suppose @xmath61 is an idempotent in @xmath0 such that @xmath91 is basic and @xmath654 . then the dominant dimension of @xmath0 is determined in the category @xmath761 by the canonical triangle @xmath719 , \mathrm { as}\ ] ] @xmath801 , v_a(e)[-i ] )     \neq 0\}.\ ] ]    the proof of theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] implies that ( a ) holds , and that ( b ) holds in case that @xmath59 . suppose that @xmath802 . then @xmath60 can not be a faithful @xmath0-module , and thus the canonical map @xmath803 is not injective . it follows that @xmath804 , which is @xmath805 , is nonzero . then , in this case , ( b ) follows from lemma [ lem : twist bimodule](8 ) .    in the current context , the complexes @xmath759 used to identify global dimension are preserved at least by standard derived equivalences . the derived restriction theorem ( corollary [ cor : restriction theorem for morita algebras ] ) and theorem [ thm : restriction theorem ] upon which it is based , are a crucial ingredient of the above proof of theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] . together with lemma [ lem : derived - equivalence - preserves - canonical - triangle ] , they guarantee that the canonical triangle * ( ct2 ) * is preserved under standard derived equivalences between algebras with positive @xmath1-dominant dimensions . let @xmath0 and @xmath3 be algebras with anti - automorphisms preserving simples . then a standard derived equivalence from @xmath0 to @xmath3 induces a standard equivalence from @xmath761 to @xmath773 that sends @xmath759 to @xmath806 . when an algebra @xmath0 with an anti - automorphism preserving simples is derived equivalent to an algebra @xmath3 , possibly without such an anti - automorphism , the proof of theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] provides an inequality :    [ cor : inequality ] let @xmath0 be an algebra with an anti - automorphism preserving simples and suppose @xmath0 is derived equivalent to an algebra @xmath3 . then there is an inequality . the characterisation of @xmath807 given in the proof of theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] remains valid . then the non - vanishing over @xmath0 of @xmath808 , ( \operatorname{\mathrm{d}}{r_b^{\bullet}})[-g])\neq 0\}$ ] , implies a contradiction to @xmath809 . the following example shows that the assumption in the second invariance theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] , requiring both algebras admitting an anti - automorphism preserving simples , can not be relaxed ; the inequality in corollary [ cor : inequality ] is in general not an equality . in this example , the algebra @xmath0 has an anti - automorphism , while @xmath3 does not . the algebras @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent . the global dimension of @xmath3 is strictly bigger than that of @xmath0 . let the algebra @xmath0 be given by the quiver @xmath810 with relations @xmath811 . this is a _ dual extension _ ( defined by c.c.xi @xcite ) of the path algebra of @xmath812 . it is a quasi - hereditary cellular algebra , and has global dimension @xmath64 . let @xmath411 be the indecomposable projective @xmath0-modules corresponding to the vertex @xmath169 , and let @xmath813 be the direct sum of three indecomposable complexes @xmath814 , @xmath815 and @xmath816 , where @xmath817 $ ] and , for each @xmath818 , the complex @xmath819 is the complex @xmath820 with @xmath116 in degree @xmath363 . then @xmath813 is a tilting complex , inducing a derived equivalence between @xmath0 and the endomorphism algebra @xmath3 of @xmath813 . the algebra @xmath3 has the following quiver @xmath821 with relations @xmath822 . the algebra @xmath0 has an anti - automorphism fixing simple modules , while @xmath3 can not have such an anti - automorphism . ( if an algebra @xmath629 has such an anti - automorphism , then @xmath823 for all simple @xmath629-modules @xmath824 . this implies that , in the quiver of the algebra @xmath629 , for any two vertices @xmath746 and @xmath825 , the number of arrows from @xmath746 to @xmath825 coincides with the number of arrows in the opposite direction , from @xmath825 to @xmath746 ) . a direct calculation shows that the algebra @xmath3 has global dimension @xmath826 , which is strictly larger than @xmath827 . cellular algebras by definition have anti - automorphisms preserving simples ; hence this large and widely studied class of algebras is covered by the second invariance theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] . [ cor : cellular ] suppose that @xmath0 and @xmath3 are derived equivalent cellular algebras over a field . then @xmath0 and @xmath3 have the same global dimension . if both @xmath0 and @xmath3 have positive dominant dimension , then their dominant dimensions are equal .    in the next section , it will be shown how to use this result to compute homological dimensions of blocks of quantised schur algebras . global dimensions of classical and quantised schur algebras @xmath11 ( with @xmath5 ) have been determined by totaro @xcite and donkin @xcite . dominant dimensions of these algebras have been obtained more recently in @xcite . the aim of this section is to determine the global and dominant dimensions of all blocks of these algebras , that is , of the indecomposable algebra direct summands .    to recall some basics on @xmath828-schur algebras and their blocks ( see @xcite and the references therein ) , let @xmath12 be a field of characteristic @xmath427 or @xmath829 , and @xmath828 a non - zero element in @xmath12 . let @xmath830 be the smallest integer such that @xmath831 , and set @xmath832 if no such integer exists . for a natural number @xmath833 , let @xmath834 be the symmetric group on @xmath833 letters and let @xmath835 be the associated hecke algebra that is defined by generators @xmath836 and relations @xmath837 for each composition @xmath838 of @xmath833 , that is , a sequence of @xmath161 non - negative integers summing up to @xmath833 , let @xmath839 be the associated parabolic hecke algebra that is isomorphic to @xmath840 as @xmath12-algebras . then @xmath839 naturally can be seen as a @xmath12-subalgebra of @xmath835 . the algebra @xmath839 has a trivial module @xmath12 with all @xmath841 s acting as scalar @xmath828 . let @xmath842 be the permutation module over @xmath835 that is defined as the induced module @xmath843 . the @xmath828-schur algebra @xmath844 is then defined to be the endomorphism ring @xmath845 where @xmath846 ranges over all compositions @xmath847 of @xmath833 into @xmath161 parts , where @xmath161 is any natural number . for each composition @xmath846 of @xmath833 , there is a unique associated composition @xmath848 ( called _ partition _ ) obtained by rearranging the entries of @xmath846 weakly decreasing ; the permutation module @xmath849 is isomorphic to @xmath842 and is a direct sum of the ( indecomposable ) young modules @xmath850 with multiplicities @xmath851 ( @xmath829-kostka number ) where @xmath852 ranges over all partitions of @xmath833 . these multiplicities are known to satisfy @xmath853 and @xmath854 unless @xmath855 in the dominance ordering on partitions . when @xmath828 is not a root of unity , then the @xmath828-schur algebra @xmath844 is semisimple , and thus the global dimensions of @xmath844 and its blocks are @xmath427 , and the dominant dimensions of @xmath844 and its blocks are @xmath42 . in the following , we always assume that @xmath828 is a root a unity , and therefore @xmath856 . if @xmath857 and @xmath858 is the @xmath830-adic expansion of @xmath833 , then we set @xmath859 ; if @xmath860 , @xmath861 and @xmath862 are the @xmath830-adic expansion of @xmath833 and the @xmath829-adic expansion of @xmath863 respectively , then we set @xmath864 . the global dimension of @xmath844 for @xmath865 in this case has been given by totaro @xcite for @xmath866 , that is for the classical schur algebra , and by donkin @xcite in general . a lower bound for the dominant dimension of @xmath844 has been obtained ( implicitly ) by kleshchev and nakano @xcite for @xmath866 and by donkin ( * ? ? ? * proposition 10.5 ) in general . it was shown later in @xcite that this lower bound is an upper bound , too .      to determine the global and dominant dimensions of blocks of the @xmath828-schur algebras , we will use the setup of algebras with a duality . each @xmath828-schur algebra has an anti - automorphism that fixes all simple modules , and there is a block decomposition that is invariant under the involution @xmath867 where @xmath868 and @xmath702 ranges over all @xmath830-core partitions of @xmath869 . moreover , for @xmath870 , the two blocks @xmath871 of @xmath844 and @xmath872 of @xmath873 are derived equivalent if @xmath874 @xcite . chuang and rouquier have shown in @xcite , that @xmath871 and @xmath877 are derived equivalent . as all block algebras of @xmath828-schur algebras have anti - automorphisms fixing all simple modules , theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] can be applied and we get @xmath878 . now we are going to compute the global dimension of @xmath875 by induction on @xmath885 ; we have to show that it equals @xmath886 . if @xmath887 , then the block algebra @xmath875 is semisimple ( @xcite ) , and thus @xmath888 . now we assume that @xmath889 . note that the @xmath828-schur algebra @xmath890 is of global dimension @xmath886 by theorem [ thm : global dimension of schur algebras ] , and has a block subalgebra @xmath891 . it follows that @xmath892 since all other block subalgebras of @xmath890 are @xmath893 with @xmath894 , and thus @xmath895 by induction .    in terms of the cover theory introduced by rouquier @xcite , the @xmath828-schur algebra @xmath844 is a quasi - hereditary cover of the hecke algebra @xmath835 of covering degree @xmath896 by theorem [ thm : dominant dimension of schur algebras ] and @xcite , that is , @xmath844 is a @xmath896-cover , but not an @xmath830-cover of @xmath835 . the following result implies a particular property of the cover ; each block of @xmath844 is a quasi - hereditary cover of the corresponding block of @xmath835 , of the same dominant dimension . this property may be formulated as saying that the covering is uniform of covering degree @xmath897 .      if @xmath887 , then @xmath871 is semisimple and has dominant dimension infinity . now we assume that @xmath889 . since @xmath828 is a root of unity , it follows that @xmath899 , and thus by theorem [ thm : dominant dimension of schur algebras ] @xmath900 note that all block algebras have anti - automorphisms fixing all simple modules . by @xcite , the block subalgebra @xmath875 of @xmath844 and the principal block subalgebra @xmath891 of @xmath890 are derived equivalent , and thus have the same dominant dimension by theorem [ thm : class with anti - automorphisms ] . therefore we only need to show @xmath901 . let @xmath61 be an idempotent in @xmath891 such that @xmath902 is a minimal faithful @xmath891-module . then @xmath903 is a block subalgebra of @xmath904 and the @xmath905-module @xmath906 is isomorphic to a direct sum of those young modules @xmath850 that belong to the block @xmath905 ( see @xcite ) . by proposition [ prop : muller characterisation ] and the inequality ( [ eqn : lower bound for dominant dimension ] ) , to finish the proof , it suffices to show :    set @xmath907 and @xmath908 , which are two partitions of @xmath909 . then the young module @xmath850 belongs to the block @xmath905 and by definition @xmath910 . as a result , by mackey s decomposition theorem @xmath911 here , the first isomorphism uses the definition of permutation modules and the second one uses adjointness ; non - vanishing of the third extension space follows by identifying @xmath912 with @xmath913 and then using the known cohomology of @xmath914 . so there is a direct summand @xmath915 of @xmath916 such that @xmath917 . in this case , the young module @xmath915 must belong to the block @xmath905 , too . this proves the claim and the theorem . _ remark . _ ( 1 ) when @xmath12 has characteristic zero or bigger than the weight @xmath885 , the dominant dimension of the blocks @xmath871 have been determined in @xcite by using chuang and tan s complete description of the corresponding rouquier blocks @xcite . \(2 ) all blocks @xmath918 of the @xmath828-schur algebra @xmath844 are also stably equivalent of morita type , and hence have the same global and dominant dimensions , as well as the same representation dimension . indeed , by carefully examining the tilting complexes constructed by chuang and rouquier @xcite , we see that the induced derived equivalences are almost @xmath1-stable . however , the derived equivalences between general blocks constructed by chuang and rouquier @xcite are not almost @xmath1-stable . for instance , when @xmath919 , the group algebras of @xmath920 and of @xmath921 , respectively , each have a unique block of @xmath829-weight @xmath826 . these two blocks correspond to each other under the reflection @xmath922 of the weyl group of the affine kac - moody algebra @xmath923 . the derived equivalences constructed in @xcite , relating these two blocks , are not almost @xmath1-stable . i. assem , d. simson and a. skowronski , _ elements of the representation theory of associative algebras . _ 1 . techniques of representation theory . london mathematical society student texts , * 65*. cambridge university press , cambridge , 2006 . s. donkin , tilting modules for algebraic groups and finite dimensional algebras , in _ handbook of tilting theory _ , london mathematical society lecture note series * 332 * , cambridge university press , cambridge , 2007 .
Abstract:

Answer: derived equivalences between finite dimensional algebras do , in general , not pass to centraliser ( or other ) subalgebras , nor do they preserve homological invariants of the algebras , such as global or dominant dimension . we show that , however , they do so for large classes of algebras described in this article . algebras @xmath0 of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one have unique largest non - trivial self - injective centraliser subalgebras @xmath2 . a derived restriction theorem is proved : a derived equivalence between @xmath0 and @xmath3 implies a derived equivalence between @xmath2 and @xmath4 . two methods are developed to show that global and dominant dimension are preserved by derived equivalences between algebras of @xmath1-dominant dimension at least one with anti - automorphisms preserving simples , and also between almost self - injective algebras . one method is based on identifying particular derived equivalences preserving homological dimensions , while the other method identifies homological dimensions inside certain derived categories . in particular , derived equivalent cellular algebras have the same global dimension . as an application , the global and dominant dimensions of blocks of quantised schur algebras with @xmath5 are completely determined .    * keywords *   derived equivalence . dominant dimension . global dimension . schur algebras .     corresponding author . ]