arXiv reader

Multi-Symmetric Schur Functions

Milo Bechtloff Weising

arXiv
2502.08738v2 · PDF · 21 September 2025
Categories
math.CO
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We study a multi-symmetric generalization of the classical Schur functions called the multi-symmetric Schur functions. These functions form an integral basis for the ring of multi-symmetric functions indexed by tuples of partitions and are defined as certain stable-limits of key polynomials. We prove combinatorial results about the monomial expansions of the multi-symmetric Schur functions including a diagrammatic combinatorial formula and a triangularity result which completely characterizes their monomial multi-symmetric supports. The triangularity result involves a non-trivial generalization of the dominance order on partitions to tuples of partitions. We prove, using the Demazure character formula, that the multi-symmetric Schur functions expand positively into the basis of tensor products of ordinary Schur functions and describe the expansion coefficients as multiplicities of certain irreducible representations for Levi subgroups inside particular Demazure modules. Lastly, we find a family of multi-symmetric plethystic operators related to the classical Bernstein operators which act on the multi-symmetric Schur basis by a simple recurrence relation.

Items 98

Definition

Definition 2.1

V9BI

Given a commutative ring R and free variables x,y define the isobaric divided difference operator \xi_{x,y}: R[x,y] \rightarrow R[x,y] by

\xi_{x,y}(f(x,y)):= \frac{xf(x,y)-yf(y,x)}{x-y}.

For 1\leq i \leq n-1 we will write \xi_{i}:= \xi_{x_i,x_{i+1}} for the corresponding operator on \mathbb{Q}[x_1,\ldots,x_n].

Used by Remark 10
Definition

Definition 2.2

F0N9

[Dem_1974] Let n \geq 1. Define the key polynomials to be the unique collection of polynomials \{\mathcal{K}_{\alpha}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) \}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}} \subset \mathbb{Q}[x_1,\ldots,x_n] determined by the following properties:

  • If \alpha_1 \geq \ldots \geq \alpha_n then

    \mathcal{K}_{\alpha}(x_1,\ldots, x_n)= x^{\alpha}.
  • Whenever \alpha_i > \alpha_{i+1}

    \mathcal{K}_{s_i(\alpha)}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = \xi_{i}(\mathcal{K}_{\alpha}(x_1,\ldots, x_n)).
Proposition

Proposition 2.3

68S6

[RS95] The key polynomials \{\mathcal{K}_{\alpha}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) \}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}} form a \mathbb{Z}-basis for \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n].

Uses Definition 2.2 · Used by Proof
Definition

Definition 2.4

38P9

[haglund2007combinatorial] For a composition \mu = (\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n), define the column diagram of \mu as

dg'(\mu):= \{(i,j)\in \mathbb{N}^2 : 1\leq i\leq n, 1\leq j \leq \mu_i \}.

This is represented by a collection of boxes in positions given by dg'(\mu). The augmented diagram of \mu is given by

\widehat{dg}(\mu):= dg'(\mu)\cup\{(i,0): 1\leq i\leq n\}.

Visually, to get \widehat{dg}(\mu) we are adding a bottom row of boxes on length n below the diagram dg'(\mu). Given u = (i,j) \in dg'(\mu) define the following:

  • \operatorname{leg}(u) := \{(i,j') \in dg'(\mu): j' > j\}

  • \operatorname{arm}^{\operatorname{left}}(u) := \{(i',j) \in dg'(\mu): i'<i, \mu_{i'} \leq \mu_i\}

  • \operatorname{arm}^{\operatorname{right}}(u):= \{(i',j-1) \in \widehat{dg}(\mu): i'>i, \mu_{i'}<\mu_{i}\}

  • \operatorname{arm}(u) := \operatorname{arm}^{\operatorname{left}}(u) \cup \operatorname{arm}^{\operatorname{right}}(u)

  • \operatorname{lg}(u):= |\operatorname{leg}(u)| = \mu_i -j

  • a(u) := |\operatorname{arm}(u)|.

A filling of \mu is a function \sigma: dg'(\mu) \rightarrow \{1,...,n\} and given a filling there is an associated augmented filling \widehat{\sigma}: \widehat{dg}(\mu) \rightarrow \{1,...,n\} extending \sigma with the additional bottom row boxes filled according to \widehat{\sigma}((j,0)) = j for j = 1,\dots,n. Distinct lattice squares u,v \in \mathbb{N}^2 are said to attack each other if one of the following is true:

  • u and v are in the same row

  • u and v are in consecutive rows and the box in the lower row is to the right of the box in the upper row.

A filling \sigma: dg'(\mu) \rightarrow \{1,\dots,n\} is non-attacking if \widehat{\sigma}(u) \neq \widehat{\sigma}(v) for every pair of attacking boxes u,v \in \widehat{dg}(\mu). For a box u= (i,j) let d(u) = (i,j-1) denote the box just below u.

Definition

Definition 2.5

U946

[haglund2007combinatorial] Let \sigma: \mu \rightarrow \{1,\ldots, n\} be a non-attacking labeling. A co-inversion triple is a triple of boxes (u,v,w) in the diagram \widehat{dg}(\mu) of one of the following two types

Type 1:

Ytableau.

u & &
w & & v

     Type 2:

Ytableau.

v & & u
& & w

that satisfy the following criteria:

  • in Type 1 the column containing u and w is strictly taller than the column containing v

  • in Type 2 the column containing u and w is weakly taller than the column containing v

  • in either Type 1 or Type 2, \widehat{\sigma}(u)< \widehat{\sigma}(v)< \widehat{\sigma}(w) or \widehat{\sigma}(v)< \widehat{\sigma}(w)< \widehat{\sigma}(u) or \widehat{\sigma}(w)< \widehat{\sigma}(u)< \widehat{\sigma}(v).

Informally, in Type 1 we require the entries to strictly increase clockwise and in Type 2 we require the entries to strictly increase counterclockwise.

Definition

Definition 2.6

SPIW

Given \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}, denote by \mathcal{L}'(\alpha) the set of non-attacking labellings \sigma: \alpha \rightarrow \{1,\ldots, n\} such that \widehat{\sigma} is weakly increasing upwards and has no co-inversion triples.

Proposition

Proposition 2.7

K80D

For \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n},

\mathcal{K}_{\alpha} = \sum_{\sigma \in \mathcal{L}'(\alpha) } x^{\sigma}.
Example

Example 1

CPBW

Consider \alpha = (1,0,2) and the corresponding key polynomial

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{(1,0,2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3) = x_1^2x_2+x_1^2x_3+x_1x_2^2 + x_1x_2x_3+x_1x_3^2.

Each of these monomials corresponds to a diagram filling in the set \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}'(1,0,2) as follows:

Multicols.

2

  • x_1^2x_2 \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    & & 1
    1 & & 2
    1 & 2 & 3

  • x_1^2x_3 \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    & & 1
    1 & & 3
    1 & 2 & 3

  • x_1x_2^2 \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    & & 2
    1 & & 2
    1 & 2 & 3

  • x_1x_2x_3 \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    & & 2
    1 & & 3
    1 & 2 & 3

  • x_1x_3^2 \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    & & 3
    1 & & 3
    1 & 2 & 3

It is informative to check that each of these diagram fillings is non-attacking, weakly decreasing upwards, and has no co-inversion triples. For a non-example, the filling

Ytableau.

& & 1
2* & & 1*
1 & 2 & 3*

which is not in the set \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}'(1,0,2) since the boxes with *’s form a co-inversion triple of Type 2. More egregiously, this labeling is attacking since the 2 is row 1 attacks the 2 in row 0.

Definition

Definition 2.8

K5Y7

Let n \geq 1. Define \operatorname{\mathrm{B}}_n to be the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices in \operatorname{\mathrm{GL}}_n and let \operatorname{\mathrm{H}}_n denote the group of diagonal matrices in \operatorname{\mathrm{GL}}_n. Let \mathfrak{b}_n denote the Lie algebra of \operatorname{\mathrm{B}}_n i.e. the set of upper triangular n\times n matrices over \mathbb{C} with the usual commutator. Let \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{b}_n) denote the universal enveloping algebra of \mathfrak{b}_n. We will write \mathfrak{S}_n for the group of permutations of \{1,\ldots,n\}. For a dominant (i.e. weakly decreasing) integral weight \lambda \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^n, let \mathcal{V}^{\lambda} denote the corresponding highest weight representation of \operatorname{\mathrm{GL}}_n.

Definition

Definition 2.9

RP0M

Given a finite dimensional polynomial representation V of \operatorname{\mathrm{H}}_n, we will denote by \operatorname{\mathrm{char}}(V) \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n] the formal character of V as

\operatorname{\mathrm{char}}(V) = \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}} \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}} \operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\operatorname{\mathrm{H}}_n}(\alpha,V) x^{\alpha}

where we denote by \alpha the corresponding character of \operatorname{\mathrm{H}}_n.

Definition

Definition 2.10

0V9J

[Dem_1974] Given a dominant integral weight \lambda \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n} and \sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_n, define the Demazure module \mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{\sigma(\lambda)} to be the \operatorname{\mathrm{B}}_n-module

\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{\sigma(\lambda)}:= \mathcal{U}(\mathfrak{b}_n)v

where v \in \mathcal{V}^{\lambda} is any weight vector with weight \sigma(\lambda).

Theorem

Theorem 2.11

Z439

(Demazure Character Formula)[Andersen1985] Given a dominant integral weight \lambda \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n} and \sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_n,

\operatorname{\mathrm{char}}(\mathcal{V}^{\lambda}_{\sigma(\lambda)}) = \mathcal{K}_{\sigma(\lambda)}.
Uses Definition 2.8 · Used by Proof
Definition

Definition 2.12

E88B

Let \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}} denote the set of all partitions. We will write \ell(\lambda) for the length of the partition \lambda and |\lambda| for the size of the partition. Given a commutative ring R and an infinite set of free variables X = \{x_1,x_2,x_3,\ldots\} we define \Lambda_R(X) to be the ring of symmetric functions over R in the variables X. When R= \mathbb{Q}, we simply write \Lambda(X):= \Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(X). We will denote by m_{\lambda}(X) and s_{\lambda}(X) respectively the monomial and Schur symmetric functions respectively. Given a collection of infinite sets of free variables we will write

\Lambda_R(X_1|\cdots|X_r):=\Lambda_R(X_1)\otimes_R \cdots \otimes_R \Lambda_R(X_r)

for the ring of r multi-symmetric functions over R. If R=\mathbb{Q} we write \Lambda(X_1|\cdots|X_r):= \Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(X_1|\cdots | X_r). Similarly, we write

m_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots|X_r):= m_{\lambda^{(1)}}(X_1)\cdots m_{\lambda^{(r)}}(X_r),

and

s_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots|X_r):= s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(X_1)\cdots s_{\lambda^{(r)}}(X_r)

for the r multi-symmetric monomial, and Schur functions respectively.

Definition

Definition 2.13

UM8N

We define the plethystic exponential as the element of the graded completion of \Lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}(X) given by

\Omega(X):= \sum_{\lambda} m_{\lambda}(X).
Lemma

Lemma 3.1 (Key Polynomial Stability)

3E6V

For all compositions \alpha,\beta

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*0*\beta}(x_1,\ldots, x_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)+1})|_{x_{\ell(\alpha)+1}=0} = \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*\beta}(x_1,\ldots, x_{\ell(\alpha)},x_{\ell(\alpha)+2},\ldots,x_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)+1}).
Proof of Lemma 3.1

For all 1\leq i \leq \ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)+1 let \varphi_i(f):= f|_{x_i=0}. It is straightforward to check that \varphi_i\xi_i = s_i \varphi_{i+1} for all 1\leq i \leq \ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta). We now directly compute:

\begin{aligned} &\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*0*\beta}|_{x_{\ell(\alpha)+1}=0} \\ &= \varphi_{\ell(\alpha)+1} \left( \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*0*\beta} \right)\\ &= \varphi_{\ell(\alpha)+1}\xi_{\ell(\alpha)+1}\cdots \xi_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)}(\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*\beta})\\ &= s_{\ell(\alpha)+1}\cdots s_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)} \varphi_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)+1}(\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*\beta})\\ &= s_{\ell(\alpha)+1}\cdots s_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)}(\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*\beta})\\ &= \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha*\beta}(x_1,\ldots, x_{\ell(\alpha)},x_{\ell(\alpha)+2},\ldots,x_{\ell(\alpha)+\ell(\beta)+1}).\\ \end{aligned}
Example

Example 2

RJSP

We compute directly

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{1001}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = x_1(x_2+x_3+x_4)

and

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{101}(x_1,x_2,x_3) = x_1(x_2+x_3)

so

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{1001}(x_1,x_2,0,x_4) = \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{101}(x_1,x_2,x_4).

For another example, consider

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{110020}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) = (x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2)(x_3+x_4+x_5) + x_1x_2(x_3^2+x_4^2+x_5^2 + x_3x_4+x_3x_5+x_4x_5)

and

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{11020}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5) = (x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2)(x_3+x_4) + x_1x_2(x_3^2+x_4^2+ x_3x_4)

so

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{110020}(x_1,x_2,x_3,0,x_5,x_6) = \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{11020}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5,x_6).

Lastly, consider the simple example

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{20010010}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7,x_8) = x_1^2(x_2x_3+x_2x_4+x_3x_4)+x_1^2(x_2+x_3+x_4)(x_5+x_6+x_7)

and

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{2010010}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7) = x_1^2x_2x_3 + x_1^2(x_2+x_3)(x_4+x_5+x_6)

so

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{20010010}(x_1,x_2,0,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7,x_8) =\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{2010010}(x_1,x_2,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7,x_8).
Theorem

Theorem 3.2

S7EN

For any compositions \beta,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r the following limit exists as a formal power series:

\begin{aligned} &F_{(\alpha_1|\cdots |\alpha_r)}^{\beta} :=\\ &\lim_{n_1,\ldots , n_r \rightarrow \infty}\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\beta*0^{n_1}*\alpha_1*\cdots * 0^{n_r}*\alpha_r}(y_1,\ldots,y_{\ell(\beta)}, x_{1,1},\ldots,x_{1,n_{1}},z_{1,1},\ldots,z_{1,\ell(\alpha_1)},\ldots, x_{r,1},\ldots,x_{r,n_r}z_{r,1},\ldots,z_{r,\ell(\alpha_r)}). \end{aligned}
Example

Example 3

FUHT

Here is a simple partially-symmetric example concerning the composition \alpha = (2,1):

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{21} = x_1^2x_2

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{021} = x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2 + x_1^2x_3 + x_1x_2x_3 + x_2^2x_3

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{0021} = x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2 + (x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_3+x_4) + x_1x_2(2x_3+x_4) + (x_1+x_2)(x_3^2+x_3x_4) + x_3^2x_4

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{00021} = x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2 +x_2^2x_3 + x_1^2x_3+x_1x_3^2+x_2x_3^2 + 2x_1x_2x_3 + (x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_1x_2+x_1x_3+x_2x_3)(x_4+x_5) +(x_1x_2+x_1x_3+x_2x_3)x_4 + (x_1+x_2+x_3)(x_4^2+2x_4x_5) + x_4^2x_5

Note that we may rewrite \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{00021} in the simplified form

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{00021} = s_{2,1}(x_1,x_2,x_3)+s_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)(x_4+x_5) + s_{1,1}(x_1,x_2,x_3)x_4 + s_1(x_1,x_2,x_3)(x_4^2+x_4x_5) + x_4^2x_5

which shows that

F^{\emptyset}_{(2,1)}(X|z_1,z_2) = s_{2,1}(X)+s_2(X)(z_1+z_2) + s_{1,1}(X)z_1 + s_1(X)(z_1^2+z_1z_2) + z_1^2z_2.

In fact, this function has more symmetry:

F^{\emptyset}_{(2,1)}(X|z_1,z_2) = s_{2,1}(X+z_1)+s_2(X+z_1)z_2.

This property may be read off directly from the compositions 0^n*(2,1) since the full substring 0^n*2 is weakly increasing and not just the substring 0^n. In general, the F_{(\alpha_1|\cdots |\alpha_r)}^{\beta} have similar additional symmetries whenever (\alpha_1|\cdots |\alpha_r) \neq \emptyset.

Example

Example 4

O7F2

Here we give a multi-symmetric example concerning the partitions \lambda^{(1)} = 2 and \lambda^{(2)} = 1:

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{21} = x_1^2x_2

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{0201} = x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2 + (x_1^2+x_1x_2+x_2^2)(x_3+x_4)

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{002001}= x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2 +x_2^2x_3 + x_1^2x_3+x_1x_3^2+x_2x_3^2 + 2x_1x_2x_3 + (x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_1x_2+x_1x_3+x_2x_3)(x_4+x_5+x_6).

This means that

F^{\emptyset}_{(2|1)}(X_1|X_2) = s_{2}(X_1)s_1(X_2) + s_{2,1}(X_1).

It is not a coincidence that this example is highly related to the example F^{\emptyset}_{(2,1)}(X|z_1,z_2). In general, there are many algebraic relationships between the functions F_{(\alpha_1|\cdots |\alpha_r)}^{\beta} which will be explored in a future paper.

Definition

Definition 3.3

XDA6

Let \operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}:= \bigotimes_{i=1}^{r} \mathbb{Q}[x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,n_i}]. We let \mathfrak{S}^{(1)}_{n_1}\times \cdots \times \mathfrak{S}^{(r)}_{n_r} act on \operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} via permutations of the variables x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,n_i} where each \mathfrak{S}^{(i)}_{n_i} is a copy of \mathfrak{S}_{n_i}. We will write \Lambda(X_{1}^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{r}^{(n_r)}):= \operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}^{\mathfrak{S}^{(1)}_{n_1}\times \cdots \times \mathfrak{S}^{(r)}_{n_r}} where each X_{i}^{(n_i)} denotes a symmetrized variable set X_{i}^{(n_i)} = x_{i,1}+\ldots+x_{i,n_i}. Let (\lambda^{(1)}|\ldots|\lambda^{(r)}) be an r-tuple of partitions. For all (n_1|\cdots|n_r) with n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)}) define the multi-symmetric Schur polynomial

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\ldots|\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(X_{1}^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{r}^{(n_r)}):= \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{(0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))}(x_{1,1},\ldots,x_{1,n_1},\ldots,x_{r,1},\ldots,x_{r,n_r}).
Used by Proof, Proof
Definition

Definition 3.4

QWP0

For 1\leq i \leq r and n_i \geq 1 we define the map \Xi^{(n_i)}_i: \operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} \rightarrow \operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_{i-1}|n_i-1|n_{i+1}|\cdots|n_r)} by

\Xi^{(n_i)}_i(f) := f|_{x_{i,n_i}=0}.
Lemma

Lemma 3.5

W5M2

For all (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\cdots|n_r) with n_j \geq \ell(\lambda^{(j)}) for all 1\leq j \leq r and n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)})+1 for some 1 \leq i \leq r,

\Xi_{i}^{(n_i)}\left(\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} \right) = \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_{i-1}|n_i-1|n_{i+1}|\cdots|n_r)}.
Definition

Definition 3.6

IMID

For (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r, define the multi-symmetric Schur function

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1 | \cdots |X_r) := \lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(X_{1}^{(n_1)} | \cdots |X_{r}^{(n_r)}).
Example

Example 5

TCDC

Below are the first few examples of multi-symmetric Schur functions expanded into the Schur basis for r = 2:

Multicols.

2

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|\emptyset)} = 1

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1|\emptyset)} = s_{(1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|1)} = s_{(\emptyset|1)} + s_{(1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(2|\emptyset)} = s_{(2|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1,1|\emptyset)} = s_{(1,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1|1)} = s_{(1|1)}+s_{(1,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset| 2)} = s_{(\emptyset|2)}+ s_{(1|1)} + s_{(2|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|1,1)} = s_{(\emptyset|1,1)} + s_{(1|1)}+s_{(1,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(3|\emptyset)} = s_{(3|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(2,1|\emptyset)} = s_{(2,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)} = s_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(2|1)} = s_{(2|1)}+s_{(2,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1,1|1)} = s_{(1,1|1)}+s_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1|2)} = s_{(1|2)}+s_{(1,1|1)}+s_{(2|1)}+s_{(2,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(1|1,1)} = s_{(1|1,1)}+s_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)} + s_{(1,1|1)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|3)} = s_{(\emptyset|3)} + s_{(1|2)}+s_{(2|1)}+s_{(3|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|2,1)}= s_{(\emptyset|2,1)}+s_{(1|1,1)} +s_{(1|2)}+s_{(1,1|1)}+s_{(2|1)}+s_{(2,1|\emptyset)}

  • \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|1,1,1)}= s_{(\emptyset|1,1,1)}+s_{(1|1,1)}+s_{(1,1|1)}+s_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)}

Notice that the above expansions are all non-negative in the ordinary Schur basis s_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}. Later, we will prove this holds in general (Theorem 5.8). Generally, the expansion of the \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} into the s_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} are not multiplicity free. For example, s_{(2,1|2,1)} occurs with coefficient 2 in \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\emptyset|3,2,1)}. It is not a coincidence that this is the simplest Littlewood-Richardson coefficient c_{(2,1),(2,1)}^{(3,2,1)} = 2 which is larger than 1. See Remark 8 for more details.

Remark

Remark 1

C1DB

The r=1 case recovers the usual Schur functions

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\lambda}(X) = s_{\lambda}(X).

Note that in terms of the more general notation in Theorem 3.2,

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots |X_r) = F^{\emptyset}_{(\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})|\cdots |\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))}(X_1|\cdots|X_r)

where we have set the z-variables to 0. Whenever some \lambda^{(i)} = \emptyset, we also have the simple relation:

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\emptyset|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots|X_i|X_{i+1}| \cdots|X_r) =\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i+1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots|X_i+X_{i+1}|\cdots|X_r).
Corollary

Corollary 3.7

2WBP

The multi-symmetric Schur functions \{\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}| (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})\in\operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r\} form a \mathbb{Q}-basis for \Lambda(X_1|\cdots|X_r).

Proof of Corollary 3.7

There are sufficiently many \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})} in each degree so it suffices to show that they are linearly independent; but this is a consequence of the stability in Lemma 3.5 combined with Proposition 2.3.

Definition

Definition 4.1

L5HF

Given (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\cdots|n_r) with n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)}) for all 1\leq i \leq r, define the diagrams

dg'_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}):= dg'((0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)})))
\widehat{dg}_{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}):= \widehat{dg}((0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))).

We will require multiple copies of the usual labels \{1,2,3,\ldots\}. We consider labels of the form i_j for i,j \geq 1 which we order by i_j \leq k_{\ell} if either j < \ell or j = \ell and i < k. We naturally extend the definition of co-inversion triples to any lattice diagram with labels of the form i_j for i,j \geq 1 using the ordering just described. Given any such labeling \sigma we define the monomial

x^{\sigma} = \prod_{j \geq 1} \prod_{ i \geq 1} x_{j,i}^{|\sigma^{-1}(i_j)|}.

We denote by [n_1|\ldots|n_r] the set \{1_1,\ldots,{(n_1)}_1\} \cup \ldots \cup \{1_r,\ldots,{(n_r)}_r \}. Given a labeling

\sigma:dg'((0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))) \rightarrow [n_1|\ldots|n_r]

and define

\widehat{\sigma}:\widehat{dg}((0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))) \rightarrow [n_1|\ldots|n_r]

by extending \sigma to the basement boxes via

\widehat{\sigma}(n_1+\ldots+n_{j-1}+i,0):= i_j.

We will denote by \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) the set of non-attacking labellings

\sigma:dg'((0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))) \rightarrow [n_1|\ldots|n_r]

such that \widehat{\sigma} is weakly decreasing upwards and has no co-inversion triples.

Remark

Remark 2

HCAA

The restriction of each labeling \sigma \in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) to one of the diagram components \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i)}) is weakly decreasing upwards and strictly increasing rightwards along connected segments of rows.

Definition

Definition 4.2

RAWI

Given a labeling \sigma of a lattice diagram, we say that \sigma is inverse semi-standard if \sigma weakly decreases upwards and strictly increasing rightwards along rows. We will write

\mathbb{N}(r):= \{1_1,2_1,\ldots\}\cup \ldots \cup \{1_r,2_r,\ldots \}.

We define \mathbb{N}(r)_{\infty} by extending the poset \mathbb{N}(r) by adding in elements \omega_1,\ldots,\omega_r and formal sums \omega_i + j for 1\leq i \leq r and j \geq 0 which we order as follows:

a_1 < \omega_1 + b_1 < c_2 < \omega_2 + d_2 < \ldots < e_r < \omega_r + f_r

for any a,b,c,d,e,f \in \{1,2,3\ldots\}. Note the subscripts here denote which alphabet those values belong in. Informally, everything within each extended alphabet is ordered as one would expect and each extended alphabet is mutually less than the next one. Given a labeling \sigma: dg'(\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})*\ldots * \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)})) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}(r) define \sigma^{\star}:\widehat{dg}(\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})*\cdots * \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)})) by extending \sigma and defining \sigma^{\star} on the basement boxes via

\sigma^{\star}(\ell(\lambda^{(1)})+\ldots + \ell(\lambda^{(i-1)}) + j,0):= \omega_i + j -1

for 1\leq i \leq r and 1 \leq j \leq \ell(\lambda^{(i)}). Define \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)}) to be the set of labellings \sigma: \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})*\ldots * \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}(r) such that \sigma^{\star} is non-attacking, weakly decreasing upwards, and has no co-inversion triples.

Example

Example 6

0P62

Here is a filling \sigma \in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(2,1|2,1,1|4,4,4,3,2,2,2):

Ytableau.

& & & & & & & & & *(green) 1_1 &*(green) 4_1 &*(green) 4_3
& & & & & & & & *(green) 9_1 & *(green)3_2 &*(green) 4_2&*(green)5_3
& *(red) 10_1 & & & *(yellow) 5_1 & *(green) 6_1 & *(green) 7_1 & *(green) 8_1 & *(green) 9_1 & *(green) 3_2 & *(green)4_2 & *(green) 5_3
*(red) 9_1 & *(red) 10_1 & *(yellow) 3_1 & *(yellow) 7_1 & *(yellow) 7_2 & *(green) 5_2 & *(green) 8_2 & *(green) 1_3 & *(green) 2_3 & *(green) 3_3 & *(green) 4_3 & *(green) 5_3
*(red) _1 & *(red) _1 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 & *(yellow) _2 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 +2 & *(green) _3 & *(green) _3 +1 & *(green) _3 + 2 & *(green) _3 + 3 & *(green) _3 + 4 & *(green) _3 + 5 & *(green) _3 +6

This filling has weight

x_{\sigma} = x_{1,1}x_{1,3}x_{1,4}x_{1,5}x_{1,6}x_{1,7}^2x_{1,8}x_{1,9}^3x_{1,10}^2 x_{2,3}^2x_{2,4}^2 x_{2,5}x_{2,7}x_{2,8}x_{3,1}x_{3,2}x_{3,3}x_{3,4}x_{3,5}^3.
Theorem

Theorem 4.3

DCNN
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots|X_r) = \sum_{\sigma \in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} x^{\sigma}.
Used by Proof
Proof of Theorem 4.3

The result follows by applying the stability from Lemma 3.5 to ?. In particular,

\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) \equiv \bigcup_{\substack{n_1,\ldots,n_r\\ n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)})} } \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})

by the way of the obvious weight preserving bijections.

Remark

Remark 3

6M2Z

In the case that r=1, \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda) is in natural bijection with \operatorname{\mathrm{SSYT}}(\lambda). The fillings in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda) are exactly those labellings of \operatorname{rev}(\lambda) which are strictly increasing rightwards and weakly decreasing upwards. We may reflect the diagram \operatorname{rev}(\lambda) along with the labeling along any positive slope diagonal above the diagram to obtain a filling of \lambda (in English notation) which is weakly decreasing rightwards along rows and strictly decreasing down columns. Now order the entries in the filling a_1 < \ldots < a_r and apply the order-reversing permutation a_i \rightarrow a_{r-i+1}. The resulting filling will be a semi-standard Young tableau of shape \lambda. This map defines a bijection \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda) \leftrightarrow \operatorname{\mathrm{SSYT}}(\lambda). However, this map is not weight preserving. At first this appears to be an issue since \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\operatorname{rev}(\lambda)}(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = s_{\lambda}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) for all n. Let \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda;n) and \operatorname{\mathrm{SSYT}}(\lambda;n) denote the set of allowable fillings with labels restricted to the sets \{1,\ldots, n\} for both \operatorname{rev}(\lambda) and \lambda respectively. To alleviate this seeming discrepancy we may define weight preserving bijections \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda;n)\leftrightarrow \operatorname{\mathrm{SSYT}}(\lambda;n) by repeating the above reflection process and instead applying the longest permutation in \omega_0^{(n)} \in \mathfrak{S}_n i.e. \omega_0^{(n)}(i):= n-i+1 to the values. These bijections are not compatible as n increases but, these verify that \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\operatorname{rev}(\lambda)}(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = s_{\lambda}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) diagrammatically for every n.

Definition

Definition 4.4

4EI0

We define the multi-symmetric Kostka coefficients K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} for (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r by

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} = \sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r} K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} m_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}.
Definition

Definition 4.5

AK99

Given (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r define \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) to be the set of labellings \sigma \in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) such that for all 1\leq j \leq r and 1 \leq i \leq \ell(\mu^{(j)})

|\sigma^{-1}(i_j)| = \mu^{(j)}_i.
Theorem

Theorem 4.6

RHEJ
K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} = |\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})|
Proof of Theorem 4.6

This follows immediately from Theorem 4.3 by applying the symmetries in each variable set X_1,\ldots, X_r.

Example

Example 7

FNXL

We saw previously in Example 4 that

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(2|1)} = s_{(2|1)} + s_{(2,1|\emptyset)}.

By expanding into the monomial basis we find

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(2|1)} = m_{(2|1)}+ m_{(1,1|1)}+ m_{(2,1|\emptyset)} + 2m_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)}.

These coefficients may be computed diagrammatically using Theorem 4.6 as follows:

Multicols.

2

  • (2|1) \rightarrow      mathmode, boxframe=normal, boxsize=2em

    Ytableau.

    *(red) 1_1 &
    *(red) 1_1 & *(yellow) 1_2
    *(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

  • (1,1|1) \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    *(red) 1_1 &
    *(red) 2_1 & *(yellow) 1_2
    *(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

  • (2,1|\emptyset) \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    *(red) 1_1 &
    *(red) 1_1 & *(yellow) 2_1
    *(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

  • (1,1,1|\emptyset) \rightarrow     

    Ytableau.

    *(red) 1_1 &
    *(red) 2_1 & *(yellow) 3_1
    *(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

      ,  

    Ytableau.

    *(red) 2_1 &
    *(red) 3_1 & *(yellow) 1_1
    *(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

Notice that the diagram filling

Ytableau.

*(red) 1_1 &
*(red) 3_1 & *(yellow) 2_1
*(red) _1 & *(yellow) _2

is not in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(1,1,1|\emptyset)}(2|1) since the entries 1_1,2_1,3_1 increase clockwise and therefore form a Type 1 co-inversion triple. Furthermore, we may confirm that K_{(1|2)}^{(2|1)} = 0 by noticing that any theoretical labeling in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(1|2)}(2|1) must have at least one of the labels 1_2,2_2 in the first column which is impossible since \omega_1< 1_2,2_2.

Corollary

Corollary 4.7

BQQQ
K_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} = 1
Proof of Corollary 4.7

From Theorem 4.6, we know that K_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})} = |\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})| so it suffices to show that \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) contains exactly one filling. First, the labels from the first alphabet \{1_1,2_1,\ldots\} must all lay in the \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})-component of the diagram. Otherwise, if any of the labels \{1_1,2_1,\ldots\} lay in the other components of the diagram then some label i_j for j \geq 2 must be in the \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})-component which contradicts the weakly-decreasing requirement. There is exactly one way to fill the shape \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}) with content \lambda^{(1)} since the labeling must be inverse semi-standard and for the usual Kostka numbers we know that K_{\nu,\nu} =1 for all partitions \nu. Now that we have accounted for the labels \{1_1,2_1,\ldots\} along with the sub-diagram \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}), we see that the remaining labels follow the same pattern. In the end, for all 1\leq i \leq r the labels \{1_i,2_i,\ldots\} must fill the \operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i)})-component in the unique way with content \lambda^{(i)}. Since there is only one way to do this, we see that \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) contains only one filling.

Example

Example 8

GMR2

The unique element of \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(2,1|2,1,1|4,4,4,3,2,2,2)}(2,1|2,1,1|4,4,4,3,2,2,2) is the following:

mathmode, boxframe=normal, boxsize=3em

Ytableau.

& & & & & & & & & *(green) 1_3 &*(green) 2_3 &*(green) 3_3
& & & & & & & & *(green) 1_3 & *(green)2_3 &*(green) 3_3 &*(green)4_3
& *(red) 1_1 & & & *(yellow) 1_2 & *(green) 1_3 & *(green) 2_3 & *(green) 3_3 & *(green) 4_3 & *(green) 5_3 & *(green)6_3 & *(green) 7_3
*(red) 1_1 & *(red) 2_1 & *(yellow) 1_2 & *(yellow) 2_2 & *(yellow) 3_2 & *(green) 1_3 & *(green) 2_3 & *(green) 3_3 & *(green) 4_3 & *(green) 5_3 & *(green) 6_3 & *(green) 7_3
*(red) _1 & *(red) _1 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 & *(yellow) _2 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 +2 & *(green) _3 & *(green) _3 +1 & *(green) _3 + 2 & *(green) _3 + 3 & *(green) _3 + 4 & *(green) _3 + 5 & *(green) _3 +6

Definition

Definition 4.8

OT1Y

For \alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0} define the reverse lexicographic ordering <_{RL} by \beta <_{RL} \alpha if there exists some 1\leq k \leq n such that \beta_i = \alpha_i if i > k and \beta_k < \alpha_{k}. For all n_1,\ldots,n_r \geq 1 and (\alpha^{(1)}|\ldots | \alpha^{(r)}),(\beta^{(1)}|\ldots | \beta^{(r)}) \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n_1}\times \cdots \times \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n_r} we write (\beta^{(1)}|\ldots | \beta^{(r)}) \leq_{RL} (\alpha^{(1)}|\ldots | \alpha^{(r)}) if \beta^{(1)}*\cdots * \beta^{(r)} \leq_{RL} \alpha^{(1)}*\cdots * \alpha^{(r)} or equivalently there exists some 1 \leq k \leq r such that for all i > k, \alpha^{(i)} = \beta^{(i)} and \alpha^{(k)} \leq_{RL} \beta^{(k)}.

Proposition

Proposition 4.9

MNB2

[RS95] For all \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^n, there exist non-negative integers c_{\alpha,\beta} such that

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha} = x^{\alpha} + \sum_{\beta <_{RL} \alpha} c_{\alpha,\beta} x^{\beta}.
Corollary

Corollary 4.10

UN7H

For all (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\ldots|n_r) with n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)}) for all 1 \leq i \leq r,

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots | n_r)}(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots | X_r^{(n_r)}) = \sum_{ } c_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots |n_r)} m_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots | X_r^{(n_r)})

where the sum ranges over all (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r with

(0^{n_1-\ell(\mu^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\mu^{(1)})|\cdots | 0^{n_1-\ell(\mu^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\mu^{(r)})) \leq_{RL} (0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})|\cdots | 0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))

and c_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots |n_r)} \geq 0.

Remark

Remark 4

6L9A

From the stability in Lemma 3.5 we see that

\lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} c_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots |n_r)} = K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}.
Definition

Definition 4.11

7WS9

For \mu,\lambda \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}} we define the lexicographic ordering <_L via \mu <_L \lambda if there exists some k \geq 1 such that for all i < k, \mu_i = \lambda_i and \mu_k < \lambda_k where we adjoin 0's to the end of partitions when necessary. For (\mu^{(1)}|\ldots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\ldots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r we define the ordering \prec via (\mu^{(1)}|\ldots | \mu^{(r)}) \prec (\lambda^{(1)}|\ldots | \lambda^{(r)}) if there exists some 1\leq k \leq r such that for all i > k, \mu^{(i)} = \lambda^{(i)} and \mu^{(k)} <_L \lambda^{(k)}.

Theorem

Theorem 4.12

HT9K

For all (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r we have the expansion

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = m_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} +\sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \prec (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) } K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} m_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}.
Remark

Remark 5

GEKP

The ordering \prec is rather crude and does not fully describe the monomial support of each multi-symmetric Schur function even after accounting for degree. This is easily seen in the r= 1 case as the ordering \prec does not agree with the dominance ordering for partitions. For example, (2,2,2) \prec (3,1,1,1) but (2,2,2) and (3,1,1,1) are incomparable with respect to the dominance ordering. Diagrammatically, this is explained by the non-existence of a semi-standard filling of (3,1,1,1) with content (2,2,2).

Definition

Definition 4.14

SVEZ

[MTY19] For \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^n and 1 \leq i < j \leq n let t_{i,j}(\alpha) be the vector obtained by interchanging \alpha_i and \alpha_j, and let m_{i,j}(\alpha) := \alpha + e_i-e_j where for 1\leq k \leq n we let e_k be the standard basis vector. For \beta \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n} define \beta <_{\kappa} \alpha if \beta can be obtained from \alpha by a sequence of moves t_{i,j} for \alpha_i < \alpha_j and m_{i,j} for \alpha_i < \alpha_j -1.

Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 4.15

3R7E

[FGPS] For \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}, there exist positive integers d_{\alpha,\beta} > 0 such that

\operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha} = x^{\alpha} + \sum_{\beta <_{\kappa} \alpha} d_{\alpha, \beta} x^{\beta}.
Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma 4.16

A63Z

For (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots |\mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\ldots|n_r) with n_i \geq |\lambda^{(1)}| + \ldots + |\lambda^{(r)}| for all 1\leq i \leq r, the monomial x^{(\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})*\cdots *(\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})} appears with a nonzero coefficient in the monomial expansion of \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_1},\ldots,x_{n_1+\ldots +n_{r-1}+1},\ldots,x_{n_1+\ldots+n_{r}}) if and only if (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots |\mu^{(r)}) can be obtained from (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) by a sequence of moves on multi-partitions (\nu^{(1)}|\cdots|\nu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r of the following types:

  1. Move 1: If \nu^{(i_1)}_{j_1}< \nu^{(i_2)}_{j_2} for i_1< i_2, then swap the entries \nu^{(i_1)}_{j_1},\nu^{(i_2)}_{j_2} and re-sort each partition.

  2. Move 2: If \nu^{(i)}_{j} > \nu^{(i)}_{k}+1 for j< k, then replace \nu^{(i)} by \nu^{(i)}+e_{k}-e_j and re-sort the partition.

  3. Move 3: If \nu_{j_1}^{(i_1)} +1 < \nu^{(i_2)}_{j_2} for i_1 < i_2, then replace the entries \nu_{j_1}^{(i_1)},\nu^{(i_2)}_{j_2} by \nu_{j_1}^{(i_1)}+1,\nu^{(i_2)}_{j_2}-1 respectively and re-sort each partition.

Proof of Lemma 4.16

First, by Theorem 4.15 the monomial x^{(\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})*\cdots (\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})} appears with a nonzero coefficient in the monomial expansion of \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_1},\ldots,x_{n_1+\ldots +n_{r-1}+1},\ldots,x_{n_1+\ldots+n_{r}}) if and only if (\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})*\cdots * (\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\mu^{(1)})}) may be obtained from (0^{n_1- \ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots (0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)})) using moves t_{i,j} or m_{i,j} from Definition 4.14 for i < j when appropriate. This allows, for instance, for one to sort any sub-string of entries into weakly decreasing order. Therefore, since we are only considering the vector (\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})*\cdots * (\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\mu^{(1)})}) we need only to concern ourselves with the entries that appear in each window \{n_1+\ldots + n_{i-1}+1,\ldots, n_1+\ldots + n_{i-1}+n_i \} after applying the moves t_{i,j} and m_{i,j} without worrying about their order. Thus our options for arriving at (\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\mu^{(1)})})*\cdots * (\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\mu^{(r)})}) are exactly to

  1. use a move t_{i,j} between different windows,

  2. use a move m_{i,j} within the same window,

  3. or use a move m_{i,j} between different windows.

After re-sorting each window, these moves align exactly with Moves 1,2, and 3 respectively. Importantly, we have taken n_1,\ldots, n_r to be sufficiently large so that any possible (\nu^{(1)}|\cdots | \nu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r reachable using Moves 1,2, and 3 will actually appear as some (\nu^{(1)}*0^{n_1- \ell(\nu^{(1)})})*\cdots * (\nu^{(r)}*0^{n_r- \ell(\nu^{(1)})}) which can be obtained using the above t_{i,j} and m_{i,j} moves.

Definition

Definition 4.17

6IK9

We define the partial order \triangleleft on \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r by (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \triangleleft (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) if (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) may be obtained from (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) by repeatedly applying Move 1, Move 2, or Move 3 from ? above.

Remark

Remark 6

DFVL

For r = 1, the ordering \triangleleft agrees with the usual dominance ordering on \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}} justifying our notational choice. It is clear that \triangleleft does in fact define a partial order. In particular, if (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \triangleleft (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}), then we cannot also have (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \triangleleft (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) since Moves 1,2, and 3 all strictly lower the multi-partition with respect to the ordering \prec. In other words, if (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \triangleleft (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}), then (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \prec (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) but not necessarily the other way around. This relationship between orderings is expected because for r =1 the dominance order refines the lexicographic order on partitions.

Example

Example 9

KOMT

Starting with (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3) we see the following:

  1. (Move 1) (3,2|1,1,1|4,1,1|3) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

  2. (Move 1) (4,3,1|2,1,1|1,1|3) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

  3. (Move 2) (3,1|2,1,1|3,2,1|3) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

  4. (Move 2) (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|2,1) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

  5. (Move 3) (3,1|3,1,1|3,1,1|2,1) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

  6. (Move 3) (3,1,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|2) \triangleleft (3,1|2,1,1|4,1,1|3)

Theorem

Theorem 4.18

SA8O

For all (\lambda^{(r)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(r)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = m_{(\lambda^{(r)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} + \sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})\triangleleft (\lambda^{(r)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} K_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(r)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} m_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}

and furthermore each above Kostka-coefficient is nonzero.

Proof of Theorem 4.18

This follows from Lemma 4.16 since in that lemma we assumed that n_1,\ldots,n_r are sufficiently large in order for the multi-symmetric monomial expansions of the multi-symmetric Schur functions to stabilize.

Remark

Remark 7

TBLW

Equivalently, using Theorem 4.6 we know that \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) \neq \emptyset if and only if (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)}) \trianglelefteq (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}).

Example

Example 10

2ZUF

Starting from (2,1|2|3) we see that (3,1|2|2) \triangleleft (2,1|2|3) and (2,1,1|1|3) \triangleleft (2,1|2|3) which we may verify diagrammatically from the following two allowable diagram fillings of shape (2,1|2|3) with contents (3,1|2|2) and (2,1,1|1|3) respectively:

Ytableau.

& & & *(green) 1_1
& *(red) 1_1 & *(yellow) 1_2 & *(green) 1_3
*(red) 1_1 & *(red) 2_1 & *(yellow) 1_2 & *(green) 1_3
*(red) _1 & *(red) _1 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 & *(green) _3

Ytableau.

& & & *(green) 1_3
& *(red) 1_1 & *(yellow) 2_1 & *(green) 1_3
*(red) 1_1 & *(red) 2_1 & *(yellow) 1_2 & *(green) 1_3
*(red) _1 & *(red) _1 + 1 & *(yellow) _2 & *(green) _3

Definition

Definition 5.1

S3KT

Given (n_1|\ldots | n_r) with each n_i \geq 1 define \mathrm{P}(n_1|\ldots|n_r) \leq \mathrm{GL}_{n_1+\ldots+n_r} as the unique parabolic subgroup containing the Borel subgroup \mathrm{B}_n and the Levi subgroup L(n_1|\ldots|n_r):= \mathrm{GL}_{n_1}\times \cdots \times \mathrm{GL}_{n_r} \leq \mathrm{GL}_{n_1+\ldots+n_r}.

Definition

Definition 5.2

BHBJ

For (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\ldots|n_r) with n_i \geq \ell(\lambda^{(i)}) for all 1\leq i \leq r define the Demazure module

\mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}:= \mathcal{V}^{\operatorname{sort}(\lambda^{(1)}*\cdots *\lambda^{(r)})*0^{n_1+\ldots+n_r - (\ell(\lambda^{(1)})+\ldots + \ell(\lambda^{(r)}))}}_{(0^{n_1-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)})) *\cdots*(0^{n_r-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)}))}
Proposition

Proposition 5.3

32SN
\operatorname{\mathrm{char}}(\mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}) = \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}
Proof of Proposition 5.3

This follows from the Demazure character formula 2.11 and Definition 3.3.

Lemma

Lemma 5.4

KG8O

Let \mu \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n} such that the sub-string \mu_{i+1},\ldots, \mu_{i+k} is weakly increasing. Then the Demazure module \mathcal{V}^{\operatorname{sort}(\mu)}_{\mu} is a \mathrm{GL}_1^{i}\times \mathrm{GL}_{k} \times \mathrm{GL}_{1}^{n-k-i}-submodule of \mathrm{Res}_{\mathrm{GL}_1^{i}\times \mathrm{GL}_{k} \times \mathrm{GL}_{1}^{n-k-i}}^{\mathrm{GL}_n} \mathcal{V}^{\operatorname{sort}(\mu)}.

Uses Definition 2.10 · Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.4

The argument is identical to that of Lemma 5.8 in [BWAlmostSymSchur].

Proposition

Proposition 5.5

S0NK

\mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} is a \mathrm{P}(n_1|\ldots|n_r)- submodule of \mathcal{V}^{\operatorname{sort}(\lambda^{(1)}*\cdots *\lambda^{(r)})*0^{n_1+\ldots+n_r - (\ell(\lambda^{(1)})+\ldots + \ell(\lambda^{(r)}))}}.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 5.5

The group \mathrm{P}(n_1|\ldots|n_r) is the semi-direct product of \mathrm{B}_{n_1+\ldots+n_r} and L(n_1|\cdots |n_r) and we already know \mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} is a \mathrm{B}_{n_1+\ldots+n_r}-submodule of \mathcal{V}^{\operatorname{sort}(\lambda^{(1)}*\cdots *\lambda^{(r)})*0^{n_1+\ldots+n_r - (\ell(\lambda^{(1)})+\ldots + \ell(\lambda^{(r)}))}}. From Lemma 5.4, find that \mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} is also a L(n_1|\cdots |n_r)-submodule. The result follows.

Definition

Definition 5.6

GHHV

For all (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots |\mu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\cdots|n_r) with n_i \geq \ell(\mu^{(i)}) for all 1 \leq i \leq r we let \mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)} denote the irreducible L(n_1|\cdots | n_r)-module

\mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)}:= \mathcal{V}^{\mu^{(1)}*0^{n_1-\ell(\mu^{(1)})}}\otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{V}^{\mu^{(r)}*0^{n_r - \ell(\mu^{(r)})}}.
Definition

Definition 5.7

B1CC

Define the (a priori) rational numbers (M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})})_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r} by

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = \sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r} M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} s_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}.
Theorem

Theorem 5.8

9JDX

For all (\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)}),(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r,

M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}.

In fact, for (n_1|\cdots |n_r) with n_i \geq |\lambda^{(1)}|+\ldots + |\lambda^{(r)}| for every 1\leq i \leq r,

M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = \dim \operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}_{L(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}(\mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)}, \mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots| \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} ).
Proof of Theorem 5.8

We start by determining the ordinary Schur coefficients of the multi-symmetric Schur polynomials. Let (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and (n_1|\cdots |n_r) with n_i \geq |\lambda^{(1)}|+\ldots + |\lambda^{(r)}| for every 1\leq i \leq r. Using Proposition 5.5 and the fact that L(n_1|\cdots|n_r) is reductive, we may decompose \mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} into irreducible L(n_1|\cdots|n_r)-submodules as

\mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} = \bigoplus_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} \left( \mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)} \right) ^{\oplus d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}}

where the d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} are some non-negative integer multiplicities. By applying the character map we see

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} &= \operatorname{\mathrm{char}}(\mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}) \\ &= \operatorname{\mathrm{char}} \left( \bigoplus_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} \left( \mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)} \right) ^{\oplus d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}}\right)\\ &= \sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} \operatorname{\mathrm{char}}\left( \mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)} \right) \\ &= \sum_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} s_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots|\mu^{(r)})}(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots |X_{r}^{(n_r)}).\\ \end{aligned}

Since each n_i is sufficiently large, we know that

M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = d_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})} = \dim \operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}_{L(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}(\mathcal{D}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)}_{(\mu_1|\cdots|\mu_r)}, \mathcal{W}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots| \lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\ldots|n_r)} ).

The result follows.

Remark

Remark 8

BZZ6

Theorem 5.8 leads to two questions. First, is there a simple combinatorial rule to determine when M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} \neq 0? Second, is there an explicit (positive) combinatorial formula for the M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} coefficients? The second question has an answer due to Ross–Yong. Using Theorem 1.1 of [RY15], which involves the Edelman–Greene correspondence, we see that the coefficients M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} are counted by the number of sequences of strictly increasing tableaux (T_1,\dots,T_r) with shapes \mu^{(1)},\dots, \mu^{(r)} respectively satisfying a few additional constraints which we will not describe in detail here. Explicitly in terms of the notation of Ross–Yong, M_{(\mu^{(1)}|\cdots | \mu^{(r)})}^{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} = \mathcal{E}^{\alpha}_{\mu^{(1)},\dots, \mu^{(r)}} where \alpha:= (0^{N-\ell(\lambda^{(1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(1)}))*\cdots * (0^{N-\ell(\lambda^{(r)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(r)})) and N:= |\lambda^{(1)}|+\dots + |\lambda^{(r)}|.

Definition

Definition 6.1

P3KZ

For the remainder of the paper, the variable z will denote a free variable independent of any other variable sets. We will write \langle z^a \rangle \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n z^n:= c_a for any formal series in z.

Definition

Definition 6.2

ZURN

To simplify notation, for 1\leq i \leq r and 1\leq j \leq n_{i}-1 we will write

\xi^{(i)}_{j}: \mathbb{Q}[x_{1,1},\ldots,x_{1,n_1},\ldots,x_{r,1},\ldots,x_{r,n_r}] \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}[x_{1,1},\ldots,x_{1,n_1},\ldots,x_{r,1},\ldots,x_{r,n_r}]

for the divided difference operator \xi^{(i)}_j:= \xi_{x_{i,j},x_{i,j+1}}.

Lemma

Lemma 6.3

WNBL
\begin{aligned} &\langle z^0 \rangle\xi^{(i+1)}_{n_{i+1}-1}\cdots \xi^{(i+1)}_{1} \xi_{z,x_{i+1,1}}\left( \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots| X_{i}^{(n_i)}+z|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}) \right)\\ &= \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_r^{(n_r)})\\ \end{aligned}
Proof of Lemma 6.3

Directly from the key polynomial recurrence relations we find that

\begin{aligned} &\xi^{(i+1)}_{n_{i+1}-1}\cdots \xi^{(i+1)}_{1} \xi_{z,x_{i+1,1}}\left( \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots| X_{i}^{(n_i)}+z|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}) \right)= \\ & \xi^{(i+1)}_{n_{i+1}-1}\cdots \xi^{(i+1)}_{1} \xi_{z,x_{i+1,1}} \\ & \left( \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\cdots * (0^{n_{i}+1-\ell(\lambda^{(i)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i)}))*(0^{n_{i+1}-\ell(\lambda^{(i+1)})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i+1)}))*\cdots}(\ldots,x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,n_{i}},z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots, x_{i+1,n_{i+1}},\ldots) \right) \\ &= \operatorname{\mathcal{K}}_{\cdots * (0^{n_{i}-\ell(\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\})*(0^{n_{i+1}+1-\ell(\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\})}*\operatorname{rev}(\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}))*\cdots}(\ldots,z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots, x_{i+1,n_{i+1}},\ldots) \\ &= \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_{i+1}+1|\cdots |n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}+z|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}).\\ \end{aligned}

Now by evaluating at z = 0 (or equivalently extracting the z^0 coefficient) we see from Lemma 3.5 that

\begin{aligned} &\langle z^0 \rangle \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_{i+1}+1|\cdots |n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}+z|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}) \\ &= \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_{i+1}|\cdots |n_r)} (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}).\\ \end{aligned}
Definition

Definition 6.4

SOXN

Define the operators D_1^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)},\ldots,D_{r-1}^{(n_{1}|\cdots | n_r)}: \Lambda(X_{1}^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{r}^{(n_r)}) \rightarrow \Lambda(X_{1}^{(n_1)}|\cdots|X_{r}^{(n_r)}) by

D_{i}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(f):= \langle z^0 \rangle\xi^{(i+1)}_{n_{i+1}-1}\cdots \xi^{(i+1)}_{1} \xi_{z,x_{i+1,1}}\left( f (X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots| X_{i}^{(n_i)}+z|\cdots |X_r^{(n_r)}) \right)
Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 6.5

I5T2

For all (n_1|\cdots|n_r), 1\leq i \leq r-1 and 1 \leq j \leq r,

\Xi_{j}^{(n_j)}D_{i}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)} = D_i^{(n_1|\cdots|n_j-1|\cdots|n_r)}\Xi_{j}^{(n_j)}.
Proof of Proposition 6.5

This is a consequence of Lemma 6.13 proven independently later.

Definition

Definition 6.6

A6U2

Define the operators D_1,\ldots,D_{r-1}: \Lambda(X_1|\cdots|X_r)\rightarrow \Lambda(X_1|\cdots|X_r) by

D_i := \lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} D_{i}^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}.
Proposition

Proposition 6.7

WYQA
D_i\left(\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})} \right) = \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}
Used by Remark 9
Remark

Remark 9

63LA

It is important to note it does not follow from Proposition 6.7 that the operators D_1,\ldots,D_{r-1} generate every \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots | \lambda^{(r)})} from the ordinary Schur functions \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda|\emptyset|\cdots |\emptyset)} = s_{\lambda}(X_1). There is no way to generate (2|3|1) from any (\mu|\emptyset| \emptyset) simply by moving largest parts rightward.

Definition

Definition 6.8

9W8E

Given a commutative ring R and an ordered set of free variables (y_1,\ldots,y_n) define the Weyl symmetrizer in the variables (y_1,\ldots,y_n) to be the map W_{y_1,\ldots,y_n}:R[y_1,\ldots,y_n] \rightarrow R[y_1,\ldots,y_n]^{\mathfrak{S}_n} given by

W_{y_1,\ldots,y_n}(f(y_1,\ldots,y_n)):= \sum_{\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_n} \sigma \left( f(y_1,\ldots, y_n) \prod_{1 \leq i < j \leq n} \left( \frac{1}{1-\frac{y_j}{y_i}}\right) \right).
Used by Remark 10
Lemma

Lemma 6.9

AJI5
W_{y_1,\ldots,y_n} = (\xi_{y_{n-1},y_n}\cdots \xi_{y_1,y_2})(\xi_{y_{n-1},y_n}\cdots \xi_{y_2,y_3})\cdots (\xi_{y_{n-1},y_n}\xi_{y_{n-2},y_{n-1}})\xi_{y_{n-1},y_n}.
Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma 6.10

QZ58

For all f \in R[y_1,\ldots,y_n],

W_{y_1,\ldots,y_n}(f(y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1},y_n))|_{y_n=0} = W_{y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1}}(f(y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1},0)).
Proof of Lemma 6.10

This is a standard result. For a direct computational proof see Lemma 2.8.3 in [BWThesis].

Definition

Definition 6.11

8J5A

Let R be a commutative ring and let Y=y_1+y_2+\ldots be an infinite set of free variables. For a \in\mathbb{Z}, the Bernstein operator is the map \operatorname{\mathcal{B}}_a:\Lambda_R(Y) \rightarrow \Lambda_R(Y) given by

\operatorname{\mathcal{B}}_a(f)(Y):= \langle z^a \rangle f(Y-z^{-1})\Omega(zY).
Used by Remark 10
Proposition

Proposition 6.12

R3Q2

For all f(Y) \in \Lambda_{R}(Y),

\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \langle z^0 \rangle W_{z,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n}(z^af(y_1,\ldots,y_n)) = \operatorname{\mathcal{B}}_a(f)(Y) = \langle z^0 \rangle z^a f(Y-z^{-1}) \Omega(zY).
Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 6.12

This result is standard but in particular follows from setting t=0 in the last part of Lemma 2.14 in [BWAlmostSymSchur].

Lemma

Lemma 6.13

9YV9

For all 1\leq i \leq r-1, n_1,\ldots , n_r \geq 1, and f\in \Lambda(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots | X_r^{(n_r)}),

D_i^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(f(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots | X_r^{(n_r)})) = \langle z^0\rangle W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}}(f(X_1^{(n_1)}|\cdots| X_i^{(n_i)}+z | \cdots | X_r^{(n_r)}))
Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 6.13

This is a consequence of applying Lemma 6.9 to Definition 6.4.

Theorem

Theorem 6.14

C1VJ

For all 1\leq i \leq r-1 and f \in \Lambda(X_1|\cdots|X_r),

D_i(f(X_1|\cdots|X_r))= \langle z^0 \rangle f(X_1|\cdots | X_i+z|X_{i+1}-z^{-1}|\cdots |X_r) \Omega(zX_{i+1})
Proof of Theorem 6.14

We may assume without loss of generality that f \in \Lambda(X_i|X_{i+1}) since D_i commutes with multiplication by symmetric functions in the variables sets X_j for j \neq i,i+1. We know that

D_i(f(X_i|X_{i+1})) = \lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} D_i^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(f(X_{i}^{(n_i)}|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})})).

We now use Lemma 6.13 with R = \Lambda(X_i) to see

D_i^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(f(X_{i}^{(n_i)}|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})})) = \langle z^0\rangle W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}}(f( X_i^{(n_i)}+z | X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})})).

Let us expand f(X+z|Y) = \sum_{\ell \geq 0} z^{\ell} f_{\ell}(X)g_{\ell}(Y) so that

\langle z^0\rangle W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}}(f( X_i^{(n_i)}+z | X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})})) = \sum_{\ell \geq 0} f_{\ell}(X_i^{(n_i)}) \langle z^0\rangle \left(W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}} z^{\ell}g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}) \right).

Thus

\lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} D_i^{(n_1|\cdots|n_r)}(f(X_{i}^{(n_i)}|X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})})) = \sum_{\ell \geq 0} f_{\ell}(X_i) \lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} \langle z^0\rangle \left(W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}} z^{\ell}g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}) \right)

and so from Proposition 6.12 we find

\lim_{n_1,\ldots,n_r \rightarrow \infty} \langle z^0\rangle \left(W_{z,x_{i+1,1},\ldots,x_{i+1,n_{i+1}}} z^{\ell}g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}^{(n_{i+1})}) \right) = \mathcal{B}_{\ell}(g_{\ell})(X_{i+1})= \langle z^0 \rangle z^{\ell} g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}-z^{-1})\Omega(zX_{i+1}).

All together,

\begin{aligned} D_i(f(X_i|X_{i+1})) &= \sum_{\ell \geq 0} f_{\ell}(X_i)\langle z^0 \rangle z^{\ell} g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}-z^{-1})\Omega(zX_{i+1})\\ &= \langle z^0 \rangle \left( \sum_{\ell \geq 0} z^{\ell}f_{\ell}(X_i) g_{\ell}(X_{i+1}-z^{-1}) \right)\Omega(zX_{i+1})\\ &= \langle z^0 \rangle f(X_{i}+z|X_{i+1}-z^{-1}) \Omega(zX_{i+1}).\\ \end{aligned}
Corollary

Corollary 6.15

408M

For all (\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)}) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Y}}^r and 1\leq i \leq r with \lambda^{(i)} \neq \emptyset,

\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots|\lambda^{(i)}\setminus \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\lambda^{(i+1)} \cup \{\lambda^{(i)}_{1}\}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})} = \langle z^0 \rangle \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{(\lambda^{(1)}|\cdots |\lambda^{(r)})}(X_1|\cdots | X_i+z|X_{i+1}-z^{-1}|\cdots |X_r) \Omega(zX_{i+1})
Remark

Remark 10

OM45

The natural q-analogues of the operators D_1,\ldots, D_{r-1}:\Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(X_1|\cdots|X_r) \rightarrow \Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(X_1|\cdots|X_r) are the operators \mathcal{D}_1,\ldots, \mathcal{D}_{r-1}:\Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}(q)}(X_1|\cdots |X_r) \rightarrow \Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}(q)}(X_1|\cdots |X_r) given by

\mathcal{D}_i(f(X_1|\cdots|X_r))= \langle z^0 \rangle f(X_1|\cdots | X_i+z|X_{i+1}-z^{-1}|\cdots |X_r) \Omega((1-q)zX_{i+1}).

Many of the above results follow similarly in the q-analogous situation where we replace the isobaric divided difference operators with Demazure-Lusztig operators, the Weyl symmetrizers with the (normalized) Hecke symmetrizers, and the Bernstein operators with the Jing operators. We may also define vertex operators \mathcal{D}_1(z),\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{r-1}(z) :\Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}(q)}(X_1|\cdots |X_r) \rightarrow \Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}(q)}(X_1|\cdots |X_r)((z)) by

\mathcal{D}_i(z)f(X_1|\cdots |X_r) := f(X_1|\cdots | X_i+z|X_{i+1}-z^{-1}|\cdots |X_r) \Omega((1-q)zX_{i+1}).

Note that \mathcal{D}_i = \langle z^0 \rangle \mathcal{D}_i(z) and D_i = \langle z^0 \rangle \mathcal{D}_i(z)|_{q=0}. It is an interesting, and seemingly nontrivial, question to determine the algebraic relations the vertex operators \mathcal{D}_1(z),\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{r-1}(z) satisfy. It would also be interesting to find more plethystic operators similar to the D_1,\ldots,D_{r-1} which operate nicely on the multi-symmetric Schur functions.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2502.08738v2 by Milo Bechtloff Weising, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2502/2502.08738.jsonl.