Abstract
We produce skew Pieri rules for Hall–Littlewood functions in the spirit of Assaf and McNamara (J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 118(1):277–290, 2011). The first two were conjectured by the first author (Konvalinka in J. Algebraic Comb. 35(4):519–545, 2012). The key ingredients in the proofs are a q-binomial identity for skew partitions and a Hopf algebraic identity that expands products of skew elements in terms of the coproduct and the antipode.
Similar content being viewed by others
Let Λ[t] denote the ring of symmetric functions over ℚ(t), and let {s λ } and {P λ (t)} denote its bases of Schur functions and Hall–Littlewood functions, respectively, indexed by partitions λ. The Schur functions (which are actually defined over ℤ) lead a rich life, making appearances in combinatorics, representation theory, and Schubert calculus, among other places. See [5, 9] for details. The Hall–Littlewood functions are nearly as ubiquitous (having as a salient feature that P λ (t)→s λ under the specialization t→0). See [8] and the references therein for their place in the literature.
A classical problem is to determine cancellation-free formulas for multiplication in these bases,
The first problem was only given a complete solution in the latter half of the 20th century, while the second problem remains open. Special cases of the problem, known as Pieri rules, have been understood for quite a bit longer.
The Pieri rules for Schur functions [9, Chap. I, (5.16) and (5.17)] take the form
with the sum over partitions λ + for which λ +/λ is a vertical strip of size r, and
with the sum over partitions λ + for which λ +/λ is a horizontal strip of size r. (See Sect. 1 for the definitions of vertical and horizontal strips.)
The Pieri rules for Hall–Littlewood functions [9, Chap. III, (3.2) and (5.7)] state that
and
with the sums again running over vertical strips and horizontal strips, respectively. Here q r denotes (1−t)P r for r>0 with q 0=P 0=1, and \(\operatorname {vs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\), \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) are certain polynomials in t. (See Sect. 1 for their definitions, as well as those of \(\operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) and \(\operatorname {br}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) appearing below.)
In many respects (beyond the obvious similarity of (2) and (4)), the q r play the same role for Hall–Littlewood functions that the s r play for Schur functions. Still, one might ask for a link between the two theories. The following generalization of (2), which seems to be missing in the literature, is our first result (Sect. 1).
For a partition λ and r≥0, we have
with the sum over partitions λ +⊇λ for which |λ +/λ|=r.
The main focus of this article is on the generalizations of Hall–Littlewood functions to skew shapes λ/μ. Our specific question about skew Hall–Littlewood functions is best introduced via the recent answer for skew Schur functions s λ/μ . In [3], Assaf and McNamara give a skew Pieri rule for Schur functions. They prove (bijectively) the following generalization of (2):
with the sum over pairs (λ +,μ −) of partitions such that λ +/λ is a horizontal strip, μ/μ − is a vertical strip, and |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r. This elegant gluing-together of an s r -type Pieri rule for the outer rim of λ/μ with an e r -type Pieri rule for the inner rim of λ/μ demanded further exploration.
Before we survey the literature that followed the Assaf–McNamara result, we call attention to some work that preceded it. The skew Schur functions do not form a basis; so, from a strictly ring-theoretic perspective (or representation-theoretic, or geometric), it is more natural to ask how the product in (6) expands in terms of Schur functions. This answer, and vast generalizations of it, was provided by Zelevinsky [12]. In fact, (6) provides such an answer as well, since
and the coefficients \(c_{\mu^{-},\nu}^{\,\lambda^{+}}\) are well understood, but the resulting formula has an enormous amount of cancellation, while Zelevinsky’s one is cancellation-free. It is an open problem to find a representation-theoretic (or geometric) explanation of (6).
As an example of the type of explanation we mean, recall Zelevinsky’s realization [13] of the classical Jacobi–Trudi formula for s λ (λ⊢n) from the resolution of a well-chosen polynomial representation of GL n . See also [1, 4].
Returning to the literature that followed [3], Lam, Sottile, and the second author [7] found a Hopf algebraic explanation for (6) that readily extended to many other settings. A skew Pieri rule for k-Schur functions was given, for instance, as well as one for (noncommutative) ribbon Schur functions. Within the setting of Schur functions, it provided an easy extension of (6) to products of arbitrary skew Schur functions—a formula first conjectured by Assaf and McNamara in [3]. (The results of this paper use the same Hopf machinery. For the nonexperts, we reprise most of the details and background in Sect. 2.)
Around the same time, the first author [6] was motivated to give a skew Murnaghan–Nakayama rule in the spirit of Assaf and McNamara. Along the way, he gives a bijective proof of the conjugate form of (6) (only proven in [3] using the automorphism ω) and a quantum skew Murnaghan–Nakayama rule that takes the following form:
with the sum over pairs (λ +,μ −) of partitions such that λ +/λ and μ/μ − are broken ribbons and |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r. Note that since P r (0)=s r , we recover the skew Pieri rule for t=0. Also, since P r (1)=p r (the rth power sum symmetric function), we recover the skew Murnaghan–Nakayama rule [2] if we divide the formula by 1−t and let t→1. This formula, like that in Theorem 1, may be viewed as a link between the two theories of Schur and Hall–Littlewood functions. One is tempted to ask for other examples of mixing, e.g., swapping the roles of Schur and Hall–Littlewood functions in (7). Two such examples were found (conjecturally) in [6]. Their proofs, and a generalization of (6) to the Hall–Littlewood setting, are the main results of this paper.
For partitions λ,μ, μ⊆λ, and r≥0, we have
where the sum on the right is over all λ +⊇λ, μ −⊆μ such that |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r.
FormalPara Theorem 3For partitions λ,μ, μ⊆λ, and r≥0, we have
where the sum on the right is over all λ +⊇λ, μ −⊆μ such that |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r.
Note that putting μ=∅ above recovers Theorem 1. (We offer two proofs of Theorem 3; one that rests on Theorem 1 and one that does not.)
For partitions λ,μ, μ⊆λ, and r≥0, we have
where the sum on the right is over all λ +⊇λ, μ −⊆ν⊆μ such that |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r.
FormalPara RemarkWe reiterate that the skew elements do not form a basis for Λ[t], so the expansions announced in Theorems 2–4 are by no means unique. However, if we demand that the expansions be over partitions λ +⊇λ and μ −⊆μ, and that the coefficients factor nicely as products of polynomials \(a_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda}(t)\) (independent of μ) and \(b_{\mu/\mu^{-}}(t)\) (independent of λ), then they are in fact unique (up to a scalar). We make this remark precise in Theorem 12 in Sect. 3.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 1, we prove some polynomial identities involving \(\operatorname {hs}\), \(\operatorname {vs}\), and \(\operatorname {sk}\), prove Theorem 1, and find ω(q r ). In Sect. 2, we introduce our main tool, Hopf algebras. We conclude in Sect. 3 with the proofs of our main theorems.
1 Combinatorial preliminaries
1.1 Notation and a key lemma
The conjugate partition of λ is denoted by λ c. We write m i (λ) for the number of parts of λ equal to i. The q-binomial coefficient is defined by
and is a polynomial in q that gives \(\binom{a}{b}\) when q=1. For a partition λ, we define \(n(\lambda) = \sum_{i} (i-1)\lambda_{i} = \sum_{i} \binom{\lambda_{i}^{c}}{2}\).
Given two partitions λ and μ, we say that μ⊆λ if λ i ≥μ i for all i≥1, in which case we may consider the pair as a skew shape λ/μ. We write [λ/μ] for the cells {(i,j):1≤i≤ℓ(λ), μ i <j≤λ i }. We say that λ/μ is a horizontal strip (respectively vertical strip) if [λ/μ] contains no 2×1 (respectively 1×2) block, equivalently, if \(\lambda_{i}^{c} \leq\mu_{i}^{c} + 1\) (respectively λ i ≤μ i +1) for all i. We say that λ/μ is a ribbon if [λ/μ] is connected and if it contains no 2×2 block and that λ/μ is a broken ribbon if [λ/μ] contains no 2×2 block, equivalently, if λ i ≤μ i−1+1 for i≥2. The Young diagram of a broken ribbon is a disjoint union of \(\operatorname {rib}(\lambda/\mu)\) number of ribbons. The height \(\operatorname {ht}(\lambda/\mu)\) (respectively width \(\operatorname {wt}(\lambda/\mu)\)) of a ribbon is the number of nonempty rows (respectively columns) of [λ/μ] minus 1. The height (respectively width) of a broken ribbon is the sum of heights (respectively widths) of the components.
Let us define some polynomials. For a horizontal strip λ/μ, we define
If λ/μ is not a horizontal strip, we define \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda /\mu}(t) = 0\). For a vertical strip λ/μ, we define
If λ/μ is not a vertical strip, we define \(\operatorname {vs}_{\lambda /\mu}(t) = 0\). For a broken ribbon λ/μ, we define
If λ/μ is not a broken ribbon, we define \(\operatorname {br}_{\lambda /\mu}(t) = 0\). For any skew shape λ/μ, we define
Next, recall the q-binomial theorem. For all n,k≥0, we have
This may be proven by induction from the standard identity \(\genfrac {[}{]}{0pt}{}{n}{k}_{q} = q^{k} \genfrac {[}{]}{0pt}{}{n-1}{k}_{q} + \genfrac {[}{]}{0pt}{}{n-1}{k-1}_{q}\).
Lemma 5
For fixed partitions λ,μ satisfying μ⊆λ, we have
with the sum over all ν, μ⊆ν⊆λ, for which λ/ν is a vertical strip.
Proof
Let \(a_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - \max(\mu^{c}_{j},\lambda^{c}_{j+1}) \geq0\). A partition ν, μ⊆ν⊆λ, for which λ/ν is a vertical strip is obtained by choosing k j , 0≤k j ≤a j , and removing k j bottom cells of column j in λ. See Fig. 1 for the example for λ=98886666444 and μ=77666633331, where a 4=3, a 6=2, a 8=3, a 9=1, and a i =0 for all other i.
We have |λ/ν|=∑ j k j , \(\nu^{c}_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - k_{j}\). The choices of the k j are independent, which means that
We analyze (9) case-by-case, showing that it reduces to \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) when λ/μ is a horizontal strip and zero otherwise. Assume first that λ/μ is a horizontal strip. This means that \(a_{j} \leq\lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j} \leq1\) for all j.
Case 1: a j =0. We have \(\max(\mu^{c}_{j},\lambda^{c}_{j+1}) = \lambda^{c}_{j}\), so the inner sum in (9) is equal to
If \(\mu^{c}_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j}\), this is 1, and if \(\mu^{c}_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - 1\) and \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} = \lambda^{c}_{j}\), then \(\mu^{c}_{j+1} = \mu^{c}_{j}\), and so the expression is also 1.
Case 2: a j =1. This holds if and only if \(\lambda^{c}_{j} = \mu^{c}_{j} + 1\), \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} \leq\lambda^{c}_{j} - 1\), in which case the sum in (9) is
Indeed, \(\lambda^{c}_{j} = \mu_{j}^{c}+1\) and \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} = \mu_{j+1}^{c}+1\) imply m j (μ)=m j (λ), while \(\lambda^{c}_{j} = \mu_{j}^{c}+1\) and \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} = \mu_{j+1}^{c}\) imply \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} \leq\mu^{c}_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - 1\) and m j (μ)=m j (λ)−1. Thus, (9) equals \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) whenever λ/μ is a horizontal strip.
Now assume that λ/μ is not a horizontal strip. Let j be the largest index for which \(\lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j} \geq2\). Let us investigate two cases, where \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} > \mu^{c}_{j}\) and where \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} \leq\mu^{c}_{j}\).
Case 1: \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} > \mu^{c}_{j}\). We must have \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} = \mu^{c}_{j} + 1\) and \(\mu^{c}_{j+1} = \mu^{c}_{j}\), for otherwise \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} - \mu^{c}_{j+1} = (\lambda^{c}_{j+1} - \mu^{c}_{j}) + (\mu^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j+1}) \geq2\), which contradicts the maximality of j. So a j =m j (λ), \(\lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j} =\lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j+1} = m_{j}(\lambda)+1\), m j (μ)=0, m j (λ)≥1, and
Using (8) with n=m j (λ), t=−1 and q=t, the above simplifies to
Case 2: \(\lambda^{c}_{j+1} \leq\mu^{c}_{j}\). We consider two further options. If \(\mu^{c}_{j+1} = \lambda^{c}_{j+1}\), then \(a_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j} = m_{j}(\lambda) - m_{j}(\mu) \geq2\) and
If we use (8) with n=m j (λ)−m j (μ), t=−t, and q=t, we get
On the other hand, if \(\mu^{c}_{j+1} = \lambda^{c}_{j+1} - 1\), then \(a_{j} = \lambda^{c}_{j} - \mu^{c}_{j} = m_{j}(\lambda) - m_{j}(\mu) + 1\geq2\) and
We prove that the first (respectively, second) sum is 0 by substituting n=m j (λ)−m j (μ)+1, t=−t (respectively, t=−1), and q=t in (8). This finishes the proof of the lemma. □
1.2 Elementary Hall–Littlewood identities
We give two applications of Lemma 5 and then prove some elementary properties of Hall–Littlewood functions that will be useful in Sect. 3. The first application is a formula for the product of a Hall–Littlewood polynomial with the Schur function s r .
Proof of Theorem 1
The proof is by induction on r.Footnote 1 For r=0, there is nothing to prove. For r>0, we use the formula
which is proven as follows. It is well known and easy to prove (see, e.g., [11, Exercise 7.11]) that
The conjugate Pieri rule then gives (10), since
For |λ +/λ|=r, the coefficient of \(P_{\lambda^{+}}\) in
reduces, by induction, (3), and (4) to
with the sum over all ν, λ⊆ν⊆λ +, for which λ +/ν is a vertical strip of size at least 1. By Lemma 5, this is equal to \(\operatorname {sk}_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda}(t)\). □
Recall that \(f^{\lambda}_{\mu,\tau}(t)\) is the (polynomial) coefficient of P λ in P μ P τ .
Corollary 6
The structure constants \(f_{\mu,\tau}^{\lambda}(t)\) satisfy \(\sum_{\tau} t^{n(\tau)} f^{\lambda}_{\mu,\tau}(t) = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\).
Proof
This follows from s r =∑ τ⊢r t n(τ) P τ , which is (2) in [9, p. 219] and also Theorem 1 for λ=∅. □
The second application of Lemma 5 is the following generalization of Example 1 of [9, § III.3, Example 1].
Theorem 7
For all λ,μ, we have
Equivalently, for all m,
Proof
Let us evaluate P μ s r (∑ m e m y m) in two different ways. On the one hand,
On the other hand, using Example 1 on p. 218 of [9], we have
Now (11) follows by taking the coefficient of P λ in both expressions. For (12), we use the q-binomial theorem (8) and the identity
□
Remark
The theorem is indeed a generalization of [9, § III.3, Example 1]. For μ=∅, \(\operatorname {sk}_{\nu/\mu}(t) = t^{n(\nu)}\), and the right-hand side of (12) is nonzero only for σ=λ, so the last equation on p. 218 (loc. cit.) follows. It also generalizes Lemma 5: for y=−t, the right-hand side of (11) is nonzero if and only if ℓ(σ)=1, and is therefore equal to \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\).
We finish the section with two more lemmas.
Lemma 8
Given r>k≥0, we have
Proof
The lemma follows from a formula due to Lascoux and Schützenberger. See [9, Chap. III, (6.5)]. In that terminology, we have to evaluate \(K_{(r-k,1^{k}),\lambda}(t)\). We choose a semistandard Young tableau T of shape (r−k,1k) and type λ=(λ 1,…,λ ℓ ). Clearly, such tableaux are in one-to-one correspondence with k-subsets of the set {2,…,ℓ}. For such a subset S, write s for the word with the elements of S in increasing order, and write \(\overline{s}\) for the word with the elements of {2,…,ℓ}∖S in decreasing order. The reverse reading word of the tableau corresponding to S is \(\ell^{\lambda_{\ell}- 1} \cdots3^{\lambda_{3}-1} 2^{\lambda_{2}-1} 1^{\lambda_{1}} s\). The subwords w 2,w 3,… are all strictly decreasing, and \(w_{1} = \overline{s} 1 s\). The charges of w 2,w 3,… are \(\binom{\lambda_{2}^{c}}{2},\binom{\lambda_{3}^{c}}{2},\ldots\) , while the charge of w 1 is ∑ i∉S (ℓ−i+1) (the sum over i∉S, 2≤i≤ℓ). We have
and the formula
follows by induction on ℓ. This finishes the proof. □
Lemma 9
Let ω be the fundamental involution on Λ[t] defined by \(\omega(s_{\lambda}) = s_{\lambda^{c}}\). We have
where
Proof
We have
Now by the q-binomial theorem,
Simple calculations now show that the coefficient of P λ in ω(q r )=(1−t)ω(P r ) is indeed (−1)r c λ (t). □
2 Hopf perspective on skew elements
Recall that Λ[t] has another important basis {Q λ }, defined by Q λ =b λ (t)P λ , where \(b_{\lambda}(t) = \prod_{i \geq1} (1-t)(1-t^{2})\cdots(1-t^{m_{i}(\lambda)})\). The (extended) Hall scalar product on Λ[t] is uniquely defined by either of the (equivalent) conditions
where, taking \(\mu=(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\dotsc,\mu_{r})=\langle 1^{a_{1}},2^{a_{2}},\ldots, k^{a_{k}} \rangle\),
See [9, § III.4]. The skew Hall–Littlewood function P λ/μ is defined in [9, Chap. III, (5.1′)] as the unique function satisfying
for all Q ν ∈Λ[t]. (Likewise for Q λ/μ .) If we choose to read P λ/μ as “Q μ skews P λ ,” then we allow ourselves access to the machinery of Hopf algebra actions on their duals. We introduce the basics in Sect. 2.1 and return to Λ[t] and Hall–Littlewood functions in Sect. 2.2.
2.1 Hopf preliminaries
Let H=⨁ n H n be a graded algebra over a field \(\Bbbk \). Recall that H is a Hopf algebra if there are algebra maps Δ:H→H⊗H, \(\varepsilon\colon H\to \Bbbk \), and an algebra antimorphism S:H→H, called the coproduct, counit, and antipode, respectively, satisfying some additional compatibility conditions. See [10].
Let \(H^{*} = \bigoplus_{n} H_{n}^{*}\) denote the graded dual of H. If each H n is finite dimensional, then the pairing \(\langle \,\cdot,\,\cdot\,\rangle \colon H \otimes H^{*} \to \Bbbk \) defined by 〈h,a〉=a(h) is nondegenerate. This pairing naturally endows H ∗ with a Hopf algebra structure, with product and coproduct uniquely determined by the formulas
for all homogeneous g,h∈H and a,b∈H ∗. (Extend to all of H ∗ by linearity, insisting that \(\langle H_{n},H_{m}^{*}\rangle = 0\) for n≠m.)
Remark
The finite dimensionality of H n ensures that the coproduct in H ∗ is a finite sum of functionals, Δ(a)=∑(a) a′⊗a″. Here and below we use Sweedler’s notation for coproducts.
We now recall some standard actions (“⇀”) of H and H ∗ on each other. Given h∈H and a∈H ∗, put
Equivalently, 〈g,h⇀a〉=〈g⋅h,a〉 and 〈a⇀h,b〉=〈h,b⋅a〉. We call these skew elements (in H and H ∗, respectively) to keep the nomenclature consistent with that in symmetric function theory.
Our skew Pieri rules (Theorems 2, 3, and 4) come from an elementary formula relating products of elements h and skew elements a⇀g in a Hopf algebra H:
See (∗) in the proof of [10, Lemma 2.1.4] or [7, Lemma 1]. Before turning to the proofs of these theorems, we first recall the Hopf structure of Λ[t].
2.2 The Hall–Littlewood setting
The ring Λ[t] is generated by the one-part power sum symmetric functions p r (r>0), so the definitions
completely determine the Hopf structure of Λ[t].
Proposition 10
For r>0,
where c λ are given by Lemma 9.
Proof
The equalities for e r and s r are elementary consequences of (16) and may be found in [9, § I.5, Example 25]. The coproduct formula for q r is (2) in [9, § III.5, Example 8]. The antipode formula for q r is identical to Lemma 9, as the fundamental morphism ω and the antipode S are related by S(h)=(−1)r ω(h) on homogeneous elements h of degree r. □
It happens that Λ[t] is self-dual as a Hopf algebra. This may be deduced from Example 8 in [9, §III.5], but we illustrate it here in the power sum basis for the reader not versed in Hopf formalism.
Lemma 11
The Hopf algebra Λ[t] is self-dual with the extended Hall scalar product.
Proof
Write \(p^{*}_{\lambda}\) for z λ (t)−1 p λ . It is sufficient to check that
for all partitions λ,μ, and ν.
Products and coproducts in the power sum basis. Given partitions \(\lambda= \langle1^{m_{1}},2^{m_{2}},\allowbreak \ldots\rangle\) and \(\mu= \langle1^{n_{1}},2^{n_{2}},\ldots\rangle\), we write λ∪μ for the partition \(\langle1^{m_{1}+n_{1}},2^{m_{2}+n_{2}},\ldots \rangle\). Also, we write μ≤λ if n i ≤m i for all i≥1. In this case, we define
and otherwise define \(\binom{\lambda}{\mu} = 0\). Since the power sum basis is multiplicative (\(p_{\lambda}= \prod_{i\geq1} p_{\lambda _{i}}\)), we have p μ ⋅p ν =p μ∪ν . Since Δ is an algebra map, the first formula in (16) gives
Products and coproducts in dual basis. It is easy to see that
whenever ν∪μ=λ. Using (17) and the formulas for product and coproduct in the power sum basis, we deduce that
Checking the desired identities. Using the preceding formulas, we get
and
This completes the proof of the lemma. □
After (13), (14), and Lemma 11, we see that P λ/μ =Q μ ⇀P λ and Q λ/μ =P μ ⇀Q λ .
3 Proofs of the main theorems
We specialize (15) to Hall–Littlewood polynomials, putting a⇀g=P λ/μ .
Proof of Theorem 2
Taking h=e r in (15), we get
For (19) and (20), we used Proposition 10. For (21), we expanded s k in the P basis (cf. the proof of Corollary 6) and used the Hopf characterization of skew elements. Explicitly,
We use (3) and (13) to pass from (21) to (22): the coefficient of \(Q_{\mu ^{-}}\) in the expansion of Q μ/τ is equal to the coefficient of P μ in \(P_{\mu^{-}}P_{\tau}\). Finally, (23) follows from Corollary 6. □
Proof of Theorem 3
Taking h=s r in (15), we get
For (25) and (26), the proof is the same as above. For (27), we used \(e_{k} = P_{1^{k}}\), while for (28), we used (3) and (5). Equation (29) is obvious. □
Proof of Theorem 4
We present two proofs. The first is along the lines of the preceding proofs of Theorems 2 and 3. Taking h=q r in (15), we get
The only line that needs a comment is (35).
Substitute y=−1/t, λ=μ, μ=μ −, and ν=τ into Theorem 7. We get
and, after multiplying by \(t^{|\mu/\mu^{-}|}\),
Now |μ/μ −|=|σ| and \(n(\sigma) - \binom{\ell(\sigma )}{2} + |\sigma| - \ell(\sigma) = \sum_{i} (\binom{\sigma^{c}_{i}}{2} + \sigma^{c}_{i}) - \binom{\sigma_{1}^{c}+1}{2} = \sum_{i = 2}^{\sigma_{1}} \binom{\sigma^{c}_{i}+1}{2}\), which shows that
with the sum over all τ satisfying μ −⊆τ⊆μ. This completes the first proof.
The second proof uses Theorems 1, 2, and 3. Recall from (10) that \(q_{r} = \sum_{k=0}^{r} (-t)^{k} s_{r-k} e_{k}\). We have
where we used Lemma 5 in the final step. □
Our final result is on the uniqueness of the expansions.
Theorem 12
Let a λ/μ (t) and b λ/μ (t) be polynomials defined for λ⊇μ, with b ∅/∅(t)=1. For fixed λ⊇μ and r≥0, consider the expression
-
(1)
If \(\mathcal{E}_{\lambda,\mu,r} = P_{\lambda/\mu} \, s_{1^{r}}\) ∀λ,μ,r, then \(a_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda} = \operatorname {vs}_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda}\) and \(b_{\mu/\mu^{-}} = \operatorname {sk}_{\mu/\mu^{-}}\).
-
(2)
If \(\mathcal{E}_{\lambda,\mu,r} = P_{\lambda/\mu} \, s_{r}\) ∀λ,μ,r, then \(a_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda} = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda ^{+}/\lambda}\) and \(b_{\mu/\mu^{-}} = \operatorname {vs}_{\mu/\mu^{-}}\).
-
(3)
If \(\mathcal{E}_{\lambda,\mu,r} = P_{\lambda/\mu} \, q_{r}\) ∀λ,μ,r, then \(a_{\lambda^{+}/\lambda} = \operatorname {hs}_{\lambda ^{+}/\lambda}\) and \(b_{\mu/\mu^{-}} = \sum_{\nu} (-t)^{|\nu/\mu^{-}|}\times\allowbreak \operatorname {vs}_{\mu/\nu}\, \operatorname {sk}_{\nu/\mu^{-}}\).
Proof
We prove only the first statement, the others being similar. Suppose that we have
If we set μ=∅, we get the expansion of \(P_{\lambda} s_{1^{r}}\) over (nonskew) Hall–Littlewood polynomials, which is, of course, unique. Therefore, \(a_{\lambda/\mu}(t) \, b_{\emptyset /\emptyset}(t) =a_{\lambda/\mu}(t) = \operatorname {vs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) for all λ⊇μ. We will prove by induction on |λ/μ| that \(b_{\lambda/\mu}(t) = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\). For λ=μ and r=0, we get P λ/λ =b λ/λ (t)P λ/λ , so \(b_{\lambda /\lambda}(t) = 1 = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\lambda}(t)\). Suppose that \(b_{\lambda/\mu}(t) = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\) for |λ/μ|<r and that |λ/μ|=r. Take
Note that λ⊆σ. Also, the diagram of σ/τ is a translation of the diagram of μ. That means there is only one LR-sequence S (see [9, p. 185]) of shape σ/τ, and it has type μ. This implies that \(f^{\sigma}_{\tau ,\mu} = f_{S}(t)\), \(f^{\sigma}_{\tau,\mu'} = 0\) for μ≠μ′ (see [9, pp. 194 and 218]). Therefore, P σ/τ is a nonzero polynomial multiple of P μ . Now
where we used Theorem 2. By the induction hypothesis, \(b_{\lambda/\lambda^{-}}(t) = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\lambda^{-}}(t)\) if |λ/λ −|<r. After cancellations, we get
where the sum on the left is over all λ −⊆λ such that |λ/λ −|=r. Now take the scalar product with Q τ . Since \(\langle P_{\sigma/\lambda^{-}},Q_{\tau}\rangle= \langle P_{\sigma}, Q_{\lambda^{-}}Q_{\tau}\rangle= \langle P_{\sigma /\tau},Q_{\lambda^{-}} \rangle\) is the coefficient of \(P_{\lambda^{-}}\) in P σ/τ , we see that \((-1)^{|\lambda/\mu|} (b_{\lambda /\mu}(t) - \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)) = 0\). That is, \(b_{\lambda/\mu }(t) = \operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\). □
Remark
Similar proofs show that the expansions of \(s_{\lambda/\mu} s_{1^{r}}\), s λ/μ s r , and s λ/μ P r in terms of skew Schur functions are also unique in the sense of Theorem 12, a fact that was not noted in either [3] or [6].
Remark
It would be preferable to have a simpler expression for the polynomial
from Theorems 4 and 12(3), i.e., one involving only the boxes of λ/μ in the spirit of \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\), so that we could write
where the sum is over all λ +⊇λ, μ −⊆μ such that |λ +/λ|+|μ/μ −|=r.
Toward this goal, we point out a hidden symmetry in the polynomials b λ/μ (t). Writing q r as \(\sum_{k=0}^{r} (-t)^{k}e_{k} s_{r-k}\) before running through the second proof of Theorem 4 (i.e., applying Theorems 2 and 3 in the reverse order) reveals
Further toward this goal, note how similar (36) is to the sum in Lemma 5, which reduces to the tidy product of polynomials \(\operatorname {hs}_{\lambda/\mu}(t)\).
Basic computations suggest some hint of a polynomial-product description for b λ/μ (t),
but others suggest that such a description will not be tidy,
We leave a concise description of the b λ/μ (t) as an open problem.
Notes
Upon seeing our results, Ole Warnaar has shown us another proof that avoids the technical Lemma 5. His proof rests on the q-binomial theorem for Macdonald polynomials and uses the fact that \(\operatorname {sk}_{\lambda/\mu}(t) = Q'_{\lambda/\mu}(1;t)\). Here Q′ denotes the modified Hall–Littlewood functions found in [9, III.7].
References
Akin, K.: On complexes relating the Jacobi–Trudi identity with the Bernstein–Gelfand–Gelfand resolution. J. Algebra 117(2), 494–503 (1988)
Assaf, S.H., McNamara, P.R.W.: A Pieri rule for skew shapes. Slides for a talk at FPSAC (2010). Available at http://linux.bucknell.edu/~pm040/Slides/McNamara.pdf
Assaf, S.H., McNamara, P.R.W.: A Pieri rule for skew shapes. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A 118(1), 277–290 (2011). With an appendix by Thomas Lam
Doty, S.R.: Resolutions of B modules. Indag. Math. (N.S.) 5(3), 267–283 (1994)
Fulton, W.: Young Tableaux. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, vol. 35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)
Konvalinka, M.: Skew quantum Murnaghan–Nakayama rule. J. Algebr. Comb. 35(4), 519–545 (2012)
Lam, T., Lauve, A., Sottile, F.: Skew Littlewood–Richardson rules from Hopf algebras. Int. Math. Res. Notices 2011, 1205–1219 (2011). http://imrn.oxfordjournals.org/content/2011/6/1205
Lascoux, A., Leclerc, B., Thibon, J.-Y.: Ribbon tableaux, Hall–Littlewood functions, quantum affine algebras, and unipotent varieties. J. Math. Phys. 38(2), 1041–1068 (1997)
Macdonald, I.G.: Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, 2nd edn. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New York (1995)
Montgomery, S.: Hopf Algebras and Their Actions on Rings. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 82 (1993). Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Stanley, R.P.: Enumerative Combinatorics. Vol. 2. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
Zelevinsky, A.V.: A generalization of the Littlewood–Richardson rule and the Robinson–Schensted–Knuth correspondence. J. Algebra 69(1), 82–94 (1981)
Zelevinsky, A.V.: Resolutions, dual pairs and character formulas. Funct. Anal. Appl. 21(2), 152–154 (1987)
Acknowledgements
Matjaž Konvalinka was partially supported by Research Programs P1-0294 and P1-0297 of the Slovenian Research Agency.
Aaron Lauve was supported in part by NSA grant #H98230-10-1-0362.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Konvalinka, M., Lauve, A. Skew Pieri rules for Hall–Littlewood functions. J Algebr Comb 38, 499–518 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10801-012-0390-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10801-012-0390-0